preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: developing a technology...

ARTICLE IN PRESS

0742-051X/$ - se

doi:10.1016/j.ta

�Tel.: +1 541E-mail addre

Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 509–523

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematicswith technology: Developing a technology pedagogical

content knowledge

M.L. Niess�

Department of Science and Mathematics Education, Oregon State University, Weniger 263, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA

Abstract

Preservice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) development was investigated with respect to integrating

technology. Four components of PCK were adapted to describe technology-enhanced PCK (TPCK). The study

examined the TPCK of student teachers in a multi-dimensional science and mathematics teacher preparation program

that integrated teaching and learning with technology throughout the program. Five cases described the difficulties and

successes of student teachers teaching with technology in molding their TPCK. Student teachers view of the integration

of technology and the nature of the discipline was identified as an important aspect of the development of TPCK.

r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Pedagogical content knowledge; Preservice teacher education; Mathematics teacher preparation; Science teacher

preparation; Integrating technology

1. Preparing science and mathematics teachers to

teach with technology

Emergence into the 21st century features toolsthat are different, communication that is different,information that is different, and work that isdifferent. Given this shift, education must shift toincorporate computer-based, electronic technolo-gies integrating learning with these technologieswithin the context of the academic subject areas.

e front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserv

te.2005.03.006

737 1818; fax: +1 541 737 1817.

ss: [email protected].

However, how teachers learned their subjectmatter is not necessarily the way their studentswill need to be taught in the 21st century. Learningsubject matter with technology is different fromlearning to teach that subject matter with technol-ogy. Few teachers have been taught to teach theirsubject matter with technology and as a survey bythe National Center for Education Statisticsfound, only 20% of the current public schoolteachers feel comfortable using technology in theirteaching (Rosenthal, 1999).Shortages of mathematics and science teachers

in concert with massive retirements of teachers

ed.

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

ARTICLE IN PRESS

M.L. Niess / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 509–523510

over the next 10 years raise the concern about thepreparation of teachers for a changing curriculumthat integrates technology. Mathematics andscience standards (National Council of Teachersof Mathematics (NCTM), 2000; National Re-search Council, 1996) point toward a scientificallyand mathematically rich curriculum where tech-nology is an essential component of the learningenvironment, not only in the curriculum but alsoin the instruction. Similarly, the InternationalSociety for Technology in Education (ISTE,2000a, b) developed new technology standardsfor students and teachers that specifically confrontteachers with integrating technology throughouteducation. These standards direct that electronictechnologies become ‘‘an integral component ortool for learning and communications within thecontext of academic subject areas’’ (ISTE, 2000a,p. 17).Science and mathematics teacher preparation

programs expect their preservice teachers todevelop both a depth and breadth in the contentknowledge in science and mathematics. This initialcontent knowledge assumes basic skills and broadgeneral knowledge of the subject along withknowledge of inquiry in the specific discipline.Increased research attention to teachers’ subjectmatter knowledge has focused attention to howstudent teachers organize and inter-relate thesesubject matter facts, concepts, and principles (Ball,1991; Even, 1989; Kennedy, 1990; Leinhardt &Smith, 1985; Marks, 1990; Tamir, 1988; Wilson &Wineburg, 1988). However, preservice teachersdevelop their understanding of science or mathe-matics through classes aimed at the accumulationof knowledge. Whether these pieces of knowledgeare interconnected in a manner that supports themin translating the knowledge and understandinginto a 21st century curriculum in a form accessibleto learners is unknown as they begin their study oflearning to teach their subject.

2. Integrating technology with science/mathematics

and teaching and learning

The challenge for teacher preparation programsis to prepare their candidates to teach from an

integrated knowledge structure of teachingtheir specific subject matter—the intersection ofknowledge of the subject matter with knowledge ofteaching and learning, or pedagogical contentknowledge (PCK) characterized by Shulman(1986). But, for technology to become an integralcomponent or tool for learning, science andmathematics preservice teachers must also developan overarching conception of their subject matterwith respect to technology and what it meansto teach with technology—a technology PCK(TPCK).TPCK requires a consideration of multiple

domains of knowledge. Preservice teachers needa well-developed knowledge base in their subject.This subject matter knowledge is often developedover many years with a focus on personal learningand construction of how that subject is known.With the newness of the investment of technologyin some disciplines, the development of knowledgeof the subject area may be integrated with thedevelopment of their knowledge of technology. Asstudents begin the teacher preparation program,some of the development of their knowledge of thesubject matter maybe integrated with the develop-ment of their knowledge of teaching and learning.But, preservice teacher students learn much abouttechnology outside both the development of theirknowledge of subject matter and the developmentof their knowledge of teaching and learning.Similarly, they learn about learning and teachingoutside both the subject matter and technology. Infact, preservice teachers often learn about teachingand learning with technology in a more genericmanner unconnected with the development of theirknowledge of the subject matter.TPCK, however, is the integration of the

development of knowledge of subject matter withthe development of technology and of knowledgeof teaching and learning. And it is this integrationof the different domains that supports teachers inteaching their subject matter with technology. Thequestion remains: How can teacher preparationprograms guide preservice teachers’ developmentof a TPCK to prepare teachers for a classroomenvironment where technology significantly im-pacts and changes teaching and learning in K-12science and mathematics classrooms?

ARTICLE IN PRESS

M.L. Niess / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 509–523 511

Beck and Wynn (1998) have described theintegration of technology in teacher preparationprograms on a continuum. At one end of thecontinuum, the integration of technology is acourse separate from the teacher preparationprogram while on the other end of the continuum,the entire program is changed to implement theintegration. Traditionally, teacher preparationprograms have depended on one course focusedon learning about technology. More recently,teacher preparation programs have shifted theemphasis in this course to incorporate pedagogicalconcerns; now, concerns about teaching withtechnology have been included in the methodscourses. A variety of additional approaches forpreparing teachers to teach with technology havebeen proposed to move toward the other end ofthe continuum by (1) integrating technology in allcourses in the teacher preparation program inorder to be more supportive of the development ofa technology-enhanced PCK and content specificapplications and (2) requiring preservice teachersto teach with technology in their student teachingexperience (Duhaney, 2001; Wetzel & Zambo,1996; Young et al., 2000). However, little researchhas been conducted to identify how this moreintegrated approach supports the development ofa PCK that integrates knowledge of technologywith knowledge of the content and knowledge ofpedagogy—a TPCK.

3. Conceptual and empirical framework

Investigation of PCK research studies providessome insight into the preparation of preserviceteachers to develop a TPCK (Ball, 1988; McDiar-mid, 1990; Grossman, 1991; Wilcox, Schram,Lappan, & Lanier, 1990; Civil, 1992; Simon &Brobeck, 1993; Simon & Mazza, 1993). Gross-man’s (1989, 1990) work proposed four centralcomponents of PCK. Amending these componentswith technology provides a framework for describ-ing the outcomes for TPCK development in ateacher preparation program: (1) an overarchingconception of what it means to teach a particularsubject integrating technology in the learning; (2)knowledge of instructional strategies and repre-

sentations for teaching particular topics withtechnology; (3) knowledge of students’ under-standings, thinking, and learning with technologyin a particular subject; (4) knowledge of curricu-lum and curriculum materials that integratetechnology with learning in the subject area(Borko & Putnam, 1996, p. 690). With thisperspective, the preparation of science and mathe-matics teachers should be directed at guiding thedevelopment of their knowledge and thinking in amanner that considers the development of anoverarching conception of teaching with technol-ogy. Preservice teachers must be challenged toreconsider their subject matter content and theimpact of technology on the development of thatsubject itself as well as on teaching and learningthat subject. But this attention must recognize theimportance that learning to teach is a ‘‘construc-tive and iterative’’ process where they mustinterpret ‘‘events on the basis of existing knowl-edge, beliefs, and dispositions’’ (Borko & Putnam,1996, p. 674).Shreiter and Ammon (1989) have argued that

teachers’ adaptation of instructional practices is aprocess of assimilation and accommodation thatresults in changes in the their thinking. Thisperspective suggests that teacher preparationprogram must provide numerous experiences toengage the preservice teacher in investigating,thinking, planning, practicing, and reflecting.Numerous studies have yielded consistent findingson differences in the thoughts and instructionalpractices of expert and novice teachers (Borko &Livingston, 1989; Leinhardt, 1989; Livingston &Borko, 1990; Westerman, 1992). From a con-structivist perspective, as novices, preservice tea-chers’ actions largely stem from an understandingbased on having been taught in particular ways;with teacher preparation program experiences andinstructional practice, their beliefs, knowledge,and thinking must mature.

4. The study

The teacher preparation program for this studywas a 1-year, graduate level program focused onthe preparation of science and mathematics

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Summer Quarter Fall Quarter Winter Quarter Spring Quarter 4 weeks 5 weeks 11 weeks 5 week 6 weeks 6 weeks 5 weeks

Instructional Practice;

Full Student

Technology integration (TPCK)

time (8) Teaching

Instruction

Prac

Fulltime in school site 1 focused on schools, learners, teachers – observing and teaching

al Practice

ticum I (3)

Last 5 weeks in teaching unit and working halftime in school site 1 focused on planning, teaching, classroom management and reflection

Instructional Practice

Practicum II (2)

1 week becoming familiar with school site 2

Full instruct

3 classes, multiple

preparations

ional responsibility

Teach work sample Teach mini unit

with technology

Instructional Practice

Practicum III (2)

5 weeks exploring diverse classrooms, schools, and student populations

Research-based teaching and learning Analysis of Classrooms I (3)Classroom management, observing in classrooms, action research

Research-based teaching & learning

Analysis of Classrooms II (3)

Classroom management, teaching in classroom, action research

Research-based teaching & learning

Analysis of Classrooms III (3)

Diversity, learning in classrooms

Research-based teaching & learning:

Methods Foundations (3)

Research-based teaching & learning: Methods I (3) Planning, Teaching, Classroom management, Reflection

Research-based teaching & learning: Methods II (3) Planning, Teaching, Assessment, Reflection

Research-based teaching & learning: Methods III (3) Planning, teaching, assessment, reflection

Research-based teaching & learning:

Materials & Labs(3)

Technology Integration (TPCK) ; Instructional PracticeMicroteaching (3) Planning, Teaching, Reflection

PCK Development Pedagogy I (2) Pedagogical content knowledge development

PCK Development Pedagogy II (2) Pedagogical content knowledge development

Technology Integration (TPCK) Teaching with Technology Foundations (3)

Technology Integration (TPCK) Technology & Pedagogy I (1) Planning for teaching with technology

Technology Integration (TPCK) Technology & Pedagogy II (1) Reflecting on teaching with technology

Summer Quarter Fall Quarter Winter Quarter Spring Quarter

Fig. 1. Teacher preparation program displaying program themes (technology theme shaded).


teachers to integrate technology. For the studyyear, 22 student teachers were enrolled; two werepreparing to teach physics, five to teach mathe-matics, four to teach chemistry, five to teachbiology, and six to teach integrated science (middlegrades science teaching). These students hadpreviously earned at least a Bachelor’s degreeincluding the subject matter requirements for theirproposed teacher areas. While the mathematics,chemistry, and physics students completed Bache-lor’s degrees specific to their subject, the biologyand integrated science students completed variedundergraduate degree programs such as biology,zoology, botany, environmental science, and forestscience.The teacher preparation program was originally

conceptualized in the early 1990s on the develop-ment of an integrated knowledge structure ofvarious domains of knowledge (subject matter,learners, pedagogy, schools, curriculum, andPCK). By 1997, in recognition of the impact of

technology in mathematics and science disciplines,the program added a concentration on thedevelopment of a TPCK. This multi-dimensionalapproach described in Fig. 1 spanned fourquarters over a single year guided by four themes:(1) research-based teaching and learning; (2)technology integration (TPCK); (3) PCK develop-ment; and (4) instructional practice integrated withcampus-based coursework.All the faculty and supervisors had previously

taught science or mathematics in middle or highschools, providing the subject-specific contextthroughout the program. The methods courseswere team taught by a mathematics educator and ascience educator in order to provide subject-specific feedback; in addition each student’ssubject-specific supervisor reviewed the preparedlessons and unit plans. The methods coursesfocused on the design of lessons and units guidedby national and state goals and objectives. Thesecourses focused students on science/mathematics

ARTICLE IN PRESS


instruction that maintained essential dimensions ofscience literacy and mathematics literacy in fourprimary areas: science/mathematics (1) as a way ofthinking, (2) as a way of investigating, (3) as abody of knowledge, and (4) and its interactionwith technology and society (Chiappetta & Ko-balla, 2002; NCTM, 2000).Science and mathematics educators taught the

pedagogy courses separately in order to focus onteaching and learning in the specific content. Thesecourses examined explanations, models, examples,and analogies to guide student’s development ofan understanding of science or mathematics.Subject-specific technology educators taught thetechnology pedagogy courses concentrating onsubject-specific technology integration in teachingand learning.

4.1. Integrating technology in the teacher

preparation program

The technology integration theme highlighted inthe shaded areas in Fig. 1 provided the explicitpreparation of the student teachers’ developmentof knowledge needed for the development ofTPCK. For the study year, all classes wereobserved, all assignments were collected andanalyzed, all supervisor and cooperating teacheranalyses were collected, and all student teacherswere interviewed extensively over the various partsof the program.

4.1.1. Technology

During the first quarter of the program, aspecific technology course used science/mathe-matics problem-based activities to guide thepreservice teachers in learning about (a) varioustechnologies, (b) pedagogical considerations withthese technologies, and (c) teaching/learning withthese technologies. This course was their firstexposure to the real-time data collection devices(calculator-based ranger (CBR) or calculator/computer-based laboratory (CBL) probes) thatthey were expected to teach with in their studentteaching experience. The students explored avariety of mathematics and science problems thatcould be considered in the curriculum. While theseactivities were designed to help the student

teachers become familiar with the use of thesensors for gathering real-time data, their atten-tion was also focused on how they might designlessons to focus on specific goals and objectives intheir curriculum.

4.1.2. Microteaching

The Microteaching course focused the studentson gaining teaching experience with four specificinstructional methods: demonstrations, hands on/laboratories, and inductive versus deductivemodes. The student teachers were expected todevelop a science/mathematics lesson for eachmodel (integrating technology in at least one),teach (videotaping the instruction) their lessons totheir peers, and reflect (assessing and consideringrevisions) on the lessons using the videotapesto recall the teaching and the debriefs of thelessons by their peers and the instructor. Allmodels included one technology lesson supportingthe discussion of important planning and imple-mentation issues for integrating technology inthe lesson.

4.1.3. Content, technology, and pedagogy

The remaining 6 months of the program focusedspecifically on providing extended practical ex-periences that required the student teachers toplan, teach, and reflect on teaching hands-onlessons with technology.Prior to the fulltime student teaching, Science

Pedagogy I included instruction focused on teach-ing the interaction of science, technology, andsociety (STS). Similarly, Mathematics Pedagogy Iincluded instruction on NCTM’s TechnologyPrinciple from the national standards. The Tech-nology and Pedagogy I course guided studentteachers in planning for teaching a sequence oflessons that included student hands-on experienceswith technology during the fulltime student teach-ing. Student teachers were expected to connectwith their cooperating teacher, identifying reason-able places in the curriculum for an integration oftechnology. With limited availability of technolo-gies at the public school site, student teachers inthe study were provided with classroom sets of thereal-time data collection devices for hands-onstudent exploration.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


During fulltime student teaching, student tea-chers were expected to adjust their plans under thesupervision of their university supervisors andcooperating teachers. Either the university super-visor or the cooperating teacher observed thelessons and guided the student teacher in analyzingthe effectiveness of the lesson. After each lesson,the student teacher prepared written reflectionsthat considered revising plans for succeedinglessons. At the completion of the sequence, thestudent teacher prepared an analysis of: (1) eachstudent’s understanding of the science/mathe-matics concepts, (2) the success of the integrationof the technology in the lessons (overall as well asrecommendations for changes), and (3) theirteaching while integrating technology in teachingscience/mathematics.A follow-up course to student teaching (Tech-

nology Pedagogy II) focused student teachers onan examination and analysis of the use oftechnology in teaching science and mathematics.This course challenged them to consider theimpact of the instruction on students’ under-standing and thinking.

5. Preservice teachers’ development of TPCK

At the end of the program, all 22 studentteachers were recommended for their respectiveteaching licenses, although they had made varyingdegrees of progress in the development of TPCK.Assessments by the supervisors, cooperating tea-chers and the students themselves, declared that 14of the 22 students as having met the outcome of aTPCK for using technologies to engage students inlearning science and mathematics; the remainingeight students all recognized they needed morework toward TPCK. Five case studies describe thedifferences in their development of TPCK.Denise was a biology student teacher who

demonstrated in-depth knowledge of biology withsolid academic biology undergraduate and mastersdegree programs after more than 10 years inanother career unrelated to education. Her Mas-ter’s work focused on ecology and environmentalbiology where she did extensive work as a habitatsurveyor for the forest service, for 1 year before

coming to the preservice program. In her careerprevious to the college level work, she worked withcomputer-based technologies designed to maintaincommunications among different field locations.Denise’ work in the technology class demon-

strated a positive attitude toward working withtechnology and considering various technologiesfor teaching science. Her work in the generalpedagogy courses was acceptable but suggestedsome difficulty in considering a variety of strate-gies for teaching science. This difficulty appearedconnected with her educational experiences learn-ing science. In describing her beliefs, she indicatedthat ‘‘lectures complemented with classroom ex-periments and field observationsywill promotecritical thinking’’. She had good classroom man-agement skills using this lecture, recitation, and labapproach in her biology classes. Prior to thefulltime student teaching, she explained her feelingabout integrating technology into her teaching: ‘‘Ihave lots of ideas for incorporating technologyinto my own classroom, but as a guest in someoneelse’s classroom, I can only feel comfortable withtechnology that is familiar to the tenets of theschool.’’Denise’ cooperating teacher was not a strong

advocate for using technology in teaching sciencebut he verbally supported the program require-ment for student teachers experience teaching withtechnology. The technology lesson for Denise’high school Biology class was a lab where studentsanalyzed the relationship of water temperature tothe respiration rate of goldfish. The temperaturesensor of the CBL system was used to continu-ously monitor the temperature change of the waterwhile the gill beats/minute of the goldfish werecollected each time the temperature of the waterchanged by 2 1C. Upon completion of datacollection, the students graphed the data by handin preparation for the discussion of the affect ofeither an increase or decrease in the temperatureon the fish.Denise expected the students to connect the

change in the temperature with the ability of waterto hold the dissolved oxygen that fish needed.Although she hoped for them to make theconnection, she had to tell them ‘‘the amount ofoxygen water can hold is directly related to the

ARTICLE IN PRESS


temperature of the water’’. Given this information,they were directed to discuss the effects theirincreased or decreased temperature data described.While the supervisor had suggested that she

consider the use of the dissolved oxygen probe byone of the groups to compare the data with that ofthe temperature probe, Denise’ rationalized that itwould require too much time to instruct them withthe technology. ‘‘The instruction of the mechanicsof the CBL and the TI-83 were not appropriate inthis classroom; Iydo not explain the use ofthe different mirrors in a microscope or howmicrowaves cooks food.’’ In this lab, in order toavoid having to instruct the students with thetechnology, Denise prepared all the equipmentsetups so that students simply had to monitor thetemperature change and read the data. Deniseadmitted to being confused about how to integratetechnology, indicating that if she were to do thelab again, she would ‘‘just use thermometers’’.While she attributed her reluctance to extend thetechnology to her role as a guest in the classroom,she admitted to believing that ‘‘technology is a toolin science but that teaching students to operate thetechnology’’ was outside her job as their biologyteacher.Denise’ overarching conception of the integra-

tion of technology proposed that introducingstudents to the use of technologies interfered withthe content development and her teaching of thetechnology only served to confirm her belief. Shewas able to identify ways to use technology inseveral biology lessons, but when pressed to extendthe ideas in instructional plans, she resisted,indicating that the procedures ‘‘can be performedwithout the use’’ of the technology. The programemphasis on pedagogy did not seem to overcomeDenise’ prior experiences in learning her subjectmatter. She continued to question the integrationof technology because she did ‘‘not know how tochange and modify’’ an instructional approachthat, for her, was not ‘‘yet fully developed’’. ForDenise the curriculum should emphasize science-society interactions. But, she resisted any discus-sion of the broader perspective of ‘‘science and itsinteractions with technology and society’’ dis-cussed in the pedagogy classes (Chiappetta &Koballa, 2002, p. 15).

Marissa was an integrated science studentteacher planning to teach science at the middleschool level. She had just completed a generalscience Bachelor’s degree prior to entering thegraduate teacher preparation program. As anundergraduate, she had volunteered to participatein many experiences as a teacher’s aide at both themiddle and high school levels along with severalafter school science programs. She had a broadacademic preparation in life, physical and earthsciences that was evident as she worked withstudents in her student teaching experiences. Shehad not had previous experiences using many ofthe newer technologies as she learned science.Marissa’s cooperating teacher had already been

using the CBL sensors in the middle school scienceclass. Her early impression of the classroom wasthat ‘‘there are many different probes that plugright into computers in the classroomy But it isnot used as much as it could, or as effectively as itcould beyit would be wise to have [these probes]available during labs (even if they are only anoption)’’. Marissa described that the technologyallowed students to ‘‘see processes and conceptsthat might not be as clear using traditionaltechniques’’.Marissa designed a mini unit (over 2 weeks)

where 8th grade earth science students collectedand analyzed data, first by hand, and then usingthe technology. The students collected data onhow the angle of insolation affected the rate oftemperature changes of a surface using a thermo-meter. The next day the students collected thesame data using the temperature probe connectedto the calculator-CBL. Marissa required thestudents to work in groups setting up each lab;she provided them with detailed instructions foreach day. On the second day, she designed a lessonwhere students practiced setting up the CBLsystem as a way of gaining experience with theequipment. The students ‘‘caught onto the equip-ment very quickly’’. According to Marissa, ‘‘I feltthat the integration of technology in the class wassuccessful. The students generally liked using thetechnology better because it was faster and seemedmore accurate. They could see why scientists usetechnologyyto collect data. It is much moreefficient than collecting data by hand.’’ Upon

ARTICLE IN PRESS


reflection, Marissa felt the next time she did the labshe would schedule another class ‘‘just for a classdiscussion about comparing the two labs. I couldalso incorporate a great deal of the nature ofscience’’. She also felt that by providing studentswith practice using technology (‘‘which is veryimportant to learn in our technology-basedworld’’), the students were able to ‘‘see or betterunderstand concepts that might not be as clearwithout the use of technology’’. She did admit tonot being as comfortable as she would have likedto when teaching this sequence of lessons. ‘‘I wasnot hesitant about letting the students know that Iwould be learning along with them. They appre-ciated this and gave me a few pointers on how touse the equipment.’’ She did think her questioningof the students helped them to relate the informa-tion ‘‘they already knew what the technology wastelling them. In other words, Iyhelped toreinforce the concept of angle of insolation[through my questioning]’’.Marissa’s overarching conception of what it

means to teach science included the importance ofincorporating technology as the students learnedscience. She saw computer-based technologies asbecoming increasingly important to the develop-ment of science. As she continued to investigateteaching various science concepts, she began to seehow the technology could support students inbetter understanding the concepts. She recognizedthat she had had limited experiences with technol-ogies but finished the student teaching experiencewith the statement that ‘‘Technology is alwaysevolving and progressing. Unless teachers do too,they cannot teach the students as effectively.’’ Thisperspective seemed to energize her to search forinstructional strategies and representations thatincluded technology. She focused on her studentsgaining a clearer understanding with the incor-poration of technology but also in their gainingpractice using technology. For her ‘‘Technology isimportant in meeting the objectives in a sciencecourse.’’ Throughout her student teaching experi-ence and the remainder of the program, shecontinued to look at the science curriculum fromthat perspective.Terry completed a Bachelor’s degree in chem-

istry continuing the following year to the teacher

preparation graduate program. He planned to seekan endorsement in both chemistry and physicssince he was able to complete the necessary physicscoursework. He had had experience using manydifferent technologies (including the probewaresensors) in learning science in his undergraduatescience program.Terry clearly articulated his perspective on the

use of technology for teaching science using thearea of freezing point depression.

The students should know both what it is andhave some idea of the magnitude of the effect.With standard equipment, the students wouldtake a thermometer and check the freezingpoint of water with different amounts of saltadded. The changes are subtle at low concen-trations of salt and so the students may notnotice a change until 0.5m. or larger. Thismight lead students into a misconception that itis not true for dilute solutions of salt. But if atemperature probe on a CBLywas employed,the students would see the subtle effect im-mediately and would avoid the misconception.This would not only help to achieve theobjective at a higher level, but also keep theteacher from having to address the misconcep-tion later and lose valuable instructional time.In planning his units, he felt that an importantfirst step for the teacher is tobrainstorm -listyall the ways technology(and different forms of technology) could beusedyboth simple and complexypick the onesthat would be most beneficialyto teach thesubject matter and if they will use anything likeit later in life (relevance and realness). This waythe students get the benefit of technology theywill need to knowyand also the strongestactivities pedagogically to help them learn thesubject matter.

For several years, Terry’s cooperating teacherhad used the technologies to support his students’learning in his chemistry and physics classes. Thus,when Terry began his fulltime student teaching, hewas able to work with students who were familiarwith learning chemistry with technologies. In hisstudent teaching, he designed and taught asequence of lessons concerning the concept of

ARTICLE IN PRESS


temperature loss through a medium. His studentsquestioned the use of the CBL thermometers butrealized that basic thermometers do not have asgreat a reaction time to temperature change as theCBL ones had. When students were getting erraticreadings, the class was encouraged to analyze theproblem and to redesign their setups to avoid ‘‘aircurrents from disturbing’’ their temperature read-ings. He worked with the students to identify atleast two ways that would work and to explain thescience of the ways the technology worked. Afterthe final lesson in the sequence, he reflected that

the students used the technology well, yet thefocus was on the topic. When we starteddiscussing the subjectythere were no com-ments on how the technology worked or whythey had errors. The technology was notclouding over the reason for doing the lab inthe first placey This discussion went so wellthat I wasn’t sure whose class it was when theyleft. I am almost positive that every studentanswered a question or gave an exampley Thesuccess of the technology came from a good labdesign and also from familiarity with theequipment. Making these students familiarthroughout the year with this technology hashelped them to integrate it flawlessly andwithout interruption to the learning.

Terry’s overarching conception of teachingchemistry and physics included technology as animportant component for student learning. Hedescribed his conception as ‘‘gathering data withthe technology and processed by their content andsubject matter’’. Certainly his experiences inlearning his content with technology had shapedhis ideas. But the focus in the program aboutconsidering student misconceptions developed insome of their learning experiences, directed hisexamination of various instructional strategies andrepresentations. He found, as a result of histeaching, that an integration of technology in thestrategies motivated students as well as enhancedtheir learning. He did admit to being more nervouswhen he taught with technology, resulting from afear of whether the students would get goodresults. This nervousness caused him to ‘‘roamaround the room almost neurotically looking for

good lab procedure and good data’’. His experi-ences in student teaching also showed him thingsthat he needed to change about his teaching withtechnology. He recognized that he did not ‘‘alwaysgive enough wait time to let students figure thingsout on their own’’. He requested that his super-visor and cooperating teachers collect data abouthis wait time so that he could improve in this area.Terry was fortunate to have a cooperating teacherwho had an in-depth knowledge of technology aswell as developed pedagogical strategies forincorporating technology to enhance learning.They usually worked as a team in designing thelessons and preparing the equipment. As the termprogressed, Terry took more and more of the lead.Karen was a chemistry student teacher with a

Bachelor’s degree in Biochemistry. Followinggraduation, she began a graduate program inBiochemistry working as a research assistant for 2years. Her experiences working in informal scienceeducation programs for youths caused her direc-tion toward preparing to teach science. Sheindicated that her motive was to guide studentsin becoming critical thinkers who participated intheir own community. She expressed her belief that‘‘all of the content objectives’’ for chemistry couldbe ‘‘met without computer-based technology’’. Shefelt that technology was ‘‘frivolous’’ and thatstudents did not need expensive technology tolearn the basic concepts—nor do they needtechnology to do ‘‘inquiry’’. In fact she said, ‘‘Isee the most important objectives being met betterwithout the use of technology.’’ For Karen,students need to understand ‘‘the complex rela-tionship between economy, science, and technol-ogy’’ and the best way for them to gain thisunderstanding is by ‘‘researching technologies’’and then debating ‘‘the complexities and theissues’’.Karen’s sequence of technology lessons in the

fulltime student teaching reflected her beliefs. Shedeveloped two chemistry lessons each requiringthat students use the pH probe. The first lessonguided her students in using indicators to deter-mine the pH of seven household solutions. Sheasked the students to rank the solutions frommost acidic to most basic using three differentmethods. She asked the students to compare the

ARTICLE IN PRESS


‘‘advantages and disadvantages’’ of a red-cabbagejuice solution versus litmus paper versus the pHprobe. Her second lesson required the students toagain use the pH probe to simulate the formationof acid rain, ‘‘a topic of concern in our society’’.She expected the students’ discussion would focuson society’s widespread use of automobiles withpetroleum-fueled engines and coal-burning powerplants.Karen described the connection of the two

activities by the nature of their consideration ofpH. She said that these two activities were‘‘intended to familiarize students with the pHscale, the use of indicators, and the formation ofacid solutions from dissolved gases’’. With noprior instruction with the probes, she found thatthe students ‘‘had a difficult time following theprocedures. From the errors they were making, Ifeel that they did not really understand what theywere measuring with the pH probe’’.Even though Karen indicated that the concept

of pH and the relative amounts of hydrogen andhydroxide ions was ‘‘the real focus of the [firstlab]’’, she rejected the idea of extending the firstlab to an investigation of how these three‘‘technologies’’ actually measured pH. This sug-gestion actually fit within an investigation of pHbecause of the three devices, the probe was thetechnology designed to actually measure thehydrogen ion concentration in the solution whilethe other two technologies responded throughchemical changes resulting in the color differences.She did not consider this extension to be within thecurriculum even though the methods and peda-gogy classes had emphasized incorporating a studyof technology and its relationship to science andsociety. The chapter in the methods text byChiappetta and Koballa (2002) specifically sug-gested that teachers should ‘‘explain how thetechnology works and include the scientific prin-ciples upon which it is based’’ (p. 135).Karen’s biggest fears for the lessons were

realized as she found that she was not able touse the probes successfully herself. Her thoughtwas that ‘‘it was difficult for me to gauge thedifficulty in using the technology’’ because she hadnot previously used it with a class. She indicatedthat she had spent at least 10 hours in getting ready

to use the equipment and her final comment wasthat ‘‘I feel that these sorts of activities are a wasteof time and resources, and [I] would probably notgo that route in the future.’’Karen’s overarching conception for teaching

high school chemistry courses was to motivatestudents for studying the topics with real-lifeapplications and issues in order to becomeinvolved in the community. She felt it importantto have students question ‘‘technology in ourlives’’. She believed that students learned best inthis manner. The computer-based technologies shefound useful for learning chemistry included theweb and word processing to support students inresearch and presenting the results of theirresearch (this method ‘‘makes grading easierbecause hand writing will not be an issue’’).She resisted a consideration of how the pH was

measured with the probe even though thattechnology was directly aligned with the conceptof pH—one of the main goals of her lessons. Thestudents’ excitement at seeing the results from thecabbage juice indicator was what Karen describedas the success of the lesson. ‘‘The cabbage juicewas definitely the highlightythe colors are verypretty and the range of the indicator is great.’’When the students indicated their appreciation forthe numerical values provided by the pH probe,she commented, ‘‘It seems that people like to havenumerical values for comparison.’’Karen did not value the opportunity to direct

her instruction to consider an interaction amongSTS. Her view of the nature of science focusedmore on the interaction of science and society. Sheconsidered the computer-based technologies fortheir motivational value in instruction rather thanas part of the nature of her discipline. She waswilling to have students use technologies tosupport their learning, but she seemed to structureher lessons in ways that did not encourage thestudents to learn more about science along withlearning about the science of the technology.Dianne had completed a mathematics degree the

year prior to the program with a minor incomputer science. She had had several experienceshelping teachers in mathematics classrooms inboth middle and high school. She had strongbeliefs about the importance of the use of

ARTICLE IN PRESS


technology in learning mathematics because ‘‘pre-sent day mathematicians’’ use it all the time. Sheindicated that technology ‘‘allows students tovisualize and experience math in previouslyimpossible ways’’. She planned to continually lookback at the way she was taught math in highschool and ‘‘compare it with the way society, mathand technology have changed’’. With mathe-matics’ emphasis on problem solving using real-world situations, she indicated that ‘‘the ‘realworld’ is rich in its use of technology and manyreal problems occur with technology’’. Technol-ogy’s capability for speeding ‘‘up the problemsolving process by performing rapid, complexcomputations’’, highlighted for her the importancefor students doing computations by hand, ‘‘butsince the technology is available, why not teachthat at the same time and save some of theprecious classroom time?’’ Her perspective on theuse of technology was that ‘‘I will not refuse a newtechnology because it appears too difficult tolearn. I will only refuse a new technology if itdoes not relate to mathematics.’’Dianne’s lesson sequence focused on connecting

slope with linear functions and using the CBR todescribe graphs of distance versus time using awalking motion. The CBR lab was a closure to theunit and was meant to help students see anapplication of slope and practice using theirknowledge of slope. She was surprised at thestudents’ comment that the lab was viewed as notdoing math even though they were using theconcepts from the previous lessons. Her reflectionon this realization was that the demonstrationfocused on the technology rather than the mathe-matics. She felt that she should have asked thestudents ‘‘why we are doing this and get thestudents to think of the connections between slopeand rates of change’’. She admitted to ‘‘assumingthe students would pick upon the connection’’.Both cooperating teacher and university super-visor supported Dianne in the incorporation oftechnology guiding her at thinking of ‘‘ways toview technology as integrated with the class—itseemed distant from the math’’.In planning the sequence of lessons, Dianne

realized that she was restricted from adequatelygrouping the students because it was to be taught

early in her student teaching and she did ‘‘notknow which students would work together andwhich would not get anything done’’. Dianne feltthat her management of these lessons could havebeen better because as a result of the groupings sheallowed some students to be ‘‘passive and onlyparticipate a small amount’’. Not knowing thestudents’ names made the lab difficult to control.Dianne’s overarching conception of teaching

mathematics with technology was that technologywas integral to mathematics and thus to learningmathematics. She looked for ways to incorporatetechnology as she planned her instructionalstrategies. With this desire to incorporate technol-ogy, she taught her technology sequence early inthe fulltime student teaching. This timing became aproblem for her because her knowledge of thestudents was limited and she had not yet developeda classroom environment that assured all studentswere actively engaged in the lessons. While shemade continued improvement over the studentteaching experience, she had to focus on lessen-ing the amount of teacher talk and incorporatingmore student exploration of the ideas throughactive hands-on experiences. By the end of thestudent teaching experience, she had been able toengage her students as active learners of mathe-matics.

6. Connecting the preparation program with student

teachers’ TPCK development

Preparing student teachers to teach with tech-nology in science and mathematics content areasoffers a unique lens from which to investigate thedevelopment of TPCK. The content knowledge oftechnology is both scientific and mathematical.Teaching with technology using demonstrationsand labs/hands-on activities is consistent withmajor pedagogical strategies employed in teachingmathematics and science. Classroom managementissues with technology are consistent with class-room management issues in science and mathe-matics lab activities. Thus, the addition ofpreparing teachers to teach with technology isconsistent with many of the programmatic experi-ences designed for the development of PCK.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


Amending Grossman’s (1989, 1990) central com-ponents of PCK provides the framework to viewthe student teachers’ development of TPCK.

6.1. An overarching conception of teaching science/

mathematics with technology

As noted by Kinach (2002), teacher educatorsmust challenge their preservice teachers ‘‘habitualways of thinking about subject matter and subjectmatter teaching’’ (p. 69). These case studiesuncovered an important consideration in thedevelopment of TPCK—the interaction of thecontent of science/mathematics and the content ofthe specific technology. Terry extended his lessonsto have his students investigate the effects of theexternal environment on the temperature reading,redesigning the probeware setup to improve thedata collection. Yet, when the integration was anatural inclusion in the unit, Karen resisted usingclass time to explore the science embedded in thedesign of the technology. Denise simply rejectedthe consideration of the science of the technologythinking of the technology as a tool to do sciencerather than a tool embodying science.Only some of these student teachers seemed to

recognize the interplay of technology and sciencedespite the emphasis throughout the program.Borko and Putnam (1996) described the concep-tion of what it means to teach a particular subjectas being ‘‘related more specifically to how theteacher thinks about the subject matter domain forstudents—what it is that students should learnaboutythe nature of those subjects’’(p. 690).Perhaps some of the reasons for this difficulty lie

with issues like Karen’s personal discomfort withtechnology and her belief that technology wasfrivolous to learning science. Another potentialexplanation may lie with some of Denise’ issues.Denise had learned science through lectures andother experiences to promote critical thinking. Forher the focus was on promoting critical thinkingand students should just use the technologies, astools, and there was no need to understand them.The other student teachers all demonstrated abroader perception of students gaining knowledgeof the science or mathematics of the particulartechnologies they used. The reason for this

difference is unclear. But, teacher preparationprograms need to consider specific directions toguide student teachers in expanding their under-standings of the interactions of the knowledge oftechnology and the knowledge of their subjectarea.

6.2. Instructional strategies and representations for

teaching with technologies

Research has hinted that student teachers haveinadequate repertoires for teaching their subjectmatter (Ball, 1991; Borko et al., 1992; McDiarmid,1990) resulting in a limited PCK. Given the recentinclusion of technology in education, many pre-service teachers have had limited experiences inlearning their subject matter with technology.They have not seen or experienced many instruc-tional strategies and representations of theirsubject within a technology framework. Terryactively looked for instructional strategies thatincorporated technology, brainstorming, and pick-ing ones that were most beneficial. His cooperatingteacher (with many prior experiences designinginstructional strategies and representations withtechnology) was instrumental in guiding Terry ashe implemented the various strategies. Diannelooked for ways to incorporate technology in asmany of her mathematics lessons as she could butclassroom management issues interfered with herinstructional strategies. She collected many re-sources but was reluctant to incorporate their usebecause she seemed to be more comfortable with aclassroom environment where she did the talking.While Marissa’s background with technology inlearning her subject was limited, she believed thather students were able to see and understand someconcepts better with technology. As a result, sheconsistently looked forward to incorporatinginstruction with technology in teaching earthscience.Marissa was comfortable with ‘‘learning with

the students’’ since she recognized her limita-tions with technologies. But she recognized theimportance of her questioning in helping thestudents in these cases. The importance of ques-tioning in developing students’ understanding hasbeen recognized for many years. The program

ARTICLE IN PRESS


emphasized this strategy in the various models—demonstrations, hands-on laboratory, and induc-tive and deductive modes.The subject-specific nature of the program

supported the emphasis on questioning allowingmultiple subject-specific models and examples.More importantly with respect to this area of thedevelopment of a TPCK, the program provided aconsistent focus on instructional strategies andrepresentations of the content with technology. Afeature of all courses in the program was a focuson modeling instructional strategies that incorpo-rated technology. In the Microteaching course,e.g., the faculty modeled instruction for eachmodel, using the experiences to discuss theparticular models. Moreover, both science andmathematics models were provided with at leastone model incorporating technology. The consis-tent subject-specific modeling provided the studentteachers with many more opportunities to considerinstructional strategies that incorporated technol-ogy. Perhaps this direction of the program prior totheir student teaching supported them in thecomponent of TPCK that considers instructionalstrategies and representations.

6.3. Students’ understandings, thinking, and

learning in a subject with technology

In their beginning student teaching experience,the student teachers were naturally focused ontheir own teaching and less likely to think abouttheir students’ understandings, thinking, andlearning. Dianne proved to be a clear example ofthis problem. Her experience in teaching withtechnology was early in the experience and shesimply admitted to not even knowing her students’names. Her reflections at that time were focusedon her actions and she was surprised by herstudents’ thinking the activity with the technologywas not mathematics. Karen also seemed focusedon her own actions with the technology and herconception of how students would learn aboutpH—that they would be motivated by the colorchanges. She seemed to discount her students’motivation of seeing the numerical values offeredby the pH probe. Marissa’s instruction withtechnology was guided by the motivation of her

students to use technology to thinking about thescience they were learning.Terry’s experience provided the clearest example

of a consideration of student’s understandings,thinking, and learning with technology. He pro-vided an example of how a lesson on the area offreezing point depression that without the use ofthe technology might lead to student misconcep-tions and that with the technology would encou-rage students to learn at a higher level.The pedagogy courses emphasized how stu-

dents’ interpretations of the concepts when tech-nology was part of the instruction. A guidingquestion for consideration by the student teachersas they planned, taught and reflected on theirlessons was: ‘‘How will the students understandthe concepts in the technology-enhanced instruc-tional activity?’’ The possibility of misconceptionswas a focus of the discussions as the variousinstructional strategies were considered. However,the richest discussions came following the studentteaching experience in the Technology and Peda-gogy II course. At this time, the student teacherswere focused on students’ understandings becausetheir concern for their own actions as a teacherhad shifted to a concern for what the students werelearning as a result of the teaching.

6.4. Curriculum and curricular materials

The integration of technology in the curriculumhas been a newer shift in the past 10 years. Themajority of their science and mathematics pre-college and undergraduate education was a curri-culum that did not necessarily embrace learningwith and about the technology. In Karen’s case,her experience in learning about pH was withlitmus paper. In her search for different indicatorsas a way of looking at pH, she found the cabbage-juice activity. With the exciting color change withcabbage-juice indicators, she was pleased withtheir inclusion in the activities. But, she wasunwilling to think about the pH probe eventhough the way the probe collected measurementsprovided a way to talk about pH. Marissarecognized the importance of considering technol-ogy in her science class because scientists usedtechnology to collect data. Thus, her concept of

ARTICLE IN PRESS


the curriculum was one that included an integra-tion of technology. Dianne had a strong back-ground with computer-based technologies andviewed the connection of society, mathematicsand technology. She viewed the mathematicscurriculum from this perspective with a particularemphasis on problem solving with technology. Herprimary consideration for technology in thecurriculum was whether it related to mathematics.A major assignment in the program was to

gather over 60 resources for teaching their content.In describing these resources, they were required toalign the idea to their content standards and to thetechnology standards. This assignment over theyear had the effect of a consistent focus inconsidering the curriculum from a standardsbase. From NRC’S National Science EducationStandards ‘‘The relationship between scienceand technology is so close that any presentationof science without developing an understandingof technology would portray an inaccurate pic-ture of science’’ (NRC, 1996, p. 190). FromNCTM’s mathematics standards (2000) ‘‘Technol-ogy is essential in teaching and learning mathe-matics; it influences the mathematics that is taughtand enhances students’ learning’’ (NCTM, 2000,p. 11).Certainly, the requirement to teach a sequence

of lessons with technology focused the studentteachers on identifying potential integrations oftechnology in their respective curricula. The typeof technology was limited to CBRs or CBLsbecause of access to technology at the variousschool sites. The support of cooperating teachersalso limited the student teachers in looking at thecurriculum for natural places for technologyintegration. The mathematics, chemistry, andphysics cooperating teachers were more apt tohelp in the identification of curriculum areas forintegration. However, the support of universitysupervisors and science and mathematics educa-tion faculty, the student teachers were challengedto consider the curriculum more broadly and toconsider how technology supported the nationalstandards.These results provide a beginning for under-

standing TPCK and preparing teachers to teachwith technology. What program models support

teachers in gaining the skills, knowledge, andbeliefs that support teaching different subjectswith technology? What are the important skills,knowledge, and beliefs? How does TPCK changefor different content areas? What experiences areessential in building a TPCK? What technologiesare important? What support do student teachersneed as they practice teaching with technologies?Questions such as these will continue to challengeteacher educators and researchers as they search tomeet the demands of the preparation of 21stcentury teaches—teachers with a commitment toprepare today’s student to live, learn, and work intomorrow’s ‘‘increasingly complex and informa-tion-rich society’’ (ISTE, 2000a).

References

Ball, D. L. (1988). Knowledge and reasoning in mathematical

pedagogy: Examining what prospective teachers bring to

teacher education. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Mi-

chigan State University, East Lansing.

Ball, D. L. (1991). Research on teaching mathematics:

Making subject matter knowledge part of the equation.

In: J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching:

Teachers’ subject matter knowledge and classroom instruction

(Vol. 2, pp. 1–48). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Beck, J. A., & Wynn, H. C. (1998). Technology in teacher

education: Progress along the continuum. ERIC Document

Reproduction No. ED 424 212.

Borko, H., Eisenhart, M., Brow, C. A., Underhill, R. G., Jones,

D., & Agard, P. C. (1992). Learning to teach hard

mathematics: Do novice teachers and their instructors

give up too easily? Journal for Research in Mathematics

Education, 23, 194–222.

Borko, H., & Livingston, C. (1989). Cognition and improvisa-

tion: Differences in mathematics instruction by expert and

novice teachers. American Educational Research Journal,

26(4), 473–498.

Borko, H., & Putnam, T. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. C.

Berliner, & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational

psychology (pp. 673–708). New York, NY: Simon &

Schuster Macmillan.

Chiappetta, E. L., & Koballa, T. R. (2002). Science instruction

in the middle and secondary schools. New Jersey: Merrill

Prentice Hall.

Civil, M. (1992). Prospective elementary teachers’ thinking

about mathematics. Paper presented at the annual meeting

of the American Educational Research Association, San

Francisco.

Duhaney, D. C. (2001). Teacher education: Preparing teachers

to integrate technology. International Journal of Instruc-

tional Media, 28(1), 23–30.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


Even, R. (1989). Prospective secondary mathematics teachers’

knowledge and understanding about mathematical functions.

Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State Uni-

versity, East Lansing, MI.

Grossman, P. L. (1989). A study in contrast: Sources of

pedagogical content knowledge for secondary English.

Journal of Teacher Education, 40(5), 24–31.

Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher

knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers

College Press.

Grossman, P. L. (1991). Overcoming the apprenticeship of

observation in teacher education coursework. Teaching and

Teacher Education, 7, 245–257.

International Society for Technology in Education. (2000a).

National educational technology standards for students:

Connecting curriculum and technology. Eugene, OR: Author.

International Society for Technology in Education. (2000b).

National educational technology standards for teachers.

Eugene, OR: Author.

Kennedy, M. M. (1990). A survey of recent literature on

teachers’ subject matter knowledge. Issue Series 90-3. East

Lansing: Michigan State University, National Center for

Research on Teacher Education.

Kinach, B. M. (2002). A cognitive strategy for developing

pedagogical content knowledge in the secondary mathe-

matics methods course: Toward a model of effective

practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 51–71.

Leinhardt, G. (1989). Math lessons: A contrast of novice and

expert competence. Journal for Research in Mathematics

Education, 20(1), 52–75.

Leinhardt, G., & Smith, D. A. (1985). Expertise in mathematics

instruction: Subject matter knowledge. Journal of Educa-

tional Psychology, 77, 247–271.

Livingston, C., & Borko, H. (1990). High school mathematics

review lessons: Expert–novice distinction. Journal for

Research in Mathematics Education, 21, 372–387.

Marks, R. (1990). Pedagogical content knowledge. From a

mathematical case to a modified concept. Journal of Teacher

Education, 41(3), 3–11.

McDiarmid, G. W. (1990). Challenging prospective teachers’

beliefs during early field experience: A quixotic under-

taking? Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 12–20.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000).

Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston,

VA: Author.

National Research Council. (1996). National Science Educa-

tion Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Rosenthal, I. G. (1999). New teachers and technology: Are they

prepared? (Technology information). Technology and

Learning, 19(8), 1–2.

Shreiter, B., & Ammon, P. (1989), Teachers’ thinking and their

use of reading contracts. Paper presented at the annual

meting of the American Educational Research Association,

San Francisco.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge

growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.

Simon, M. A., & Brobeck, S. (1993). Changing views of

mathematics learning: A case study of a prospective

elementary teacher. Paper presented at the annual meeting

of the North American Chapter of the International Group

for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME-NW),

Monterey, CA.

Simon, M. A., & Mazza, W. (1993). From learning mathematics

to teaching mathematics: A case study of a prospective

teacher in a reform-oriented program. Paper presented at the

annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the

international Group for the Psychology of Mathematics

Education (PME-NW), Monterey, CA.

Tamir, P. (1988). Subject matter and related pedagogical

knowledge in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 4, 99–220.

Westerman, D. A. (1992). Expert and novice teacher

decision making. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(4),

292–305.

Wetzel, K., & Zambo, R. (1996). Innovations in integrating

technology into student teaching experiences. Journal of

Research on Computing in Education, 29(2), 196–215.

Wilcox, S., Schram, P., Lappan, G., & Lanier, P., et al. (1990).

The role of a learning community in changing preservice

teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about mathematics education.

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American

Educational Research Association, Boston.

Wilson, S. M., & Wineburg, S. (1988). Peering at history

through different lenses: The role of disciplinary perspec-

tives in teaching history. Teachers College Record, 89,

525–539.

Young, S., Cantrel, P., Bryant, C., Archer, L., Roberts, C., &

Paradis, E. (2000). The state of technology in university

teacher preparation and public schools in Wyoming.

Teaching and Change, 8(1), 134–144.

preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: developing a technology...

Documents