
Enhancement or Transformation? A Case Study of Preservice Teachers’ Use of Instructional Technology
article
Todd Cherner, Portland State University, United States
; Kristal Curry, Coastal Carolina University, United States
CITE Journal Volume 17, Number 2, ISSN 1528-5804 Publisher: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, Waynesville, NC USA
Abstract
Instructional technology has become a crucial component of public education. Reflected in the college and career-ready standards being implemented across the United States, an emphasis has been placed on preparing students with both the literacy and technology skills needed to succeed in postsecondary education and the workforce. Though a growing body of research has studied the theory and best practices for developing students’ disciplinary literacy skills in the high school classroom, research that investigates the ways preservice secondary teachers use instructional technology during their student-teaching internship is an emerging area of study. In this paper the researchers explained how they used the Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, Redefinition framework as a guide for analyzing the ways preservice English and social studies teachers used technology while completing their internship and reported those findings. The article concludes with recommendations for developing preservice teachers’ use of instructional technology during their teacher education program.
Citation
Cherner, T. & Curry, K. (2017). Enhancement or Transformation? A Case Study of Preservice Teachers’ Use of Instructional Technology. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 17(2), 268-290. Waynesville, NC USA: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education. Retrieved June 30, 2022 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/173575/.
© 2017 Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education
References
View References & Citations Map- Abbitt, J.T. (2011). An investigation of the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs about technology integration and Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) among preservice teachers. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(4), 134142.
- Anderson, S.E., Groulx, J.G., & Maninger, R.M. (2011). Relationships among preservice teachers' technology-related abilities, beliefs, and intentions to use technology in their future classrooms. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 45(3), 321-338.
- Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559.
- Britzman, D. (2003). Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
- Cherner, T., Dix, J., & Lee, C. (2014). Cleaning up that mess: A framework for classifying educational apps. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 14(2), 158193.
- Cherner, T., & Curry, K. (2016). Changing times: Preparing preservice social studies teachers to teach disciplinary literacy skills. Mid-South Literacy Journal, 1(2), 2-34.
- Cochrane, T., Antonczak, L., Keegan, H., & Narayan, V. (2016). Riding the wave of BYOD: Developing a framework for creation pedagogies. Research in Learning Technology, 22. Retrieved http://www.researchinlearningtechnology.net/index.php/rlt/article/view/246 37
- Cutcliffe, J.R., & McKenna, H.P. (1999). Establishing the credibility of qualitative research findings: the plot thickens. Journal of advanced nursing, 30(2), 374-380.
- Ditzler, C., Hong, E., & Strudler, N. (2016). How tablets are utilized in the classroom. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(3), 181-193.
- Ellis, J., Dare, E. & Roehrig, G. (2016). From Consumers to Creators: Adventure Learning and its Impacton Preservice Teachers’ TPACK and Technology Integration. In G. Chamblee& L. Langub (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology& Teacher Education International Conference 2016 (pp. 2834-2841). Chesapeake, VA: Association
- Gökçearslan, Ş., Karademir, T., & Korucu, A.T. (2016). Preservice Teachers’ Level of Web Pedagogical Content Knowledge Assessment by Individual Innovativeness. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 0735633116642593.
- Gökçe, S., Yenmez, A.A., & Özpınar, İ. (2016). Mathematics Teachers’ Opinions on Worksheets Prepared with GeoGebra. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), 7(1), 164-187.
- Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for?. American Political Science Review, 98(2), 341-354.
- Green, L.S., Chassereau, K., Kennedy, K., & Schriver, M. (2013). Where technology and science collide: a co-teaching experience between middle grades science methods and instructional technology faculty. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 21(4), 385-408.
- Gursui, F., & Tozmaz, G.B. (2010). Which one is smarter? Teacher or board. Innovation and Creativity in Education, 2(2), P. 5731-5737.
- Hamilton, E.R., Rosenberg, J.M., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition (SAMR) Model: a Critical Review and Suggestions for its Use. TechTrends, 1-9.
- Hammond, M., Crosson, S., Fragkouli, E., Ingram, J., Johnston‐Wilder, P., Johnston‐Wilder, S., Kingston, Y., Pope, M., & Wray, D. (2009). Why do some student teachers make very good use of ICT? An exploratory case study. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 18(1), 59-73.
- Hanson, J.L., Balmer, D.F., & Giardino, A.P. (2011). Qualitative research methods for medical educators. Academic Pediatrics, 11(5), 375-386.
- Hilton, J.T. (2016). A case study of the application of SAMR and TPACK for reflection on technology integration into two social studies classrooms. The Social Studies, 107(2), 6873.
- Hofer, M. & Grandgenett, N. (2012). TPACK development in teacher education: A longitudinal study of preservice teachers in a secondary M.A.Ed. Program. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(1), 83-106.
- Hughes, J. (2004). Technology learning principles for preservice and in-service teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 4(3), 345-362.
- Hughes, J.E., Liu, S., & Lim, M. (2016). Technological modeling: Faculty use of technologies in preservice teacher education from 2004 to 2012. Contemporary Issues in Technology& Teacher Education, 16(2), 184-207.
- Keengwe, J. (2015). Promoting active learning through the integration of mobile and ubiquitous technologies. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
- Koc, M., & Bakir, N. (2010). A needs assessment survey to investigate preservice teachers’ knowledge, experiences and perceptions about preparation to using educational technologies. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(1), 13-22.
- Kouwenhoven, W. (2009). Competence-based curriculum development in higher education: A globalised concept? In A. Lazinca & C. Calafate (Eds.), Technology education and development (pp. 1–22).
- Kluckhohn, F.R. (1940). The participant-observer communities. American Journal of Sociology, 331-343.
- Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Martin, F., & Ertzberger, J. (2013). Here and now mobile learning: An experimental study on the use of mobile technology. Computers& Education, 68, 76-85.
- McKnight, K., O’Malley, K., Ruzic, R., Franey, J., Horsely, M.K., & Bassett, K. (2016). Teaching in a digital age: How educators use technology to improve student learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(3), 194-211.
- Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2008, March). Introducing technological pedagogical content knowledge. In annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (pp. 116).
- Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Too Cool for School? No Way! Using the TPACK Framework: You Can Have Your Hot Tools and Teach with Them, Too. Learning& Leading with Technology, 36(7), 14-18.
- Modern Chalkboard (2013). How much does a SMART Board cost? Finally, a straight answer! Retrieved from https://modernchalkboard.com/article-cost.html
- Nathan, M.J., & Knuth, E.J. (2003). A study of whole classroom mathematical discourse and teacher change. Cognition and Instruction, 21(2), 175-207.
- Pamuk, S. (2012). Understanding preservice teachers’ technology use through TPACK framework. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(5), 425-439.
- Patton, M.Q. (2005). Qualitative research. Hoboken, NH: John Wiley& Sons, Ltd.
- Preseton, C., & Mowbray, L. (2008). Use of SMARTboards for teaching, learning, and assessment in kindergarten science. Teaching Science, 54(2), P. 50-53.
- Puentedura, R.R. (2009, February 4). As we may teach: Education technology, from theory into practice. [Weblog post]. Retrieved from http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/000025.html
- Puentedura, R. (2010). SAMR and TPCK: Intro to Advanced Practice. Retrieved from http://hippasus.com/resources/sweden2010/SAMR_TPCK_IntroToAdvancedPractice. Pdf
- Richards, J. & Stebbins, L. (2014). 2014 U.S. Educational technology market: PreK-12. Washington, D.C.: Software& Information Industry Association.
- Sadaf, A., Newby, T.J., & Ertmer, P.A. (2012). Exploring preservice teachers' beliefs about using Web 2.0 technologies in K-12 classroom. Computers& Education, 59(3), 937-945.
- Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
- Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard educational review, 57(1), 1-23.
- Tuttle, H. (2012). The lived experiences of faculty who use instructional technology: A phenomenological study. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Nebraska– Lincoln, Lincoln, NE.
- Vu, P., McIntyre, J., & Cepero, J. (2014). Teachers' Use of the iPad in Classrooms and Their Attitudes toward Using It. Journal of Global Literacies, Technologies, and Emerging Pedagogies, 2(2), 58-74.
- Wakefield, J., & Smith, D. (2012). From Socrates to satellites: iPad learning in an undergraduate course. Creative Education, 3(05), 643.
- Whipple, V. (2006). Lesbian widows: Invisible grief. New York, NY: Harrington Park Press
- Williams, N.L. & Larwin, K.H. (2016). One-to-one computing and student achievement in Ohio high schools. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(3), 143-158.
These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.
Suggest Corrections to References