You are here:

A Preservice Secondary Education Technology Course: Design Decisions And Students’ Learning Experiences

, , George Mason University, United States

AACE Award

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Las Vegas, NV, United States ISBN 978-1-939797-13-1 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA


Asked to design a technology education course, the researchers designed a course that focused on the interaction of technology and disciplinary teaching, not on technology skills. Adopting a design-based research approach, Phase 1 was a review of literature that led to two course design decisions: to situate participants’ study of technology in their disciplinary teaching field and to organize modules using disciplinary habits of mind. Phase 2 led to a third course design decision: to structure content and activities using a design pattern approach. This paper presents Phase 3 of the research process, examining the influence of course design decisions on candidates’ learning experiences. Participants’ course reflections were analyzed to understand the influence of the three course design decisions. Reflections suggested that each design decision was uniquely successful in focusing participants’ learning on the interaction of technology concepts and discipline-specific contexts.


Hathaway, D. & Norton, P. (2015). A Preservice Secondary Education Technology Course: Design Decisions And Students’ Learning Experiences. In D. Rutledge & D. Slykhuis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2015--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 925-933). Las Vegas, NV, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 23, 2019 from .


View References & Citations Map


  1. Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2008, March). TCPK in preservice teacher education: Preparing primary education students to teach with technology. Paper presented at the AERA annual conference, New York.
  2. Bannan-Ritland, B. (2003). The role of design in research: The integrative learning design framework. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 21-24.
  3. Brzycki, D., & Dudt, K. (2005). Overcoming barriers to technology use in teacher preparation programs. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 619-641.
  4. Bullock, D. (2004). Moving from theory to practice: An examination of the factors that preservice teachers encounter as they attempt to gain experience teaching with technology during field placement experiences. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(2), 211-237.
  5. Charbonneau, P., Jackson, H., Kobylski, G., Roginski, J., Sulewski, C., & Wattenberg, F. (2009). Developing students' "habits of mind" in a mathematics program. Primus: Problems, Resources, and Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate Studies, 19(2), 105-126.
  6. Cobb, P. (2001). Supporting the improvement of learning and teaching in social and institutional context. In S.M. Carver& D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 455-478). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  7. Gardner, H. (2009). Five minds for the future. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
  8. Hathaway, D., & Norton, P. (2013). Designing an online course content structure using a design patterns approach. Educational Technology, 53(2), 3-15.
  9. Hew, K., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research& Development, 55(3), 223-252.
  10. Kay, R. (2006). Evaluating strategies used to incorporate technology into preservice education: A Review of the literature. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(4), 383-408.
  11. Maddox, C., & Cummings, R. (2004). Fad, fashion, and the weak role of theory and research in information technology in education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(4), 511-533.
  12. Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  13. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2007). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK): Confronting the wicked problems of teaching with technology. In R. Carlsen, K. McFerrin, J. Price, R. Weber, & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology& Teacher Education International Conference 2007 (pp. 2214-2226).
  14. Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Glazewski, K., & Newby, T. (2010). Preservice technology integration course revision: A conceptual guide. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 18(1), 5–33.
  15. Peltier, J.W., Schibrowsky, J.A., & Drago, W. (2007). The interdependence of the factors influencing the perceived quality of the online learning experience: A causal model. Journal of Marketing Education, 29, 140-153.
  16. Russell, M., Bebell, D., O’Dwyer, L., & O’Connor, K. (2003). Examining teacher technology use: Implications for preservice and inservice teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 297-310.
  17. Sang, G., Valcke, M., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2010). Student teachers thinking processes and ICT integration: predictors of prospective teaching behaviors with educational technology. Computers& Education, 54,103-112
  18. Tishman, S., Perkins, D., & Jay, E. (1995). The thinking classroom: Learning and teaching in a culture of thinking. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
  19. Westhoff, L.M., & Polman, J.L. (2008). Developing preservice teachers' pedagogical content knowledge about historical thinking. International Journal of Social Education, 22(2), 1-28.
  20. Wineburg, S. (2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts: Charting the future of teaching the past. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact