Developing and validating a reliable TPACK instrument for secondary mathematics preservice teachers

Journal of Research on Technology in Education

Volumn 46, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 173-206

  Zelkowski, Jeremy ^a   Gleason, Jim ^a   Cox, Dana C ^b   Bismarck, Stephen ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA   (United States)

^b MIAMI UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA UPSTATE   (United States)

Author keywords

Mathematics education; Preservice; Secondary; Survey; Teacher education; TPACK

Indexed keywords

EID: 84897547521     PISSN: 15391523     EISSN: 19450818     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15391523.2013.10782618     Document Type: Article

References (102)

1. Abbitt, J. T. (2011). Measuring technological pedagogical content knowledge in preservice teacher education: A review of current methods and instruments. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(4), 281-300.
2. Adams, L. L. M., & Gale, D. (1982). Solving the quandary between questionnaire length and response rate in education research. Research in Higher Education, 17(3), 231-240.
3. Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT-TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52(1), 154-168
4. Archambault, L. M., & Barnett, J. H. (2010). Revisiting technological pedagogical content knowledge: Exploring the TPACK framework. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1656-1662.
5. Archambault, L., & Crippen, K. (2009). Examining TPACK among K-12 online distance educators in the United States. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education (CITE Journal), 9(1), 71-88.
6. Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators (AMTE). (2006). Preparing teachers to use technology to enhance the learning of mathematics. Retrieved August 1, 2008, from http://www.amte.net/resources
7. Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators (AMTE). (2009). Mathematics TPACK framework. Retrieved October 13, 2009, from http://www.amte.net/resources
8. Ball, D. L. (1990) Prospective elementary and secondary teachers' understanding of division. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21(2), 132-144.
9. Ball, D. L., Hill, H. C., & Bass, H. (2002). Developing measures of mathematics knowledge for teaching. Ann Arbor, MI: Study of Instructional Improvement.
10. th ed.). New York: Macmillan.
11. Barkatsas, A., Kasimatis, K., & Gialamas, V. (2009). Learning secondary mathematics with technology: Exploring the complex interrelationship between students' attitudes, engagement, gender and achievement. Computers & Education, 52(3), 562-570.
12. Beaudin, M., & Bowers, D. (1997). Logistics for facilitating CAS instruction. In J. Berry, J. Monaghan, M. Kronfellner, & B. Kutzler (Eds.), The state of computer algebra in mathematics education (pp. 126-135). Lancashire, England: Chartwell-York.
13. Bos, B. (2007). The effect of the Texas Instrument interactive instructional environment on the mathematical achievement of eleventh grade low achieving students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37(4), 351-368.
14. Bos, B. (2011). Professional development for elementary teachers using TPACK. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 11(2), 167-183.
15. Bowers, J., & Stephens, B. (2011). Using technology to explore mathematical relationships: A framework for orienting mathematics courses for prospective teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14(4), 285-304. doi:10.1007/s10857-011-9168-x
16. Brown, C. A., & Borko, H. (1992). Becoming a mathematics teacher. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. New York: Macmillan.
17. Cronbach, L. J., & Shavelson, R. J. (2004). My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and successor procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(3), 391-418.
18. Dede, Y., & Soybas, D. (2011). Preservice mathematics teachers' experiences about function and equation concepts. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 7(2), 89-102.
19. Demana, F., & Waits, B. K. (1990). Implementing the standards: The role of technology in teaching mathematics. Mathematics Teacher, 83(1), 27-31.
20. Demana, F., & Waits, B. K. (1998). The role of graphing calculators in mathematics reform. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED458108).
21. De Vellis, R. F. (2011). Scaled development: Theory and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
22. Doerr, H. M., & Zangor, R. (2000). Creating meaning for and with the graphing calculator. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 41(2), 143-163.
23. Drier, H. S. (2001). Teaching and learning mathematics with interactive spreadsheets. School Science and Mathematics 101(4), 170-179.
24. Duda, J. (2011). Mathematical creative activity and the graphic calculator. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 18(1), 3-14.
25. Dugdale, S., & Kibbey, D. (1990). Beyond the evident content goals-Part I: Tapping the depth and flow of the educational undercurrent. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 9, 201-228.
26. Dunham, P. H., & Dick, T. P. (1994). Connecting research to teaching: Research on graphing calculators. Mathematics Teacher, 87(6), 440-445
27. Dunham, P., & Hennessey, S. (2008). Equity and the use of educational technology in mathematics. In M. K. Heid & G. W. Blume (Eds.), Research on technology and the teaching and learning of mathematics: Vol. 1. Research syntheses (pp. 345-418). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
28. nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
29. Fink, A., & Kosecoff, J. (1998). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
30. th edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
31. Frykholm, J., & Glasson, G. (2005). Connecting science and mathematics instruction: Pedagogical context knowledge for teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 105(3), 127-140.
32. Green, S. B., Lissitz, R. W., & Mulaik, S. A. (1977). Limitations of coefficient alpha as an index of test uni-dimensionality. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37(4), 827-838.
33. * Logo: A project to develop proportional reasoning in college freshmen. School Science and Mathematics, 91(2), 77-81.
34. Harris, J. B., & Hofer, M. J. (2011). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in action: A descriptive study of secondary teachers' curriculum-based, technology-related instructional planning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(3), 211-229.
35. Harris, J. B., Grandgenett, N., & Hofer, M. (2010, March). Testing a TPACK-based technology integration assessment rubric. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education (SITE), San Diego, CA.
36. Hill, H. C. (2011). The nature and effects of middle school mathematics teacher learning experiences. Teachers College Record, 113(1), 205-234.
37. 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.
38. Hofer, M., Grandgenett, N., Harris, J., & Swan, K. (2011). Testing a TPACK-based technology integration observation instrument. In C. D. Maddux, D. Gibson, B. Dodge, M. Koehler, P. Mishra, & C. Owens (Eds.). Research highlights in technology and teacher education 2011 (pp. 39-46). Chesapeake, VA: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education.
39. Hollebrands, K. F. (2003). High school students' understandings of geometric transformations in the context of a technological environment. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 22(1), 55-72.
40. Kahan, J. A., Cooper, D. A., & Bethea, K. A. (2003). The role of mathematics teachers' content knowledge in their teaching: A framework for research applied to a study of student teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6(3), 223-252. doi: 10.1023/A:1025175812582.
41. Kaput, J. (1995). Creating cybernetic and psychological ramps for the concrete to the abstract: Examples from multiplicative structures. In D. Perkins, J. Schwartz, M West, & M. Wiske (Eds.), Software goes to school: Teaching for understanding with new technologies (pp. 130-154). New York: Oxford University Press.
42. Kastberg, S., & Leatham, K. (2005). Research on graphing calculators at the secondary level: Implications for mathematics teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online serial], 5 (1).
43. Keating, T., & Evans, E. (2001). Three computers in the back of the classroom: Preservice teachers' conceptions of technology integration. In R. Carlsen, N. Davis, J. Price, R. Weber, & D. Willis (Eds.), Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 2001 (pp. 1671-1676). Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
44. Kelly, B., Carnine, D., Gersten, R., & Grossen, B. (1986). The effectiveness of videodisc instruction in teaching fractions to learning-disabled and remedial high school students. Journal of Special Education Technology, 7(2), 5-17.
45. Kendal, M. & Stacey, K. (2001). The impact of teacher privileging on learning differentiation with technology. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6(2), 143-165.
46. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005a). Teachers learning technology by design. Journal of Computing In Teacher Education, 21(3), 94-102.
47. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005b). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131-152.
48. Koh, J. L., Chai, C. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Examining the technological pedagogical content knowledge of Singapore pre-service teachers with a large-scale survey. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(6), 563-573. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00372.x
49. Kutzler, B. (2000). The algebraic calculator as a pedagogical tool for teaching mathematics. International Journal of Computer Algebra in Mathematics Education, 7(1), 5-23.
50. Lampert, M., & Ball, D. L. (1998). Teaching, multimedia, and mathematics: Investigations of real practice. New York: Teacher's College Press.
51. Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575-614.
52. Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563-575.
53. Leatham, K. R. (2007). Pre-service secondary mathematics teachers' beliefs about the nature of technology in the classroom. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education. 7(2/3), 183-207.
54. Lefever, S., Dal, M., & Matthiasdottir, A. (2007). Online data collection in academic research: Advantages and limitations. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(4), 574-582.
55. Li, Q. (2003). Would we teach without technology? A professor's experience of teaching mathematics education incorporating the internet. Educational Research, 45(1), 61-77.
56. Li, Q., & Ma, X. (2010). A meta-analysis of the effects of computer technology on school students' mathematics learning. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 215-243.
57. Litwin, M. S. (1995). How to measure survey reliability and validity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
58. López, O. S. (2010). The digital learning classroom: Improving English language learners' academic success in mathematics and reading using interactive whiteboard technology. Computers & Education, 54(4), 901-915. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.019
59. Lux, N., Bangert, A., & Whittier, D. (2011). The development of an instrument to assess preservice teachers' technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 45(4), 415-431.
60. Ma, L. P. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
61. McKinney, S., & Frazier, W. (2008). Embracing the principles and standards for school mathematics: An inquiry into the pedagogical and instructional practices of mathematics teachers in high-poverty middle schools. Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues, and Ideas. 81(5), 201-210.
62. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teachers' knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
63. Mitchell, B., Bailey, J. L., & Monroe, E. (2007). Integrating technology and a standards-based pedagogy in a geometry classroom: A mature teacher deals with the reality of multiple demands and paradigm shifts. Computers in the Schools, 24(1-2), 75-91.
64. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
65. National Governors Association (NGA) Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (2010). The Common Core State Standards initiative: Preparing America's students for college and career. Washington, DC: Author.
66. Niess, M. L. (2001). A model for integrating technology in preservice science and mathematics content-specific teacher preparation. School Science & Mathematics, 101(2), 102-109.
67. Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 509-523.
68. Niess, M. L. (2011). Investigating TPACK: Knowledge growth in teaching with technology. Journal for Educational Computing Research. 44(3), 299-317.
69. Niess, M. (2013). Central component descriptors for levels of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48(2), 173-198.
70. Niess, M. L., Ronau, R. N., Shafer, K. G., Driskell, S. O., Harper S. R., Johnston, C., Browning, C., Özgün-Koca, S. A., & Kersaint, G. (2009). Mathematics teacher TPACK standards and development model. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online serial], 9(1), 4-24.
71. Norris, J., & Conn, C. (2005). Investigating strategies for increasing student response rates to online-delivered course evaluations. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6(1), 13-29.
72. Norton, S., McRobbie, C. J., & Cooper, T. J. (2000). Exploring secondary math teachers' reasons for not using computers in their teaching: Five case studies. Journal of Research on Computing in Education. 33(1), 87-109.
73. Özgün-Koca, S. A., Meagher, M., & Edwards, M. T. (2010). Preservice teachers' emerging TPACK in a technology-rich methods class. Mathematics Educator, 19(2), 10-20.
74. Page, M. S. (2002). Technology-enriched classrooms: Effects on students of low socioeconomic status. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(4), 389-409.
75. nd edition). Los Angeles: Pyrczak Publishing.
76. Pierce, R., & Ball, L. (2009). Perceptions that may affect teachers' intention to use technology in secondary mathematics classes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 71(3), 299-317.
77. Quinn, R. J. (1998). Technology: PSTs' beliefs and the influence of a mathematics methods course. Clearing House. 71(6), 375-377.
78. Sahin, I. (2011). Development of survey of technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK). Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 10(1), 97-105.
79. Salinger, G. L. (1994). Educational reform movements and technology education. Technology Teacher, 53(5), 6-8
80. Samejima, F. (1996). Graded response model. In W. J. van der Linden & R. K. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory. New York: Springer-Verlag.
81. Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123-149.
82. Schmidt, K., Kohler, A., & Moldenhauer, W. (2009). Introducing a computer algebra system in mathematics education-Empirical evidence from Germany. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 16(1), 11-26
83. Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment, 8(4), 350-353.
84. Shapley, K., Sheehan, D., Maloney, C., & Caranikas-Walker, F. (2011). Effects of technology immersion on middle school students' learning opportunities and achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 104(5), 299-315. doi:10.1080/00220671003767615
85. Shoaf, M. (2000). A capstone course for pre-service secondary mathematics teachers. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science & Technology, 31(1), 151-160.
86. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
87. Silverman, J., & Thompson, P. W. (2008). Toward a framework for the development of mathematical knowledge for teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(6), 499-511. DOI: 10.1007/s10857-008-9089-5.
88. Stallings, L. L. (1995). Teachers' stories learning to use computing technologies in mathematics teaching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens.
89. Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M. A., & Silver, E. A. (2010) Implementing standardsbased mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development. New York: Teachers College Press.
90. Strawhecker, J. (2005). Preparing elementary teachers to teach mathematics: How field experiences impact pedagogical content knowledge. Issues in the Undergraduate Mathematics Preparation of School Teachers, 4(Curriculum), 12 pp. Retrieved from ERIC database. (EJ835513).
91. Tharp, M. L., Fitzsimmons, J. A., & Ayers, R. L. B. (1997). Negotiating a technological shift: Teacher perception of the implementation of graphing calculators. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 16(4), 551-575.
92. th ICMI Study Conference: Technology Revisited, Hanoi University of Technology, December 3-8, 2006 (c17).
93. Thompson, A. G. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 127-146). New York: MacMillan.
94. Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
95. Torff, B., & Tirotta, R. (2010). Interactive whiteboards produce small gains in elementary students' self-reported motivation in mathematics. Computers & Education, 54(2), 379-383. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.019
96. th International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching (ICTMT) (pp. 189-197). Bristol, UK: University of Bristol.
97. Van Voorst, C. (2004). Capstone mathematics courses for teachers. Issues in the Undergraduate Mathematics Preparation of School Teachers, 4(Curriculum), 11 pp. Retrieved from ERIC database. (EJ835511).
98. Wenglinsky, H., & Educational Testing Service. (1998). Does it compute? The relationship between educational technology and student achievement in mathematics. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED425191).
99. Wilson, S., Floden, R., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). Teacher preparation research: Current knowledge, gaps and recommendations. A research report prepared for the U. S. Department of Education by the Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy in collaboration with Michigan State University. Retrieved from http://depts.washington. edu/ctpmail/PDFs/TeacherPrep-WFFM-02- 2001.pdf
100. Young, J. R., Young, J. L., & Shaker, Z. (2012). Describing the preservice teacher technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) literature using confidence intervals. Tech Trends, 56(5), 25-33.
101. Zbiek, R. (1998). Prospective teachers' use of computing tools to develop and validate functions as mathematical models. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(2), 184-201.
102. Zbiek, R. M., & Hollebrands, K. (2008). A research-informed view of the process of incorporating mathematics technology into classroom practice by inservice and preservice teachers. In M. K. Heid & G. W. Blume (Eds.), Research on technology and the teaching and learning of mathematics: Vol. 1. Research syntheses (pp. 287-344). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.