Guzey, S. S., & Roehrig, G. H. (2009).

Teaching science with technology: Case studies of science

teachers development of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge. Contemporary Issues in
Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 25-45.
25




Teaching Science with Technology: Case
Studies of Science Teachers Development of
Technology, Pedagogy, and Content
Knowledge
S. Selcen Guzey
University of Minnesota
Gillian H. Roehrig
University of Minnesota



Abstract
This study examines the development of technology, pedagogy, and content
knowledge (TPACK) in four in-service secondary science teachers as they
participated in a professional development program focusing on technology
integration into K-12 classrooms to support science as inquiry teaching. In
the program, probeware, mind-mapping tools (CMaps), and Internet
applications computer simulations, digital images, and movies were
introduced to the science teachers. A descriptive multicase study design was
employed to track teachers development over the yearlong program. Data
included interviews, surveys, classroom observations, teachers technology
integration plans, and action research study reports. The program was found
to have positive impacts to varying degrees on teachers development of
TPACK. Contextual factors and teachers pedagogical reasoning affected
teachers ability to enact in their classrooms what they learned in the
program. Suggestions for designing effective professional development
programs to improve science teachers TPACK are discussed.


Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1)
26


Science teaching is such a complex, dynamic profession that it is difficult for
a teacher to stay up-to-date. For a teacher to grow professionally and
become better as a teacher of science, a special, continuous effort is required
(Showalter, 1984, p. 21).
To better prepare students for the science and technology of the 21st century, the current
science education reforms ask science teachers to integrate technology and inquiry-based
teaching into their instruction (American Association for the Advancement of Science,
1993; National Research Council [NRC], 1996, 2000). The National Science Education
Standards (NSES) define inquiry as the diverse ways in which scientists study the
natural world and propose explanations based on the evidence derived from their work
(NRC, 1996, p. 23). The NSES encourage teachers to apply a variety of technologies, such
as hand tools, measuring instruments, and calculators [as] an integral component of
scientific investigations to support student inquiry (p.175). Utilizing technology tools in
inquiry-based science classrooms allows students to work as scientists (Novak & Krajcik,
2006, p. 76).
Teaching science as emphasized in the reform documents, however, is not easy. Science
teachers experience various constraints, such as lack of time, equipment, pedagogical
content knowledge, and pedagogical skills in implementing reform-based teaching
strategies (Crawford, 1999, 2000; Roehrig & Luft, 2004, 2006). One way to overcome the
barriers and to reform teaching is to participate in professional development programs
that provide opportunities for social, personal, and professional development (Bell &
Gilbert, 2004). Professional development programs in which teachers collaborate with
other teachers, reflect on their classroom practices, and receive support and feedback
have been shown to foster teachers professional development (Grossman, Wineburg, &
Woolworth, 2001; Huffman, 2006; Loucks-Horsley, Love, Stiles, Mundry, & Hewson,
2003).
In this light, the professional development program, Technology Enhanced Communities
(TEC), which is presented in this paper, was designed to create a learning community
where science teachers can learn to integrate technology into their teaching to support
student inquiry. TEC has drawn heavily on situated learning theory, which defines
learning as situated, social, and distributed (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Lave &
Wenger, 1991; Putnam & Borko, 2000). Since a situated learning environment supports
collaboration among participants (Brown et al., 1989; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Putnam &
Borko, 2000), and the collaboration among teachers enhances teacher learning (Cochran-
Smith & Lytle, 1999; Krajcik, Blumenfeld, Marx, & Soloway, 1994; Little, 1990), TEC was
designed to provide teachers with opportunities to build a community that enables
learning and is distributed among teachers. The situated learning theory was used as a
design framework for TEC, but technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge (TPACK)
was employed as a theoretical framework for the present study.
Since the concept of TPACK has emerged recently, there has been no consensus on the
nature and development of TPACK among researchers and teacher educators. As
suggested by many authors in the Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge (AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology, 2008), more research
needs to examine the role of teacher preparation programs teachers beliefs (Niess,
2008), and specific student and school contexts (McCrory, 2008) regarding the nature
and development of TPACK. Thus, this study was conducted to investigate the effects of
an in-service teacher education program (TEC) on science teachers development of
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1)
27

TPACK. The research question guiding this study was: How does the professional
development program, TEC, enhance science teachers TPACK?

Review of the Relevant Literature
Technology Integration Into Science Classrooms
Educational technology tools such as computers, probeware, data collection and analysis
software, digital microscopes, hypermedia/multimedia, student response systems, and
interactive white boards can help students actively engage in the acquisition of scientific
knowledge and development of the nature of science and inquiry. When educational
technology tools are used appropriately and effectively in science classrooms, students
actively engage in their knowledge construction and improve their thinking and problem
solving skills (Trowbridge, Bybee, & Powell, 2008).
Many new educational technology tools are now available for science teachers. However,
integrating technology into instruction is still challenging for most teachers (Norris,
Sullivan, Poirot, & Soloway, 2003; Office of Technology Assessment [OTA], 1995). The
existing studies demonstrate that technology integration is a long-term process requiring
commitment (Doering, Hughes, & Huffman, 2003; Hughes, Kerr, & Ooms, 2005;
Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer, 1997). Teachers need ongoing support while they make
efforts to develop and sustain effective technology integration. Professional learning
communities, where teachers collaborate with other teachers to improve and support
their learning and teaching, are effective for incorporating technology into teaching
(Krajcik et al., 1994; Little, 1990). As a part of a community, teachers share their
knowledge, practices, and experiences; discuss issues related to student learning; and
critique and support each others knowledge and pedagogical growth while they are
learning about new technologies (Hughes et al., 2005).
Technology integration is most commonly associated with professional development
opportunities. The need for participant-driven professional development programs in
which teachers engage in inquiry and reflect on their practices to improve their learning
about technology has been emphasized by many researchers (Loucks-Horsley et al.,
2003; Zeichner, 2003). Zeichner, for example, argued that teacher action research is an
important aspect of effective professional development. According to Zeichner, to
improve their learning and practices, teachers should become teacher researchers,
conduct self-study research, and engage in teacher research groups. These collaborative
groups provide teachers with support and opportunities to deeply analyze their learning
and practices.
Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Shulman (1987) defined seven knowledge bases for teachers: content knowledge, general
pedagogical knowledge, curriculum knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge (PCK),
knowledge of learners and their characteristics, knowledge of educational context, and
knowledge of educational ends, goals, and values. According to Shulman, among these
knowledge bases, PCK plays the most important role in effective teaching. He argued that
teachers should develop PCK, which is the particular form of content knowledge that
embodies the aspects of content most germane to its teachability (Shulman, 1986, p. 9).
PCK is not only a special form of content knowledge but also a blending of content and
pedagogy into an understanding of how particular topics, problems, or issues are
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1)
28

organized, presented, and adapted to the diverse interests and abilities of learners, and
presented for instruction (Shulman, 1987, p. 8).
Shulman argued that teachers not only need to know their content but also need to know
how to present it effectively. Good teaching begins with an act of reason, continues with
a process of reasoning, culminates in performances of imparting, eliciting, involving, or
enticing, and is then thought about some more until the process begins again (Shulman,
1987, p. 13). Thus, to make effective pedagogical decisions about what to teach and how to
teach it, teachers should develop both their PCK and pedagogical reasoning skills.
Since Shulmans initial conceptualization of PCK, researchers have developed new forms
and components of PCK (e.g., Cochran, DeRuiter, & King, 1993; Grossman, 1990; Marks,
1990; Magnusson, Borko, & Krajcik, 1994; Tamir, 1988). Some researchers while
following Shulmans original classification have added new components (Grossman,
1990; Marks 1990; Fernandez-Balboa & Stiehl, 1995), while others have developed
different conceptions of PCK and argued about the blurry borders between PCK and
content knowledge (Cochran et al., 1993). Building on Shulmans groundbreaking work,
these researchers have generated a myriad of versions of PCK. In a recent review of the
PCK literature, Lee, Brown, Luft, and Roehrig (2007) identified a consensus among
researchers on the following two components of PCK: (a) teachers knowledge of student
learning to translate and transform content to facilitate students understanding and (b)
teachers knowledge of particular teaching strategies and representations (e.g., examples,
explanations, analogies, and illustrations).
The first component, knowledge of student learning and conceptions, includes the
following elements: students prior knowledge, variations in students approaches to
learning, and students misconceptions. This component of PCK refers to teachers
knowledge and understanding about students learning and their ideas about a particular
area or topic. This type of knowledge also refers to teachers understanding of variations
in students different approaches to learning. The second component refers to teachers
knowledge of specific instructional strategies and representations that can be helpful for
students to understand new concepts.
TPACK
In recent years, many researchers in the field of educational technology have been
focused on the role of teacher knowledge on technology integration (Hughes, 2005;
Koehler & Mishra, 2005, 2008; Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Niess, 2005). The term TPACK
(also known as TPCK; Koehler & Mishra, 2005) has emerged as a knowledge base needed
by teachers to incorporate technology into their teaching. Koehler and Mishra (2005)
discussed TPACK as a framework for teacher knowledge for technology integration. Their
TPACK framework is based upon Shulmans conception of PCK. In Koehler and Mishras
model of TPACK, there are three main components of teacher knowledge: content,
technology, and pedagogy. They described TPACK as a combination of these three
knowledge bases. According to the authors, TPACK is the
....basis of effective teaching with technology and requires an understanding
of the representation of concepts using technologies; pedagogical techniques
that use technologies in constructive ways to teach content; knowledge of
what makes concepts difficult or easy to learn and how technology can help
redress some of problems that students face; knowledge of students prior
knowledge and theories of epistemology; and knowledge of how
technologies can be used to build on existing knowledge and to develop new
epistemologies or strengthen old ones. (Koehler & Mishra, 2008, p. 17-18)
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1)
29

Koehler and Mishra (2008) argued that for effective technology integration all three
knowledge elements (content, pedagogy, and technology) should exist in a dynamic
equilibrium. Niess (2005) described TPACK as the integration of the development of
knowledge of subject matter with the development of technology and of knowledge of
teaching and learning. However, Niess (2008) argued that TPACK is a way of thinking
rather than a knowledge base. According to Niess (2008) TPACK is
....a way of thinking strategically while involved in planning, organizing,
critiquing, and abstracting, for specific content, specific student needs, and
specific classroom situations while concurrently considering the multitude
of twenty-first century technologies with the potential for supporting
student learning. (p. 224)
McCrory (2008) investigated science teachers, TPACK, pointing out that four knowledge
bases are vital to science teachers development of TPACK: content, students, technology,
and pedagogy. According to McCrory, science teachers need to possess adequate
knowledge of science to help students develop understandings of various science
concepts. In order to address students particular needs, teachers should have deep
knowledge and understanding about student learning. Teachers knowledge about
students facilitates the development of strategies to address students prior knowledge of
particular science concepts and misconceptions in science (McCrory, 2008). Having
adequate pedagogical knowledge allows teachers to teach effectively a particular science
concept to a particular group of students. A teacher with strong pedagogical knowledge
employs effective teaching strategies, creates well-designed lessons plans, applies
successful classroom management techniques, and develops an understanding about
student learning (Koehler & Mishra, 2008).
Furthermore, well-developed knowledge of technology allows teachers to incorporate
technologies into their classroom instruction. Importantly, technology knowledge is
much more than just knowing about technology; a deep understanding of technology is
needed to use technology for effective classroom instruction, communication, problem
solving, and decision making (Koehler & Mishra, 2008). As emphasized by McCrory
(2008), these four knowledge basesknowledge of, science, students, pedagogy, and
technologywork collaboratively in knowing where [in the curriculum] to use
technology, what technology to use, and how to teach with it (McCrory, 2008, p. 195). In
this study, we followed McCrorys (2008) conceptualization of TPACK for science
teachers to investigate the affects of TEC on science teachers development of TPACK.
The Study
Context
TEC was designed to help secondary science teachers develop necessary knowledge and
skills for integrating technology for science-as-inquiry teaching. TEC was a yearlong,
intensive program, which included a 2-week-long summer introductory course about
inquiry teaching and technology tools and follow-up group meetings throughout the
school year associated with an online course about teacher action research. A LeMill
community Web site was created at the beginning of the program. LeMill is a Web
community for finding, authoring, and sharing learning resources (http://lemill.net).
Participant teachers created accounts and joined the TEC community Web site. Through
this Web site, teachers interacted with the university researchers and their colleagues and
were able to share and discuss lesson resources.
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1)
30

Several instructional technologies were presented in the summer course: concept
mapping tools (CMap tools; Novak & Gowin, 1984), VeeMaps (Roehrig, Luft, & Edwards,
2001), probeware (e.g., pH, temperature, concentration of solutions, blood pressure, and
respiration rate), computer simulations, digital images, and movies. Teachers engaged in
inquiry-based activities while they were learning these technology tools. For example,
teachers implemented a cookbook lab experiment about the greenhouse effect following
the procedure given by the university educators. Teachers then modified this activity to
be inquiry based. Through implementation, discussions, and reflections, teachers
developed their understanding of inquiry and effectiveness of technology tools in student
learning and inquiry. Throughout the entire program teachers were encouraged to reflect
on their classroom practices. Teachers each wrote about their experiences with
technology tools and inquiry in their blogs on the LeMill community Web site.
After learning about technology tools, teachers created lesson plans that included
technology tools and loaded these lesson plans onto the LeMill Web site. Furthermore,
each teacher developed a technology integration plan to follow in the subsequent school
year. During the school year, the teachers and the university educators met several times
to discuss the constraints teachers had experienced in the integration of technology to
practice reform-based science instruction. In addition, during the school year teachers
used the LeMill site to ask questions, share lesson plans and curricula, and reflect on their
teaching. In the online discussions and face-to-face meetings, the members of the
learning community, the teachers and the university educators, engaged in numerous
conversations about how to overcome these barriers (e.g., lack of access to technology).
In spring 2008, the teachers were formally engaged in teacher action research. They
designed and conducted action research studies to reflect upon their practices and
learning about technology. During this phase, university educators and teachers worked
collaboratively. Teachers each prepared a Google document with their action research
report and shared it with university educators and other teachers. The researchers
provided necessary theoretical knowledge for teachers to design their studies. Conducting
action research allowed teachers to see the effectiveness of using technology tools in
student learning. During this phase, the collaboration among teachers and the university
educators fostered the growth of the learning community.
Participants
The teachers in this study were the participants in the TEC professional development
program that focused on technology integration in science classrooms. Eleven secondary
science teachers enrolled in the program. These teachers had varying levels of teaching
experience, ranging from 1 to 17 years. Five of them were experienced and 6 of them were
beginning secondary science teachers. Only beginning teachers were invited to
participate in the present study since they had more commonalities with each other than
with experienced teachers. For example, the beginning teachers all graduated from the
same teacher education program and were all teaching their academic specialty. The
teachers had recently completed preservice coursework focused on inquiry-based
teaching and implementing science instruction with technology tools. Of the six
beginning teacher participants in TEC, four Jason, Brenna, Matt, and Cassie
participated in this study. The other two beginning teachers did not participate in the
study, as they did not have enough time to devote to the research study. More
information about teachers can be found in Table 1. Pseudonyms are used for all teacher
participants.

Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1)
31

Table 1
Demographic Information About the Participating Teachers
Teacher Subject School
Years of
Teaching
Experience[a]
Previous
Knowledge
and Skills
About
Technology
Jason 9th and 10th grade
Biology
Public school
in a suburban
area
1 Developing
Brenna 8th grade
Earth Science
Public school
in a suburban
area
2 Developing
Matt 8th grade
Physical Science
and Life Science
Private school
in an urban
area
3 Sophisticated
Cassie 9th,10th,11th, and
12th grade Life
Science
and Physical Science
Charter school
in an urban
area
2 Limited
[a] Years of experience includes the current year of teaching.

Data Collection
Various data collection instruments were used to investigate how TEC impacted teachers
development of TPACK. These data collection instruments included surveys, interviews,
teachers technology integration plans created at the end of the summer course, field
notes from the classroom observations of the teachers, and teachers action research
reports. In this study, triangulation was achieved through the various techniques of data
collection (as in Patton, 1987).
Electronic surveys were sent to teachers four times during the program. The first survey
requested information about teachers knowledge and skills about using technology tools
in their classrooms. The second survey was sent at the end of the summer course
requesting information about the effectiveness of the summer course on teachers
learning about technology tools. To find what, when, and how teachers used technology
tools and inquiry-based teaching during the fall semester, we sent a survey at the end of
the semester. Finally, after completing the online course, teachers received another
survey that included questions about their overall experience in the program, what they
learned, and how they applied their knowledge in their instruction.
Interviews were conducted at the beginning and end of the summer program. Questions
included were (a) How do your students learn science best? (b) How do you decide what
to teach and what not to teach? (c) What does it mean to you to teach science with
technology tools? (d) How often do you implement inquiry in your classroom? (e) Can
you give an example of your inquiry instruction? and (f) What did you consider while
planning this inquiry lesson?
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1)
32

Teachers were required to write a technology integration plan at the end of the summer
course. In their plans, teachers explained in what ways, when, and how they could use
technology tools in their classrooms during the upcoming school year. In addition, in
their plans teachers talked about the constraints they might face while integrating
technology into their teaching and how they could overcome these obstacles.
Teachers were observed in their classrooms at least two times during the 2007-2008
school year. Observations were deliberately scheduled during a time when the teacher
was using technology. Detailed field notes about teachers practices, technology tools
being used, and student engagement were taken during the observations. Teacher
artifacts such as lesson plans and student handouts were also collected.
During spring 2008, each teacher designed and conducted action research studies.
Teachers reflected on their practices by identifying their own questions, documenting
their own practices, analyzing their findings, and sharing their findings with university
educators and other teachers. A range of topics were addressed by the teachers. Many
teachers, for example, focused on impact of a particular technology tool (e.g., concept
mapping, simulations, and online discussions) on student learning.
Data Analysis
Each participant teachers set of documents (interview transcript, observation notes,
surveys, technology integration plan, classroom artifacts, and action research reports)
were analyzed separately. The process of constant comparative analysis (Strauss &
Corbin, 1990) was used to analyze the data. First, each incident in a teachers document
was coded for a category. As the incidents were coded, we compared them with the
previous incidents that coded in the same category to find common patterns, as well as
differences in the data (as in Glaser, 1965).
As discussed in Merriam (1998), categories emerging from the data were exhaustive,
mutually exclusive, sensitizing, and conceptually congruent and reflected the purpose of
the study. For example, the following categories were created for participant Cassie:
misunderstanding of inquiry, lack of technological resources, unwillingness to change,
mixed beliefs about technology, feeling of isolation, undeveloped conception of science,
and weak teacher-student relationships.
After coding the categories, we compared categories for each participating teacher and
recorded memos (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). At this time, we wrote case studies for each
teacher based on the most salient categories that provided memos. The emergent salient
categories were previous experiences with technology; beliefs about teaching, learning,
and technology; the use of technology in classroom instruction; and the implementation
of inquiry-based teaching. Case studies were written as recommended in Yin (1994). We
then integrated diverse memos with other memos of analysis to discern the impact of TEC
on teachers development of TPACK. In the last phase of the analysis, we defined major
themes derived from the data.
Results
At the end of the program, the participant teachers of this study, Jason, Brenna, Matt,
and Cassie met all the requirements for completing the program. However, teachers were
each found to integrate technology into their teaching to various degrees. The cases of
these teachers describe the differences in their development of TPACK.
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1)
33

Jasons Profile
Jason was a first-year teacher at a suburban high school. He taught 9th- and 10th-grade
biology. Before participating in the program, Jason had some experience with technology
tools. He felt comfortable using concept mapping tools (CMap and Inspiration),
temperature and pH probeware, and digital microscopes. Jason believed that the purpose
of using technology tools in science classrooms is to motivate students to answer their
own questions and get more into the process of inquiry.
At the end of the summer course, Jason designed a technology integration plan, in which
he specifically explained which technology tools he was planning to use during the school
year. Jason was excited to use VeeMaps and CMap tools in his classroom. He said that
these tools were a very high priority to implement in [his] classroom. They are much
better at helping students clarify their previous knowledge, experimental procedure and
implications of their work. Ultimately, however, Jason did not employ VeeMaps in his
classroom due to a lack of familiarity with them. As a beginning teacher Jason could not
make effective decisions about how and when to use VeeMaps.
TEC had been his first experience with the concept of VeeMaps, and he did not feel
comfortable using them in his classroom. On the other hand, Jason used CMaps once a
month in his instruction. Furthermore, he also conducted an action research study on the
effectiveness of concept mapping on his students retention and understanding of content
knowledge. Results of this study encouraged Jason to use this tool more frequently in the
next teaching year. In addition to these tools, Jason created a Web site on his school
server. He posted all his notes online for students to access. His students submitted their
homework electronically. Jason said that this helped him to get more organized.
Since Jason had limited access to the probeware in his school, he did not incorporate it
into his teaching. Jason believed that the limited number of probes would cause
disengagement and or improper usein small groups. Jason was also reluctant to use
simulations. He expressed that many of the simulations [he] has found online are
informative but have a great potential for students to become disengaged or click
happy. Even though he used two simulations when he taught about DNA during the fall
semester, he did not believe that these tools were effective in enhancing student learning.
Jason was an advocate of inquiry-based teaching. He said that since the beginning of the
teacher education program, inquiry-based instruction has been a significant priority in
[his] classroom lessons. Whether small guided activities or full inquiry labs, inquiry-
based instruction is important to implement in place of typical cookbook labs. Prior to
the program, his biggest barrier to implementing inquiry lessons was modifying step-by-
step labs into inquiry activities. During the program, Jason learned how to turn the
cookbook labs into inquiry activities.
Jason had a rigid conception of inquiry. For him, all inquiry lessons, technology
integrated or not, should allow students to
ask their own questions about a topic and taking the necessary steps to
research and set up an experiment to test their ideas. Student experiments
should reduce their investigation into a single variable. Students methods
and experimental setup should go through several reviews not only by a
teacher but also be clear in their instructions and testing the correct
variable.
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1)
34

Jasons understanding of inquiry was mirrored in his classroom practices. In the
observed inquiry lesson on bacteria, students investigated antibacterial products on
strains of bacterial colonies. Students posed their own research questions; they set up
experiments and then tested variables such as detergent, soap, and toothpaste on
bacterial growth. Interviews with Jason revealed that he defined inquiry activities
exclusively as full or open-ended, in which students pose their own questions and
design their own experiment to test variables. The bacteria inquiry lesson was the only
observed inquiry activity (as defined by Jason) that he implemented during the school
year. This inquiry activity did not involve any technology tools.
Brennas Profile
Brenna was a second-year teacher at a suburban middle school. She taught eighth-grade
Earth science. Prior to participating in the program, Brenna did not have much previous
experience with many of the basic technology tools. She was not comfortable with using
computers for sharing and collaboration. However, she knew about probeware, Google
Earth, and CMap tools. Brennas biggest concern was implementing basic troubleshooting
techniques for technology tools. She had not used many of the tools previously since she
did not know how to solve technology-related problems.
Before participating in the program, Brenna used only Powerpoint presentations and
some Google Earth demos in her teaching. After learning various tools in the program,
Brenna decided to create a 3-year technology integration plan. The main goal of her
teaching in the first year of this plan was to be able to check out computers as often as
[she] would like and use concept maps, VeeMaps, and clickers (classroom response
systems). Her second and third year commitments included creating more laboratory
activities that utilize probeware and designing a personal Web page and maintain updates
on this Web page.
During the school year, Brenna frequently used CMap tools, VeeMaps, and clickers. For
example, in an observed lesson, Brenna asked her students to design their density lab in
which they compare the density of different materials of their choice. Brenna provided
many materials, such as vinegar, vegetable oil, and irregular shapes of solids like pennies
and rocks. The question students focused on was How can we compare the density of
different things? Brenna asked students to create VeeMaps instead of writing traditional
lab reports. In their VeeMaps students wrote hypotheses, a list of new words, procedures,
results, and conclusions of their experiments.
Brenna was also observed while she used clickers in her teaching. Clickers, also known as
student response systems or classroom response systems, help teachers create interactive
classroom environments. In her classroom, Brenna used clickers to get information about
student learning. At the end of each unit, Brenna asked multiple choice questions to her
students; students each submitted their answers using the clicker, and Brennas computer
gathered students answers. This approach allowed Brenna to see student feedback in real
time and address the areas where students had difficulty understanding.
Brenna designed an action research study to investigate the effectiveness of clickers on
her students understanding of new concepts. Brenna believed that clickers are very
effective in assessing the students prior knowledge and current understanding.
However, Brenna mostly used clickers as a summative assessment at the end of units.
She assigned each student to a particular clicker and tracked students understanding of
various topics. For Brenna, clickers are effective tools since they provide immediate
feedback for both students and [her].
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1)
35

Even though Brenna integrated many of the technology tools that she learned in the
program, she felt that she still needed more training with technology. She was not
comfortable with using many of the tools. For example, during one of the observed
classes, Brenna used a PowerPoint presentation when suddenly the computer screen
turned black. Brenna could not figure out how to solve the problem. Ten minutes later,
she sent a student to the administration office to find the technology teacher and asked
him for help. While waiting for the technology teacher to come and fix the problem, a
student offered Brenna help to figure out the problem. The student found that the
computer turned off since Brenna forgot to plug in the power cord. After the 15-minute
long chaos, Brenna fixed the problem and then continued her lesson. Another concern
that Brenna had was that she needed more time creating technology-enhanced
curriculum units. Brenna thought that collaboration among her colleagues might help her
to create technology-rich lesson plans because it was time consuming otherwise.
Brenna implemented a few inquiry activities in her classroom. According to her, she took
the ordinary labs that she implemented before and changed parts of them to be more
inquiry based. To modify the labs to more inquiry, Brenna offered more choices of
materials that the students could choose from. The observed density inquiry lesson
was an example of this strategy.
Brenna believed that in an inquiry activity students should come up with their own
questions and procedure. However, the classroom observations show that Brenna often
provided the research questions and she provided little opportunity for students to design
their own procedure. In addition, during the inquiry activities rather than facilitating
students Brenna was mostly directing them on what to do and what not to do.
Matts Profile
Matt was a third-year science teacher in a private middle school. He taught eighth-grade
physical science and life science. Prior to participating in the program, Matt had previous
knowledge and experience with many technology tools. He frequently used simulations
and Google Earth and Celestia to facilitate concept demonstration. However, Matt did
not use any kind of probeware in his instruction. Matt believed that technology tools have
a very strong potential to greatly assist the students in their knowledge creation.
At the end of the summer course, Matt expressed in an interview that he had decided
that concept mapping fits very well with his beliefs about the way that ideas and concepts
are best described. Thus, Matt made plans on using concept mapping in his class
regularly to assess his students understanding as well as to help learn them the
connections between terms and concepts as they move through instruction. The
classroom observations demonstrated that Matt incorporated concept mapping into his
teaching. As Matt put it,
I taught in a method that used shared CMaps to elicit student
understandings about concepts I was teaching about. After engaging
students in activities that challenged their understandings we had a class
discussion that built a class consensus around the results of the activity. The
activities included: examining the variables that affect elastic interaction,
how a constant force affects a low friction car, and what affect added mass
has to acceleration.
Matt uploaded many of these maps to his class Web site. In the spring semester, Matts
students posted online discussion to the class Web site. In his action research study, Matt
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1)
36

investigated how online discussions influence his students learning. Matt valued online
discussions since he believed that they encourage students to participate in and more
deeply analyze the course materials. Matt provided topics such as water quality or guiding
questions, such as What forms the boundary of a watershed? and How should we take
our knowledge (that we have already and will continue to acquire) to help our society and
our environment? and asked students to write individual postings and respond to at
least two of their classmates postings.
In addition to concept mapping and online student discussion boards, Matt also
implemented probeware several times in his teaching after he participated in the
program. He used motion detector probes in his physical science classroom when he
taught about Newtons laws, and pH and temperature probeware in his life science
classroom. Students were involved in a multiday environmental study at a local creek,
and they made quick measurements of temperature and pH using probeware. In their
investigations students focused on the research question, What is the water quality of
our creek? Based on their measurements and observations, students wrote research
reports about the water quality in the creek.
Another tool that Matt gave priority to in his teaching was simulation. Matt expressed
that he used technology to help [his] presentation of concepts to the students.
According to him, animations and simulations give the students a wide array of
pathways towards understanding. Simulations that he used while he taught mitosis and
meiosis and velocity and acceleration helped his students build a conceptual
understanding of these abstract concepts.
Even though Matt was excited about the potential demonstrated by the VeeMaps and
would like to move towards them as [his] means of assessment and presentation of lab
reports, he did not use them during the school year. Matt felt somewhat uncertain, and
he thought he needed to spend more time thinking about them before he is ready to turn
to them as an organizing feature of [his] teaching.
Matt was a proponent of inquiry-based teaching. He believed that students learn science
best while they are doing it. Thus, he frequently used inquiry activities in his classroom.
Although some of these activities were long term science projects such as testing water
quality in the creek, others were one-class-period-long inquiry activities. At the beginning
of the spring semester, Matt taught students about organisms, and students conducted
various directed inquiry activities about cabbage white butterflies, Wisconsin fast plants,
and wow bugs. Matt provided the research question on all these activities, and students
made observations to answer his questions. For example, students did a long-term project
to investigate how cabbage white butterflies hatch.
Cassies Profile
Cassie was a second-year teacher in an urban charter school that served only immigrant
students. She taught 9th-, 10th-, 11th-, and 12th- grade Earth science, physical science,
and life science. Before she participated in the program she had basic computer skills
(e.g., using word processing, Excel, and PowerPoint applications). In her teaching, Cassie
did not use many of the tools such as probeware and simulations that she learned in the
teacher education program, since she did not feel comfortable using them in her
classroom. For Cassie, using technology has always been difficult. She would rather do
things the old fashioned way. However, she believed that she should integrate
technology into her classroom instruction since the world is becoming more technology
savvy.
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1)
37

Cassie was the only teacher who expressed that the summer course was less helpful for
her than she expected. Cassie stressed that she learned a lot about technology and how
to integrate it into the classroom, but we did not really do it a lot [during] the summer.
She wanted more structure and specific expectations. Cassie struggled with learning
how to use many of the technology tools since the university educators in TEC used an
inquiry-based approach rather than giving teachers step-by-step procedures that Cassie
wanted to follow to learn about the technology tools. During a classroom observation in
fall 2008, Cassie expressed that she had already forgotten how to use CMap tools that she
learned two months prior in the summer course.
After participating in the summer program, Cassie expressed that her commitment for
the following year was to introduce VeeMaps as an alternative to traditional lab reports,
and to incorporate one aspect of inquiry into each of [her] biology units. She continued,
Introducing VeeMaps makes me a little nervous, and I am not sure how I will approach
it. During the school year, Cassies concerns prevented her from using VeeMaps in her
instruction. She did not feel comfortable using them with her minority students who had
limited English skills.
Cassie did not incorporate any of the technology tools that she learned in the program
into her teaching. In an interview, she expressed that she had limited access to these
tools, and she taught in a school environment that did not give her many choices but
lecturing. Most of her students came to the U.S. just before the school started. In addition
to limited language skills, her students had a conception of science different than Western
science. For example, in an observed class, Cassie taught students about cell organelles in
an animal cell. Since she did not even have an overhead projector in her classroom, Cassie
gave her students photocopied papers that showed the organelles of an animal cell. After
explaining the role of each organelle Cassie asked her students to make cells using plastic
plates, candies, and jelly. Cassie was surprised when her students did not show any
interest in making cells. Students could not understand this cell analogy activity.
Cassie stated Science is not fact and science is not just memorizing. Inquiry is the true
scientific method and it is important to teach students how to think critically because
inquiry can be applied anywhere in their lives. For Cassie, inquiry is a student-centered
activity where students explore something first and then they maybe get an introduction
to it and then they apply it. In an inquiry activity, Cassie wanted her students to drive
the most part of the work. The students are, hopefully, in theory investigating something
that they are interested in first and then learn something and apply it. For me this is
ideally and I never do itopen inquiry [laughs]. According to Cassie it is difficult to
implement the inquiry emphasized in the NSES and literature. Cassie said that to be able
to do reform based teaching, a science teacher needs to have enough science supplies
and science space [own classroom]. In the following quote, Cassie talked about her
constraints in implementing inquiry-based teaching.
I try to create a student centered environment but it exhausted me. I have to
focus on how to teach people who do not speak English very well about
science without any books. I do not have any books that really work and I do
not have my own classroom.
Cassie attempted to increase the amount of inquiry within each biology unit. At the
beginning of the school year, Cassie had many concerns. She did not know how inquiry
will work within the school structure. Also, she did not have many science supplies with
which to work. Thus, she hoped to start small and train the students to think more in-
depth about science, but more importantly about their world. However, having so many
barriers prevented Cassie from implementing any inquiry lessons during the school year.
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1)
38

Discussion
The Influence of TEC on Science Teachers Development of TPACK
As emphasized earlier, in this study McCrorys (2008) conceptualization of TPACK was
employed as a theoretical framework. In the present study, the four components of
TPACKknowledge of science, of students, of pedagogy, and of technology were
investigated to find science teachers development of TPACK. TEC was found to have a
varying impact on each participant teachers development of TPACK. In the following
section, each component of TPACK and how TEC impacted these components are
discussed. In addition, the school context and teachers reasoning skills are discussed as
critical influences on teachers development of TPACK.
Knowledge of Science. To teach science effectively, science teachers need to have an
adequate level of knowledge of science. Thus, science teachers should refresh their
knowledge of science to maximize their students learning. Teachers in TEC were
provided with opportunities to review and update their knowledge about science. The
summer course readings helped teachers broaden their knowledge construction. For
example, when teachers practiced with pH and temperature probes in performing
experiments on greenhouse gases, they also improved their knowledge on this topic. The
university educators assigned teachers to read articles about greenhouse gases before
participating in the activities. Prior to conducting experiments about greenhouse gases,
the university educators and the teachers discussed the topic. Through these readings and
classroom discussions teachers improved their understanding of greenhouse gases.
According to Brenna, this strategy really helped her to increase her understanding of the
topic and to figure out various ways to design an inquiry lab activity on greenhouse gases
for her Earth science class.
TEC did not specifically target improving teachers' content knowledge. As participants
taught in different science subject areas, it was difficult to target growth in content
knowledge. Thus, TEC specifically focused on helping teachers to rethink science and
their representation of science in their teaching. In TEC, teachers frequently engaged in
classroom discussions on what science is and what inquiry is, and these discussions
helped teachers understand how scientific knowledge is generated and justified. All the
teachers found these discussions intensive.
Knowledge of Pedagogy. Most beginning science teachers struggle with developing
effective lesson plans. In order to create lesson plans that meet all students needs,
teachers need to have a deep understanding about student learning and strategies that
help students construct knowledge and improve skills and abilities. In TEC, teachers
learned how to create technology-supported, inquiry-based lesson plans. In the summer
course, teachers wrote lesson plans and shared them with other teachers in the
community Web site. The university educators provided suggestions to improve lesson
plans if needed. The community Web site now has several lesson plans that teachers can
use in their classrooms.
Creating classroom management and organization is one of the biggest challenges for
beginning science teachers (Roehrig & Luft, 2004). These challenges become more
complicated when integrating technology into teaching. Given the preponderance of
beginning teachers in TEC, the university educators provided extensive guidance for
teachers in helping them overcome the classroom management issues they faced during
their instruction. In classroom discussions, face-to-face meetings, and online discussion
boards teachers shared their experiences and constraints, while university educators and
colleagues provided possible solutions. However, all the teachers were found to struggle
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1)
39

with management issues during the school year. Brenna, for example, had a hard time
managing her classroom when she faced problems with her computer. Since she was not
able to troubleshoot the computer-related problem, she panicked and could not establish
classroom order.
Matt also struggled with introducing technology tools to his students. In his instruction,
Matt used various tools and showed great enthusiasm for these technology tools. He
wanted all his students engaged in technology tools. However, students did not show high
interest in the technology tools every time Matt used them in his instruction. Although
students engaged in using CMap tools, they showed low engagement when they used the
digital microscope. Matt still needed to find effective strategies to keep each student
involved in technology-rich lessons.
Knowledge of Technology. The main goal of TEC was to help teachers integrate
technology tools into their classrooms. As discussed previously, Jason, Matt, and Brenna
integrated technology in their teaching in various degrees. On the other hand, Cassie
could not incorporate technology tools into her classroom. One possible explanation was
the difference in teachers previous experiences with technology tools. When Jason and
Matt started the program, they were more comfortable using many of the technology
tools in their teaching than Cassie and Brenna were. In her first and second teaching year,
Brenna attempted to use some of the tools that she learned during the teacher
preparation program. However, in her first teaching year, Cassie did not use any of the
tools that she learned in the teacher preparation program. Thus, Cassie was the only
teacher who had limited knowledge and skills required to teach science with technology.
Jason and Matt were technology enthusiasts and they focused on learning and also
integrating as many technology tools as possible. They actively searched for opportunities
to improve their technology knowledge. Both these teachers used other tools such as
digital microscopes and interactive white boards that were not presented in the summer
course. Moreover, these teachers took leadership roles in their schools. Jason taught his
colleagues how to use CMaps. Matt attempted to help his colleagues to use online student
discussions as a new strategy to assess student learning.
Knowledge of Students. Jason, Matt, Brenna, and Cassie all believed that students learn
science best when they are engaged in science. As such, all these teachers were
advocates of inquiry-based teaching. During the program, teachers learned how to turn
cookbook labs into inquiry activities. In science classrooms, teachers commonly use
cookbook lab activities in which students follow a given procedure. However, according to
Brenna students do not retain too much through cookbook lab activities. Allowing
students to write their own procedure helps students learn better. Before participating
in the program, Brennas concern was how much help she should provide students in an
inquiry activity. In the summer program, teachers performed the inquiry activities as
students. Teachers were facilitated but not directed by the university educators.
Participating in these activities helped Brenna understand a teachers role in an inquiry
activity.
The classroom discussions on effective science teaching also allowed teachers to have a
better understanding of what good science teaching and learning look like. In addition,
university educators shared their previous experiences with teachers in classroom
discussions and online discussions. They shared their knowledge about common student
misconceptions and difficulties in learning science.

Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1)
40

The Critical Factors Influencing Teachers Development of TPACK
The school context and teachers pedagogical reasoning were found to have notable
impact on teachers development of TPACK. We found that contextual constraints such as
availability of technology tools and characteristics of student population had large
impacts on the teachers development of TPACK, as previously suggested by Koehler and
Mishra (2005, 2008) and McCrory (2008). Furthermore, detailed analysis revealed that
teachers development of TPACK was closely related to their pedagogical reasoning
(Shulman, 1987). It was found that teachers pedagogical reasoning skills influence
teachers use of knowledge bases that are necessary to develop TPACK. Thus, it is possible
that a relationship exists between teachers development of TPACK and their pedagogical
reasoning skills.
School Context. Jason, Matt, and Brenna all had access to technology tools in their
schools, and their school community encouraged them to teach with technology. This
continuous support from the school community allowed these teachers to reform their
practices. As emphasized earlier, in TEC, university educators and participating teachers
build a learning community to support teachers to integrate technology into their
teaching. However, as previous research suggested, communities are not quickly formed
(Grossman et al., 2001). Not all teachers are equally interested in entering the
community, as in the case of Cassie.
At the end of the program, Cassie was not comfortable with using many of the technology
tools in her science classroom. Even though she learned about these tools in her teacher
education program and TEC, Cassie still wanted to have more time and training to learn
to use technology tools. Perhaps issues related with Cassies school environment also
impacted her decision to keep teaching without using any technology tools. Her ESL
students had almost no background with science or technology. Cassie mostly focused on
finding ways to help these students learn about science, but she did not put effort into
implementing inquiry activities and finding technology tools to incorporate that may have
fostered her students learning of science. However, many research studies have shown
the effectiveness of using inquiry as well as technology tools with ESL students (Mistler-
Jackson & Songer, 2000).
Teachers Pedagogical Reasoning. Similar to previous studies (Shulman, 1987), it was
found that teachers pedagogical reasoning mirrored their pedagogical actions. Teachers
reasons for their decisions about classroom instruction closely related to their
conceptions of science, effective science teaching and instructional strategies, purposes of
science teaching, and student understanding. For example, Matt said that technology
scaffolds students learning of science, and students can learn science best when they are
actively engaged in science. Matt was found to transform his ideas into his teaching. He
decided to use instructional strategies such as inquiry-based teaching, representations
such as concept mapping tools, and simulations after participating TEC. Based on his
students characteristics, he adapted many of the strategies he learned in the program.
During his instruction, he clearly expressed his expectations to his students. He wanted
all his students to be active learners. In some of the lessons, however, students did not
show the interest Matt expected. Thus, he decided to use different classroom
management strategies in the next teaching year. This process of reflection was a part of
his pedagogical reasoning and guided his classroom practices.
In TEC, teachers were encouraged to be reflective about their teaching. The classroom
and online discussions helped teachers restructure their ideas about effective science
teaching. Teachers found opportunities to analyze their pedagogical reasons behind their
actions. Jason, Matt, and Brenna thought about how they teach and how they wanted to
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1)
41

teach in the future. They reflected on their practices and then reformed their practices.
Thus, it seems that the development of TPACK closely related to teachers pedagogical
reasoning and TEC encouraged teachers critically to analyze their pedagogical reasoning
and pedagogical actions.
Implications
The findings of this study provide suggestions for designers of professional development
programs that aim to improve science teachers development of TPACK. Well-developed
programs that provide opportunities for participating teachers to build and sustain
learning communities seem to have positive impacts on science teachers technology
integration. Continuous support is necessary to help teachers overcome the constraints in
incorporating technology. With models such as Loucks-Horsley et al., (2003) and Bell
and Gilberts (2004), which focus on collaboration among teachers, effective professional
development programs can be designed for science teachers to reform their practices. It is
important to note that in the summer course we were limited in our ability to address
certain aspects of TPACK (content knowledge) and broader, related issues such as school
context. The follow-up activities and action research were critical in addressing and
developing individual teachers classroom practices. In particular, it was found to be
necessary to provide teachers follow-up assistance during the time when they were
designing and implementing their technology-enriched lessons and action research
projects.
The findings of this study also suggest that teachers should reflect on their classroom
practices in order to incorporate technology and inquiry into their teaching more
effectively. Conducting action research projects and keeping reflective blogs (or journals)
in which teachers analyze their experiences and reflect on their practices allowed them to
see the effectiveness of technology on students learning and to reflect on and modify
their practices. As emphasized by other researchers, reflective practice can help teachers
improve their knowledge of pedagogy and knowledge of students (Cochran-Smith &
Lytle, 1993). Thus, professional development programs focusing on technology
integration should provide teachers opportunities to reflect on their teaching and share
their experiences both with professional development leaders and their peers.
Further Research
Based on the results of this study it is evident that further research needs to be conducted
in some areas. Regarding science teachers development of TPACK, it is clear that more
data needs to be collected from experienced science teachers who have already
incorporated technology into their teaching. Experienced science teachers with well-
developed TPACK may help us to gain a better understanding of the nature and
development of TPACK. In addition, the comparison studies between beginning and
experienced science teachers TPACK may allow us to create better teacher education and
professional development programs that focus on improving teachers TPACK.
In this study, participating teachers were followed for one year. Technology integration
takes time and requires commitment. Thus, there is a need to conduct long-term research
studies to track teachers development for a long period of time. In addition, at the end of
the program, the university researchers and the participating teachers decided to sustain
the learning community that they built during the program. Further research is needed to
find the effects of participating in a learning community during and after the professional
development program in teachers development of TPACK.
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1)
42

Acknowledgements
Funds for this project were provided by a grant from the federal Teacher Quality Program
of the No Child Left Behind Act administered by the Minnesota Office of Higher
Education. This project was financed by $49,753.00 in federal funds. The position
expressed herein represents the point of view of the authors and not necessarily the view
of personnel affiliated with the Minnesota of Higher Education. The authors thank David
Gross and Joel Donna for their contributions for the design and implementation of the
program.

References
AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.). (2008). Handbook of
technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators. New York:
Routledge
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for scientific
literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bell, B., & Gilbert, J. (2004). A model for achieving teacher development. In J. Gilbert
(Ed.), The RoutledgeFalmer reader in science education, (pp. 258-278). New York:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of
learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
Cochran, K. F., DeRuiter, J. A., & King, R. A. (1993). Pedagogical content knowing: An
integrative model for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(4), 263-272.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1993). Inside outside: Teacher research and
knowledge. New York: Teacher College Press.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice:
Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249-305.
Crawford, B. A. (1999). Is it realistic to expect a preservice teacher to create an inquiry
based classroom? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10, 175-194.
Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916-937.
Doering, A., Hughes, J., & Huffman, D. (2003). Preservice teachers: Are we thinking
about technology? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35, 342-361.
Fernandez-Balvoa, J. & Stiehl, J. (1995). The generic nature of pedagogical content
knowledge among college professors. Teaching & Teacher Education, 11(3), 293-306.
Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social
Problems, 12(4), 436-445.
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1)
43

Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publication.
Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher
education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2001). Toward a theory of teacher
community. The Teachers College Record, 103(6), 942-1012.
Huffman, D. (2006). Reforming pedagogy: In-service teacher education and instruction
reform. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 121-136.
Hughes, J. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in forming
technology-integrated pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2),
277-302.
Hughes, J., Kerr, S., & Ooms, A. (2005). Content-focused technology inquiry groups:
Cases of teacher learning and technology integration. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 32, 367-379.
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational
technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal
of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131-152.
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee on
Innovation and Technology (Ed.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content
knowledge (TPCK) for educators, (pp. 3-31). New York: Routledge.
Krajcik, J., Blumenfield, P., Marx, R., & Soloway, E. (1994). A collaborative model for
helping middle grade teachers learn project-based instruction. The Elementary Science
Journal, 94(5), 483-498.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral. New York:
Cambridge
Lee, E., Brown, M., Luft, J., & Roehrig, G. (2007). Assessing beginning secondary science
teachers PCK: Pilot year results. School Science and Mathematics, 107(2), 52-60.
Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers
professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91(4), 509-536.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S., & Hewson, P. W. (2003).
Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Magnusson, S., Borko, H., & Krajcik, J. (1994). Teaching complex subject matter in
science: Insights from an analysis of pedagogical content knowledge. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching,
Anaheim, CA.
Marks, R. (1990). Pedagogical content knowledge: From a mathematical case to a
modified conception. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 3-11.
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1)
44

McCrory, R. (2008). Science, technology, and teaching: The topic-specific challenges of
TPCK in science. In AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.), Handbook
of technological pedagogical content nowledge (TPCK) for educators (pp. 193-206). New
York: Routledge.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education
(2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A
framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record,
108(6), 1017-1054.
Mistler-Jackson, M., & Songer, N. B. (2000). Student motivation and Internet
technology: Are students empowered to learn science? Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 37(5), 459-479.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education
standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with
technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 21, 509-523.
Niess, M. L. (2008). Guiding preservice teachers in developing TPCK. In AACTE
Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.), Handbook of technological pedagogical
content knowledge (TPCK) for educators, (pp. 223-251). New York: Routledge
Norris, C., Sullivan, T., Poirot, J., & Soloway, E. (2003). No access, no use, no impact:
Snapshot surveys of educational technology in K-12. Journal of Research on Technology
in Education, 36(1), 15-27.
Novak, A. M., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Using technology to support inquiry in middle school
science. In L.B. Flick & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science:
Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education, (pp. 75-101). Netherlands:
Springer.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Office of Technology Assessment.(1995). Teachers and technology: Making the
connection. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publication
Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have
to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29, 4-15.
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1)
45

Roehrig, G., & Luft, J. A. (2004). Constraints experienced by beginning secondary science
teachers in implementing scientific inquiry lessons. International Journal of Science
Education, 23, 3-24.
Roehrig, G., & Luft, J. A. (2006). Does one size fit all?: The induction experience of
beginning science teachers from different teacher preparation programs. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 43(9), 963-985.
Roehrig, G., Luft, J., & Edwards, M. (2001). Versatile VeeMaps. The Science Teacher,
68(1), 28-31.
Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology:
Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
Showalter, V. M. (Eds.). (1984). Conditions for good science teaching. Washington, DC:
National Science Teachers Association.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.
Educational Researcher, 15(5), 4-14.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Reviews, 57, 1-22.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Tamir, P. (1988). Subject matter and related pedagogical content knowledge in teacher
education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(2), 99-110.
Trowbridge, L. W., Bybee, R. W., & Powell, J. C. (2008). Teaching secondary school
science: Strategies for developing scientific literacy (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks:
Sage.
Zeichner, K. (2003). Teacher research as professional development for P-12 educators in
the USA. Educational Action Research, 11(2), 301-325.
Author Note:
S. Selcen Guzey
University of Minnesota
kendi003@umn.edu
Gillian H. Roehrig
University of Minnesota
roehr013@umn.edu
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education is an online journal. All text, tables, and figures in the print
version of this article are exact representations of the original. However, the original article may also include video and
audio files, which can be accessed on the World Wide Web at http://www.citejournal.org