Educational Technology Research and Development

, Volume 63, Issue 6, pp 809–829 | Cite as

Technology integration coursework and finding meaning in pre-service teachers’ reflective practice

  • Royce Kimmons
  • Brant G. Miller
  • Julie Amador
  • Christopher David Desjardins
  • Cassidy Hall
Research Article


This study seeks to inform teacher preparation programs regarding technology integration by understanding (1) relationships between tasks with specific technologies and pre-service teachers’ critical thinking about technology integration and (2) relationships between how pre-service teachers are critically thinking about technology integration and their self-assessed competence in technology integration. A mixed methods research design was employed, which gathered survey and performance task reflection data from pre-service teachers in four sections of a technology for teaching course. Data were analyzed using a process that categorized pre-service teacher thinking about technology integration in accordance with the replacement, amplification, and transformation model of technology integration. Results revealed that there was a significant overall effect of the selection of performance task upon whether it was applied in a transformative manner, but that no such overall effect existed for amplification and replacement. Examining the data descriptively, pre-service teachers generally exhibited a high level of amplification in how they applied technology in their thinking and rarely referred to technology use that did not show some clear benefits in their classrooms (i.e. replacement). Results also showed that there was no relationship between how students were thinking about technology integration and their self-assessment of technology integration competence. These results suggest that the types of performance tasks we used only had an impact on how pre-service teachers applied their understanding of technology integration in their educational contexts for transformative use cases. We also conclude that pre-service teachers’ self-assessments of competence are likely based upon technical fluency rather than thoughtful application toward classroom outcomes.


Teacher preparation Technology integration RAT model NETS 


  1. Agresti, A. (2013). Categorical data analysis. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. Al-Awidi, H., & Alghazo, I. (2012). The effect of student teaching experience on pre-service elementary teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs for technology integration in the UAE. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60, 923–941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barak, M. (2010). Motivating self-regulated learning in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20(4), 381–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., & Huang, B. (2004). How does distance education compare to classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74, 379–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blood, E., & Neel, R. (2008). Using student response systems in lecture-based instruction: Does it change student engagement and learning? Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 1, 375–383.Google Scholar
  6. Borko, H., Whitcomb, J., & Liston, D. (2009). Wicked problems and other thoughts on issues of technology and teacher learning. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI). (2010). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers.
  8. Cook, D., & Weisberg, S. (1999). Applied regression including computing and graphics. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  10. Cuban, L. (1988). Constancy and change in schools (1880s to the present). In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Contributing to educational change: Perspectives on research and practice (pp. 85–105). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.Google Scholar
  11. Darling-Hammond, L., Chung, R., & Frelow, F. (2002). Variation in teacher preparation: How well do different pathways prepare teachers to teach? Journal of Teacher Education, 53(4), 286–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dawson, K. (2006). Teacher inquiry: A vehicle to merge prospective teachers’ experience and reflection during curriculum-based, technology-enhanced field experiences. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 265–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Boston: D. C. Heath & Co.Google Scholar
  14. Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailed design method. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Donna, J. D., & Miller, B. G. (2013). Using cloud-computing applications to support collaborative scientific inquiry: Examining pre-service teachers’ perceived barriers towards integration. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 39(3), 1–17.Google Scholar
  16. Donnison, S. (2007). Unpacking the millennials: A cautionary tale for teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 32, 1–13.Google Scholar
  17. Edwards, A. L. (1948). Note on the “correction for continuity” in testing the significance of the difference between correlated proportions. Psychometrika, 13(3), 185–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Forster, J. J., McDonald, J. W., & Smith, P. W. (2003). Markov chain Monte Carlo exact inference for binomial and multinomial logistic regression models. Statistics and Computing, 13(2), 169–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gauci, S., Dantas, A., Williams, D., & Kemm, R. (2009). Promoting student-centered active learning in lectures with a personal response system. Advances in Physiology Education, 33, 60–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hofer, M., & Grandgenett, N. (2012). TPACK development in teacher education: A longitudinal study of pre-service teachers in secondary M.A.Ed. program. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45, 83–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hughes, J., Thomas, R., & Scharber, C. (2006). Assessing technology integration: The RAT—replacement, amplification, and transformation—framework. In C. Crawford, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of society for information technology & teacher education international conference 2006 (pp. 1616–1620). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Google Scholar
  24. Idaho State Department of Education (ISDE). (2011). Content, pedagogy, and performance assessment for certification. Retrieved from:
  25. Jaggars, S., & Bailey, T. (2010). Effectiveness of fully online courses for college students: Response to a department of education meta-analysis. New York, NY: Community College Research Center. Retrieved from
  26. Kimmons, R., & Hall, C. (in press). Emerging technology integration models. In G. Veletsianos (Ed.), Emerging Technologies in Distance Education (2nd Ed.). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robison, A. J., & Weigel, M. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Retrieved from MacArthur Foundation website:
  28. Marzano, R. (2009). Teaching with interactive whiteboards. Multiple Measures, 67, 80–82.Google Scholar
  29. Mason, C., Berson, M., Diem, R., Hicks, D., Lee, J., & Dralle, T. (2000). Guidelines for using technology to prepare social studies teachers. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 1(1), 107–116.Google Scholar
  30. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1–47.Google Scholar
  31. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108, 1017–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2007, March). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK): Confronting the wicked problems of teaching with technology. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (Vol. 2007, No. 1, pp. 2214–2226).Google Scholar
  33. National Educational Technology Standards (NETS). (2012). Retrieved from:
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Parette, H. P., Huer, M. B., & Scherer, M. (2004). Effects of acculturation on assistive technology service delivery. Journal of Special Education Technology, 19(2), 31–41.Google Scholar
  36. Pea, R. D. (1985). Beyond amplification: Using the computer to reorganize mental functioning. Educational Psychologist, 20(4), 167–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Roblyer, M. D., & Doering, A. H. (2013). Integrating educational technology into teaching. San Francisco: Pearson.Google Scholar
  38. Romano, M., & Schwartz, J. (2005). Exploring technology as a tool for eliciting and encouraging beginning teacher reflection. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(2), 149–168.Google Scholar
  39. Selwyn, N. (2009). Faceworking: Exploring students’ education-related use of Facebook. Learning, Media and Technology, 34, 157–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shaffer, D., & Collura, M. (2009). Evaluating the effectiveness of a personal response system in the classroom. Teaching of Psychology, 36, 273–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stanford, P., & Reeves, S. (2007). Access, consider, teach: ACT in your classroom. The Clearing House, 3, 133–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stowell, J., Oldham, T., & Bennett, D. (2010). Using student response systems (“clickers”) to combat conformity and shyness. Teaching of Psychology, 37, 135–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., Shaw, S. M., & Liu, X. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 76, 93–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Technology in schools: suggestions, tools, and guidelines for assessing technology in elementary and secondary education. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from
  45. Vannatta, R., Beyerbach, B., & Walsh, C. (2001). From teaching technology to using technology to enhance student learning: Pre-service teachers’ changing perceptions of technology infusion. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 105–127.Google Scholar
  46. Veletsianos, G., Kimmons, R., & French, K. (2013). Instructor experiences with a social networking site in a higher education setting: Expectations, frustrations, appropriation, and compartmentalization. Educational Technology Research & Development, 61(2), 255–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Walker, A., Recker, M., Ye, L., Robertshaw, M., Sellers, L., & Leary, H. (2012). Comparing technology-related teacher professional development designs: A multilevel study of teacher and student impacts. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60, 421–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yost, D. S., Sentner, S. M., & Forlenza-Bailey, A. (2000). An examination of the construct of critical reflection: Implications for teacher education programming in the 21st century. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(1), 39–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zhao, Y., Lei, J., Yan, B., Lai, C., & Tan, H. S. (2005). What makes the difference? A practical analysis of research on the effectiveness of distance education. Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1836–1884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Royce Kimmons
    • 1
  • Brant G. Miller
    • 2
  • Julie Amador
    • 3
  • Christopher David Desjardins
    • 4
  • Cassidy Hall
    • 2
  1. 1.Instructional Psychology & Technology DepartmentBrigham Young UniversityProvoUSA
  2. 2.University of IdahoMoscowUSA
  3. 3.University of IdahoCoeur d’AleneUSA
  4. 4.University of IcelandReykjavikIceland

Personalised recommendations