, Volume 60, Issue 4, pp 336–343 | Cite as

Elementary Education Teacher Candidates’ Integration of Technology in the Design of Interdisciplinary Units

  • Drew PollyEmail author
  • Tracy Rock
Original Paper


In this paper the authors evaluate 85 elementary education teacher candidates’ integration of technology into interdisciplinary units that the candidates wrote during the semester before their full-time student teaching internship. An inductive analysis of the units revealed that teachers used a wide variety of technologies with a large dependence on Internet-based technologies, interactive whiteboards, and iPad applications. Further analyses found that most of the technology uses were lower-level and focused on only basic skills. However, chi-squared tests for independence found statistically significant relationships between numerous factors and when technology was used in ways that addressed higher-order thinking skills. These factors included the structure of the lesson plans, the content of the interdisciplinary units, when the technology was integrated into the multi-lesson unit, and when the technology was integrated into specific phases of the lesson. Implications for teacher education programs and research that focuses on teacher candidates’ TPACK are provided.


Teacher education Instructional design Technology integration TPACK 


  1. Agyei, D. D., & Voogt, J. M. (2011). Exploring the potential of the will, skill, tool model in Ghana: predicting prospective and practicing teachers’ use of technology. Computers & Education, 56, 91–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Banister, S. & Ross, C. (2005/2006). From high school to college: How prepared are teacher candidates for technology integration. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 22(2), 75–80.Google Scholar
  3. Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data analysis: Complementary strategies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Drent, M., & Meelissen, M. (2008). Which factors obstruct or stimulate teacher educators to use ICT innovatively? Computers & Education, 51, 187–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ertmer, P. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: the final frontier of in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jang, S. J., & Chen, K. C. (2010). From PCK to TPACK: developing a transformative model for preservice science teachers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(6), 553–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: integrating content, pedagogy, and technology. Computers & Education, 49(3), 740–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lee, C., & Kim, C. (2014). An implementation study of a TPACK-based instructional design model in a technology integration course. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(4), 437–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Merrill, M. D. (2007). The future of instructional design: the proper study of instructional design. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (2nd ed., pp. 336–341). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education Inc.Google Scholar
  10. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108, 1017–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Moersch, C. (2010). LoTi turns up the heat. Learning and Leading with Technology, 37(5), 20–23.Google Scholar
  12. New Media Consoritum (2014). Horizon Report: K-12 Edition. Retrieved from:
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Glazewski, K., Newby, T., & Ertmer, P. (2010). Teacher value beliefs associated with using technology: addressing professional and student needs. Computers & Education, 55, 1321–1335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Polly, D. (2010). Preparing teachers to integrate technology effectively: The case of higher-order thinking skills (HOTS). Chapter to appear in S. D’Augustono (Ed.), Adaptation, Resistance and Access to Instructional Technologies: Assessing Future Trends in Education (pp. 395–409). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  16. Polly, D. (2011a). Teachers’ learning while constructing technology-based instructional resources. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(6), 950–961. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01161.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Polly, D. (2011b). Examining teachers’ enactment of TPACK in their mathematics teaching. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 18(2), 83–96.Google Scholar
  18. Polly, D. (2014). Deepening pre-service teachers’ knowledge of technology, pedagogy, and content (TPACK) in an elementary school mathematics methods course. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 33(2), 233–250.Google Scholar
  19. Polly, D. (2015). Elementary Education pre-service teachers’ development of mathematics technology integration skills in a technology integration course. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 34(4), 431–453.Google Scholar
  20. Polly, D., & Orrill, C. H. (2016). Designing professional development to support teachers’ TPACK in elementary school mathematics. In M. Herring, M. J. Koehler, & P. Mishra (Eds.), Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge, 2nd edition (pp. 259–268). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Sang, G., Valcke, M., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2010). Student teachers’ thinking processes and ICT integration: predictors of prospective teaching behaviors with educational technology. Computers & Education, 54, 103–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Sang, G., Voogt, J., Fisser, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2012). Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology in education: a synthesis of qualitative evidence. Computers & Education, 59(1), 134–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does it compute? The relationship between educational technology and student achievement in mathematics. Retrieved from:
  24. Yoon, F. S., Ho, J., & Hedberg, J. G. (2006). Teachers as designers of learning environments. Computers in the Schools, 22(3/4), 145–157.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications & Technology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Reading and Elementary EducationUniversity of North Carolina at CharlotteCharlotteUSA

Personalised recommendations