Developing Preservice Teachers’ Sensitivity to the Interplay Between Subject Matter, Pedagogy, and ICTs

  • Yu-Ta Chien
  • Chun-Yen ChangEmail author


Mishra and his colleagues’ notion of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK, renamed as TPACK in Thompson AD, Mishra P, Breaking news: TPCK becomes TPACK! [Editorial]. J Comput Teach Educ 24(2):38 & 64, 2007–2008) theorizes that the required knowledge for teachers to teach with information and communication technology (ICT) involves comprehensive understanding of the transactional interplay between the subject matter being taught, the pedagogy being used, and the ICT tools being adopted in teaching practice. Aligning with the conceptualization of TPACK, developing preservice teachers’ sensitivity to the interplay between subject matter, pedagogy, and ICT is a key objective for teacher preparation programs. Based on the theoretical framework of cognitive apprenticeship, we propose a 4-phase cyclic MAGDAIRE model (abbreviated from modeled analysis, guided development, articulated implementation, and reflected evaluation) to develop preservice teachers’ sensitivity to the interplay between subject matter, pedagogy, and ICT. MAGDAIRE is subsequently employed to enhance the science teacher education courses of National Taiwan Normal University. The TPACK conceptual framework is adapted as an analytic tool to examine the growth in preservice science teachers’ knowledge about technology integration in teaching. The results of the studies and courses indicate that, within MAGDAIRE, these preservice science teachers’ reasoning on the use of ICT transited toward a more connected model in which ICT is jointly considered with subject matter and/or pedagogy. Moreover, these preservice teachers’ development of TPACK stimulated them to modify their practice. In this chapter, the details of MAGDAIRE and a synthesis of the studies into MAGDAIRE are reported.


Preservice Teacher Science Teacher Pedagogical Content Knowledge Science Teacher Education Cognitive Apprenticeship 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Adobe. (2014). Adobe Flash runtimes statistics. Retrieved March 25, 2015, from
  2. Angeli, C. (2005). Transforming a teacher education method course through technology: Effects on preservice teachers’ technology competency. Computers & Education, 45(4), 383–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chang, C.-Y., Chien, Y.-T., Chang, Y.-H., & Lin, C.-Y. (2012). MAGDAIRE: A model to foster pre-service teachers’ ability in integrating ICT and teaching in Taiwan. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(6), 983–999.Google Scholar
  4. Chien, Y.-T., Chang, C.-Y., Yeh, T. K., & Chang, K.-E. (2012). Engaging pre-service science teachers to act as active designers of technology integration: A MAGDAIRE framework. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(4), 578–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Collins, A. (1988). Cognitive apprenticeship and instructional technology. (Report No. BBN-R-6899). Cambridge, MA: BBN Laboratories. Retrieved from ERIC Database. (ED 331 465).Google Scholar
  6. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1996). The systematic design of instruction (4th ed.). New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  8. Govender, D., & Govender, I. (2009). The relationship between information and communications technology (ICT) integration and teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs about ICT. Education as Change, 13(1), 153–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russell, J. D., & Smaldino, S. E. (2001). Instructional media and technologies for learning (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  10. International Society of Technology in Education. (2008). National educational technology standards for teachers. Eugene, OR: Author.Google Scholar
  11. Jang, S.-J., & Chen, K.-C. (2010). From PCK to TPACK: Developing a transformative model for pre-service science teachers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(6), 553–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). Teachers learning technology by design. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 21(3), 94–102.Google Scholar
  13. Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Hershey, K., & Peruski, L. (2004). With a little help from your students: A new model for faculty development and online course design. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(1), 25–55.Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Mahdizadeh, H., Biemans, H., & Mulder, M. (2008). Determining factors of the use of e-learning environments by university teachers. Computers & Education, 51(1), 142–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ministry of Education. (2001). Information education report [in Chinese]. Taipei, Taiwan: Author. Retrieved from
  17. Ministry of Education. (2008). White paper on information technology education for elementary and junior high schools 2008–2011. Taipei, Taiwan: Author.Google Scholar
  18. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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), 509–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2008, May). New millennium learners: Initial findings on the effects of digital technologies on school-age learners. Paper presented at the OECD/CERI International Conference on Learning in the 21st Century: Research, Innovation and Policy, Paris, France. Retrieved from
  21. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2010). Inspired by technology, driven by pedagogy: A systemic approach to technology-based school innovations. Paris: Author. doi: 10.1787/9789264094437-en
  22. Pelgrum, W. J., & Doornekamp, B. G. (2009). Indicators on ICT in primary and secondary education (Report No. EACEA-2007-3278/001-001). Retrieved from Education, Audiovisual & Culture Executive Agency website:
  23. Reiser, R. A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology – Part II: A history of instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(2), 57–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sørebø, Ø., Halvari, H., Gulli, V. F., & Kristiansen, R. (2009). The role of self-determination theory in explaining teachers’ motivation to continue to use e-learning technology. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1177–1187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Thompson, A. D., & Mishra, P. (2007–2008). Breaking news: TPCK becomes TPACK! [Editorial]. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 24(2), 38 & 64.Google Scholar
  27. Wilson, E. K. (2003). Preservice secondary social studies teachers and technology integration: What do they think and do in their field experiences. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 20(1), 29–39.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Science Education Center, Graduate Institute of Science EducationNational Taiwan Normal UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  2. 2.Science Education Center, Graduate Institute of Science Education, Department of Earth SciencesNational Taiwan Normal UniversityTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations