104
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Article

Examining the impact on TPACK and knowledge subcomponents in dually certifying secondary mathematics teacher candidates with a Computer Science add-on endorsement

ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon & ORCID Icon
Received 29 Dec 2023, Accepted 30 May 2024, Published online: 05 Jun 2024

References

  • Abbitt, J. T. (2011). Measuring technological pedagogical content knowledge in preservice teacher education: A review of current methods and instruments. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(4), 281–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2011.10782573
  • Agyei, D., & Voogt, J. (2011). Determining Teachers’ TPACK through observations and self-report data. In Society for information technology & teacher education international conference (pp. 2314–2319). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
  • Aktaş, İ., & Özmen, H. (2020). Investigating the impact of TPACK development course on pre-service science teachers’ performances. Asia Pacific Education Review, 21(4), 667–682. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-020-09653-x
  • Akyuz, D. (2018). Measuring technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) through performance assessment. Computers & Education, 125, 212–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.012
  • American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & the National Council on Measurement in Education (2014). Standards for educational and psychological measurement in education. American Educational Research Association.
  • Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT–TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52(1), 154–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.006
  • Archambault, L. (2016). Exploring the use of qualitative methods to examine TPACK. In Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) for educators (pp. 75–96) Routledge.
  • Archambault, L. M., & Barnett, J. H. (2010). Revisiting technological pedagogical content knowledge: Exploring the TPACK framework. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1656–1662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.009
  • Au, K. H. (2002). Communities of practice: Engagement, imagination, and alignment in research on teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(3), 222–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487102053003005
  • Belanger, J. (2017). Why a lack of STEM teachers could jeopardise the Canada 2067 vision. Canada 2067: The science of a successful tomorrow.
  • Camera, L. (2019). Sharp nationwide enrollment drop in teacher prep programs cause for alarm. US News & World Report.
  • Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., Tsai, C. C., & Tan, L. L. W. (2011). Modeling primary school pre-service teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) for meaningful learning with information and communication technology (ICT). Computers & Education, 57(1), 1184–1193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.01.007
  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487193044004004
  • College Board (2020). AP Computer Science principles course and exam description. The College Board. https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/pdf/ap-computer-science-principles-course-and-exam-description.pdf
  • Computer Science Teachers Association (2013). Bugs in the system: Computer Science teacher certification in the U.S. technical report. Association for Computing Machinery.
  • Computer Science Teachers Association Curriculum Improvement Task Force (2005). The new educational imperative: Improving high school Computer Science education. Association for Computing Machinery.
  • Cox, S., & Graham, C. R. (2009). Diagramming TPACK in practice: Using an elaborated model of the TPACK framework to analyze and depict teacher knowledge. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 53(5), 60–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-009-0327-1
  • Educational Testing Services (ETS). (2014). ETS standards for quality and fairness. Author. https://www.ets.org/content/dam/ets-org/pdfs/praxis/validity.pdf
  • Ernest, P. (1989). The impact of beliefs on the teaching of mathematics. In P. Ernest, (Ed.), Mathematics teaching: The state of the art (pp. 249–254) Falmer Press.
  • Gal-Ezer, J. (1995). Computer Science teachers’ certification program. Computers & Education, 25(3), 163–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-1315(95)00040-2
  • Gal-Ezer, J., & Stephenson, C. (2009). The current state of Computer Science in US high schools: A report from two national surveys. Journal for Computing Teachers, 1(13), 1–5.
  • Giannakos, M. N., Doukakis, S., Pappas, I. O., Adamopoulos, N., & Giannopoulou, P. (2015). Investigating teachers’ confidence on technological pedagogical and content knowledge: An initial validation of TPACK scales in K-12 computing education context. Journal of Computers in Education, 2(1), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-014-0024-8
  • Gleason, J., Livers, S. D., & Zelkowski, J. (2017). Mathematics classroom observation protocol for practices (MCOP2): Validity and reliability. Investigations in Mathematical Learning, 9(3), 111–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/19477503.2017.1308697
  • Gleason, J., Livers, S. D., Zelkowski, J. (2015). Mathematics classroom observation protocol for practices MCOP2: Descriptive manual. Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama. http://jgleason.people.ua.edu/mcop2.html
  • Google Inc. & Gallup Inc. (2016). Trends in the state of Computer Science in U.S. K-12 schools. http://goo.gl/j291E0.
  • Graham, C. R. (2011). Theoretical considerations for understanding technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 57(3), 1953–1960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.010
  • Graham, R. C., Burgoyne, N., Cantrell, P., Smith, L., St Clair, L., & Harris, R. (2009). TPACK development in science teaching: Measuring the TPACK confidence of inservice science teachers. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 53(5), 70–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-009-0328-0
  • Gray, J., Odom-Bartel, R. L., Zelkowski, J., Hamner, K., & Rogers-Farris, S. (2020). A pre-service pathway for preparing future AP CS Principles teachers. In Heckman, S., Monge, A., & Cutter, P. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 51st ACTM technical symposium on Computer Science education (pp. 1127–1132). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3328778.3366945
  • Guerriero, S. (2017). (ed.) Pedagogical knowledge and the changing nature of the teaching profession, educational research and innovation. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264270695-en
  • Handal, B., Campbell, C., Cavanagh, M., Petocz, P., & Kelly, N. (2012). Integrating technology, pedagogy and content in mathematics education. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 31(4), 387–413.
  • Hollebrands, K., McCulloch, A. W., & Lee, H. S. (2016). Prospective teachers’ incorporation of technology in mathematics lesson plans. In M. Niess (Ed.), Handbook of research on transforming mathematics teacher education in the digital age (pp. 272–292). IGI Global.
  • Joo, Y. J., Park, S., & Lim, E. (2018). Factors influencing preservice teachers’ intention to use technology: TPACK, teacher self-efficacy, and technology acceptance model. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(3), 48–59. https://doi.org/10.30191/ETS.201807_21(3).0005
  • Kane, M., & Bridgeman, B, M. von Davier ((2017). Research on validity theory and practice at ETS. In R.E. Bennett (Eds.), Advancing human assessment: The methodological, psychological and policy contributions of ETS (pp. 489–552). Springer.
  • Khoury, G. (2007). Computer Science state certification requirements. CSTA Certification Committee Report. http://csta.acm.org/ComputerScienceTeacherCertification/sub/CertificationResearch.html
  • Kleiner, B., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2007). Educational technology in teacher education programs for initial licensure (NCES 2008-040). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
  • Koehler, M., Shin, T. S., & Mishra, P. (2012). How do we measure TPACK: Let me count the ways. In R. R. Ronau, C. R. rakes, & M. L. Niess (Eds.), Educational technology, teacher knowledge, and classroom impact: A research handbook on frameworks and approaches (pp. 16–31) IGI Global.
  • Kong, S. C., Lai, M., & Sun, D. (2020). Teacher development in computational thinking: Design and learning outcomes of programming concepts, practices and pedagogy. Computers & Education, 151, 103872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103872
  • Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575–614. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307309921
  • Learning Policy Institute (2018). Understanding teacher shortages: 2018 update.
  • Leatham, K., et al. (2008). The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge in “technology, pedagogy and mathematics” courses in the U.S. In K. McFerrin (Eds.), Proceedings of society for information technology & teacher education international conference 2008 (pp. 5277–5283). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
  • Livers, S. D., Zelkowski, J., Harbour, K. E., McDaniel, S., & Gleason, J. (2020). An examination of the relationships of mathematics self-efficacy and teaching practices among elementary, secondary, and special education teachers. Investigations in Mathematical Learning, 12(2), 96–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/19477503.2019.1670891
  • Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., & Vojt, G. (2011). Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies. Computers & Education, 56(2), 429–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.004
  • Marsden, E., & Torgerson, C. J. (2012). Single group, pre- and post-test research designs: Some methodological concerns. Oxford Review of Education, 38(5), 583–616. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2012.731208
  • McCulloch, A. W., Hollebrands, K., Lee, H., Harrison, T., & Mutlu, A. (2018). Factors that influence secondary mathematics teachers’ integration of technology in mathematics lessons. Computers & Education, 123, 26–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.04.008
  • Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810610800610
  • Mouza, C., Karchmer-Klein, R., Nandakumar, R., Ozden, S. Y., & Hu, L. (2014). Investigating the impact of an integrated approach to the development of preservice teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 71, 206–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.020
  • Mouza, C., Yang, H., Pan, Y. C., Ozden, S. Y., & Pollock, L. (2017). Resetting educational technology coursework for pre-service teachers: A computational thinking approach to the development of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(3), 61–76. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3521
  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.03.006
  • Niess, M. L., Ronau, R. N., Shafer, K. G., Driskell, S. O., Harper, S. R., Johnston, C., Browning, C., Özgün-Koca, S. A., & Kersaint, G. (2009). Mathematics teacher TPACK standards and development model. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 4–24.
  • Odom-Bartel, B., Zelkowski, J., & Gray, J. (2021). Preparing secondary education mathematics teacher candidates for AP Computer Science Principles: A two-course design model. In Mouza, C., Yadav, A., and Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (Eds.), Preparing pre-service teachers to teach Computer Science: Models, practices, and policies (pp. 153–172). Information Age Publishing, Inc.
  • Ofem, B., Polizzi, S. J., Rushton, G. T., Beeth, M., Couch, B., Doering, J., Konz, R., Mohr-Schroeder, M., Roehrig, G., & Sheppard, K. (2021). Looking at our STEM teacher workforce: How to model self-efficacy. Economic Development Quarterly, 35(1), 40–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242420973758
  • Partelow, L. (2019). What to make of declining enrollment in teacher preparation programs. Center for American Progress.
  • 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.
  • Polly, D., Mims, C., Shepherd, C., & Inan, F. (2010). Evidence of impact: Transforming teacher education with preparing tomorrow’s teachers to teach with technology (PT3) grants. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 863–870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.024
  • Roberts, S., Glennon, M. O., Weissman, H., Fletcher, C., Dunton, S., Baskin, J., Mak, J. (2022). State of Computer Science education: Understanding our national imperative. Code.org, CSTA, & ECEP Alliance. https://advocacy.code.org/stateofcs
  • Ronau, R. N., Rakes, C. R., Bush, S. B., Driskell, S. O., Niess, M. L., & Pugalee, D. K. (2014). A survey of mathematics education technology dissertation scope and quality: 1968–2009. American Educational Research Journal, 51(5), 974–1006. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214531813
  • Roussinos, D., & Jimoyiannis, A. (2019). Examining primary education teachers’ perceptions of TPACK and the related educational context factors. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 51(4), 377–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2019.1666323
  • Scherer, R., Tondeur, J., & Siddiq, F. (2017). On the quest for validity: Testing the factor structure and measurement invariance of the technology-dimensions in the Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge (TPACK) model. Computers & Education, 112, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.04.012
  • Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technology pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2009.10782544
  • Schrader, P. G., & Lawless, K. A. (2004). The knowledge, attitudes, & behaviors approach how to evaluate performance and learning in complex environments. Performance Improvement, 43(9), 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.4140430905
  • Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference (2nd ed.). Cengage Learning.
  • Shadish, W. R., & Luellen, J. K. (2012). Quasi-experimental design. In Green, J.L., Camilli, G. & Elmore, P.B. (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 539–550) Routledge.
  • Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.2307/1175860
  • Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity (SCALE). (2020). Recommended professional performance standards. https://www.edtpa.com/PageView.aspx?f=GEN_PerformanceStandard.html
  • Stipek, D. J., Givvin, K. B., Salmon, J. M., & MacGyvers, V. L. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs and practices related to mathematics instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(2), 213–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(00)00052-4
  • Štuikys, V., Burbaitė, R., Bespalova, K., & Ziberkas, G. (2016). Model-driven processes and tools to design robot-based generative learning objects for Computer Science education. Science of Computer Programming, 129, 48–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2016.03.009
  • The White House (2016). Fact sheet: President Obama announces Computer Science for all initiative. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-pressoffice/2016/01/30/factsheet-president-obama-announces-computer-science-all-initiative.
  • Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1
  • Turner, A. J. (1985). Computer Science in secondary schools: Curriculum and teacher certification. Communications of the ACM, 28(3), 269–279. https://doi.org/10.1145/3166.3168
  • Voithofer, R., & Nelson, M. J. (2021). Teacher educator technology integration preparation practices around TPACK in the United States. Journal of Teacher Education, 72(3), 314–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487120949842
  • Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Pareja Roblin, N., Tondeur, J., & van Braak, J. (2013). Technological pedagogical content knowledge – A review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(2), 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00487.x
  • Warner, C. K., & Hallman, H. L. (2017). A communities of practice approach to field experiences in teacher education. Brock Education Journal, 26(2), 16–32. https://doi.org/10.26522/brocked.v26i2.603
  • Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.
  • Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Harvard Business Press.
  • Yadav, A., & Korb, J. T. (2012). Learning to teach Computer Science: The need for a methods course. Communications of the ACM, 55(11), 31–33. https://doi.org/10.1145/2366316.2366327
  • Zelkowski, J. (2011a). Developing secondary mathematics preservice teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge: Influencing positive change. In Maddux C.D., Gibson, D., Dodge, B., Owen, C., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (Eds.), Research highlights in technology and teacher education 2011 (pp. 31–38). Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/38606/
  • Zelkowski, J. (2011b). The TI-Nspire CAS: A happy-medium mobile device for grades 9–16 mathematics classrooms. TechTrends, 55(3), 40–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-011-0496-6
  • Zelkowski, J. (2013). Making sense of extraneous solutions. Mathematics Teacher, 106(6), 452–458. https://doi.org/10.5951/mathteacher.106.6.0452
  • Zelkowski, J., Campbell, T. G., & Gleason, J. (2018). Programmatic effects of capstone math content and math methods courses on teacher licensure exams. In Smith, W.M., Lawler, B.R., Strayer, J.F. & Augustyn, L. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Annual Mathematics Teacher Education – Partnership Conference (pp. 91–96) Association of Public Land-grant Universities.
  • Zelkowski, J., Campbell, T. G., & Moldavan, A. M. (2024b). The relationships between internal program measures and a high-stakes teacher licensing measure in mathematics teacher preparation: Program design considerations. Journal of Teacher Education, 75(1), 58–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224871231180214
  • Zelkowski, J., & Gleason, J. (2016). Using the MCOP2 as a grade bearing assessment of clinical field observations. In Lawler, B.R., Ronau, R.N. & Mohr-Schroeder, M.J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th annual mathematics teacher education – Partnership conference (pp. 129–138). Association of Public Land-grant Universities.
  • Zelkowski, J., & Gleason, J. (2018). Programmatic effects on high stakes measures in secondary math teacher preparation. In Venenciano, L. and Redmond-Sanogo, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 45th Annual meeting of the research council on mathematics learning (pp. 169–176). https://www.rcml-math.org/assets/Proceedings/rcml%20proceedings%202018.pdf
  • Zelkowski, J., Gleason, J., Cox, D., & Bismarck, S. (2013). Developing and validating a reliable TPACK instrument for secondary mathematics preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(2), 173–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2013.10782618
  • Zelkowski, J., Makowski, M. B., Campbell, T. G., Gleason, J., Thomas, C. A., Mudd, A., Lewis, A. K., Gooden, C., & Smith, F. A. (2024a). Leveraging longitudinal and annual analyses to improve program design: Considering teacher education standards and professional recommendations. In Benken, B. (Ed.), Reflection on past, present and future: Paving the way for the future of mathematics teacher education (pp. 447–475). Information Age Publishing, Inc.
  • Zelkowski, J., Odom-Bartel, R. L., & Gray, J. (2022b). Integrating Computer Science teacher certification into a secondary mathematics teacher preparation program: The highlights. AMTE Connections, 32(1), 1–6. Retrieved from https://amte.net/connections/2022/05/connections-thematic-articles-integration-mathematics-teacher-education.
  • Zelkowski, J., Yow, J., Waller, P., Edwards, B. P., Anthony, H. G., Campbell, T. G., Keefe, A., & Wilson, C. (2022c). Linking the field-based mentor teacher to university coursework: Methods course modules for completing the triad of learning for mathematics teacher candidates. In Polly, D. & Garin, E. (Eds.), Preparing quality teachers: Advances in clinical practice (pp. 579–608). Information Age Publishing.
  • Zelkowski, J. (2011c). Teaching mathematics with technology: A longitudinal study of secondary preservice teacher Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) development. Paper presented at the 2011 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. AERA Online Paper Repository. https://www.aera.net/Publications/Online-Paper-Repository/AERA-Online-Paper-Repository
  • Zelkowski, J., & Campbell, T. G. (2020). Praxis II and edTPA effect sizes of teacher preparation program design: A path analysis study. Paper presented at the 2020 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. AERA Online Paper Repository. https://doi.org/10.3102/1571148
  • Zelkowski, J., Odom-Bartel, R. L., & Gray, J. (2022a). Two-course sequence and modules for adding Computer Science credential into secondary mathematics teacher preparation. Paper presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. AERA Online Paper Repository. https://doi.org/10.3102/1892543
  • Zhu, M., & Wang, C. (2023). K-12 Computer Science teaching strategies, challenges, and teachers’ professional development opportunities and needs. Computers in the Schools, 41(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2023.2178868

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.