You are here:

How Pre-service Teachers Learn Educational Technology with the Situated Learning Approach

, Istanbul University, Turkey

Journal of Technology and Teacher Education Volume 26, Number 2, ISSN 1059-7069 Publisher: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, Waynesville, NC USA


This research investigated pre-service teachers’ motivation, learning strategies, and engagement in a situated learning based educational technology course. In this study, correlational research design was used. The sample of this study was 65 second year science education pre-service teachers. The data were collected through two questionnaires. Descriptive and multiple linear regression analyses were carried out. According to the results, pre-service teachers’ engagement and motivation were at a high level; they mostly used sophisticated learning strategies such as organization, elaboration, critical thinking, and metacognitive self-regulation. The results also indicated that the significant predictors of engagement were organization, task value, and effort regulation. Critical thinking, effort regulation, organization, and peer learning strategies were significant predictors of metacognitive self-regulation. The findings are discussed in detail in this paper, and implications are offered for both future studies and the design of effective courses in situated learning based educational technology.


Kucuk, S. (2018). How Pre-service Teachers Learn Educational Technology with the Situated Learning Approach. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 26(2), 249-274. Waynesville, NC USA: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education. Retrieved November 21, 2018 from .

View References & Citations Map


  1. Anderson, S., & Maninger, R. (2007). Pre-service teachers’ abilities, beliefs, and intentions regarding technology integration. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37(2), 151-172.
  2. Angeli, C. (2005). Transforming a teacher education method course through technology: Effects on pre-service teachers’ technology competency. Computers & Education, 45(4), 383–398.
  3. Barab, S. A., & Duffy, T. M. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice. In D. Jonassen, & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  4. Bate, F. (2010). A bridge too far? Explaining beginning teachers’ use of ICT in Australian schools. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26, 1042-1061.
  5. Baydas, O., & Goktas, Y. (2016a). Influential factors on pre-service teachers’ intentions to use ICT in future lessons. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 170-178.
  6. Baydas, O., & Goktas, Y. (2016b). A model for pre-service teachers’ intentions to use ICT in future lessons. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-16
  7. Black, S. (2005). Teaching students to think critically. The Education Digest, 70(6), 42–47.
  8. Bransford, J. D., Sherwood, R., Vye, N. J., & Rieser, J. (1986). Teaching thinking and problem solving. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1078-1089.
  9. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
  10. Brun, M., & Hinostroza, J. E. (2014). Learning to become a teacher in the 21st century: ICT integration in Initial Teacher Education in Chile. Educational Technology & Society, 17, 222-238.
  11. Buyukozturk, S., Akgun, O. E., Ozkahveci, O., & Demirel, F. (2004). The validity and reliability study of the Turkish version of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 4, 231- 239.
  12. Cakir, H. (2013). Use of blogs in pre-service teacher education to improve student engagement. Computers & Education, 68, 244-252.
  13. Choy, S. C., & Cheah, P. K. (2009). Teacher perceptions of critical thinking among students and its influence on higher education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(2), 198–206.
  14. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19(6), 2-10.
  15. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1993a). Anchored instruction and situated cognition revisited. Educational Technology, 33(3), 52-70.
  16. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1993b). Designing learning environments that support thinking: The Jasper Series as a case study. In T. M.
  17. Collier, S., Weinburgh, M. H., & Rivera, M. (2004). Infusing technology skills into a teacher education program: Change in students’ knowledge about and use of technology. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(3), 447–468.
  18. Collins, A., Brown, J.S., & Newman, S.E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. L. B. Resnick (Ed), Knowing, learning, and instruction. Hillside, New Jersey: Erlbaum. 283-305.
  19. Collins, A. (1993). Design issues for learning environments. (Technical report No. 27). New York, NY: Northwestern University, Center for Technology in Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 357 733)
  20. Crowl, T. K., Kaminsky, S., & Podell, D. M. (1997). Educational psychology: Windows on teaching. Madison, WI: Brown and Benchmark.
  21. Dawson, K. (2012). Using action research projects to examine teacher technology integration practices. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 28(3), 117-124
  22. Dickey, M. (2008). Integrating cognitive apprenticeship methods in a web-based educational technology course for P-12 teacher education. Computers & Education, 51, 506-518.
  23. Downes, J.M., & Bishop, P. (2012). Educators engage digital natives and learn from their experiences with technology. Middle School Journal, 43(5), 6-15
  24. Eren, A. (2013) Prospective teachers’ perceptions of instrumentality, boredom coping strategies, and four aspects of engagement. Teaching Education, 24(3), 302-326.
  25. Fraenkel, J., Wallen, N., & Hyun, H.H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.
  26. Garner, R., & Alexander, P. A. (1989). Metacognition: Answered and unanswered questions. Educational Psychologist, 24, 143–148.
  27. Goktas, Y., Yildirim, S., & Yildirim, Z. (2009). Main barriers and possible enablers of ICTs integration into pre-service teacher education programs. Educational Technology & Society, 12(1), 193–204.
  28. Greeno, J. G., Smith, D. R., & Moore, J. L. (1993). Transfer of situated learning. In D. K. Detterman, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition, and instruction (pp. 99-167). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  29. Griffin, M. M. (1995). You can’t get there from here: Situated learning, transfer and map skills. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 65-87.
  30. Goos, M., & Galbraith, P. (1996). Do it this way! Metacognitive strategies in collaborative mathematical problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 30, 229-260.
  31. Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking across domains: Dispositions, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53(4), 449–455.
  32. Hannafin, M., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory. Mawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  33. Hernandez-Ramos, P., & Giancarlo, C. A. (2004). Situating teacher education: From the university classroom to the “real” classroom. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 20(3), 121-128.
  34. Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (1995). Critical characteristics of situated learning: Implications for the instructional design of multimedia. In J. Pearce & A. Ellis (Eds.), Learning with technology (pp. 235-262). Parkville, Vic: University of Melbourne.
  35. Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (1999). Using situated learning and multimedia to investigate higher-order thinking. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 10(1), 3e24.
  36. Huang, K., Lubin, I.A., & Ge, X . (2011). Situated learning in an educational technology course for pre-service teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education,
  37. 27 (2011), 1200-1212.
  38. Iiskala, T., Vauras, M., & Lehtinen, E. (2004). Socially-shared metacognition in peer learning. Hellenic Journal of Psychology, 1, 147–178.
  39. Johnson, A. L. (2013). The effect of getting things done software on the motivation and self-regulation of pre-service teachers in an introductory educational technology course (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Oklahoma State University, Oklahoma.
  40. Kaufman, K. (2015). Information communication technology: Challenges & Some prospects from pre-service education to the classroom. Mid-Atlantic Education Review, 2, 1-11
  41. Kiewra, K. A., & DuBois, N. F. (1998). Learning to learn: Making the transition from student to lifelong learner. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
  42. Kim, H. (2005). Situated learning with cases: Web-enhanced case-based reasoning in teacher education. Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens.
  43. Kuhn, D., & Dean, D. (2004). Metacognition: A bridge between cognitive psychology and educational practice. Theory into Practice, 43(4), 268–274.
  44. Liu, S. (2012). A multivariate model of factors influencing technology use by pre-service teachers during practice teaching. Educational Technology & Society,15(4), 137-149.
  45. Lubin, I. A. (2005). A study comparing learning environments for teaching educational technology to pre-service teachers. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK.
  46. Lubin, I.A., & Ge, X. (2012). Investigating the influences of a LEAPS model on pre-service teachers’ problem solving, metacognition, and motivation in an educational technology course. Education Tech Research Dev, 60, 239–270. Magno, C. The role of metacognitive skills in developing critical thinking. Metacognition and Learning, 5(2), 137-156.
  47. Martinez, M., & Schilling, S. (2010). Using technology to engage and educate youth. New Directions for Youth Development, 127, 51-61.
  48. McLellan, H. (1991). Virtual environments and situated learning. Multimedia Review, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 30-37.
  49. Mills, N. (2011). Situated learning through social networking communities: The development of joint enterprise, mutual engagement, and a shared repertoire. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 345-368.
  50. National Educational Technology Plan (2017). Reimagining the role of technology in education. Retrieved from Pdf
  51. Nickerson, R. S. (1994). The teaching of thinking and problem solving. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Thinking and problem solving (pp. 121–132). San Diego: Academic.
  52. 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
  53. Pierson, M., & Cozart, A. (2004). Case studies of future teachers: Learning to teach with technology. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 21(2), 59–63.
  54. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T. & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A Manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning. Michigan: School of Education Building, The University of Michigan. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED338122)
  55. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D.A.F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801-814.
  56. Pope, M., Hare, D., & Howard, E. (2005). Enhancing technology use in student teaching: A case study. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13, 573–618.
  57. Polly, D., Mims, C., Shepherd, C. E., & 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, 863– 870.
  58. Reeve, J., & Tseng, C. M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 257–267.
  59. Reeve, J. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves: The concept of agentic engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 579.
  60. Richards, J., Sweet, L., & Billett, S. (2013). Preparing medical students as agentic learners through enhancing student engagement in clinical education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 14(4), 251-263.
  61. Sen, S. & Yilmaz, A. (2016). Devising a structural equation model of relationships between pre-service teachers’ time and study environment management, effort regulation, self-efficacy, control of learning beliefs, and metacognitive self-regulation. Science Education International, 27 (2), 301-316.
  62. Schroyens, W. (2005). Knowledge and thought: An introduction to critical thinking. Experimental Psychology, 52(2), 163–164.
  63. Shaltry, C., Henriksen, D., Wu, M. L., & Dickson, P. (2013). Teaching pre-service teachers to integrate technology: Situated learning with online portfolios, classroom websites and Facebook. TechTrends 57(3) 20-25.
  64. Shernoff, D. J., & Hoogstra, L. (2001). Continuing motivation beyond the high school classroom. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2001(93), 73–88.
  65. So, H., & Kim, B. (2009). Learning about problem based learning: Student teachers integrating technology, pedagogy and content knowledge. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(1), 101–116.
  66. Sungur, S. (2007). Modelling the relationships among students’ motivational beliefs, metacognitive strategy use, and effort regulation. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 51(3), 315-326.
  67. Thompson, A., Schmidt, D., & Hadjiyianni, E. (1995). A three year program to infuse technology throughout a teacher education program. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 3, 13–24.
  68. A. (2012). Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology in education: a synthesis of qualitative evidence. Computers & Education, 59(1), 134e144.
  69. Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Siddiq, F., & Scherer, R. (2016). Time for a new approach to prepare future teachers for educational technology use: Its meaning and measurement. Computers & Education, 94, 134-150.
  70. Tondeur, J., Scherer, R. Siddiq, F., & Baran, E. (2017). A comprehensive investigation of TPACK within pre-service teachers’ ICT profiles: Mind the gap! Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(3), 46-60.
  71. Wilson, A.L. (1993). The promise of situated cognition. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 57, 71-79.
  72. Winn, W. (1993). Instructional design and situated learning: Paradox or partnership? Educational Technology, 33(3), 16-21.
  73. Young, M. F. (1993). Instructional design for situated learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(1), 43-58.
  74. Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 21, 3–18.
  75. Zimmerman, B. J. (1994). Dimensions of academic self-regulation: A conceptual framework for education. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and performance. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  76. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academy.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact