You are here:

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: Pre-service Teachers’ Perception and Beliefs in Mathematics

, Southern Illinois University, United States ; , Jackson State University, United States ; , Indiana State University, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Jacksonville, Florida, United States ISBN 978-1-939797-07-0 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA


This study focuses on elementary pre-service teachers’ content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and technological pedagogical content knowledge of linear and quadratic equations. The relationships among Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) sub-scales and the effect of demographic variables on TPACK were examined. Participants included 79 pre-service from two mathematical courses, the content course and the methods course. Data were collected using a paper-based survey, and analyzed through quantitative techniques. Results indicated that pre-service teachers in the teacher education program had better pedagogical knowledge than those in the university core program. The five sub-scales of the algebra content were significantly correlated with each other. Levels of technology skills had a significant impact on pre-service teachers’ technology knowledge, technological content knowledge and TPACK.


Lin, C.Y., Kuo, Y.C. & Ko, Y.Y. (2014). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: Pre-service Teachers’ Perception and Beliefs in Mathematics. In M. Searson & M. Ochoa (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2014--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1422-1431). Jacksonville, Florida, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 24, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map


  1. Alcock, L., & Simpson, A. (2004). Convergence of sequences and series: Interactions between visual reasoning and “best deal” problem. In J. Kaput, D. Carraher, & M. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in the Early Grades (pp. 273-301).
  2. Common Core State Standards Initiative (2010). Common Core State Standards for mathematics. Retrieved December 10, 2011, from Chang, C.Y. (2002). Does computer-assisted instruction+ problem solving= improved science outcomes? A pioneer study. The Journal of Educational Research, 95, 143-150.
  3. Doerr, H. (2001). Learning algebra with technology: The affordances and constraints of two environments. In H. Chick, K. Stacey, J. Vincent, & J. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the twelfth study conferences of the International Commission on Mathematical Instruction: The future of the teaching and learning of algebra (Vol. 1, pp. 199-206). Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: The University of Melbourne.
  4. Doerr, H.M., & Pratt, D. (2007). The learning of mathematics and mathematical modeling in the context of technology. In M.K. Heid & G.W. Blume (Eds.), Research on technology and the teaching and learning of mathematics: Syntheses, cases, and perspectives. Vol. 1: Research syntheses. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
  5. Doerr, H.M., & Zangor, R. (1999). The teacher, the task and the tool: The emergence of classroom norms. The International Journal of Computer Algebra in Mathematics Education, 6, 267-279.
  6. Doerr, H.M., & Zangor, R. (2000). Creating meaning for and with the graphing calculator. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 41, 143-163.
  7. Falkner, K.P., Levi, L., & Carpenter, T.P. (1999). Children’s understanding of equality: A foundation for algebra. Teaching Children Mathematics, 6(4), 56-60.
  8. Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine Publishing Company.
  9. Graham, A., & Thomas, M. (2000). Building a versatile understanding of algebraic variables with a graphic calculator. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 41(3), 265-282.
  10. Hazzan, O. (2000). Attitudes of prospective high school mathematics teachers toward technology integrating information technologies into their future teaching. (ERIC Documentation Reproduction Services No. ED493688.)
  11. Hershkowitz, R. (1990). Psychological aspects of learning geometry. In P. Nesher & J. Kilpatrick (Eds), Mathematics and Cognition (pp. 70-95). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  12. Hill, H.C., Ball, D.L., & Schilling, S.G. (2008). Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge: Conceptualizing and measuring teachers’ topic-specific knowledge of students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39, 372-400.
  13. Hoyles, C., Noss, R., & Kent, P. (2004). On the integration of digital technologies into mathematics classrooms. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9, 309-326.
  14. Isiksal, M., & Askar, P. (2005) The effect of spreadsheet and dynamic geometry software on the achievement and self-efficacy of 7th-grade students. Educational Research, 47(3), 333-350.
  15. Jan, S.J., & Tsai, M.F. (2012). Exploring the TPACK of Taiwanese elementary mathematics and science teachers with respect to use of interactive whiteboards. Computers& Education, 59, 327-338.
  16. Janvier, C. (1987). Representation and understanding: the notion of function as an example. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 67-71). Hillsdale, NJ:
  17. Kaput, J.J. (1987). Towards a theory of symbol use in mathematics. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 159-195). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  18. Kaput, J.J. (1989). Supporting concrete visual thinking in multiplicative reasoning: Difficulties and opportunities. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 11(1), 35-47.
  19. Kendal, M., & Stacey, K. (1999). Varieties of teacher privileging for teaching calculus with computer algebra systems. The International Journal of Computer Algebra in Mathematics Education, 6(4), 233-247.
  20. Kersaint, G. (2007). Toward technology integration in mathematics education: A technology-integration course planning assignment. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 7(4), 256-278.
  21. Kersaint, G., Horton, B., Stohl, H., & Garofalo, J. (2003). Technology beliefs and practices of mathematics education faculty. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 11(4), 567-595.
  22. Kieran, C. (1981) Concepts associated with the equality symbol. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12, 317-326.
  23. Kieran, C., & Sfard, A. (1999). Seeing through symbols: the case of equivalent expressions. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 21(1). 1-17.
  24. Knuth, E.J., Stephens, A.C., McNeil, N.M., & Alibali, M.W. (2006). Does understanding the equal sign matter? Evidence from solving equations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(4), 297-312.
  25. Koehler, M.J. & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing technological pedagogical content knowledge. In AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Eds.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge for teaching and teacher educators, 3-29. New York: Routledge.
  26. Küchemann, D. (1981). Algebra. In Hart, K. (Ed.), Children’s understanding of mathematics: 11-16 (pp. 102-109). London: John Murray.
  27. Lannin, J. (2005). Generalization and justification: The challenge of introducing algebraic reasoning through patterning activities. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 7(3), 231-258.
  28. Larkin, K., Jamieson-Proctor, R., & Finger, G. (2012). TPACK and pre-service teacher mathematics education: Defining a signature pedagogy for mathematics eEducation using ICT and based on the metaphor “mathematics is a language.” Computers in the Schools, 29, 207-226.
  29. Lavy, I. (2007). A case study of dynamic visualization and problem solving. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 38(8), 1075–1092.
  30. Levine, T. (1994). A computer-based program can make a difference: The case of the Rediscover Science program. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 20, 283-296.
  31. Looi, C.K., & Lim, K.S. (2009). From bar diagrams to letter-symbolic algebra: A technology-enabled bridging. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 358–374.
  32. McCoy, L.P. (1991). The effect of geometry tool software on high school geometry achievement. Journal of Computers in Mathematics& Science Teaching, 10, 51-57.
  33. Meagher, M., Ozgun-Koca, S.A., & Edwards, M.T. (2011). Preservice teachers’ experiences with advanced digital technologies: The interplay between technology in a preservice classroom and in field placements. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 11(3), 243-270.
  34. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teachers’ knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
  35. National Council of Teacher of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standard for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
  36. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2009). Focus in high school mathematics: Reasoning and sensemaking. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
  37. National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
  38. Nwabueze, K.K. (2006). Technology class format versus traditional class format in undergraduate algebra. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 15(1), 79-93.
  39. Olkun, S., Altun, A., Smith, G. (2005). Computers and 2D geometric learning of Turkish fourth and fifth graders. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36 (2), 317-326.
  40. Pinto, M.M.F., & Tall, D. (1999). Student constructions of formal theories: Giving and extracting meaning. Proceedings of the Twenty-third conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, 281-288). Haifa, Israel.
  41. Philipp, R.A. (2008). Motivating prospective elementary school teachers to learn mathematics by focusing upon children’s mathematical thinking. Issues in Teacher Education, 17(2), 7-26.
  42. Pugalee, D.K. (2001). Algebra for all: The role of technology and constructivism in an algebra course for at-risk students. Preventing School Failure, 45(4), 171-176.
  43. Richardson, S. (2009). Mathematics teachers’ development, exploration, and advancement of technological pedagogical content knowledge in the teaching and learning of algebra. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(2), 117-130.
  44. Schmidt, D.A., Baran, E., Thompson A.D., Koehler, M.J., Mishra, P. & Shin, T. (2009). Technological 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.
  45. Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
  46. Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
  47. Sinclair M. (2004). Working with accurate representations: the case of preconstructed dynamic geometry sketches. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 23(2), 191-208.
  48. Steinberg, R., Sleeman, D., & Ktorza, D. (1991). Algebra students’ knowledge of equivalence of equations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(2), 112-121
  49. Tajudin, N.M., Tarmizi, R.A., Ali, W.Z.W., & Konting, M.M. (2009). The effects of using graphing calculators in teaching and learning of mathematics on students’ performance. Jurnal Sains dan Matematik, 1(2), 1-28.
  50. Tabach, M., Hershkowitz, R., & Arcavi, A. (2008). Learning beginning algebra with spreadsheets in a computer intensive environment. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 27(1), 48-63.
  51. Vaiyavutjamai, P., & Clements, M.A. (2006). Effects of classroom instruction on students’ understanding of quadratic equations. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 18(1), 47-77.
  52. Vaiyavutjamai, P., Ellerton, N.F., & Clements, M.A. (2005). Students’ attempts to solve two elementary quadratic equations: A study in three nations. In P. Clarkson, A. Downton, D., Gronn, M. Horne, A. McDonagh, R. Pierce, & A. Roche (Eds.), Building connections: Research, theory and practice (pp. 735-742). Sydney, Australia:
  53. Zbiek, R.M., Hied, M.K., Blume, G., & Dick, T.P. (2007). Research on technology in mathematics education: The perspective of constructs. In F. Lester (Ed.), SecondHandbook of Research on Mathematics and Learning (pp. 1169-1207), New York: Information Age.

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

Also Read

Related Collections