You are here:

Mathematical Content, Pedagogy, and Technology: What It Can Mean to Practicing Teachers

, , Texas State University, United States

AACE Award

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


ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study is to look at how practicing teachers integrate technology based instruction involving the study of number concepts, geometry, and statistic and probability, during their masters program. Though results show significant improvement, there is a need for district support in the form of one-to-one technology for all students if technology is to become a seamless student tool. The program’s courses produced a positive attitude about technology, pedagogy, and content (mathematics) knowledge (TPACK) that lasted a year after the program was completed.


Bos, B. & Lee, K. (2014). Mathematical Content, Pedagogy, and Technology: What It Can Mean to Practicing Teachers. In M. Searson & M. Ochoa (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2014--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2218-2227). Jacksonville, Florida, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 22, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map


  1. 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.
  2. Barkatsas, A., Kasimatis, K., & Vasilis Gialamas, V. (2009). Learning secondary mathematics with technology:Exploring the complex interrelationship between students’ attitudes, engagement, gender and achievement. Computers& Education, 52(3), 562–570. Http://,B.(2011).Teacherspreparation using TPACK when fidelity of treatment is defined. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 11(2), 167-183. AACE. Retrieved February 1, 2014 from
  3. Conlon, T., & Simpson, M. (2003). Silicon Valley versus Silicon Glen: The impact of computers upon teaching and learning: A comparative study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(2), 137-150.
  4. Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813-834.
  5. Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M.W. (2011). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(6), 81-92.
  6. Desimone, L.M. (2011). A primer on effective professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(6), 68-71.
  7. Dick, T., & Burrill, G. (2009). Technology and teaching and learning mathematics at the secondary level: Implications for teacher preparation and development. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators, Orlando FL.
  8. Donnelly, R. (2010). Harmonizing technology with interaction in blended problem-based learning. Computers& Education, 54, 350-359.
  9. Earle, R.S. (2002). The integration of instructional technology into public education: Promises and challenges. ET Magazine, 42(1), 5-13.
  10. Franklin, C., Kader, G., Mewborn, D., Moreno, J., Peck, R., Perry, M., & Scheaffer, R. (2007). Guidelines for Assessment and Instruction in Statistics Education (GAISE) Report: A Pre-K-12 Curriculum Framework. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association. Retrieved from Gordon, M. (2009). Toward a pragmatic discourse of constructivism: Reflections on lessons from practice, Educational Studies, 45, 39-58.
  11. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York, NY: Routledge.
  12. Hill, C.J., Bloom, H.S., Black, A.R., & Lipsey, M.W. (2007). Empirical benchmarks for interpreting effect sizes in research. New York, NY: MDRC.
  13. International Society for Technology in Education. (2008). National educational technology standards for teachers 2008. Retrieved from From positivism to an epistemology of complexity: Grounding rigorous
  14. Kincheloe, J. (2000). Eds.) & D. Weil (, Standards and Schooling in the United States, An Encyclopedia, Volume Two, pp. 325-396.
  15. Koehler, M.J., Mishra, P., Bouck, E.C., DeSchryver, M., Kereluik, K., Shin, T.S., & Wolf, L.G. (2011). Deep play: developing TPACK for 21st century teachers. International Journal of Learning Technology, 6(2), 146-163.
  16. Li, Q., & Ma, X. (2010). A meta-analysis of the effects of computer technology on school students’ mathematics learning. Educational Psychology Review. 22(3), 215-244.
  17. Lyublinksaya, I., & Tournaki, N. (2011). The effects of teacher content authoring on TPACK and on student achievement in algebra: Research on instruction with the TI-Nspire handheld. In R.N. Ronau, C.R. Rakes, & M.L. Niess (Eds.), Educational technology, teacher knowledge, and classroom impact: A research handbook on frameworks and approaches (pp. 295-322).Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
  18. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.H. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
  19. Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Foy, P., & Arora, A. (2012). TIMSS 2011 International Results in Mathematics. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
  20. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2013). Standards overview. Retrieved from National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  21. National Science Board. (2012). Preparing the next generation of STEM innovators: Identifying and developing our nation’s human capital. Retrieved from National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2013). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in Science and Engineering. Retrieved from
  22. Neufeld, B., & Roper, D. (2003). Coaching: A strategy for developing instructional capacity. Cambridge, MA: Education Matters. Retrieved from Niess, M. (2007). Reflections on the state and trends in research on mathematics teaching and learning: From here to Utopia. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning, (pp. 1293-1311).
  23. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (2010). Prepare and inspire: K-12 science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education for America’s future, Working group report. U.S. Government: Washington, D.C. Retrieved from
  24. Schmidt, D.A., Baran, E., Thompson, A.D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M.J., & Shin, T.S. (2009).Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for pre-service teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123-149.
  25. Thayer-Bacon, B. (1999). The thinker versus a quilting bee: Contrasting 65. Images. Educational Foundations, 13, 47Van
  26. Hiele, P.M. (1999). Developing geometric thinking through activities that begin with play. Teaching Children Mathematics, 5(6), 310-16.
  27. Windschitl, M. (1999). The challenges of sustaining a constructivist 751-755. Classroom culture. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, (10),

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