You are here:

Computational Pedagogical Content Knowledge (CPACK): Integrating Modeling and Simulation Technology into STEM Teacher Education

, , State University of New York College at Brockport, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Las Vegas, NV, United States ISBN 978-1-939797-13-1 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA


Teaching with technology remains as a challenge for STEM teachers. Making judicious choices of when, what and how specific tools and pedagogies to use in the teaching of a topic can be improved with the help of curriculum inventories, training, and practice but as new and more capable technologies arrive, such resources and experience do not often transfer to new circumstances. Even within the realm of a particular technology, the choice of which tool would be better to teach a topic needs judicious thinking. This article presents a qualitative case study in which pre-service and in-service teachers are trained about not just the use but also basic operating principles of a technology in an attempt to enhance its integration into teaching in a more permanent, constructivist, and tool-independent way.


Yasar, O. & Veronesi, P. (2015). Computational Pedagogical Content Knowledge (CPACK): Integrating Modeling and Simulation Technology into STEM Teacher Education. In D. Rutledge & D. Slykhuis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2015--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 3514-3521). Las Vegas, NV, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 18, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map


  1. Augustine, N. (2007). Is America Falling Off the Flat Earth? Washington, D.C.: The National Academic 1. Press. 2.
  2. Bell, L.R and Smetana, L.K. (2008). Using Computer Simulations to Enhance Science Teaching and Learning. In Technology in the Secondary Science Classroom (Eds. Bell et al.). Washington, DC: NSTA Press. 3.
  3. Bransford, J., Brown, A. And Cocking, R. (2000). How People Learn. National Academy Press, Wash., D.C. 4. 13-19.
  4. Jong, T., & Van Joolinger, W.R. (1998). Scientific Discovery Learning with Computer Simulations of Conceptual Domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179-201.
  5. 8.Donovan, S. And Bransford, J.D. (2005). How Students Learn. The National Academies Press, Wash, D.C. 9.
  6. Fincher, S. And Petre, M. (2005). Computer Science Education Research. Taylor and Francis e-Library. 10.
  7. Flick, L. And Bell, R.L. (2000). Preparing tomorrow’s science teachers to use technology: guidelines for Science educators. Contemp Issues Technol Teach Educ 1: 39-60.
  8. 11.Hammond, L-D., Austin, K., Orcutt, S. And Rosso, J. (2001). How People Learn: Introduction to Learning Theories. Stanford University. Http://
  9. 12.Koehler, M., Shin, T.S., Mishra, P. (2011). How Do We Measure TPACK? Let Me Count the Ways. In R. Ronau, C. Rakes, and M. Niess (Ed.). Education Technology, Teacher Knowledge, and Classroom Impact. 13.
  10. Koehler, M.J., and Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK, in Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) for Educators, Routledge Press, New York& London. 14.
  11. Koehler, M.J., and Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. J Educ Computing Research, 32(2), 131-152.
  12. 15.Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K.E., Mundry, S., Love, N., Hewson. (2010). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Third Edition, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. 16.
  13. Maeng, J.L., Mulvey, B.K., Smetana, L.K., and Bell, R.L. (2013). Preservice Teachers’ TPACK: Using Technology to Support Inquiry Instruction. J. Science Education Technology, DOI10.1007/s10956-013-9434-z17.
  14. Mishra, P., Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108 (6), 1017-1054.
  15. 18.MSPNET (2005). Mathematical and Computational Tools to Observe Kepler’s Laws of Motion. Yaşar, P., Kashyap, S., and Roxanne, R. NSF MSPNET Library, 19.
  16. MSPNET (2006). Limitations of the Accuracy of Numerical Integration and Simulation Technology. Yaşar, P., Kashyap, S., and Taylor, C. NSF MSPNET Library. Http:// 20.
  17. Niess, M. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 509-523.
  18. 21.Rutten, N., van Joolingen, R., and vanderVeen. (2012). The Learning Effects of Computer Simulations in Science Education. Computer& Education, 58; 136-153.
  19. 22.Smetana, L.K. And Bell, R.L. (2012). Computer Simulations to Support Science Instruction and Learning: A critical review of the literature. Int. J. Science Education, 34 (9); 1337-1370.
  20. 24.Wieman, C., Adams, W., Perkins, K. (2008). PhET: Simulations That Enhance Learning. Science, 332; 682-3.
  21. 25.Yaşar, O. (2014). A Pedagogical Approach to Teaching Computing Principles in the Context of Modeling and Simulations. J. Computing Teachers, Winter Issue. 26. Yaşar, O. And J. Maliekal. Computational Pedagogy. (2014a). IEEE J. Comp. In Sci & Eng, 16 (3), 78-88.
  22. 33.Yaşar, O. (2004). CMST Pedagogical Approach to Math& Science Education. Lect Notes in Comp Sci, Vol. 3045, 807-816.
  23. 34.Yaşar, O. And Landau, R. (2003). Elements of Computational Science& Engineering Education, SIAM Review, 45; 787-805.
  24. 35.Yaşar, O., Rajasethupathy, K., Tuzun, R., McCoy, A. And Harkin, J. (2000). A New Perspective on Computational Science Education, IEEE J. Comp. In Sci & Eng, 5 (2).

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