You are here:

Using Technology in Training Elementary Mathematics Teachers, The Development of TPACK Knowledge

, , Texas State University, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Austin, Texas, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-92-1 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA


This study examined the effects of a problem-based Elementary Mathematics Specialist (EMMT) Program on mathematical, technological, and pedagogical knowledge (TPACK). A questionnaire adapted from Schmidt, Baran, Thompson, Mishra, Koehler, and Shin (2009) was used with a matched pair t-test for pre- and post-test data. The results revealed statistical significant gains with good effect sizes. The data shows that growth in TPACK knowledge flourished in this content-based program emphasizing technology, critical thinking, problem solving, creativity, and cognitive development.


Bos, B. & Lee, K. (2012). Using Technology in Training Elementary Mathematics Teachers, The Development of TPACK Knowledge. In P. Resta (Ed.), Proceedings of SITE 2012--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 4664-4671). Austin, Texas, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 22, 2019 from .


View References & Citations Map


  1. Abbitt, J.C. (2011). A case study investigation of student use of technology tools in a collaborative learning project. Journal of Technology Integration in the Classroom, 2(1), 5-14
  2. 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.
  3. Archambault, L.M., & Barnett, J.H. (2010). Revisiting technological pedagogical content knowledge: Exploring the TPACK framework. Computers& Education, 55(4), 1656-1662.
  4. Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators. (2010). Standards for elementary mathematics specialists: A 9/28/11
  5. Ball, D.L., Thames, M., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389-407.
  6. Campbell, P.F., & Malkus, N.N. (2011). The impact of elementary mathematics coaches on student achievement. The Elementary School, 113(3), 430-544.
  7. Chai, C.S., Koh, J.H.L., & Tsai, C.C. (2010). Facilitating preservice teachers' development of technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge. Educational Technology& Society, 13 (4), 63– 73.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. Desimone, L.M. (2011). A primer on effective professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(6), 68-71.
  11. Donnelly, R. (2010). Harmonizing technology with interaction in blended problem-based learning. Computers& Education, 54, 350-359.
  12. Gerretson, H., Bosnick, J., & Schofield, K. (2008). Promising practice: A case for content specialists as the elementary classroom teacher. The Teacher Educator Journal, 43(4), 302– 14.
  13. Hill, H.C., & Ball, D.L. (2004). Learning mathematics for teaching: Results from California ’ s mathematics professional development institutes. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35 (5), 330-351.
  14. Kenny, D.T., & Faunce, G. (2004). Effects of academic coaching on elementary and secondary students. Journal of Educational Research, 98(2), 115-126.
  15. Koehler, M.J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy and technology. Computers& Education, 49(3), 740-762.
  16. McGatha, M. (2008). Levels of engagement in establishing coaching relationships. Teacher Development, 12(2), 139 − 150.
  17. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.H. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
  18. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
  19. National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: Final report of the National Mathematics
  20. Polly, D. (2011). Examining teachers’ enactment of technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) in their mathematics teaching after technology integration professional development. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 30(1), 37-59.
  21. Sailors, M. & Shanklin, N. (2010). Introduction: Growing evidence to support coaching in literacy and mathematics. Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 106.
  22. 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 preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123-149.
  23. Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
  24. Vockley, M. (2008). Maximizing the impact: The pivotal role of technology in a 21st century education system. Retrieved from
  25. Wu, H.H. (2009). What’ s so sophisticated about elementary mathematics: Plenty— need math teachers. American Educator, 32(3), 4– 14.

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