Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 24, Issue 5, pp 648–662 | Cite as

Integrating Science and Technology: Using Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge as a Framework to Study the Practices of Science Teachers

  • Rose M. Pringle
  • Kara Dawson
  • Albert D. Ritzhaupt


In this study, we examined how teachers involved in a yearlong technology integration initiative planned to enact technological, pedagogical, and content practices in science lessons. These science teachers, engaged in an initiative to integrate educational technology in inquiry-based science lessons, provided a total of 525 lesson plans for this study. While our findings indicated an increase in technology-related practices, including the use of sophisticated hardware, very little improvements occurred with fostering inquiry-based science and effective science-specific pedagogy. In addition, our conceptual framework, technological pedagogical content knowledge, as a lens to examine teachers’ intentions as documented in their lesson plans, provided an additional platform from which to investigate technology integration practices within the ambit of reform science teaching practices. This study, therefore, contributes knowledge about the structure and agenda of professional development initiatives that involve educational technology and integration into content knowledge disciplines such as science.


Integrating science and technology Technological pedagogical content knowledge Science lesson plans 


  1. Allsopp MM, Hohlfeld T, Kemker K (2007) The technology integration matrix: the development and field-test of an internet based multi-media assessment tool for the implementation of instructional technology in the classroom. Paper Presented at the Florida Educational Research Association, TampaGoogle Scholar
  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1989) Project 2061: Science for All AmericansGoogle Scholar
  3. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1993) Benchmarks for science literacy.
  4. Archambault LM, Barnett JH (2010) Revisiting technological pedagogical content knowledge: exploring the TPACK framework. Comput Educ 55(4):1656–1662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Archambault L, Crippen K (2009) Examining TPACK among K-12 online distance educators in the united states. Contemp Issue Tech Teach Educ 9(1):71Google Scholar
  6. Bianchini J, Colburn A (2000) Teaching the nature of science through inquiry to prospective elementary teachers: a tale of two researchers. J Res Sci Teach 37(2):177–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blumenfeld PC, Fishman BJ, Krajcik JS, Marx RW (2000) Creating usable innovations in systemic reform: scaling up technology-embedded project-based science in urban schools. Educ Psychol 35(3):149–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brantley-Dias L, Ertmer PA (2013) Goldilocks and TPACK: is the construct “Just Right?”. J Res Technol Educ 46(2), 103–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown SD (1998) Twelve middle-school teachers’ planning. Elem Sch J 89(1):69–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown AL, Campione JC (1996) Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: on procedures, principles and systems. In: Schauble L, Glaser R (eds) Innovations in learning: new environments for education. Erbaulm, Hillsdale, pp 289–325Google Scholar
  11. Darling-Hammond LL (2000) How teacher education matters. J Teach Educ 51(3):166–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Darling-Hammond LL (2010) Evaluating teacher effectiveness: How teacher performance assessments can measure and improve teaching. Washington, D.C.: Center for American ProgressGoogle Scholar
  13. Dawson K, Ritzhaupt A, Pringle R, Kersaint G (2011) Manual for EETT lesson plan reviewers. Unpublished document, GainesvilleGoogle Scholar
  14. Dawson K, Drexler W, Ritzhaupt AD, Liu F, Barron A, Kersaint G, Cavanaugh C, Harmes C, Welsh J (2012) Charting a course for the digital science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) classroom interim research and evaluation report. Final report to the Florida Department of Education. Title II-D/Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) grant programGoogle Scholar
  15. Florida Department of Education (2010) Florida next generation sunshine state standards. FLDOE, TallahasseeGoogle Scholar
  16. Forbes CT, Davis EA (2010) Curriculum design for inquiry: preservice elementary teachers’ mobilization and adaptation of science curriculum materials. J Res Sci Teach 47(7):820–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guzey SS, Roehrig GH (2009) Teaching science with technology: case studies of science teachers’ development of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge. Contemp Issues Technol Teach Educ 9(1).
  18. Haney J, McArthur J (2002) Four case studies of prospective science teachers’ beliefs concerning constructivist teaching practices. Sci Educ 86:783–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hew KF, Brush T (2007) Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educ Tech Res Dev 55(3):223–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hogarty KY, Lang TR, Kromrey JD (2003) Another look at technology use in classrooms: the development and validation of an instrument to measure teachers’ perceptions. Educ Psychol Meas 63(1):137–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hooper S, Rieber LP (1995) Teaching with technology. In: Ornstein A (ed) Teaching: theory into practice. Allyn & Bacon, Neeham Heights, pp 154–170Google Scholar
  22. Hug B, Krajcik JS, Marx RW (2005) Using innovative technologies to promote learning and engagement in an urban science classroom. Urban Educ 40(4):446–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Itzkan S (1994) Assessing the future of telecomputing environments: implications for instruction and administration. Comput Teach 4(22):60–64Google Scholar
  24. Jacobs CL, Martin SN, Otieno TC (2008) A science lesson plan analysis instrument for formative and summative program evaluation of a teacher education program. Sci Educ 92(6):1096–1126. doi: 10.1002/sce.20277 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jonassen D, Howland J, Moore J, Marra R (2003) Learning to solve problems with technology: a constructivist perspective, 2nd edn. Merrill Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  26. Kersaint G (2003) Technology beliefs and practices of mathematics education faculty. J Technol Teach Educ 11(4):549–577Google Scholar
  27. Knenek G, Christensen R (2000) Refining best teaching practices for technology integration key instructional design strategies (KIDS).
  28. Koehler MJ, Mishra P (2005) What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. J Educ Comput Res 32(2):131–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lei J (2007) Technology uses and student achievement: a longitudinal study. Comput Educ 49(2):284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lincoln YS, Guba EE (1986) Research, evaluation, and policy analysis: heuristics for disciplined inquiry. Rev Policy Res 5(3):546–565. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-1338.1986.tb00429.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lowther DL, Ross SM (2001) Observation of computer use: reliability analysis. Center for Research in Educational Policy, The University of Memphis, MemphisGoogle Scholar
  32. McNeill KL, Pimentel DS (2010) Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: the role of the teacher in engaging high school teachers in high school argumentation. Sci Educ 94:203–229Google Scholar
  33. Michaels S, Shouse AW, Schweingruber HA (2008) Ready, set, science: putting research to work in K-8 science classrooms. National Academy, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  34. Mishra P, Koehler MJ (2006) Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teach Coll Rec 108(6):1017–1054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Morrison GR, Kemp JE, Ross SM (2007) Designing effective instruction (5th edn). In: Hoboken NJ (ed), National Education Technology Plan (2010) Transforming American education: learning powered by technology, Wiley.
  36. National Educational Technology Plan (NETP) (2010) Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. Washington, DC. Retrieved from
  37. National Research Council (1996) National science education standards. National Academy Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  38. National Research Council (2000) Inquiry and the national science education standards: a guide for teaching and learning. National Academy, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  39. National Research Council (2006) Research on Future Skill Demands. Washington, DC.: National Academy PressGoogle Scholar
  40. Neiss ML (2005) Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teach Teach Educ 21(5):509–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pearson PD, Gallagher MC (1983) The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemp Educ Psychol 8(3):317–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Polly D (2011) Examining teachers’ enactment of technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) in their mathematics teaching after technology integration professional development. J Comput Math Sci Teach 30(1):37–59Google Scholar
  43. Sandholtz JH, Ringstaff C, Dwyer DC (1996) Teaching with technology: creating student-centered classrooms. Teachers College Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. Shulman LS (1986) Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educ Res 15(2):4–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Silk Y, Silver D, Amerian S, Nishimura C, Boscardin CK (2009) Using classroom artifacts to measure the efficacy of professional development, No. 761. Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student TestingGoogle Scholar
  46. Silver EA, Mesa VM, Morris KA, Star JR, Benken BM (2009) Teaching mathematics for understanding: an analysis of lessons submitted by teachers seeking NBPTS certification. Am Educ Res J 46(2):501–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Slykhuis D, Krall R (2011) Teaching science with technology: a decade of research. In: Koehler M, Mishra P (eds),Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2011). AACE, Chesapeake, pp 4142–4151.
  48. State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA) (2011) national trends. Accessed 15 July 2011
  49. Wiggins, G. (1990). The case for authentic assessment. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 2(2).

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rose M. Pringle
    • 1
  • Kara Dawson
    • 1
  • Albert D. Ritzhaupt
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Teaching and Learning, College of EducationUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations