Teaching and Teacher Education 59 (2016) 247e260

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Full lenght article

Engaging preservice teachers in integrated study and use of

educational media and technology in teaching reading
Jeanne R. Paratore a, *, Lisa M. O’Brien a, Laura Jime
nez a, Alejandra Salinas b, Chu Ly a
a
Language and Literacy, School of Education, Boston University, Two Silber Way, Boston, MA 02215, USA
b
Mathematics Education, School of Education, Boston University, Two Silber Way, Boston, MA 02215, USA

h i g h l i g h t s

 Preservice teachers in a technology-infused literacy methods course were studied.

 Survey data showed medium-large effects on technology knowledge and self-efficacy.
 Survey data showed medium effects on intent to use technology in teaching.
 PST planned sound literacy lessons with technology aimed at transformative learning.
 Findings underscore importance of addressing technology throughout PST education.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This mixed-methods study explored effects of participation in a required course integrating educational
Received 10 August 2015 media and technology with literacy instruction on preservice teachers’ (PST) perceptions of their
Received in revised form knowledge of technology, its usefulness in teaching and learning, and understanding of ways to use
31 May 2016
technology in teaching literacy. Survey findings showed moderate to large effects on PSTs’ (N ¼ 29)
Accepted 8 June 2016
perception of their knowledge of and self-efficacy with technology, literacy content knowledge, and
intent to integrate technology into future teaching. In lesson plans, PSTs integrated numerous technology
devices and educational media while maintaining sound literacy instruction. Findings indicate a clear,
Keywords:
Reading
positive trend in PSTs’ outcomes.
Educational media © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Technology
Preservice teacher

1. Introduction curricular knowledge (OECD., 2013). Children in high-poverty

Solving the problem of the reading achievement gap between
students in high and low-poverty schools has long been at the heart
of school improvement efforts. Although there are many factors
underlying achievement gaps, differences in access to and use of
technology represent a critical factor, particularly in our increas-
ingly digitized society. Studies indicate that, in comparison to their
peers living in poverty, economically-advantaged children have
substantially greater access to a wide range of technology outside of
school (e.g., Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010). Moreover, interna-
tional data indicate important differences in the ways teachers
draw on tools and resources as they develop their students’
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jparator@bu.edu (J.R. Paratore), lmob@bu.edu (L.M. O’Brien),
jimenez1@bu.edu (L. Jime nez), salinas@bu.edu (A. Salinas), chul@bu.edu (C. Ly).
schools often use technology for purposes of knowledge acquisi-
tion and development (e.g., research papers), children in low-
poverty schools are more likely to use computers for skill devel-
opment (e.g., Judge, Puckett, & Cabuk, 2004).
These differences in technology access and use inadvertently
maintain or even increase achievement gaps between high and
low-poverty youngsters. Access to technology situated within
transformative learning contexts (i.e., contexts emphasizing
research and inquiry, knowledge acquisition, critical thinking,
communication, and collaboration) not only provide children op-
portunities to acquire important conceptual knowledge that en-
ables reading achievement (Leu et al., 2015); it also apprentices
them into collaborative participation structures that are increas-
ingly important in school and societal learning contexts (Jenkins,
Clinton, Purushotma, Robison, & Weigel, 2006).
Evidence suggests that interplay between several factors
einternal and external to teachersdcontribute to transformative

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.06.003
0742-051X/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
248 J.R. Paratore et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 59 (2016) 247e260
technology integration in schools and classrooms. Internal factors
such as teachers’ beliefs about the importance of technology in
teaching and learning (Kanaya, Light, & McMillan-Culp, 2005;
Windshitl & Sahl, 2002), technology knowledge (Mishra & Koehler,
2006), and self-efficacy with technology (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-
Leftwich) play a role in technology integration; while external
factors such as administrative support and professional develop-
ment, “trouble shooting” support when technologies break down
(Inan & Lowther, 2010) and access to high-quality technologies also
contribute to effective technology integration. Given this interplay,
it is evident that teacher knowledge, by itself, is unlikely to enable
transformative technology use in classrooms; yet, absent sufficient
teacher knowledge, external factors will not make a difference.
Although teacher education programs may have little or no
impact on school-based external factors, they hold the potential to
have substantial impact on internal factors: teacher beliefs,
knowledge, and self-efficacy relative to transformative technology
integration. As such, they have the opportunity, and in fact, the
responsibility, to understand, shape, and implement a curriculum
that will prepare preservice teachers (PSTs) for success in schools
that are adequately resourced.
Yet, despite evidence and increased recognition that effective
use of educational media and technology represents an impor-
tantdperhaps even fundamentaldcomponent of students’
learning, teacher education programs often fall short in sufficiently
preparing preservice teachers to integrate technology into their
future practice (e.g., Belland, 2008; Polly, Mims, Shepherd, & Inan,
2010). As a result, many (maybe even most) teachers enter their
first classrooms with little understanding of efficacious uses of
educational media and technology. As many new teachers enter
high-poverty schools, the cycle of inadequate instructiondand
unequal opportunities to learn both in and out of schooldfor
children in such communities and schools continues, and, in turn,
achievement gaps persist.
With this evidence as a backdrop, we set out to determine if
preservice education teachers enrolled in a required methods
course that integrated educational media and technology as a
resource in teaching literacy in the elementary grades changed
their perceptions of the usefulness of technology as a resource in
teaching and learning, their knowledge about technology, their
understanding of ways to use technology in teaching literacy, and
their ability to plan lessons that meaningfully integrated technol-
ogy within the context of sound literacy instruction.
2. Theoretical and empirical foundation
2.1. Technology and student learning
One explanation for a lack of emphasis on technology integra-
tion in PST education programs (particularly in kindergarten
through second grade) is a widely-held belief that children’s
technology use in school does not yield positive effects on chil-
dren’s learning. A fine-grained examination of the evidence sug-
gests understanding the effects of access to technology on
children’s academic achievement is complex. Individual studies
(e.g., Campuzano, Dynarskiu, Agodini, Rall, 2009; Llosa & Slayton,
2009) and separate meta-analyses (Kulik, 2003; Torgerson & Zhu,
2003) have yielded evidence that technology use consistently re-
sults in only small effects on academic learning as compared to
traditional instructional approaches. However, in a recent meta-
analysis of 84 studies, Cheung and Slavin (2012) found that ef-
fects differ depending on how technology is useddthat is, tech-
nology uses that largely supplanted the teacher and emphasized
learning of low-level skills had little effect on reading achievement;
on the other hand, technology uses that essentially enhanced the
role of the teacher (e.g., using multimedia content to build
knowledge, using technology to illustrate key ideas) exerted small
to moderate positive effects on children’s learning. These findings
are similar to those of other recent studies (e.g., Cviko, McKenney, &
Voogt, 2012; 2013; Linebarger & Vaala, 2010; Lysenko & Abrami,
2014; Neuman, Neuman, & Dwyer, 2010; Yang, Yu, & Sun, 2013;
Zheng, Warscheur, & Farkas, 2013) in which children whose
teachers emphasized technology for transformative learning ach-
ieved significant growth in literacy achievement.
In addition to how technology is used, the extent to which
technology-based and non-technology-based instruction are
joined to support a coherent instructional curriculum matters. In a
synthesis of 20 studies (7000 students in grades 1e6), Cheung and
Slavin (2013) found greater effects on children’s literacy outcomes
when technology was integrated with instruction teachers offered
in small reading groups (ES ¼ 0.32) than technology use unrelated
to other teacher-led instruction (ES ¼ 0.14). These findings were
consistent with evidence that linking non-technology, teacher led-
instruction and computer-assisted instruction is beneficial (Cheung
& Slavin, 2012).
Other studies (e.g., Nir-Gal & Klein, 2004; Segal-Drori, Korat,
Shamir, & Klein, 2010; Valkenburg, Kromar, & de Roos, 1988)
examined students’ reasoning and literacy outcomes when
educational media is used with and without teacher mediation.
Across studies, outcomes consistently show that students demon-
strate significantly greater outcomes on measures of abstract
reasoning and vocabulary (Nir-Gal & Klein, 2004) and literacy
(Segal-Drori et al., 2010; Valkenburg et al., 1988) when educational
media use is teacher mediated. Mediation strategies included
focusing children’s attention on key aspects of the task; encour-
aging children through affirming verbal or nonverbal cues; regu-
lating behavior by matching tasks to students’ abilities and also by
sequencing steps to support task completion; and expanding chil-
dren’s understanding by prompting them to make comparisons, to
clarify, or to elaborate on an idea.
Although teacher-mediated use of technology has been found to
lead to greater achievement, simply providing teachers with tech-
nology with the expectation that they will instantly leverage such
resources to the advantage of their students’ literacy development
is unlikely to be sufficient. Rather, meaningful technology inte-
gration is substantially influenced by the training and support
teachers receive. Archer et al. (2014) reported especially compelling
evidence, with the effect of technology integration on children’s
literacy learning increasing from small (ES ¼ 0.18) to substantial
(ES ¼ 0.57) when accounting for teacher support and training.
Cheung and Slavin (2012), too, found a strong relationship between
professional development and learning gains associated with
technology integration. Such support may be particularly impor-
tant for teachers in high-poverty settings as less efficacious inte-
gration of technology is substantially more prevalent in schools
serving children living in high-poverty than schools serving chil-
dren living in low-poverty (Atwell, 2001; Judge, Puckett, & Bell,
2006; Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010; Wayne, Zucker, & Powell,
2002; Wenglinsky, 1998).
In sum, integrating technology as part of the literacy curriculum
has positive learning outcomes when the instructional emphasis is
on transformative learning, when technology use is integrated with
other, teacher-led literacy instruction, and when teachers effec-
tively guide and mediate technology use. Conversely, when tech-
nology emphasis is on low-level skills (Wenglinsky, 2005), on tasks
that are not coherent with on-going classroom instruction (Cheung
& Slavin, 2012), and on tasks for which the teacher is largely absent
(Cheung & Slavin, 2012; Nir-Gal & Klein, 2004), there are few, if any,
positive effects on students’ literacy achievement. Finally, when
professional development and instructional support are provided
 J.R. Paratore et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 59 (2016) 247e260
to support teachers’ expertise with technology integration, children
experience greater learning gains (Archer et al., 2014).
2.2. Technology integration in preservice teacher education
programs
As previously noted, efficacious use of technology is largely
dependent on teacher knowledge, and a key foundation for teacher
knowledge is PST education. Yet, teacher education programs often
fall short in preparing preservice teachers to integrate technology
into their future practice (Belland, 2008; Oliver & Walker, 2012;
Polly, Mims, Shepard, & Inan, 2010).
The failure of preservice education programs to develop
adequate teacher knowledge about technology integration can be
traced to an array of curriculum factors, including the quantity,
quality, and breadth of offerings. Polly et al. report that most
teacher education programs provide a single course in educational
technology that focuses on lower level uses of technology (e.g.,
instructional management and delivery tools) that are not likely to
impact student learning. Moreover, these courses tend to be offered
at the beginning of preservice teacher education programs with the
expectation that preservice teachers will integrate these technol-
ogies two to three years later and in their future teaching careers
(Belland, 2008). In addition to a lack of program depth or coher-
ence, it is rare that preservice teachers enter field-placements
where they can observe inservice teachers meaningfully integrate
technology (Belland, 2008).
Given this shortcoming and to inform the design of the focal
readings methods course, we turned to theory and research aimed
at understanding both what teachers need to knowdthat is, the
knowledge and skills that enable effective technology integration
into teaching to determine effective programmatic features; and
also how novice teachers acquire such information.
We focused on the development of technological pedagogical
content knowledge (TPACK [Mishra & Koehler, 2006],). TPACK re-
fers to a complex construct that is grounded in teachers’ deliberate
and skillful integration of pedagogical knowledge, technology
knowledge, and content knowledge. According to Polly et al. (2010),
TPACK is knowledge.
about the relationships between technology and content–how
technology can be used to support the learning of specific
content, technology and pedagogy-how specific pedagogies best
support the use of technology, and content and pedagogy– how
specific pedagogies facilitate learning or specific content. (p.
864).
We also focused on enhancing self-efficacy as TPACK knowledge
alone is insufficient– teachers must also hold self-efficacy for
technology integration (e.g., Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010;
Sang, Valcke, van Braak, & Tondeur, 2010). That is, PSTs must have
sufficient knowledge and believe in their capability to leverage
technology to advance their teaching and students’ literacy
learning to apply their knowledge to their future practice.
If preservice teachers (PSTs) are to acquire a sufficient store of
TPACK and self-efficacy, technology integration must be central not
only to the ways they learn to teach, but also to the ways they are
taught (e.g., Belland, 2008; Polly et al., 2010). That is, preservice
teachers must not only study effective practices, they must also
have time to explore technology, experience successes, work with
knowledgeable peers (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010), and
witness effective technology integrationdi.e., technology being
used “to help students construct knowledge (e.g., research and
analyze information to solve problems)” (Belland, 2008, p. 354) in
their own learning and in the learning of the students they observe
249
in their field-based experiences. When such conditions are met,
teachers are likely to develop a predisposition or habitas toward
technology integration, a stance that Belland (2008) argues is
necessary for teachers to effectively and consistently use technol-
ogy to advance learning across the curriculum.
So, how do preservice teacher education programs foster such a
habitas? To answer this question, we next turned to research
examining the effects of preservice teacher education programs (K
e 5) emphasizing technology integration on preservice teacher
outcomes. Such studies are few and approaches vary. However, for
the most part, programs offered a single technology course (Polly
et al., 2010). Even so, when the emphasis was on supporting
teachers in effectively mapping technology to specific content and
teaching practices (i.e., understanding affordances and constraints)
and providing PSTs opportunities to explore and practice with such
technologies (i.e., deep play, Koehler, Mishra, Bouck, DeSchryver, &
Kereluik, 2011), PSTs achieved significant growth in their percep-
tions of their TPACK knowledge (Angeli & Valanides, 2009; Schmidt
et al., 2009). With the addition of use of technology as a pathway for
PSTs’ own learningdthat is, when course content was taught with
and through technology–and with a requirement that PSTs plan
technology-rich lessons, PSTs’ perceived self-efficacy for technology
integration improved significantly. However, their perceived atti-
tudes towards technology or intentions to use technology in their
future teaching remained stabledon average, PSTs reported slightly
favorable attitudes or intentions (Valtonen et al. 2015).
Because of concerns that these outcomes would not translate to
meaningful technology integration as PSTs entered their first year
of teaching, other researchers built upon the single technology
course approach to also include technology integration within
several disciplinary methods courses (Mouza, Karchmer-Klein,
Nandakumar, Yilmaz Ozden, & Hu, 2014) and field placements
(Beyerbach, Walsh, & Vannatta, 2001; Brush et al., 2003; Franklin &
Sessoms, 2005; Hur, Cullen, & Brush, 2010; Pope, Hare, & Howard,
2005; Rosaen, Hobson, & Khan, 2003). Doing so increased both the
coherence and depth of technology integration provided to PSTs in
their teacher preparation programs. In turn, PSTs reported
enhanced confidence and disposition toward technology use
(Brush et al., 2003; Hur et al., 2010; Pope et al., 2005), increased
awareness and understanding of technology (Beyerbach et al.,
2001; Franklin & Sessoms, 2005; Mouza et al., 2014; Rosaen et al.,
2003), and increased application of technology to lesson develop-
ment (Brush et al., 2003; Franklin & Sessoms. 2005), and field
placements (Hur et al., 2010; Mouza et al., 2014; Rosaen et al., 2003;
Vannatta & Beyerbach, 2000).
As we looked across studies in which preservice teachers re-
ported an increase in their knowledge and self-efficacy relative to
technology integration and, then, at the few studies (Brush et al.,
2003; Franklin & Sessoms, 2005) in which PSTs’ knowledge was
evident in their lesson plans, we identified five elements that
seemed fundamentally important. First, there was an emphasis on
coherence between the focus and content of technology courses,
methods courses, and the types of instruction students observed in
university and field placements. Second, the technology emphasis
was extensive, infused across methods courses in multiple disci-
plines (e.g., literacy, mathematics, science) and also included as part
of professional development provided to the cooperating teachers
with whom the preservice teachers would work. Third, preservice
teachers were provided rich experiences in technology use,
including “deep-play” (Koehler et al., 2011) with technology. Their
experiences included use of technology to solve problems and
recognize affordances and constraints of various technologies in
relation to specific problems; observation and critique of video
exemplars and technology-rich lessons; opportunities to acquire
disciplinary content through technology-based instruction; and
250 J.R. Paratore et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 59 (2016) 247e260
practicum placements with cooperating teachers using technology.
Fourth, learning experiences were collaborative and included co-
construction of curriculum by teacher educators and cooperating
teachers as well as having cooperating teachers lead some methods
course sessions. Fifth, in the studies that included lesson plans as a
data source, technology use was required as part of learning out-
comes, with a clear and explicit expectation that lesson and unit
plans and other types of course assignments would provide evi-
dence that students understood how and when to integrate tech-
nology as part of routine instruction.
Although collectively these studies suggest that the aforemen-
tioned components are key in preparing PSTs with the knowledge
and ability to effectively implement technology into their future
practice, none of these studies examined the effects of the focus of
technology integration on the quality of disciplinary instruction
(e.g., literacy, mathematics) or included attention to technology
standards. We wondered if time allocated to the development of
technology-related teaching methods might have the unintended
consequence of diminishing attention to development of disci-
plinary teaching methods (e.g., literacy, mathematics).
3. Present study
Given the importance of (1) meaningful use of technology to
students’ literacy outcomes and (2) teacher knowledge of and self-
efficacy with technology to effective technology integration, with
this mixed-methods study, we sought to build on extant evidence.
Moreover, because research has not yet examined the quality of
PSTs’ disciplinary instruction when integrating technology, we
situated the study within a preservice literacy methods course (K-
5) that incorporated meaningful technology integration into the
course goals, activities, and assignments. We asked if participation
in a literacy methods course that incorporates technology as a
fundamental teaching component affected PSTs’:
1. Perceptions of their knowledge about technology and technol-
ogy in teaching and self-efficacy?
2. Perceptions of changes in literacy content knowledge, peda-
gogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge?
3. Capacity to effectively integrate technology while maintaining
sound literacy instructional practices?
As a first step in answering these questions, we departed from
the evidence on the importance of curriculum-wide integration of
technology and focused our examination on a single methods
coursedTeaching of Reading. Our decision was largely based on
expediency–doing so meant we were able to immediately act on
much of the evidence by designing and implementing a disci-
plinary methods course with rich technology experiences, collab-
oration, and a technology requirement. We reasoned that although
not complete, if successful, this course would represent a major
step forward in improving technology preparedness of preservice
teachers, and it could provide the basis for developing and testing
the efficacy of a curriculum-wide implementation.
4. Methodology
This mixed-methods investigation employed designed-based
research (DBR). Wang and Hannafin (2005) explain that DBR has
five key characteristics. First, the research has a pragmatic research
goaldi.e., is focused on the development of practice and instruc-
tional models. Second, the study is grounded in research method-
ology in that the research is theory driven, addresses an important
research gap, and is conducted in real-world contexts with social
interaction. Third, the methodology involves an iterative and
flexible research process wherein there are cycles of design,
implementation, analysis, and redesign. Fourth, integrative
research methods are used to increase both credibility and adapt-
ability of methods (including mixed-methods, formative explora-
tions, and retrospective analyses). Finally, results are contextual in
that findings and any changes in the original intervention are
documented. In accordance with these characteristics, with the
present study we observed and gathered data on PSTs’ outcomes
(both qualitative and quantitative) within the context of a literacy
methods course as we also engaged in an iterative process of
collaborative design to develop a sustainable instructional mod-
eldi.e., the literacy methods course (Peneul, Fishman, Cheng,
Sabelli, 2011). Revisions to the course are described below.
4.1. Context
The context was two sections of a required literacy methods
course that incorporated technology as a fundamental teaching
component. Instruction for each section occurred during one aca-
demic semester (14 weeks per semester) and took place in a
classroom equipped with key technologies (e.g., interactive
whiteboard, iPads, Sympodium). During the first semester, the
course was co-taught by a literacy expert and a technology expert.
We chose a co-teaching model for the first implementation because
the literacy expert was a novice in the integration of technology in
teaching. With the advantage of collaborating with and observing a
technology expert over the course of the semester, the literacy
instructor acquired the competence and confidence to lead the
course on her own, which she did in the second semester.
The course purpose was to develop foundational knowledge for
teaching reading. Key components included: (1) evidence-based
literacy development and instruction, (2) technology as a tool to
enhance literacy teaching and learning, (3) PlaySpace, a technology
lab woven into class sessions to provide students with opportu-
nities for deep-play, and (4) in- and out-of-class activities to build
knowledge of and the ability to plan evidence-based literacy les-
sons that effectively integrate technology. In-class activities
comprised lecture, discussion, virtual fieldtrips to observe and
analyze instructional exemplars, guided practice with lesson
planning, and examination of the affordances and constraints of
literacy practices and technologies. Out-of-class activities
comprised readings and independent practice with lesson
planning.
Technology was integrated in two ways: first, as technology was
integrated into instruction, a “habitus” supportive of a transmedia
approach to teaching emerged; second, preservice teachers were
required to explore and critically evaluate technology devices and
educational media and plan lessons that incorporated useful re-
sources in meaningful ways. For example, during a comprehension
session, the course instructor explained and demonstrated cogni-
tive modeling of comprehension strategies using an authentic text,
a document camera, and an interactive whiteboard. She next
explained and demonstrated engaging students in guided practice
with the same strategy using digital text, iPads, the Notebook
application, and an interactive whiteboard. During PlaySpace, PSTs
explored and considered the affordances and constraints of the
modeled technologies as well as others they discovered on their
own. The use of transmedia –i.e., experiences that integrate mul-
tiple modalities including traditional and new literacies (Jenkins
et al., 2006) e was intentionally threaded throughout the course.
In Table 1, we present a sample schedule for a course meeting.
4.2. Participants
A total of 30 PSTs enrolled in either the fall or spring term. All
 J.R. Paratore et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 59 (2016) 247e260 251

Table 1
In-class and out-of-class Activities for comprehension strategy instruction.

Before Session Out-of-Class Activities

Readings
 Course Text, Chapter 11: Teaching Comprehension Strategies
 Practitioner Article: HOT Blogging: A framework for blogging to promote higher order thinking.
 Practitioner Article: Compare, contrast, comprehend: Using compare-contrast text structures with ELLs in K-3 classrooms.
In-Class Activities
PowerPoint presentation/discussion
 Examine comprehension strategies
 Model teaching comprehension strategies through use of traditional text, document camera, and interactive white board
 Guided practice with comprehension strategies through use of notebook application, iPads, Airplay, and interactive whiteboard
PlaySpace
 Explore affordances and constraints of use of Notebook and iPads for teaching and learning of comprehension strategies
 Explore other technologies and media to support teaching and learning of comprehension strategies
After Session Out-of-Class Activities
 Craft a comprehension lesson plan series

were invited to participate in the study, and 29 agreed to do so. As
outlined in Table 2, most were currently enrolled in a student-
teaching experience (n ¼ 15) and were in their Junior year of col-
lege (n ¼ 15); some had completed student-teaching (n ¼ 8) and
some were in their Senior year (n ¼ 11). Eleven PSTs majored in
Early Childhood Education and 11 in Elementary Education; six had
a different major (e.g., bilingual education, special education). Prior
to taking this course, most students had completed two courses
targeting science content knowledge (total of 4e8 credits), two
courses targeting mathematical content knowledge (total of 4e8
credits), and one course targeting child development content
knowledge (4 credits). Most PSTs were concurrently enrolled in
Methods of Instruction (10 credits), an interdisciplinary course tar-
geting general instructional strategies in reading and language arts,
social studies, and science. These courses focused on development
of disciplinary knowledge. With the exception of PowerPoint pre-
sentations, none featured technology use or integration as either an
incidental or major focus of the class.
4.3. Data sources and collection procedures
Survey data were used to capture changes in PSTs’ knowledge,
self-efficacy, and intent to use technology (Brush et al., 2003; Hur
et al., 2010; Schmidt et al., 2009). Artifact data served to verify
and illustrate survey data findings and to provide evidence of PSTs’
capacity to plan instruction that effectively integrates technology
with literacy while maintaining essential literacy instructional
practices. Below we describe each data source.
4.3.1. Survey data
Survey data were drawn from PST responses to questions in The
Table 2
Educational experiences of participating preservice teachers.
Educational experience n after the 14th week of the course).
Survey of Teacher’s Knowledge of Teaching and Technology (TPACK
survey, Schmidt et al., 2009) and The Use and Beliefs about Infor-
mation Communication Survey (Use and Beliefs Survey, Razali, 2013).
The TPACK survey comprised 47 items which have been found to
hold together as ten factors (Schmidt, Baran, Thompson, Mishra,
Koeler, & Shin, 2009): Technology Knowledge, Social Students
Content Knowledge, Math Content Knowledge, Science Content
Knowledge, Literacy Content Knowledge, Pedagogical Knowledge,
Technological Pedagogical Knowledge, Technological Content
Knowledge and Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge
(TPACK). Cronbach alpha measures of internal consistency range
from 0.75 to 0.92. Response options (from strongly agree to strongly
disagree) are on a five point Likert-type scale.
The Use and Beliefs about ICT survey (Razali, 2013) was devel-
oped in consultation with content experts and piloted using a
qualitative approach to limit bias and maximize reliability (Razali,
2013). It comprised 29 items, organized by context (ICT Personal
Use, ICT Training, ICT Teaching Use, Concerns about ICT in Teaching,
and Professional Development). Response options (from strong
agree or strong disagree) are on a six or seven point Likert-type
scale.
4.3.2. Artifact data
Artifact data comprised three lesson plan series crafted by PSTs
(in groups of two or three) across the semester. Each plan required a
rationale explaining how the instructional practices would support
their students’ achievement of Common Core State Standards
([CCSS] NGA & CCSSO, 2010) and a detailed description of instruc-
tional activities to be implemented over 3e4 days. Each series
targeted a different literacy domain: the first series focused on
word study (13 total lesson plan series submitted after the 9th
week of the course); the second addressed vocabulary (11 total
lesson plan series submitted after the 12th week of the course), and
the third, comprehension (12 total lesson plan series submitted

Student Teaching
Currently enrolled 15 4.4. Analytic process
Completed 8
Never enrolled 3
No response 3
4.4.1. Quantitative analyses
Major For survey data, we used paired-sample t-tests to examine
Early Childhood Education 11 changes in PSTs’ knowledge, self-efficacy, and plan to use tech-
Elementary Education 11 nology. As TPACK survey data factor scores demonstrated Cronbach
Other 6
alpha internal consistency, we used these as the outcome variable.
No response 1
Year Factor scores were created by averaging each participant’s re-
Senior 11 sponses across the items relevant to each factor. For Use and Beliefs
Junior 15 about ICT, because internal consistency had not been established for
Sophomore 2 factors, we analyzed the scales for reliability based upon our
No response 1
sample. Three of the five scales had Cronbach’s alpha greater than
252 J.R. Paratore et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 59 (2016) 247e260
0.75; factor scores were created for those by averaging each par-
ticipant’s responses across the items relevant to each factor. The
other two scales did not hold together as factors and were analyzed
as individual items. Change in response was measured using a se-
ries paired-sample t-tests. Normality was verified for the change
scores of each factor or item, as necessary.
When performing multiple comparisons as we did, Bonferroni
adjustments are often applied to reduce the chance of Type I error.
However, because this was a self-contained study and, at the outset,
we had hypothesized participation in the reading methods course
would enhance PSTs’ knowledge, self-efficacy, and plan to use
technology, such an adjustment is unnecessary (Lomax & Hahs-
Vaughn, 2013). To support understanding of the magnitude of the
effect and practical significance, we calculated effect sizes (i.e.,
Cohen’s d, Cohen, 1988).
4.4.2. Qualitative analyses
We employed qualitative analyses for artifact data in three
stages. In the first stage, we developed a codebook using an itera-
tive process. We began with a list of starter codes based on research
on effective literacy practices and technology integration. We
derived initial literacy codes from the explicit teaching model
(Pearson & Gallagher, 1983; Rosenshine, 1986) with key teaching
actions including explaining, demonstrating, modeling, providing
guided practice, and providing independent practice. We derived
initial technology codes from technology standards (ISTE, 2008)
including intended student actions such as collaboration and crit-
ical thinking, type of technology device such as an interactive
whiteboard (IWB) or document camera, type of media such as
video or e-book, and meaningfulness of use. We used teaching
episodes and teaching actions as the unit of analysis for literacy
codes. A teaching episode comprised a sequence of events intended
to develop understanding of literacy, technology, or both (each
episode was coded as literacy, technology, or literacy and technol-
ogy). Teaching actions comprised an event or series of events
focused on one of the explicit teaching actions. For example, the
following excerpt was coded as the teaching action, Activating
Background Knowledge and Linking to New Knowledge:
Say to class, “Has anyone ever been to the ocean or the aquar-
ium, a place where there are large tanks filled with water and ocean
animals and plants?
Wait for students to respond (students may have varied answers).
Then ask, “Does anyone know any plants or animals that live in the
ocean?” (Students may give responses such as coral, fish, sharks,
lobster, crab). How do you think they live and breathe in water?
Tell class, “Today we are going to be learning about how the sun
helps keep all the plants and animals in the ocean alive.
For technology codes, we used lesson plan series segments
focused on a particular use of technology as the unit of analysis. For
example, although the following lesson plan series excerpt com-
prises two teaching actions (explaining and demonstrating), it
comprises one particular use of technology:
Explicitly explain vocabulary words / Use Notebook pre-made
slide (see Explicit Definition Example.notebook) to show students
the vocabulary words, a sentence that includes that word in context
and an image.
In the second stage, we applied the agreed upon codes to one
lesson plan series and modified the codebook to accurately portray
the teaching actions described in the lesson series (including def-
initions and examples). We repeated this process until reaching
coding saturation (Bowen, 2008).
Next, two research team members (a doctoral student and post-
doctoral fellow) sought to establish interrater reliability with a
minimum 80% agreement and Cohen’s Kappa of at least 0.70. To do
so, each researcher independently coded a randomly selected
lesson series. Because initial agreement was below 80%, the two
researchers met to discuss and adjudicate incongruent codes. Then,
each independently coded a different lesson plan series, and
reached 82.1% agreement. The process was repeated with each
researcher independently coding a randomly selected subset of
lesson plan series (10%). Agreement was 94.8%, Cohen’s
Kappa ¼ 0.75. Remaining data were then divided between research
assistants for independent coding.
In stage 3, we converted codes into frequencies and proportions.
We calculated proportions to make equitable comparisons as each
lesson plan series varied in length, and in turn, in the total fre-
quency of teaching episodes, teaching actions, intended student
actions, and so forth. To understand if the incidence of type of
episode (literacy or literacy and technology) varied by literacy
domain (word study, vocabulary, comprehension), we calculated
frequency of each type of teaching episode by domain. Then, to
understand if the incidence of type of teaching episodes differed
independent of domain, we calculated proportion of the two
episode types within the total sample of 36 lessons. Similarly, for
instances of meaningful technology use, we calculated the fre-
quency and proportion of meaningful and unmeaningful technol-
ogy use within lessons for each literacy domain.
For codes related to teaching actions (e.g., demonstrating,
guiding), to determine if the incidence of teaching behaviors varied
by type of teaching episode (literacy or literacy and technology) or
by literacy domain (word study, vocabulary, comprehension), we
calculated the proportion of each teaching action by teaching
episode within each literacy domains.
The remaining codesdthose related to media type, technology
device, and intended student actions when using tech-
nologydwere examined only in lessons that incorporated both
literacy and technology. For these, we calculated the proportion of
incidences within the total sample of 36 lessons. We did this
because examination of raw data indicated both low frequency
overall as well as little variation across literacy domains.
5. Results
We organized our results within three major sections in accor-
dance with our research questions: (a) PSTs’ perceived knowledge
about technology and technology in teaching and self-efficacy, (b)
PSTs’ perceived changes in content knowledge, pedagogical
knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge, and (c) PSTs’ ca-
pacity to effectively integrate technology while maintaining sound
literacy instructional practices.
5.1. PSTs’ perceived knowledge about technology and technology in
teaching and self-efficacy
This section is organized within five areas: (a) knowledge about
technology; (b) attitude toward and knowledge about technology
in teaching; (c) knowledge about how to use technology in daily life
and in teaching; (d) source of knowledge about technology in
teaching; (e) intent to use technology in teaching.
5.1.1. Knowledge about technology
To understand changes in PSTs’ perceived knowledge about
technology, we examined responses to the TPACK Survey, Tech-
nology Knowledge Scale (Table 3)1. At pretest, PSTs reported a mean
of 3.48 (SD ¼ 0.92) on the Technology Knowledge Scale that
increased to 3.79 (SD ¼ 0.55) at posttest, indicating that after course
1
Please note that Tables with survey item, item numbers reflect that actual
survey item number in the original survey.
 J.R. Paratore et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 59 (2016) 247e260 253

Table 3
Items comprising the Technology Knowledge Scale.

1. I know how to solve my own technical problems.

2. I can learn technology easily.
3. I keep up with important new technologies.
4. I frequently play around with the technology.
5. I know about a lot of different technologies.
6. I have the technical skills I need to use technology.
7. I have had sufficient opportunities to work with different technologies.

participation, PSTs perceived themselves holding greater technol-
ogy knowledge. These differences were significant with a medium
effect size; t(24) ¼ 2.178, p < 0.05, d ¼ 0.44.
5.1.2. Attitude toward and knowledge of technology in teaching
To examine changes in PSTs’ perceptions of their knowledge of
technology in teaching, we analyzed the Role of Technology for
Teaching and Learning scale (Table 4) from the Use and Beliefs about
ICT survey (see Table 6); and the Technological Content Knowledge
Scale (Table 5) from the TPACK Survey.
Selected items on the Use and Beliefs about ICT survey asked PSTs
to indicate their belief about ICT’s role in preparing to teach a
reading lesson, teaching, reading assessment, and student learning.
At pretest, PSTs reported a slightly favorable opinion about the role
of technology (M ¼ 4.97, SD ¼ 0.87) which remained stable at
posttest; t(24) ¼ 0.849, p > 0.05. On the TPACK Technological
Content Knowledge Scale, the mean score at pretest was 2.86
(SD ¼ 0.65), indicating slight disagreement with the premise that
they possessed adequate technological content knowledge for use
in teaching. At posttest, the mean increased to 3.38 (SD ¼ 0.86),
indicating a shift from slight disagreement with the overall premise
to a neutral stance (neither agreeing or disagreeing). These differ-
ences represent a significant medium-size increase in participants’
perceptions of technological content knowledge for teaching;
t(24) ¼ 2.529, p < 0.05, d ¼ 0.51.
5.1.3. Knowledge of how to use technology in daily life and in
teaching
To determine changes in PSTs’ perceptions of their knowledge
about using technology in their daily lives and in teaching, we
examined responses to ICT items clustered as “personal use” and
“teaching use”. We analyzed an individual item within “concerns
with teaching” to help us pinpoint changes in concerns (Table 7).
We also examined findings from two TPACK Survey scales, the
Technological Pedagogical Knowledge and Technological Peda-
gogical Content Knowledge Scales (Table 8).
At pretest, PSTs reported feeling very comfortable and compe-
tent using ICT in their daily life (M ¼ 5.0, SD ¼ 0.918), which
remained stable at posttest (M ¼ 5.1; SD ¼ 0.703); t (24) ¼ 0.599,
p ¼ 0.555. However, when the focus of ICT use changed from per-
sonal to teaching use, pre to posttest differences were large and
significant t (23) ¼ 3.054, p ¼ 0.005, d ¼ 0.62, with participants, at
pretest taking a neutral stance with claims of comfort and
competence related to ICT use in teaching (M ¼ 4.11 SD ¼ 0.82); and
at posttest, taking a less neutral stance (M ¼ 4.76 SD ¼ 1.07).
PSTs did not report a significant change in their concerns about
use of ICT in teaching, with responses indicating a neutral stance
towards the concern with ICT item at pre (M ¼ 4.20, SD ¼ 1.41) and
posttest (M ¼ 5.46, SD ¼ 0.87), t (24) ¼ 1.160; p ¼ 0.257. Two TPACK
scales, the Technological Pedagogical Knowledge and the Techno-
logical Pedagogical Content Knowledge Scales, also provide insight
into PSTs’ development of self-efficacy relative to using technology

Table 4
ICT Teaching Use items Measuring Attitude toward Usefulness of Technology for Teaching and Learning (N ¼ 25).

ICT teaching use Mean (SD) pretest Mean (SD) posttest t p

4h. ICT plays an important role in reading lesson preparation. 4.80 (1.12) 4.68 (1.31) 0.391 0.700
4i. ICT plays an important role in teaching. 5.08 (0.99) 4.96 (1.34) 0.473 0.641
4j. ICT plays an important role in reading assessment. 4. 68 (0.99) 4.56 (1.19) 0.413 0.683
4k. ICT plays an important role in students’ learning. 5.32 (1.07) 4.84 (1.46) 1.853 0.076

Note. The responses for these items could range from a 1 for Strongly Disagree to a 7 for Strongly Agree.

Table 5
Items comprising the Technological Content Knowledge Scale.

31. I Know about technologies that I can use for understanding and doing mathematics.
32. I know about technologies that I can use for understanding and doing literacy.
33. I know about technologies that I can use for understanding and doing science.
34. I know about technologies that I can use for understanding and doing social studies.

Table 6
ICT personal use items measuring self-efficacy with technology (N ¼ 25).

Mean (SD) pretest Mean (SD) posttest t p

2a. I use ICT in my daily life. 5.48 (0.87) 5.76 (0.60) 1.769 0.090
2b. I am very comfortable using ICT. 5.12 (1.05) 5.24 (0.72) 0.569 0.574
2c. I am very competent using ICT. 4.88 (1.17) 5.08 (0.95) 0.894 0.380
2d. I try to learn about ICT on my own. 4.44 (1.36) 4.24 (1.23) -0.840 0.409
2e. I used ICT before becoming an education student. 5.08 (1.08) 5.12 (1.05) 0.238 0.814

Note. The responses for these items could range from a 1 for Strongly Disagree to a 6 for Strongly Agree.
254 J.R. Paratore et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 59 (2016) 247e260

Table 7
ICT Teaching Use, Concerns with ICT in Teaching, Items Measuring Self-efficacy with Teaching using Technology.

N Mean (SD) pretest Mean (SD) posttest t p d

ICT Teaching Use

4a. I am very comfortable using ICT in teaching. 24 3.71 (1.00) 4.71 (1.23) 4.290 <0.001* 0.88
4b. I am very competent with using ICT in teaching. 25 3.52 (0.77) 4.56 (1.30) 4.308 <0.001* 0.86
4c. I will be a better teacher when I use ICT in my teaching 25 5.04 (1.39) 4.88 (1.33) 0.435 0.688
Concerns with ICT in Teaching
5a. I have concerns over the use of ICT in teaching. 25 4.20 (1.41) 5.46 (0.87) 1.160 0.257
5b. The teacher education institution has done well to alleviate my concerns, 25 3.44 (1.12) 4.04 (1.02) 2.268 0.033* 0.49
especially with regards to using ICT in teaching.
ICT Professional Development
6c. I would like to use more ICT in my teaching. 25 5.40 (1.12) 5.08 (1.41) 1.398 0.175
6d. My education coursework has done well to develop my professionalism 25 3.44 (1.26) 5.00 (1.26) 4.562 <0.001* 0.91
with regards to using ICT in teaching.
6e. My teacher education institution has done well to develop my professionalism 26 3.31 (1.26) 4.81 (1.42) 4.762 <0.001* 0.93
with regards to using ICT in teaching.

Note. The responses for these items could range from a 1 for Strongly Disagree to a 7 for Strongly Agree.
*p < 0.05.

Table 8
Items comprising the Technological Pedagogical Knowledge and Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Scales.

Technological Pedagogical Knowledge Items

31 I can choose technologies that enhance the teaching approaches for a lesson.
32 I can choose technologies that enhance students’ learning for a lesson.
33 My teacher education program has caused me to think more deeply about how technology could influence the teaching approaches I use in my classroom.
34 I am thinking critically about how to use technology in my classroom.
35 I can adapt the use of the technologies that I am learning about to different teaching activities.
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Items
36 I can teach lessons that appropriately combine mathematics, technologies, and teaching approaches.
37 I can teach lessons that appropriately combine literacy, technologies, and teaching approaches.
38 I can teach lessons that appropriately combine science, technologies, and teaching approaches.
39 I can teach lessons that appropriately combine social studies, technologies, and teaching approaches.
40 I can select technologies to use in my classroom that enhance what I teach, how I teach, and what students learn.
41 I can use strategies that combine content, technologies, and teaching approaches that I learned about in my coursework in my classroom.
42 I can provide leadership in helping others to coordinate the use of content, technologies, and teaching approaches at my school and/or district.
43 I can choose technologies that enhance the content for a lesson.

in teaching (Table 8). On the Technological Pedagogical Knowledge
Scale, PSTs embraced a neutral stance with claims that they
possessed adequate knowledge about uses of technologies in
teaching at pretest (M 3.35, SD ¼ 0.51), and posttest, (M ¼ 3.78,
SD ¼ 0.87); t(12) ¼ 1.565, p > 0.05.
On the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Scale, at
pretest, PSTs reported a mean of 2.87 (SD ¼ 0.60), indicating overall
slight disagreement with claims that they possessed adequate
technological pedagogical content knowledge. At posttest, the
mean increased to 3.57 (SD ¼ 0.67), indicating a favorable increase
in their perception of the adequacy of their technological peda-
gogical content knowledge. These differences were significant and
very large; t(23) ¼ 4.197, p < 0.001, d ¼ 0.86. We noted, however,
that even with the increase, PSTs’ perceived self-efficacy remained
at the mid-point of the scale, indicating a relatively fragile level of
confidence.
5.1.4. Source of knowledge about technology in teaching
To understand the source of PSTs’ knowledge relative to tech-
nology and technology in teaching, we examined relevant indi-
vidual ICT survey items (Table 9). At posttest, PSTs were more likely
to attribute their knowledge of ICT (in general) to peer interactions
(medium effect-size); and they were also more likely to identify
teacher education coursework as the source of their knowledge
about ICT for teaching (large effect-size). Additionally, at posttest,
PSTs’ belief that their teacher education institution “has done well”
alleviating their concerns regarding using ICT in teaching increased
significantly (medium effect-size), shifting from a neutral response
at pretest to a positive response (slightly agreeing) at posttest.
Results also indicated a significant increase at posttest in their
perception that both their coursework and institution had done
well in developing their professionalism related to the use of ICT in
teaching.
For ICT survey items related to professional development, PSTs
reported significant increases in their satisfaction with their cur-
rent knowledge of ICT in teaching (very large effect-size). They also
reported a significant decrease in their desire to learn more about
ICT in teaching (large effect size).
5.1.5. Intent to use technology in their future classrooms
To determine changes in PSTs’ intent to use technology in their
future classrooms and identify the source of their intent, we
analyzed items clustered around the topic, ICT Teaching Use from
the Use and Beliefs about ICT survey (Table 10). PSTs reported a
significant increase (medium effect size) in their plan to use ICT
often in their teaching, shifting from a neutral stance to a positive
stance (i.e., agreeing that they plan to use ICT often in their
teaching). However, they reported a significant decrease (medium
effect size) in their plan to use the ICT learned in their teacher
education coursework. No significant differences were found in
their plan to use ICT learned either on their own or from their peers.
5.2. PSTs’ perceptions of changes in content knowledge, pedagogical
knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge
Because we revised a required course in teaching literacy to
place special emphasis on technology integration, we wondered if
an unintended consequence might be insufficient attention to PSTs’
 J.R. Paratore et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 59 (2016) 247e260 255

Table 9
ICT training and professional development items measuring knowledge of ways of implementing technology in teaching.

N Mean (SD) Mean (SD) t p d

pretest posttest

ICT Training
3a. I learned to use ICT in teaching on my own. 25 3.64 (1.25) 3.80 (0.96) 0.625 0.538
3b. I learned to use ICT in teaching from my peers. 25 3.12 (1.13) 3.76 (0.83) 2.426 0.023* 0.49
3c. I was trained to use ICT in teaching during my teacher education coursework. 25 3.52 (0.96) 4.48 (1.16) 3.361 0.003* 0.67
3d. The ICT in teaching training during my teacher education coursework is adequate for my future 22 3.09 (1.15) 4.36 (1.18) 0.586 0.001* 0.82
instruction.
3e. I attended training session(s) on how to use ICT in teaching. 25 3.16 (1.03) 2.32 (1.18) 1.467 0.011* 0.55
3f. The ICT in teaching training from sessions are adequate for my future instruction. 22 3.05 (1.05) 2.91 (1.27) 0.864 0.701
ICT Profession Development
6a. I am satisfied with my current knowledge of ICT in teaching. 25 2.84 (1.21) 4.48 (1.26) 4.954 <0.001* 0.99
6b. I would like to learn more about ICT in teaching. 25 6.20 (1.00) 5.44 (1.39) 2.998 0.006* 0.60

Note. The responses for these items could range from a 1 for Strongly Disagree to a 6 for Strongly Agree.
*p < 0.05.

Table 10
ICT teaching use items measuring intent to use technology in future classrooms.

N Mean (SD) pretest Mean (SD) posttest t p d

ICT Teaching Use

4d. I plan to use ICT often in my teaching. 24 4.56 (1.47) 5.16 (1.14) 2.167 0.040* 0.43
4e. I plan to use ICT that I learned on my own in my teaching. 23 4.75 (1.29) 4.50 (1.25) 0.861 0.398
4f. I plan to use ICT that I learned from my peers in my teaching. 25 4.52 (1.47) 4.52 (1.04) N/A N/A
4g. I plan to use ICT that I learned from my teacher education coursework in my teaching. 25 5.32 (1.07) 4.72 (1.10) 2.268 0.033* 0.45

Note. The responses for these items could range from a 1 for Strongly Disagree to a 7 for Strongly Agree.
*p < 0.05.

literacy content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge. To
examine the quality of their content, pedagogical knowledge, and
pedagogical content knowledge, we examined relevant TPACK
survey items.
On content knowledge scales, PSTs perceived increases in sci-
ence and literacy content knowledge (large effect sizes) but not in
mathematics or social studies (Tables 11 and 12). On the Peda-
gogical Knowledge Scale (Table 13), at pretest, pretest and posttest
differences were significant and very large; t(12) ¼ 5.771, p < 0.001,
d ¼ 1.60. On the Pedagogical Content Knowledge Scale, pretest and
posttest differences were also significant and large; t(25) ¼ 4.120,
p < 0.001, d ¼ 0.81 (see Table 13).
5.3. PSTs’ capacity to effectively integrate technology in their
literacy instruction
To determine if PSTs’ perceptions about their knowledge
matched their ability to plan lessons that integrated the principles
of effective literacy instruction with facilitative use of technology
and educational media, we analyzed PSTs’ lesson plans. We orga-
nized these results into two sections: (a) awareness and use of
technology devices and educational media; and (b) meaningful
technology use.
5.3.1. Awareness and use of technology devices and educational
media
Over the course of the semester, PSTs demonstrated knowledge
of numerous technology devices and educational media. Across the
entire collection of lesson plans, IWB and iPads were used most
often (Table 14); four other devices (Computer, Document Camera,
iPhone, Tablet) were featured at least once in the 36 lesson plan
series. Across all lessons PSTs integrated six different media types
(e-books, games, publishing/presentation, social media, video,
other), some of which were introduced in class and some of which
PSTs discovered on their own (e.g., http://flashcardstash.com/lists/
250062-circus). PSTs primarily used technology and educational

Table 11
Items included in the content knowledge scales.

Mathematics
8 I have sufficient knowledge about mathematics.
9 I can use a mathematical way of thinking.
10 I have various ways and strategies of developing my understanding of mathematics.
Social Studies
11 I have sufficient knowledge about social studies.
12 I can use a historical way of thinking.
13 I have various ways and strategies of developing my understanding of social studies.
Science
14 I have sufficient knowledge about science.
15 I can use a scientific way of thinking.
16 I have various ways and strategies of developing my understanding of science.
Literacy
17 I have sufficient knowledge about literacy.
18 I can use a literary way of thinking.
19 I have various ways and strategies of developing my understanding of literacy
256 J.R. Paratore et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 59 (2016) 247e260

Table 12
Paired-sample t-test Results for Content Knowledge Scales (N ¼ 26).

Mean (SD) pretest Mean (SD) posttest t p d

Math Content Knowledge 3.94 3.83 -0.642 0.527

Social Studies Content Knowledge 3.42 3.64 1.223 0.233
Science Content Knowledge 3.59 3.91 2.831 0.009* 0.55
Literacy Content Knowledge 3.64 4.21 3.220 0.004* 0.63

Table 13
Items comprising the Pedagogical Knowledge and Pedagogical Content Knowledge Scales.

Pedagogical Knowledge
1 I know how to assess student performance in a classroom.
2 I can adapt my teaching based upon what students currently understand or do not understand.
3 I can adapt my teaching style to different learners.
4 I can assess student learning in multiple ways.
5 I can use a wide range of teaching approaches in a classroom setting.
6 I am familiar with common student understandings and misconceptions.
7 I know how to organize and maintain classroom management.
Pedagogical Content Knowledge
1 I can select effective teaching approaches to guide student thinking and learning in mathematics.
2 I can select effective teaching approaches to guide student thinking and learning in literacy.
3 I can select effective teaching approaches to guide student thinking and learning in science.
4 I can select effective teaching approaches to guide student thinking and learning in social studies.

media for purposes of publishing and presentation (e.g., multi- Table 14

media presentation of new vocabulary), customized media (e.g., Proportion of intended student Actions when using technology, media
type, and media devices across all lesson plan series (N ¼ 36).
development of a word sort in the Notebook application), or video
(e.g., Brainpop video). Proportion

Intended Student Actions when Using Technology

5.3.2. Meaningful technology use Collaboration 0.21
To determine if PSTs identified and used high-quality media and Communication 0.12
Creativity 0.05
integrated technologies in ways that enhanced “traditional” ap-
Critical Thinking 0.09
proaches to teaching literacy, we examined purposes for using Knowledge Acquisition 0.43
technologies at various points in lessons and the quality of the Problem Solving 0.04
particular media choices. Across literacy domains (word study, Skill/Strategy Acquisition 0.38
Other 0.01
vocabulary, comprehension), PSTs integrated technology in mean-
Media Type
ingful ways most of the time and in the domains of vocabulary and e-book 0.02
comprehension, they did so more than two-thirds of the time Games 0.02
(Table 15). Publishing/Presentation 0.39
When integrating technology, PSTs intended their students’ Social Media 0.02
Video 0.11
actions to support knowledge acquisition, skill/strategy acquisition,
Customized 0.43
collaboration, and communication. In one representative example, Technology
the group used video to support knowledge acquisition: Air Play 0.05
The teacher will then introduce the Super Grover 2.0 YouTube Computer 0.02
Document Camera 0.04
video titled “Pulleys.” The video will start at 0:41 and continue
iPhone 0.00
through the end. To introduce the video, the teacher will state that Interactive White Board 0.65
Grover meets some friends who have a problem, and that students Tablet 0.24
should pay attention to how Grover helps solve the problem. This
video is beneficial for the students because it allows them to see
another problem in which a pulley helps someone make lifting Table 15
something easier. A video is used rather than another story because Proportion of Teaching Episodes and Meaningful use by Lesson Plan Series.
it allows the students to see a pulley in action. Video: http://www. Word reading Vocabulary Comprehension
youtube.com/watch?v¼RQxJK0IrVMQ (Case 18, Comprehension
n ¼ 13 n ¼ 11 n ¼ 12
Lesson).
We interpreted this example (and others like it) as evidence of Proportion Proportion Proportion
PSTs’ awareness that for especially complex concepts (e.g., how Teaching Episodes
simple machines provide leverage), seeing a demonstration of the Literacy and Technology 0.59 0.70 0.65
central idea might be more beneficial than the more traditional Literacy 0.41 0.30 0.35
Technology 0 0 0
approach of reading or listening to a description. Moreover, given
Meaningful Use
the context of literacy instruction, we noted that PSTs used the Meaningful 0.56 0.74 0.68
video as a complement to storybook reading, supporting develop- Unmeaningful 0.44 0.26 0.32
ment of both science content knowledge and literacy skill
development.
Although they did so with less frequency, PSTs also designed creativity, critical thinking, and problem solving. In the following
activities likely to prompt their students to use technology for excerpt from a comprehension lesson, PSTs’ prompt their students
 J.R. Paratore et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 59 (2016) 247e260
to consider using video as a way to publicize an important idea:
 Explain that in both small groups everyone came up with some
ideas of what we could do to help save the ocean environment
and get rid of the garbage that people throw into the ocean.
 Ask students what they could make to help spread the message
of protecting the ocean and the animals that live there. (Some
students may say make a movie or video like Jacques did, some
might suggest making a poster or talking to people about the
problem)
 Explain that today we are going to make a PSA e Public Service
Announcement, which can be a video or poster, telling people to
throw their garbage away, or not to leave garbage on the side-
walk, etc. (Case 39, Comprehension Lesson).
Finally, although in lower proportions, in addition to the many
meaningful uses of literacy and technology integration, we also
found three examples of unmeaningful use. These included (a)
reliance on too many technology options or affordances within a
single lesson; (b) using technology to perform an action that the
teacher might have done more effectively; and (c) using the IWB for
simple display or explanations, with no greater affordances than
traditional resources (e.g., a chalkboard, easel).
5.3.3. Quality of literacy instruction
To determine if attention to and emphasis on technology inte-
gration had the unintended effect of diminishing attention to high-
quality literacy attention, we analyzed the quality of teaching ac-
tions within both literacy and technology and literacy-only epi-
sodes. Throughout both types of teaching episodes, we found that
most PSTs integrated literacy teaching actions (e.g., demonstrating,
explaining) that had been described and emphasized throughout
the course as important and facilitative (Table 16).
6. Discussion
This study was motivated by evidence that differences in how
teachers understand, frame, and use technology hold important
consequences for their students’ academic achievement. In partic-
ular, emphasis on use of technology for low-level tasks such as skill
and drill has little positive effect (and in some cases negative ef-
fects) on student outcomes; and such uses of technology are often
concentrated in high-poverty schools and classrooms in which
students’ academic achievement is already impacted by substan-
tially fewer opportunities to learn. Although teacher preparation
programs might be expected to influence the ways teachers come
to understand and use technology in teaching, studies find that
they often fail to develop such knowledge sufficiently (e.g., Kleiner,
Thomas, Lewis, & Greene, 2007). Moreover, among studies in which
teacher education programs demonstrated positive effects on PST
Table 16
Proportion of teaching Actions by episode type and lesson type (N ¼ 36).
Teaching Actions within Episodes Word reading lessons
Literacy Literacy and technology Literacy
episodes episodes
Activating Background Knowledge and Linking 0.28 0.72
New Knowledge
Assessing and Monitoring 0.40 0.60
Demonstrating 0.26 0.74
Differentiating 0.21 0.79
Explaining 0.26 0.57
Guiding 0.30 0.70
Providing Feedback 0.40 0.60
Promoting Independence/Transfer 0.50 0.50
257
outcomes related to technology integration, we found no studies
that also examined the extent to which teachers maintained
effective teaching of disciplinary curricula as they were integrating
technology.
In response to these findings, in this study, we developed a
course that built on the evidence of what teachers should know and
be able to do to productively integrate technology in teaching lit-
eracy, and we integrated the content and learning practices within
a required course in teaching reading. We studied 29 undergrad-
uate PSTs and examined the extent to which completion of the
course changed their perceptions of their knowledge about tech-
nology and technology in teaching, and also to see if their per-
ceptions were evident in the ways they planned literacy instruction
and they maintained sound reading instructional practices.
As we looked across results, we noted three major findings. First,
findings suggest PSTs’ perception of their knowledge (technology,
disciplinary [literacy and science only], pedagogical knowledge
[general and content]) and self-efficacy increased significantly with
effects sizes ranging from medium to large. Increases with tech-
nological content knowledge, technological pedagogical content
knowledge (i.e., TPACK), and self-efficacy reflected a neutral stance,
indicating that they neither agreed nor disagreed with the claim
that they had adequate knowledge or self-efficacy.
Second, although PSTs indicated an intent to use technology in
their future teaching as evidenced by a significant increase in intent
(medium effect size), findings related to the source of their
knowledge were uneven. PSTs significantly increased (large effect
size) their perception that their coursework and their institution
had done well in developing their professionalism related to
technology in teaching. Moreover, at posttest, PSTs were more
likely to identify teacher education coursework (large effect size)
and their peers (medium effect size) as the source of their tech-
nological pedagogical content knowledge. Unexpectedly, however,
they decreased their intent to use the technology learned in teacher
education coursework.
Finally, in their lesson plans, not only did most PSTs effectively
integrate technology, they did so while maintaining sound literacy
practices. In lessons plans, PSTs demonstrated knowledge of
numerous technology devices and educational media, including
some introduced and others found on their own. When integrating
technology, PSTs’ focused primarily on learning goals that sup-
ported “transformative” learning rather than skill acquisition.
Although PSTs displayed some misuse of technology, the propor-
tion of such instances was far less in comparison to meaningful
uses. Notably, as they integrated technology, PSTs also displayed
literacy teaching actions (e.g., demonstrating, explaining) that had
been described and emphasized throughout the course as impor-
tant and facilitative.
At the outset, we acknowledge the methodological limitations.
The sample size is small (N ¼ 29) and comprised participants who
Vocabulary lessons Comprehension lessons
Literacy and technology Literacy Literacy and technology
episodes episodes episodes episodes
0.14 0.86 0.23 0.78
0.12 0.88 0.24 0.76
0.14 0.86 0.22 0.78
0.25 0.75 0.15 0.85
0.16 0.84 0.30 0.70
0.21 0.79 0.23 0.77
0.00 1.00 0.07 0.93
0.31 0.69 0.32 0.68
258 J.R. Paratore et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 59 (2016) 247e260
completed the course in two different semesters. We know that
small sample sizes can sometimes result in indications of large
effect sizes (Slavin & Smith, 2009), so these must be interpreted
with caution. We also note that analysis of individual survey items
(as opposed to scales) increases the likelihood of Type 2 error. We
have chosen to treat these as indications of a clear trend in PSTs’
learning, rather than as absolute evidence of the magnitude of
effects.
We also note that a researcher who also serves as the course
instructor has to the potential to influence PST outcomes. We
accounted for this threat to validity in two ways. First, as part of the
recruitment procedures, the course instructor informed all PSTs
(verbally and in writing) enrolled in the course that study partici-
pation was voluntary (as was dropping out of the study without
penalty), that the study was separate from the course and would in
no way influence their course grade, and that all survey and lesson
plan data would remain confidential and anonymous (once
collected, data were deidentified immediately). Second, the course
instructor was not present when participating PSTs completed
surveys.
To minimize observer effects that may also occur when the
researcher is also an observer, we took three measures. As previ-
ously noted, the course instructor was not present when PSTs
completed surveys. In addition, we collected multiple data sources
comprising survey and artifact data (i.e., PST lessons plans) and in
doing so, each data source served to confirm each other (Patton,
2002). Lastly, as described above, we employed a rigorous coding
process that included validation of trustworthiness of coding
completed by both the course instructor and other research team
members.
These limitations notwithstanding, this study offers new in-
sights. In particular, unlike many existing studies, we gathered a
large data set relative to participants’ ability to act on their
emerging and developing understandings about technology and
technology in teaching, and these data provide important evidence
of what groups of participants learned and were able to do.
Moreover, include examination of PSTs’ capacity for maintain
sound literacy instructional practices.
So what do we take our findings to mean? As we have reviewed
and considered findings individually and collectively, we have
settled on three implications. The first confirms and also extends
evidence from previous studies (for a review see Koehler, Mishra,
Kereluik, Shin, & Graham, 2014). As others have found, thoughtful
and thorough integration of instruction in TPACK within a rich
disciplinary content strengthens PSTs’ perception of themselves as
knowledgeable about technology and technology in teaching and
their self-efficacy relative to their ability to use technology in
teaching. But in addition, this study found that PSTs developed and
applied understanding of evidence-based reading instructional
practicesdan outcome not examined in previous studies. The
finding that PSTs’ claims of efficacy were greater in literacy and
science and less in mathematics and social studies underscores the
trustworthiness of their survey responses, as the course in which
they participated focused primarily on literacy with some attention
to science content (e.g., lesson planning focused on informational
text and in the text sets the PSTs were required to use as curriculum
for lesson planning); no attention was given to either mathematics
or social studies content.
The second implication relates to the overall design of the
course. Although our study design did not permit us to parcel out
specific contributions of each course component (or combination
thereof), the evidence that PSTs expanded their breadth of
knowledge about educational media and technology beyond what
was presented and taught in class suggests that the array of
multiple learning contextsdassigned readings in preparation for
class meetings, traditional lectures, and Playspaceei.e., in-class
time when students collaboratively investigated technologies
and educational media first handeecontributed to PSTs’ aware-
ness of strategies to identify and evaluate useful resources.
Similarly, the finding that PSTs identified both peers and the
course instructor as sources of knowledge about technology and
technology in teaching reinforces the importance of a collabora-
tive approach to learning as a method that not only motivates and
engages, and may also heighten PSTs’ awareness of both the po-
wer of collaborative learning in their own teaching and also of the
value of turning to their own peers as an on-going knowledge
source.
Beyond the particular learning contexts (e.g., lecture, collab-
orative Playspace), this course positioned literacy skill develop-
ment as a pathway to the acquisition of children’s language and
conceptual knowledge; and in concert with this, the course
presented educational media and technology as productive re-
sources for knowledge development. In PSTs’ lesson plans across
different literacy domains, we found substantial emphasis on
knowledge acquisition as a primary learning goal, suggesting that
the design of the course successfully fostered a disposition to-
ward teaching centered on transformative learning rather than
discrete skill acquisition. This is especially important because of
evidence that teaching that privileges knowledge acquisition
over skill development is more likely to motivate and engage all
learners; and, in turn, motivated and engaged learners are more
likely to engage in extended reading both in and out of school
(Guthrie, Wigfield, & Yu, 2012). Future research is need to
examine the relative contribution of this array of course com-
ponents on PST outcomes.
The third implication relates to the status of the knowledge
participants claimed to hold at the end of the study. Although we
are encouraged by the findings that PSTs demonstrated significant
and apparently substantial growth in their perceptions of their own
technology knowledge, technology in teaching knowledge, and
self-efficacy related to teaching with technology, we also noted the
modesty in these claims. PSTs began with exceptionally limited
perceptions of their knowledge of technology, technology in
teaching, and their ability to use technology in teaching. It is not
surprising then, that even substantial gains in their perceptions
resulted in a rank of either a neutral stance relative to knowledge or
ability (i.e., neither agreeing or disagreeing with claims of knowl-
edge or efficacy) or in a rank of “slight” agreement. Such knowledge
is at best considered fragileddefined by Perkins, Crismond,
Simmons, and Unger (1995) as “partial, halting, flawed, and
evanescent” (p. 73). Understanding the fragility of knowledge is
important because as such, it may be temporaryd“a momentary
construction sustained by a current contextdthe ongoing conver-
sation, illustrations lying on the table, scratch work on a black-
board” (Perkins et al., p. 74). Thus, consistent with prior research
(Belland, 2008; Polly et al., 2010), findings suggest without ongoing
focus on extending and deepening knowledge and use of technol-
ogy in teaching, such fragile knowledge is at risk of being over-
whelmed and in time, erased, by other, more prevalent demands in
schools and classrooms.
7. Conclusion
The evidence we gathered reinforced our awareness that cour-
ses such as this one are critically important as, done well, they
provide PSTs rich and beneficial opportunities to learn to join the
affordances of technology and educational media with deep
knowledge of teaching (in this case, literacy). As such, they provide
an important, but partial, solution to the problems of practice that
motivated this study. To make substantial progress in enriching
 J.R. Paratore et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 59 (2016) 247e260
opportunities for all students to learn from and with technology,
we must continue to explore ways to reframe teacher education
programs so that TPACK is addressed throughout a multi-faceted,
multi-disciplinary preservice education curriculum.
Acknowledgements
Research reported in this study was supported by a grant from
the U.S. Department of Education, Ready to Learn Initiative awarded
to Corporation for Public Broadcasting and Public Broadcasting
Systems, Award Number U295A100025, CFDA No. 84.295A and
subcontracted to Boston University.
References
Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the
conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICTeTPCK: Advances in
technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education,
52(1), 154e168.
Archer, K., Savage, R., Sanghera-Sidhu, S., Wood, E., Gottardo, A., & Chen, V. (2014).
Examining the effectiveness of technology use in classrooms: A tertiary meta-
analysis. Computers & Education, 78, 140e149.
Atwell, P. (2001). The first and the second digital divide. Sociology of Education,
74(3), 171e191.
Belland, B. R. (2008). Using the theory of habitus to move beyond the study of
barriers to technology integration. Computers and Education, 52, 353e364.
Beyerbach, B., Walsh, C., & Vannatta, R. (2001). From teaching technology to using
technology to enhance student learning: Preservice teachers’ changing per-
ceptions of technology infusion. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,
9(1), 105e127.
Bowen, G. A. (2008). Naturalistic inquiry and the saturation concept: A research
note. Qualitative Research, 8(1), 137e152.
Brush, T., Glazewski, K., Rutowski, K., Berg, K., Stromfors, C., Hernandez Van-
Nest, M., et al. (2003). Integrating technology in a field-based teacher training
program: The PT3@ ASU project. Educational Technology Research and Devel-
opment, 51(1), 57e72.
Campuzano, L., Dynaski, M., Agodini, R., & Rall, K. (2009). Effectiveness of reading and
mathematics software products: Findings from two cohorts. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education. Retrieved from: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/
20094041/pdf/20094042.pdf.
Cheung, A. C. K., & Slavin, R. E. (2012). How features of educational technology
applications affect student reading outcomes: A meta-analysis. Educational
Research Review, 7(3), 198e215.
Cheung, A. C. K., & Slavin, R. E. (2013). Effects of educational technology applications
on reading outcomes of struggling readers: A best evidence synthesis. Reading
Research Quarterly, 48(3), 277e299.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analyses for the behavior sciences (2nd ed.). New
York, NY: Psychology Press.
Cviko, A., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2012). Teachers enacting a technology-rich
curriculum for emergent literacy. Educational Technology Research and Devel-
opment, 60(1), 31e54.
Cviko, A., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2013). The teacher as re-designer of technology
integrated activities for an early literacy curriculum. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 48(4), 447e468.
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How
knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 42(3), 255e284.
Franklin, C. A., & Sessoms, D. B. (2005). A situative perspective on a collaborative
model for integrating technology into teaching. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 32(4), 315e328.
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & You, W. (2012). Instructional contexts for engagement
and achievement in reading. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.),
Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 601e634). New York: Springer.
Hur, J. W., Cullen, T., & Brush, T. (2010). Teaching for application: A model for
assisting pre-service teachers with technology integration. Journal of Technology
and Teacher Education, 18(1), 161e182.
Inan, F. A., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12
classrooms: A path model. Educational Technology Research and Development,
58(2), 137e154.
International Society for Technology in Education. (2008). Standards for teachers.
Retrieved August 14, 2014 from https://www.iste.org/.
Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robison, A. J., & Weigel, M. (2006). Con-
fronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st
century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Judge, S., Puckett, K., & Bell, S. M. (2006). Closing the digital divide: Update from the
early childhood longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Research, 100(1),
52e60.
Judge, S., Puckett, K., & Cabuk, B. (2004). Digital equity: New findings from the early
childhood longitudinal study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
36(4), 383e396.
259
Kanaya, T., Light, D., & McMillan-Culp, K. (2005). Factors influencing outcomes from
a technology-focused professional development program. Journal of research on
technology in education, 37(3), 313e329.
Kleiner, B., Thomas, N., Lewis, L., & Greene, B. (2007). Educational technology in
teacher education programs for initial licensure. National Center for Education
Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education.
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Bouck, E. C., DeSchryver, M., & Kereluik, K. (2011). Deep-
play: Developing TPACK for 21st century teachers. International Journal of
Learning Technology, 6(2), 146e163.
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Kereluik, K., Shin, T. S., & Graham, C. R. (2014). The tech-
nological pedagogical content knowledge framework. In J. M. Spector,
M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational
communications and technology (pp. 101e112). New York: Springer.
Kulik, J. A. (2003). Effects of using instructional technology in elementary and sec-
ondary schools: What controlled evaluation studies say. Arlington, VA: SRI
International.
Leu, D. J., Forzani, E., Rhoads, C., Maykel, C., Kennedy, C., & Timbrell, N. (2015). The
new literacies of online research and comprehension. Rethinking the achieve-
ment gap. Reading Research Quarterly, 50(1), 37e59.
Linebarger, D. L., & Vaala, S. E. (2010). Screen media and language development in
infants and toddlers: An ecological perspective. Developmental Review, 30,
176e202.
Llosa, L., & Slayton, J. (2009). Using program evaluation to inform and improve the
education of young English language learners in US schools. Language Teaching
Research, 13(1), 35e54.
Lomax, R. G., & Hahs-Vaughn, D. L. (2013). Statistical concepts: A second course. New
York: Routledge.
Lysenko, L., & Abrami, P. C. (2014). Promoting comprehension with use of tech-
nology. Computers and Education, 74, 162e172.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A
framework for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108(6),
1017e1054.
Mouza, C., Karchmer-Klein, R., Nandakumar, R., Yilmaz Ozden, S., & Hu, L. (2014).
Investigating the impact of an integrated approach to the development of
preservice teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK).
Computers & Education, 71, 206e221.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, & Council of Chief State
School Officers. (2010). Common Core state standards. Retrieved October 27,
2011, from http://www.corestandards.org/.
Neuman, S. B., Newman, E. H., & Dwyer, J. (2010). Educational effects of an embedded
multimedia vocabulary intervention for economically disadvantages pre-K chil-
dren: A randomized trial. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Nir-Gal, O., & Klein, P. S. (2004). Computers for cognitive development in early
ChildhooddThe teacher’s role in the computer learning environment. Infor-
mation Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 2004(1), 97e119.
OECD. (2013). PISA 2012 results: Excellence through equity: Giving every student the
chance to succeed (Volume II). PISA: OECD Publishing.
Oliver, O. J. O., & Walker, T. M. (2012). Using instructional technologies to enhance
teaching and learning for the 21st century preK-12 students: The case of a
professional education programs unit. International Journal of Instructional
Media, 39(4), 283e295.
Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 317e344.
Peneul, W. R., Fisham, B. J., Cheng, B. H., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizing research and
development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design.
Educational Researcher, 40(7), 331e337.
Perkins, D. N., Crismond, D., Simmons, R., & Under, C. (1995). Inside understanding.
In D. N. Perkins, J. L. Schwartz, M. M. West, & M. S. Wiske (Eds.), Software goes to
school: Teaching for understanding (pp. 70e88). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Polly, D., Mims, C., Shepherd, C. E., & Inan, F. (2010). Evidence of impact: Trans-
forming teacher education with preparing tomorrow’s teachers to teach with
technology (PT3) grants. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 863e870.
Pope, M., Hare, D., & Howard, E. (2005). Enhancing technology use in student
teaching: A case study. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4),
573e618.
Razali, M. (2013). The use and beliefs about information communication survey. In
Malaysian secondary school teachers’ conceptions and uses of digital technology in
english language writing instruction: A multiple case study. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. MI: Michigan State University.
Rosaen, C. L., Hobson, S., & Khan, G. (2003). Making connections: Collaborative
approaches to preparing today’s and tomorrow’s teachers to use technology.
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 11(2), 281e306.
Rosenshine, B. (1986). Synthesis of research on explicit teaching. Educational
Leadership, 43(7), 60e69.
Sang, G., Valcke, M., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2010). Student teachers’ thinking
processes and ICT integration: Predictors of prospective teaching behaviors
with educational technology. Computers & Education, 54(1), 103e112.
Schmidt, D., 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 Education, 42(2), 123e149.
Segal-Drori, O., Korat, O., Shamir, A., & Klein, P. S. (2010). Reading electronic and
printed books with and without adult instruction: Effects on emergent reading.
Reading and Writing, 23(8), 913e930.
260 J.R. Paratore et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 59 (2016) 247e260
Slavin, R., & Smith, D. (2009). The relationship between sample sizes and effect sizes
in systematic reviews in education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
31(4), 500e506.
Torgerson, C., & Zhu, D. (2003). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effec-
tiveness of ICT on literacy learning in English, 5-16. London: EPPI-Centre, Social
Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.
Valkenburg, P. M., Kremar, M., & de Roos, S. (1998). The impact of cultural children’s
program and adult mediation on children’s knowlede of and attitudes towards
opera. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 42, 315e326.
Valtonen, T., Kukkonen, J., Kontkanen, S., Sormunen, K., Dillon, P., & Sointu, E. (2015).
The impact of authentic learning experiences with ICT on pre-service teachers’
intentions to use ICT for teaching and learning. Computers & Education, 81,
49e58.
Vannatta, R. A., & Beyerbach, B. (2000). Facilitating a constructivist vision of tech-
nology integration among education faculty and preservice teachers. Journal of
Research on Computing in Education, 33(2), 132e148.
Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced
learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development,
53(4), 5e23.
Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technologies and digital worlds:
Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. In A. Luke, J. Green,
& G. J. Kelly (Eds.), Review of research in education: What counts as evidence in
educational settings? rethinking equity, diversity, and reform in the 21st century
(volume 34, pp. 179e225). Thousand Oaks, CA: American Educational Research
Association, Sage Publications.
Wayne, A., Zucker, A., & Powell, T. (2002). So what about the ‘digital divide’ in K-12
schools? Educational technology and equity in U.S. K-12 schools. In Paper pre-
sented at the telecommunications policy research conference, Arlington, VA, on
September 27, 2002.
Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does it compute? the relationship between educational tech-
nology and student achievement in mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Educational
Testing Services.
Wenglinsky, H. (2005). Technology and achievement: The bottom line. Educational
Leadership, 63(4), 29e31.
Windshitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers’ use of technology in a laptop
computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and insti-
tutional culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 165e205.
Yang, Y., Yu, S., & Sun, Z. (2013). The effect of collaborative annotation on Chinese
reading level in primary schools in China. British Journal of Educational Tech-
nology, 44(1), 95e111.
Zheng, B., Warschauer, M., & Farkas, G. (2013). Digital writing and diversity: The
effects of school laptop programs on literacy processes and outcomes. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 48(3), 267e299.