This may be the author’s version of a work that was submitted/accepted

for publication in the following source:

Handal, Boris, Campbell, Chris, Cavanagh, Michael, Petocz, Peter, & Kelly,
Nick
(2012)
Integrating technology, pedagogy and content in mathematics education.
Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 31(4), pp.
387-413.

This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/94125/

c Consult author(s) regarding copyright matters

This work is covered by copyright. Unless the document is being made available under a
Creative Commons Licence, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use and
that permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the docu-
ment is available under a Creative Commons License (or other specified license) then refer
to the Licence for details of permitted re-use. It is a condition of access that users recog-
nise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. If you believe that
this work infringes copyright please provide details by email to qut.copyright@qut.edu.au

Notice: Please note that this document may not be the Version of Record
(i.e. published version) of the work. Author manuscript versions (as Sub-
mitted for peer review or as Accepted for publication after peer review) can
be identified by an absence of publisher branding and/or typeset appear-
ance. If there is any doubt, please refer to the published source.

http:// www.learntechlib.org/ p/ 40450

Jl. of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching (2012) 31(4), 387-413

Integrating Technology, Pedagogy and Content in

Mathematics Education

Boris Handal
The University of Notre Dame Australia, Australia
boris.handal@nd.edu.au

Chris Campbell
The University of Queensland, Australia
chris.campbell@uq.edu.au

Michael Cavanagh and Peter Petocz

Macquarie University, Australia
michael.cavanagh@mq.edu.au
peter.petocz@mq.edu.au

Nick Kelly
The University of Sydney, Australia
Nick.kelly.mail@gmail.com

The need for appraising the effective integration of technolo-

gies into teaching and learning within a disciplinary context
is crucial for upholding quality teaching standards in schools
and formulating professional development programs. This
paper describes the development and validation of an instru-
ment aimed at characterising the integration of technological
knowledge in secondary school mathematics teachers. The
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)
framework is used to underpin the development and valida-
tion of the questionnaire. The questionnaire consisting of
three 10-item scales was administered to a sample of 280
teachers across the state of New South Wales, Australia. The
factor analysis undertaken confirms the structural soundness
of the instrument in terms of validity and reliability.
388 Handal, Campbell, Cavanagh, Petocz, and Kelly

Introduction

The use of technology in secondary mathematics school classrooms

has progressed rapidly in recent years (Johnston-Wilder & Pimm, 2004).
Despite the introduction of modern learning technologies there is a well-
recognised need for the efficient integration of the affordances brought
by information and communication technologies (ICT) into secondary
mathematics education (Bingimlas, 2009). To achieve these learning
outcomes teachers have integrated knowledge of technology with their
knowledge of content and pedagogy. More importantly, not much is known
about the nature and direction of secondary mathematics teachers and their
current engagements integrating technological knowledge into teaching
and learning. This paper describes the development and validation of an
instrument attempting to fill such an educational gap.
The current debate on up-skilling teachers on using ICT in teaching
and learning has been periodically highlighted by the literature (Stols &
Kriek, 2011; Thomas, 2006). It calls for a need to make use of theoretical
frameworks which can provide a rich structure to examine teachers’
professional capabilities in the use of technology for teaching and learning
(Thomas & Chinnappan, 2008; Handal, Cavanagh, Wood and Petocz,
2011). In the process of appraising such capabilities teachers’ perceptions
of their own abilities in integrating content, pedagogy and technology can
become effective tools for data collection and analysis (Forgasz, 2006).
That research also calls for advancing ICT teachers’ capabilities in handling
higher-order pedagogical tasks instead of using technology for activities that
resemble print-based learning material and for tasks aiming at reproducing
knowledge or inducing rote learning (Hayes, 2007; Ruthven & Hennessy,
2001).
The formulation of strong theoretical frameworks in ICT in education
related research is therefore crucial to efficiently inform resource develop-
ment, professional training as well as policy making. A great deal of re-
search in the field refers to descriptive studies which, although providing a
wealth of information, makes difficult the tasks of abstracting general prin-
ciples due to their lack of theoretical grounding (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).
As Cynthia Selfe warned two decades ago:

Until we examine the impact of computer technology on language and

society from a theoretical perspective, we will continue, myopically
and unsystematically, to define the isolated pieces of the puzzle in our
separate classrooms and discrete research studies. Until we share some
Integrating Technology, Pedagogy and Content in Mathematics Education 389

theoretical vision of this topic, we will never glimpse the larger social
or educational picture that could give our everyday classroom efforts
direction and meaning (1990, p. 119).

This study uses the TPACK model as a framework to examine the in-
tegration of content, pedagogy and technology. The paper will first explain
why the technological pedagogical content knowledge framework has been
adopted to appraise the integration technology, disciplinary content and ped-
agogies. Then, the following section will interrogate: (i) technological con-
tent knowledge (TCK); (ii) technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK);
and (iii) technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). The remain-
ing sections will then focus on the areas of integration relating to technol-
ogy in the mathematics classroom followed by explaining the rationale be-
hind the survey questions in the study. The second part of the paper pres-
ents the methods and outcomes from the study including the statistical data
analysis.
In this study both the acronyms TPACK and TPCK stand for techno-
logical pedagogical content knowledge. TPACK refers to the broader the-
oretical framework explaining the symbiosis among the three elements of
the model, namely, technology, pedagogy and content. In turn, TPCK repre-
sents specifically the intersection itself of those three components within the
model. In Figure 1 technology, pedagogy and content are represented by the
letters T, P and C, respectively.
The TPACK-M questionnaire described in this paper also allows for
the appraisal of mathematics teachers’ technological pedagogical content
knowledge at a greater scale level. Previous work in this area has assessed
such knowledge through the fine grained but resource-intensive process of
video capture and analysis (Polly, 2011b). Previous TPACK surveys that
are not specific to mathematics point to the validity of questionnaires as a
method for assessing the TPACK of a large number of teachers (N=1795)
(Archambault & Crippen, 2009) and pre-service teachers (Chai, Koh,
Tsai, & Tan, 2011; Schmidt et al., 2009). A small-scale mathematics
TPACK instrument has previously been developed and validated by Landry
(2010). This instrument is, however, general in scope and does not deal
with technological particularities related to the secondary mathematics
classroom.
390 Handal, Campbell, Cavanagh, Petocz, and Kelly

Figure 1. The integration of content, pedagogy and technology in the

TPACK framework (Bull, Park, Searson, Thompson, Mishra, Koehler &
Knezek, 2007)

Literature Review

The effective use of technology in the classroom requires not just

a knowledge of what technology exists and how to use it, but also how to
integrate this technology with content and with pedagogy (Grandgenett,
2008). Based upon Shulman’s (1986) work on the integration of pedagogy
and content knowledge, the TPACK construct identifies the areas of
integration required for effective use of technology in the classroom (Koe-
hler & Mishra, 2009; Mishra & Koehler, 2006). The utility of TPACK is
both as a framework for professional development (Bingimlas, 2009;
Niess, van Zee, & Gillow-Wiles, 2011; Polly, 2011a) and for assessment of
knowledge integration (Archambault & Crippen, 2009; Chai, Koh, Tsai, &
Tan, 2011; Landry, 2010; Schmidt et al., 2009).
Technology has been linked to student achievement in mathematics
(Wenglinsky, 1998) and use of information and communication
technologies (ICT) in mathematics is a curriculum requirement in many
countries (Crisan, Lerman, & Winbourne, 2007). It has been recognised
that it is not merely the use of technology that leads to higher achievement,
but rather the integration of a teacher’s knowledge of technology with their
knowledge of pedagogy and content (Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Mishra &
Koehler, 2006; Polly, 2011b; Polly & Barbour, 2009). As Grandgenett
(2008) describes the problem:
Integrating Technology, Pedagogy and Content in Mathematics Education 391

…it would seem that we have suffered from too much of a focus
on “what” technologies to use and too little imaginative thinking
on “how” these technologies might be used to support teaching and
learning (p. 146).

This notion of knowledge integration around technology has been

formalised into the construct of TPACK, which refers to the areas of
integration of technological pedagogical and content knowledge (Mishra
& Koehler, 2006; Thompson & Mishra, 2007), as can be seen in Figure
1. This follows from Shulman’s (1986) notion of pedagogical and content
knowledge integration.
The TPACK framework has been useful for analysing the integration
of knowledge of mathematics teachers and for proposing professional
development strategies for further integration (Niess et al., 2009; Polly,
2011a). The history of TPACK is well known, from its roots in Shulman’s
(1986) notions of pedagogical and content knowledge (PCK) integration
by teachers through to TPACK in curriculum, professional development
models and methods of measurement (Angeli & Valanides, 2009; Archam-
bault, Wetzel, Foulger, & Williams, 2010). The importance of TPACK
is that it makes pre-eminent the integration of a teacher’s knowledge,
rather than simply its possession (Kelly, 2010). The rapid advancement
of technology in secondary school mathematics classrooms (Johnston-
Wilder & Pimm, 2004) has led to a question of the degree of integration
of content knowledge (CK), pedagogical knowledge (PK) and technological
knowledge (TK) held by high school mathematics teachers.

Three Important TPACK Constructs

This study focuses on the important intersections of the CK, PK and

TK domains, namely, technological content knowledge (TCK), techno-
logical pedagogical knowledge (TPK) technological pedagogical content
knowledge (TPCK). This simplification responded to the need to develop
a survey whose length can be handled positively by a large number of re-
spondents through paper-and-pencil questionnaires, ensuring appropriate re-
sponse rates.
Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) is knowledge about the
relationship between technologies (from standard technologies such as
books to more advanced technologies such as ICT) and content (e.g.
the mathematics curriculum). The technology utilised both affords and
constrains different representations of content and thus “teachers need to
392 Handal, Campbell, Cavanagh, Petocz, and Kelly

know not just the subject matter they teach, but also the manner in which
the subject matter can be changed by the application of technology” (Mishra
& Koehler, 2006, p. 1028). For example, mathematics teachers are required
to teach content about geometry. One technology to achieve this is the
use of a blackboard. Another is the use of the computational application
Geometer’s Sketchpad (Jackiw, 1991). Each one affords different
representations and can perhaps be useful in different contexts if the teacher
holds TCK around each.
Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) is knowledge about the
relationship between technologies and pedagogy (the processes, practices
and methods of teaching and learning). The technology utilised both
affords and constrains different processes upon representations of content
and thus teachers need to know how specific technologies fit into their
teaching practice. A great deal of this knowledge focuses on the pedagogical
handling of various technologies in regard to specific teaching contexts.
Teachers also need to know how technology integrates into other cross-
curricular school issues such as ethical online behaviour or making use of
digital forms of assessment.
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) represents a
full integration of knowledge about technologies, representations and pro-
cesses that go together to produce effective learning. TPCK requires the
teacher to know (within a specific context of this classroom and these stu-
dents on this day) what type of technology will fit with both the content and
the desired teaching strategy (say, an interactive class) and put it together in
the lesson. According to Mishra and Koehler (2006, p. 66), TPCK

… is the basis of good teaching with technology and requires the un-
derstanding of the representation of concepts using technologies; peda-
gogical techniques that use technologies in constructive ways to teach
content; knowledge of what makes concepts difficult or easy to learn
and how technology can help redress some of the problems that stu-
dents face; knowledge of students’ prior knowledge and theories of
epistemology; and knowledge of how technologies can be used to build
on existing knowledge and to develop new epistemologies or strengthen
old ones.

Teachers’ Integration of Technology Knowledge in Mathematics Education

The integration of ICT in secondary mathematics education is a well-

recognised concern (Bingimlas, 2009). The literature gives many examples
Integrating Technology, Pedagogy and Content in Mathematics Education 393

of this need for integration being called out in specific curricula: Crisan et
al (2007) in the United Kingdom, Agyei and Voogt (2011) in Ghana, Ng
and Leong (2009) in Singapore, and Keong, Horani, and Daniel (2005)
in Malaysia. Despite this well-recognised need for TPACK, we do not yet
have an instrument for assessing the current TPACK level in mathematics
secondary education. Each of the three areas of integration that relate
to technological knowledge – TPK, TCK and TPCK – will be described
prior to discussing the development of an instrument for measuring such
knowledge integration in mathematics teachers.
Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) in mathematics education re-
fers to the integration of content knowledge with the technological knowl-
edge of tools available. For example, for mathematics teachers intending to
solve complex algebra problems for their own disciplinary work: (i) are they
aware of appropriate computer algebra software? and (ii) do they feel that
they are able to use this technology effectively? A number of technologies
that are prevalent in the mathematics ICT literature are targeted within the
survey (Table 1). These are evident in Table 1 below and include Power-
Point, Paint, spreadsheets, etc.

Table 1
Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) Scale
I am able to use technology to ...
A1: Create a PowerPoint presentation       
A2: Create and edit simple images (e.g. Microsoft Paint or Photoshop)
A3: Make calculations on a spreadsheet        
A4: Create charts/graphs using a spreadsheet
A5: Use a graphic calculator             
A6: Locate and evaluate maths online applications and tools (e.g., learning
objects, apps, simulators)
A7: Use dynamic geometry software (e.g., GeoGebra, Geometer’s Sketch-
pad, Autograph, Cabri)
A8: Use computer algebra software (e.g., Derive, Mathematica)              
A9: Construct multimedia objects embedding pictures, sound and
animations     
A10: Network with other colleagues and professional associations through
online forums, Facebook, etc     

Questions in the survey are directed at establishing the integration

of technology knowledge and content knowledge held by mathematics
teachers. The questions are based upon specific technologies found in the
394 Handal, Campbell, Cavanagh, Petocz, and Kelly

literature; examples serve to illustrate this point. It has been well established
that spreadsheets are a useful technology for teaching domains of arithmetic
and algebra, providing a bridge from the former to the latter (Friedlander,
1998) and allowing the setup of calculations so that changing the value of
one cell has an effect that can be immediately seen (Drier, 2001; Edwards &
Bitter, 1989). They are a useful tool for allowing students to explore algebra
graphically and numerically without necessarily using algebraic notation
(Bright, 1989; Halat & Peker, 2011; Niess, 2005; Niess, et al., 2011). While
spreadsheets are an ‘older’ technology, we cannot assume that teachers have
this kind of technological knowledge, nor that it is necessarily integrated
with their knowledge of the mathematical domain. In a similar way, we
cannot assume that teachers have integration of knowledge about how to use
a range of technologies in their teaching content, such as PowerPoint (Siko,
Barbour, & Toker, 2011), construction of multimedia objects (Milovanovic,
Takaci, & Milajic, 2011), image editing (Guhin, 2009), graphing (Wright,
2010), and calculators (Handal, Cavanagh, Wood, & Petocz, 2011; Wright,
2010). The survey asks teachers about their ability to integrate these specific
technologies with the content of their lessons.
More recent technologies such as online tools (Handal, Handal, &
Herrington, 2006; Raines & Clark, 2011), dynamic geometry software
(Baki, Kosa, & Guven, 2011) and computer algebra software (Passmore,
Brookshaw, & Butler, 2011) have become popular for their utility in
teaching specific domains. In the case of online tools, there is a vast range
of technologies available, but do teachers feel that they know how to find
them and use them once located? A range of dynamic geometry software
(e.g. Geometer’s Sketchpad) and computer algebra software is available.
These tools have a steep learning curve and teachers need to be able to
model these technologies for students for use in the classroom. Together,
the technologies used in the survey bring together a spread of fundamental
technologies used by mathematics teachers in the classroom and shown
to be effective in the literature. While not canvassing all technologies,
the responses to this section of the survey give an indication of how well
teachers know the specific content that “the subject matter can be changed
by the application of technology” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p. 1028).
The area of technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) concerns
the integration of pedagogical knowledge with technologies used in the
mathematics classroom. It is not enough for teachers to know how to use
a particular technology; they need to know how to teach with it, and the
practices that will lead to positive learning outcomes. In the survey, specific
relevant technologies, including IWBs, iPads, etc, (see Table 2) are surveyed
for pedagogical integration. For example, the interactive whiteboard is an
Integrating Technology, Pedagogy and Content in Mathematics Education 395

increasingly available tool in the classroom (Clark-Jeavons, 2008), but

technological proficiency does not necessarily result in the construction
of interactive learning in the classroom (Miller & Glover, 2010). Whilst
pedagogical integration is difficult to measure through a survey (as
opposed to observation in practice, e.g. Polly, 2011b) it is possible to
measure teachers’ subjective perception of their own abilities, e.g. using a
whiteboard to teach a concept.

Table 2
Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) Scale
I am able to ...
B1: Use technology to develop students’ research skills                                                            
B2: Teach a concept using an interactive whiteboard                                                 
B3: Create a webquest to deliver a curriculum unit                                                    
B4: Use mobile devices (e.g. iPad, smartphone) in teaching                                      
B5: Engage students in collaborative learning through wikis                                      
B6: Guide students in creating their own multimedia presentations       
B7: Deal with cyberbullying and cybersafety issues in the school        
B8: Use technology to provide students with alternative forms of
assessment                
B9: Construct multimedia objects embedding pictures, sound and
animations                      
B10: Network with other colleagues and professional associations through
online forums, Facebook, etc

Other questions in this section are relevant to specific pedagogical

practices. These are the ability to create a webquest for specific content
(Dodge, 1995; Salsovic, 2009; Yang, Tzuo, & Komara, 2011); the ability
to guide students to create multimedia presentations; the ability to engage
students through wikis (Carter, 2009); and the ability to use mobile devices
in teaching (Lan, Sung, Tan, Lin, & Chang, 2010; Zelkowski, 2011).
These are the skills required by teachers to integrate technology into the
classroom, and along with these skills come requirements of secondary
abilities. For example, can teachers control the potential for cyberbullying
(Walrave & Heirman, 2011) as well as can they teach students how to find
resources online for themselves (Handal, et al., 2006) and develop their own
research skills?
The final section of the survey is Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge (TPCK), the integration of technological, pedagogical and
content knowledge in secondary mathematics education. Consider a
question such as: Are you able to represent maths problems linking
symbolic, numerical and graphical data? This question brings together
396 Handal, Campbell, Cavanagh, Petocz, and Kelly

the technological knowledge (of ICT tools that can represent this data,
e.g. graphics calculators) with content knowledge (of the domain that
they are teaching with these tools, i.e. symbolic, numerical and graphical
data problems) and the pedagogical basis on which this tool is used (i.e. a
problem-based classroom learning situation, e.g. Stickles, 2011). Questions
such as these ask teachers about their integration of all three knowledge
areas. A full list can be found in Table 3. The questions ask teachers about
their ability to use technology in ways common within the classroom. For
example, helping students to explore ideas; developing problem-solving
skills; representing problems; collecting and analyzing data; integrating
maths with other subject areas; and promoting communication during a
lesson. These questions follow the TPCK questions of Schmidt et al (2009)
with a specific focus upon mathematics and develop TPCK standards and
indicators for mathematics teachers (Niess, et al., 2009). Through these
questions, the current TPCK integration of mathematics teachers can be
ascertained.

Table 3
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) Scale
I am able to use technology to ...
C1: Assist students to develop their maths problem solving skills                                                            
C2: Represent maths problems linking symbolic, numerical and graphical
data       
C3: Demonstrate mathematical models or concepts through learning
objects (e.g., animations, simulations, online applications)
C4: Identify trends and patterns to predict possibilities              
C5: Explore or present mathematical content in a variety of different ways
C6: Collect, analyse and interpret data to make informed judgements   
C7: Incorporate authentic tasks in the learning of mathematics
C8: Promote substantive student communication in a maths lesson (e.g.,
class discussion on multiple methods of solving a problem)     
C9: Integrate the study of maths with content from other Key Learning
Areas (e.g, English, Arts, Science, History)
C10: Support students’ mathematical investigations with digital tools (e.g.,
audio/video recording, measuring devices, etc).
Integrating Technology, Pedagogy and Content in Mathematics Education 397

TPACK-M Statistical Validation

The purpose of the factor analysis was to investigate which items being
used by respondents to distinguish the three theoretical constructs underpin-
ning the TPACK-M questionnaire. It was anticipated that there are might
be quite subtle differences between the three areas, differences that in some
cases may not be so apparent to respondents due to semantic understand-
ings. A principal components analysis (PCA) was conducted to verify the
postulated constructs of the questionnaire. The number of factors extract-
ed was informed by those three constructs, namely, Technological Content
Knowledge (TCK), Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) and Tech-
nological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK).

Design of the questionnaire

In order to design the questionnaire items a comprehensive literature re-

view was carried out focusing on the extant TPACK research. The review
focused on identifying discrete theoretical elements underpinning the three
major theoretical components of the study, namely, TPK, TCK and TPACK.
Such elements were then transformed into semantic items comprising the
three scales of the questionnaire. In the process of identifying the scale ele-
ments, as well as translating them into semantic items, active consultation
with five mathematics and e-learning academics took place, ensuring the
content validity of the TPACK-M questionnaire.
Some of the three scale items (TCK, TPK and TPCK) were drawn
from previous research surveys and subsequently adapted to the TPACK
orientation (Archambault & Barnett, 2010; Archambault & Crippen, 2009;
Lee & Tsai, 2010; Schmidt, et al., 2009). In other cases, items were created
based on the TPACK framework as discussed above to reflect teachers’
abilities in integrating ICT into the teaching and learning of secondary
mathematics. After the aforementioned processes were performed, the
validation and refinement of the semantics items were carried out with
ten school secondary teachers and five academics to make certain that the
statements correctly expressed the intended meaning. Teachers were asked
to go through the questionnaire and comment on design and content. As a
result, ten semantic items for each scale were identified. Semantic items
were rendered into 5-point Likert scales ranging from strongly agree to
strongly disagree.
Two existing studies form a precedent for structuring the validation
of the TPACK-M survey instrument. Archambault and Barnett (2010)
398 Handal, Campbell, Cavanagh, Petocz, and Kelly

assessed the validity of an online survey of 596 teachers from all disciplines
in the US, whilst Schmidt et al. (2009) validated an instrument measuring
the TPACK of 100 pre-service teachers in an introductory course. In both
cases, there was a process of: (i) identifying expected factors during the
development of the instrument; (ii) assessing reliability using Cronbach’s
alpha; and (iii) validating the grouping of factors using factor analysis. In
developing an instrument for the TPACK of mathematics teachers, the
instrument was designed with three expected factors of TPK, TCK and
TPCK.
The TPACK-M also collects qualitative data characterising teachers’
TPACK as well as appraising instructional, curricular and organisational
factors interfering in the integration of ICT in mathematics teaching and
learning. The TPACK-M instrument collects data on teachers’ gender,
teaching experience and academic qualifications allowing for evaluating
the possible impact of those variables. In doing so, TPACK-M can provide
empirical evidence of secondary mathematics teachers’ abilities for
designing relevant professional learning programs.

Sample

Questionnaires were mailed to 123 secondary schools in New South

Wales, Australia, including both urban and rural areas. The questionnaires
were accompanied by a letter addressed to the school principal requesting
him or her to hand the forms to teachers in their schools who were currently
teaching any mathematics class in Years 9 to 12 (students’ ages 15-18). In
order to ascertain that respondents were actually secondary mathematics
teachers, the questionnaire also asked them: ‘What year(s) are you currently
teaching mathematics? and ‘What percentage of your current teaching load
is mathematics?’ Two hundred and eighty teachers from 94 schools returned
the questionnaire representing 76% of the total number of schools targeted.
A majority of the respondents was female with 57% of the sample. The
most common academic qualification was Bachelor degree plus a diploma
in Education for 42% of the sample. The second-most common was an un-
dergraduate teaching degree (Bachelor of Education) with 38% of the sam-
ple. Figure 2 below provides the percentages for each range.
Integrating Technology, Pedagogy and Content in Mathematics Education 399

Figure 2. Sample Academic Qualifications

The most common teaching experience group had teaching experience

between 3-5 years constituting 11% of the sample. Participants in the 30-32
teaching experience range made 10% of the sample followed closely by 18-
20 range with 9% of the sample. Figure 3 below provides the percentages
for each range.

Years of Experience
12

P 10
e
r 8
c
e
6
n
t
a 4
g
e 2

0
0-2 3-5 6-8 9-11 12-14 15-17 18-20 21-23 24-26 27-29 30-32 33-35 36-38 39+
Years

Figure 3. Sample Years of Teaching Experience

400 Handal, Campbell, Cavanagh, Petocz, and Kelly

Procedure

The statistical analysis aimed to show how the questionnaire items fit
with each of the three scales by the way respondents discriminated items
across the three scales. It was anticipated that there are might be quite sub-
tle differences between the three areas, differences that may not be so appar-
ent to respondents.
Principal components analysis (PCA) is a commonly-used statistical
procedure, summarising many possibly-correlated variables with a smaller
set of (often uncorrelated) variables called principal components, factors or
latent variables. PCA explores and reduces the dimensionality of a data set,
identifying patterns and presenting commonalities and differences. PCA in-
volves a complex mathematical procedure where the first factor extracted
accounts for as much of the variance in the data as possible. Subsequently,
a second factor is identified to explain as much as possible of the remain-
ing variability. The process continues until the totality of the variance is ex-
plained, or an adequate number of components has been identified (Brown,
2006).
The procedure for selecting semantic items for the final questionnaire
version was based on item scale reduction. Factors that, because of their
loadings, turned up as ambiguous or cross factored across the three scales
were deemed as problematic and hence singled out for further examination
within their own scale. Similarly items with loadings between -0.3 and 0.3
(Muijs, 2011) were re-examined within their own scale in order to decide
whether they should be eliminated from the final questionnaire version.
Items were also assessed via scale Cronbach’s alpha values and scale vari-
ance values when the item is deleted. Cronbach’s alpha is a measure of in-
ter-item correlation expressing the internal consistency of the instrument.

Results

An oblique rotation (Oblimin) method used was used, as the three con-
structs (TCK, TPK and TPCK) were supposed to be correlated to one anoth-
er due to the theoretical framework discussed in the literature review. The
three-factor solution explained 53% of the cumulative variance. Such cu-
mulative variance seems consistent with results from other similar research
studies (Dhindsa & Fraser, 2004; Fisher, et al., 2001; Trinidad, et al., 2005;
Walker & Fraser, 2003). The eigenvalues of the three factors from the prin-
cipal component analysis were all larger than one. The Cronbach alpha for
Integrating Technology, Pedagogy and Content in Mathematics Education 401

the whole instrument was 0.944, which can be appraised as ‘high’, as the
literature suggests that internal reliability coefficients higher than 0.60 are
acceptable (Lizelman, Stratos, Marriott, & Skeff, 1998).
Table 4 shows the factor loadings drawn from responses to the three
theoretical constructs of the TPACK-M questionnaire: TCK, TPK and
TPCK. Six items for further scrutiny were identified either as ambiguous or
cross-factored: A8, A9, A10, B7, B8 and C3. The semantic statements for
each of these six cross-factored and ambiguous items are as follows:

TCK A8: ‘I am able to use technology to use computer algebra software

(e.g., Derive, Mathematica)’

TCK A9: ‘I am able to use technology to construct multimedia objects

embedding pictures, sound and animations’

TCK A10: ‘I am able to use technology to network with other

colleagues and professional associations through online forums, Facebook’

TPK B7: ‘I am able to deal with cyberbullying and cybersafety

issues in the school’             

TPK B8: ‘I am able to use technology to provide students with

alternative forms of assessment’

TPCK C3: ‘I am able to use technology to demonstrate mathematical

models or concepts through learning objects (e.g., animations, simulations,

online applications)’
402 Handal, Campbell, Cavanagh, Petocz, and Kelly

Table 4
Pattern Matrix
Items Component
1 (Cs) 2 (Bs) 3 (As)
TPCK TPK TCK
A1 0.023 0.04 0.624
A2 -0.076 0.245 0.65
A3 -0.012 -0.117 0.83
A4 0.06 -0.068 0.792
A5 0.24 -0.167 0.443
A6 0.034 0.225 0.599
A7 0.04 0.039 0.506
A8 (crossed factor) 0.06 0.323 0.275
A9 (ambiguous factor) -0.037 0.543 0.464
A10 (crossed factor) 0.099 0.524 0.251
B1 0.283 0.302 0.182
B2 0.066 0.397 0.288
B3 -0.08 0.868 -0.043
B4 0.054 0.685 0.003
B5 -0.034 0.859 -0.065
B6 0.154 0.641 0.155
B7 (crossed factor) 0.321 0.291 -0.023
B8 (ambiguous factor) 0.358 0.437 0.008
B9 0.243 0.579 -0.123
B10 0.174 0.343 0.222
C1 0.827 -0.081 -0.009
C2 0.78 -0.123 0.177
C3 (ambiguous factor) 0.375 0.226 0.351
C4 0.563 0.099 0.247
C5 0.674 0.081 0.152
C6 0.64 0.024 0.244
C7 0.778 0.023 0.049
C8 0.868 -0.013 -0.098
C9 0.765 0.098 -0.155
C10 0.587 0.223 0.011
Integrating Technology, Pedagogy and Content in Mathematics Education 403

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis

Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization
Rotation converged in 11 iterations

Each of the six aforementioned items could be removed from the ques-
tionnaire without any adverse effects. Information about their loads within
as well as their alpha value and variance when item is deleted is presented
in tables 5, 6 and 7 below.

Table 5
Scale A (TCK)
Scale Mean if Scale Vari- Corrected Cronbach’s
Item Deleted ance if Item Item-Total Alpha if Item
Deleted Correlation Deleted
A1 33.33 42.547 .503 .834
A2 33.75 39.602 .605 .825
A3 33.24 43.590 .574 .831
A4 33.34 42.440 .613 .827
A5 34.00 42.681 .404 .844
A6 33.63 41.240 .649 .823
A7* 34.02 42.022 .468 .838
A8* 34.83 41.551 .485 .836
A9* 34.53 37.539 .680 .816
A10 34.47 39.087 .546 .832
*Cross-factored or ambiguous item
Scale variance: 50.40
Scale Alpha Cronbach: 0.845
404 Handal, Campbell, Cavanagh, Petocz, and Kelly

Table 6
TPK Scale
Scale Mean if Scale Variance Corrected Cronbach’s
Item Deleted if Item Deleted Item-Total Alpha if Item
Correlation Deleted
B1 28.19 50.131 .526 .860
B2 28.46 46.380 .501 .863
B3 29.75 45.304 .670 .847
B4 29.47 45.460 .584 .855
B5 29.66 45.552 .670 .847
B6 29.05 43.291 .703 .844
B7* 28.50 48.729 .465 .864
B8* 28.51 46.736 .611 .852
B9 28.92 46.469 .628 .851
B10 28.42 49.027 .490 .861
* Cross-factored or ambiguous item
Scale variance: 56.826
Scale Alpha Cronbach: 0.867

Table 7
TPCK Scale
Scale Mean if Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Cronbach’s
Item Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation Alpha if Item
Deleted
C1 34.28 47.564 .675 .918
C2 34.33 45.108 .760 .913
C3* 34.58 44.332 .691 .917
C4 34.63 45.451 .713 .915
C5 34.34 45.728 .773 .912
C6 34.24 46.907 .738 .915
C7 34.52 46.353 .743 .914
C8 34.43 45.653 .724 .915
C9 34.69 45.994 .657 .919
C10 34.91 45.277 .660 .919
* Cross-factored or ambiguous item
Scale variance: 56.111
Scale Alpha Cronbach: 0.924

A final set of analyses examined the relationship among TPACK-M se-

mantic items using Pearson product-moment correlations adding strength to
its content validity. All TPACK items were significantly correlated to each
Integrating Technology, Pedagogy and Content in Mathematics Education 405

other at 0.01 level (two-tailed) with the exception of four cases (A4-B5, A5-
B9, A3-B3 and A4-B5). In each case it is evident that there is a lack of cor-
respondence between the technologies.

Discussion

In all of the six ambiguous and cross-factored items that were identified
and discussed above a distinctive pattern emerges: when the item is deleted
Cronbach’s alpha remains high and the variance is decreased. The following
discussion will focus on why these items need to be rephrased or removed
to increase the validity of the TPACK questionnaire.
For the ambiguous TCK items A8 and A9 it would seem difficult for
respondents to capture the meaning of the semantics item when preceded by
the stem “I am able to use ...” Hence, the item might be better rephrased as:
A8: ‘I can use computer algebra software (e.g., Derive,
Mathematica)’

A9: ‘I can use technology to construct multimedia objects

embedding pictures, sounds and animation’
For the crossed factor TCK item A10: “I am able to use technology to
network with other colleagues and professional associations through online
forums, Facebook, etc’, it seems that the item would be better in the scale
TPK, phrased as “I am able to network with colleagues and professional as-
sociations through online forums, Facebook, etc’.
Similarly, the ambiguous TPK item B7 ‘I am able to deal with cyber-
bullying and cybersafety issues in the school’ could be changed to ‘I am
able to use technology to deal with cyberbullying and cybersafety”, thus
clarifying the ICT aspect rather than whole pedagogical capability which
seems very general. The same criterion may apply to the ambiguous TPK
item B8 ‘I am able to use technology to provide students with alternative
forms of assessment’ which might be rephrased as ‘I use technology to pro-
vide students with alternative forms of assessment’.
Finally, the ambiguous TPCK item C3: ‘I am able to use technology
to demonstrate mathematical models or concepts through learning objects
(e.g., animations, simulations, online applications)’ loaded on TCK and
TPCK, and to a lesser extent on TPK. This might be due to the fact the
wording seems very mathematically-oriented, reflecting more a discipline
orientation than a pedagogical issue although the crossroads is acknowl-
edged by the TPK loading (0.226).
406 Handal, Campbell, Cavanagh, Petocz, and Kelly

Conclusion

TPACK-M is the first attempt to construct an instrument that measures

the TPACK of secondary school mathematics teachers, providing special
detail on the teachers’ content knowledge (TCK), teachers’ pedagogical
knowledge (TPK) and teachers' pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK)
constructs. As outlined in the literature review, whereas TCK was defined
as representing technical skills within a particular discipline, TPK was
meant to portray teaching competences integrating pedagogies across
the curriculum while TCPK relates to skills calling for the integration of
knowledge and pedagogy within a disciplinary context.
The study also corroborated empirical evidence of their distinctiveness
as perceived by respondents. The research was based on previous literature
which addresses the TPACK construct either across a range of disciplines
or specific to a learning environment. The study focused at the secondary
mathematics education level where each of the three scales was itemised in
thirty current technological, pedagogical and content issues drawn from the
literature. As such, this study focused on examining TPACK competence
levels as practising teachers enact the curriculum. Descriptive statistics
about the findings are reported elsewhere (Handal, Campbell, Cavanagh,
Petocz, & Kelly, in review). In general, the factor analysis undertaken
confirmed that the 30-item TPACK-M instrument was structurally sound,
theoretically grounded and statistically valid and reliable for use in the
wider mathematics education community.
The PCA also identified six cross-factored or ambiguous TPACK-M
items. Three approaches can be taken in this regard. Firstly, the above dis-
cussion reveals that out of the six problematic items only one can be con-
sidered crossed-factored. This item A10 (‘I am able to use technology to
network with other colleagues and professional associations through online
forums, Facebook’) can be rephrased in order to align its strong loading on
the TPK sub-scale. The other five ambiguous items (A8, A9, B7, B8, C3)
appear to be syntactically complex due to the association of the general
stem linking to the item statement. The linguistic complexity for some of
the items seems to originate from the purpose of the questionnaire itself.
The TPACK-M questionnaire items were designed to determine wheth-
er teachers are able to use the thirty listed skills rather than determining
whether they actually use those skills in their current teaching. While the
difference between both orientations is subtle, the instrument attempted to
characterise teacher latent capacity to enact such a skill regardless of wheth-
er it was being deployed or not. These items might need to be rephrased and
Integrating Technology, Pedagogy and Content in Mathematics Education 407

further trialled with teachers in order to align them better to their original
theoretical construct or to move them to another one when they might load
better. Although their validity within the whole scale is acknowledged by
respondents, this might not be the case when delicate theoretical differences
inherent in scale design are not noticeable to respondents. A further trialling
of the rephrased items is recommended to examine again their place in the
TPACK-M questionnaire based on teachers’ perceptions.
Secondly, many teachers may find it difficult to characterise an item in
terms of content, pedagogy and technology, which are the guiding elements
of the TPACK construct. This might be due to the fact that the construct
TPCK itself stands as the intersection of technological knowledge (TK),
pedagogical knowledge (PK) and content knowledge (CK). As Archambault
and Barnett (2010, p. 1659) have stated:
It is possible that when experienced educators consider teaching a particular
topic, the methods of doing so are considered as part and parcel of the
content, and when considering an online context, the domain of technology
is added to the equation as a natural part of the medium, making it difficult
to separate aspects of content, pedagogy, and technology ... TPACK creates
additional boundaries along and already ambiguous lines drawn between
pedagogy and content.
Thirdly, the present TPACK-M questionnaire is really not very long,
and it is quite possible that with a larger sample the ambiguous or crossed
items ‘come good’. That might be a better justification for keeping all the
cross-factored and ambiguous items, though in the final analysis, the scales
might be built from a reduced number of items. The fact that when items
were deleted on a one-to-one basis, the Cronbach alpha remains over 0.8
adds strength to this hypothesis.
While the analysis of means scores of semantic items is addressed
elsewhere (Handal, Campbell, Cavanagh, Petocz & Kelly, in review) a
number of implications for practice and/or policy can be drawn from this
TPACK-M statistical validation.
The timeliness of an instrument such as TPACK-M for the mathemat-
ics education community is evident. Practising teachers’ TPACK skills need
to be appraised to enhance the technological delivery of the curriculum at
the school level. Very often teachers’ abilities are appraised on an ad-hoc
basis not taking into account a theoretical framework to put data collection
in a greater perspective. The TPACK-M provides a coherent strategy where
data can be analysed on three separate dimensions, namely, TCK, TPK and
TPCK.
408 Handal, Campbell, Cavanagh, Petocz, and Kelly

The growing presence of ICTs in secondary mathematics education im-

plies that pedagogies based only on print based resources need to concede
space for teaching and learning with electronic materials. Moreover, the ad-
vent of new learning technologies brings new challenges and possibilities in
the traditional way some teachers have been delivering the curriculum. In
particular, mobile learning, the latest addendum to the continuous process
of innovation in educational technology brings a technology that is ubiqui-
tous in nature, highly portable and endowed with multimedia capabilities of-
fering new dimension to curriculum delivery (Melhuish & Falloon, 2010).
New issues such as cyberbullying, electronic forms of assessment or engag-
ing students in creating their own multimedia presentation enrich the scope
of the instrument and make it relevant to current times.
Secondly, professional development programs might benefit from
TPACK-M appraisals to inform further development of the curriculum
based on discrete e-learning competences. For instance, policy makers can
become aware of teachers’ skill level before they make decisions on sylla-
bus and professional development programs and resources. At the broader
theoretical level, the TPACK-M instrument is based on the latest pedagogi-
cal advances on secondary mathematics education and a thorough literature
review in order to ensure construct and criterion validity. Hence, it is able
to inform policy makers of what is relevant now in the field in order to plan
strategically the future development of the curriculum. Similarly, teacher
education programs might try to enhance the development of TPACK skills
by documenting their progressive development throughout the candidature
period using longitudinal research designs. TPACK-M can also provide
valuable insight to examine in-depth periodical growth at the individual or
cohort level. It also represents a practical and economical appraisal instru-
ment to administer compared to other approaches such as participant obser-
vation or peer observation. The fact that focus is on appraising individual
ICT latent capabilities rather than evaluating practice makes TPACK-M a
suitable non-threatening tool for use among teachers.
The fact that teachers can differentiate among the three constructs and
relate semantic items to each other within these three constructs, gives the
TPACK-M the necessary statistical credentials to predict and replicate data
as well as do hypothesis testing for future research. While the TPACK-M
instrument was specifically designed for this study it is anticipated that
more learning technologies and new pedagogies will emerge. As such, items
can be re-written and tested to accommodate new developments based on
a framework that proved to be effective in setting the ICT secondary math-
ematics landscape. Finally, an obvious limitation of this study is the self-
Integrating Technology, Pedagogy and Content in Mathematics Education 409

reporting nature of the responses which might call for qualitative methods to
be deployed to verify teachers’ claims.

References

Agyei, D. D., & Voogt, J. M. (2011). Exploring the Potential of the Will, Skill,
Tool Model in Ghana: Predicting Prospective and Practicing Teachers’ Use
of Technology. Computers & Education, 56(1), 91-100.
Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and Methodological Issues
for the Conceptualization, Development, and Assessment of ICT-TPCK:
Advances in Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK). Com-
puters & Education, 52(1), 154-168.
Archambault, L. M., & Barnett, J. H. (2010). Revisiting technological pedagogi-
cal content knowledge: Exploring the TPACK framework. Computers &
Education, 55, 1656-1662.
Archambault, L. M., & Crippen, K. (2009). Examining TPACK among K-12 on-
line distance educators in the United States. Contemporary Issues in Tech-
nology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 71-88.
Archambault, L. M., Wetzel, K., Foulger, T. S., & Williams, M. K. (2010). Pro-
fessional Development 2.0: Transforming Teacher Education Pedagogy
with 21st Century Tools. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education,
27(1), 4-11.
Baki, A., Kosa, T., & Guven, B. (2011). A Comparative Study of the Effects of
Using Dynamic Geometry Software and Physical Manipulatives on the Spa-
tial Visualisation Skills of Pre-Service Mathematics Teachers. British Jour-
nal of Educational Technology, 42(2), 291-310.
Bingimlas, K. A. (2009). Barriers to the Successful Integration of ICT in Teach-
ing and Learning Environments: A Review of the Literature. EURASIA
Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 5(3), 235-245.
Bright, G. W. (1989). Teaching Mathematics with Technology: Mathematics and
spreadsheets. Arithmentic Teacher, 36(8), 52-53.
Bull, G., Park, J., Searson, M., Thompson, A., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., and
Knezek, G. (2007). Editorial: Developing technology policies for effective
classroom practice. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Edu-
cation [Online serial], 7(3). Available at:
http://www.citejournal.org/vol7/iss3/editorial/article1.cfm
Carter, J. F. (2009). Lines of Communication: Using a WIKI in a Mathematics
Course. PRIMUS, 19(1), 1-17.
Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., Tsai, C.-C., & Tan, L. L. W. (2011). Modeling Pri-
mary School Pre-Service Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge (TPACK) for Meaningful Learning with Information and Com-
munication Technology (ICT). Computers & Education, 57(1), 1184-1193.
410 Handal, Campbell, Cavanagh, Petocz, and Kelly

Clark-Jeavons, A. (2008). Developing the Use of the Interactive Whiteboard in

the Secondary Mathematics Classroom. In S. Johnston-Wilder & D. Pimm
(Eds.), Teaching secondary mathematics with ICT. Barkshire: Open Univer-
sity Press.
Crisan, C., Lerman, S., & Winbourne, P. (2007). Mathematics and ICT: a Frame-
work for Conceptualising Secondary School Mathematics Teachers’ Class-
room Practices. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 16(1), 21-39. doi:
10.1080/14759390601167991
Dodge, B. (1995). WebQuests: A Technique for Internet-Based Learning. Dis-
tance Educator, 1(2), 10-13.
Drier, H. S. (2001). Teaching and Learning Mathematics with Interactive
Spreadsheets. School Science and Mathematics, 101(4), 170-179.
Edwards, N. T., & Bitter, G. G. (1989). Teaching Mathematics with Technolo-
gy: Changing Variables Using Spreadsheet Templates. Arithmetic Teacher,
37(2), 40-44.
Forgasz, H. (2006). Factors that Encourage or Inhibit Computer Use for Second-
ary Mathematics Teaching. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Sci-
ence Teaching, 25, 77-93.
Friedlander, A. (1998). An EXCELlent Bridge to Algebra. Mathematics Teacher,
91(50), 382-383.
Grandgenett, N. F. (2008). Perhaps a Matter of Imagination: TPCK in Mathe-
matics Education. In AACTE (Ed.), Handbook of Technological Pedagogi-
cal Content Knowledge (TPCK) for Educators (pp. 145-165). New York:
Routledge.
Guhin, P. (2009). 10 Tempting Image-Editing Tasks. Arts & Activities, 145(5),
26-27.
Halat, E., & Peker, M. (2011). The Impacts of Mathematical Representations
Developed through Webquest and Spreadsheet Activities on the Motivation
of Pre-Service Elementary School Teachers. Turkish Online Journal of Edu-
cational Technology - TOJET, 10(2), 259-267.
Handal, B., Campbell, C., Cavanagh, M., Petocz, P., & Kelly, N. (in review).
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) of Secondary
Mathematics Teachers.
Handal, B., Cavanagh, M., Wood, L., & Petocz, P. (2011). Factors Leading to
the Adoption of a Learning Technology: The Case of Graphics Calculators.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(2), 343-360.
Handal, B., Handal, P., & Herrington, T. (2006). Evaluating Online Mathematics
Resources: A Practical Approach for Teachers. Australian Primary Math-
ematics Classroom, 11(2), 8-14.
Hayes, D. N. A. (2007). ICT and learning: Lessons from Australian Classrooms.
Computers & Education, 49, 385–395.
Ruthven, K. & Hennessy, S. (2002). A Practitioner Model of the Use of Comput-
er-based Tools and Resources to Support Mathematics Teaching and Learn-
ing. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49, 47–88.
Integrating Technology, Pedagogy and Content in Mathematics Education 411

Jackiw. N. (1991). The Geometer’s Sketchpad. Berkeley. CA: Key Curriculum

Press.
Johnston-Wilder, S., & Pimm, D. (2004). Teaching Secondary Mathematics with
ICT. Learning & Teaching with ICT: Open University Press.
Kelly, M. (2010). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): A
Content Analysis of 2006-2009 Print Journal Articles. Paper presented at
the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International
Conference 2010, San Diego, CA, USA. http://www.editlib.org/p/33985
Keong, C. C., Horani, S., & Daniel, J. (2005). A Study on the Use of ICT in
Mathematics Teaching. Malaysian Online Journal of Instructional
Technology.
Koehler, M. J. (2011). TPACK – Technological Pedagogical and Content
Knowledge Retrieved 31st August, 2011, from http://www.tpck.org/
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What Is Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education
(CITE Journal), 9(1), 60-70.
Lan, Y.-J., Sung, Y.-T., Tan, N.-c., Lin, C.-P., & Chang, K.-E. (2010). Mobile-
Device-Supported Problem-Based Computational Estimation Instruction for
Elementary School Students. Educational Technology & Society, 13(3), 55-
69.
Landry, G. A. (2010). Creating and Validating an Instrument to Measure
Middle School Mathematics Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge (TPACK) (Doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee -
Knoxville). Retrieved from http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/720
Lee, M.-H., & Tsai, C.-C. (2010). Exploring Teachers’ Perceived Self Efficacy
and Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge with respect to
Educational Use of the World Wide Web. Instructional Science, 38, 1-21.
Melhuish, K. & Falloon, G. (2010). Looking to the Future: M-learning with the iPad.
Computers in the New Zealand Schools: Learning, Leading, Technology, 22(3).
Miller, D., & Glover, D. (2010). Presentation or Mediation: Is There a Need for
“Interactive Whiteboard Technology-Proficient” Teachers in Secondary
Mathematics? Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(2), 253-259.
Milovanovic, M., Takaci, D., & Milajic, A. (2011). Multimedia Approach
in Teaching Mathematics--Example of Lesson about the Definite
Integral Application for Determining an Area. International Journal of
Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 42(2), 175-187.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College
Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
Ng, W. L., & Leong, Y. H. (2009). Use of ICT in Mathematics Education in
Singapore: Review of Research. In W. K. Yoong, P. Y. Yee, F. P. Yee & N. S.
Fong (Eds.), Mathematics Education: The Singapore Journey.
Niess, M. L. (2005). Scaffolding Math Learning with Spreadsheets. Learning
Connections--Mathematics. Learning & Leading with Technology, 32(5),
24-25.
412 Handal, Campbell, Cavanagh, Petocz, and Kelly

Niess, M. L., Ronau, R. N., Shafer, K. G., Driskell, S. O., Harper, S. R.,
Johnston, C., et al. (2009). Mathematics Teacher TPACK Standards and
Development Model. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher
Education (CITE Journal), 9(1), 4-24.
Niess, M. L., van Zee, E. H., & Gillow-Wiles, H. (2011). Knowledge Growth in
Teaching Mathematics/Science with Spreadsheets: Moving PCK to TPACK
through Online Professional Development. Journal of Digital Learning in
Teacher Education, 27(2), 42-52.
Passmore, T., Brookshaw, L., & Butler, H. (2011). A Flexible, Extensible Online
Testing System for Mathematics. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 27(6), 896-906.
Polly, D. (2011a). Developing Teachers’ Technological, Pedagogical, and
Content Knowledge (TPACK) through Mathematics Professional
Development. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics
Education, 18(2), 83-95.
Polly, D. (2011b). Examining Teachers’ Enactment of Technological
Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) in Their Mathematics
Teaching after Technology Integration Professional Development. Journal
of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 30(1), 37-59.
Polly, D., & Barbour, M. (2009). Developing Teachers’ Technological,
Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge in Mathematics. Paper presented at
the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International
Conference 2009, Charleston, SC, USA. http://www.editlib.org/p/31305
Raines, J. M., & Clark, L. M. (2011). A Brief Overview on Using Technology to
Engage Students in Mathematics. Current Issues in Education, 14(2).
Salsovic, A. R. (2009). Designing a WebQuest. Mathematics Teacher, 102(9),
666-671.
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 in Education, 42(2), 123-149.
Selfe, C. (1990). Technology in the English Classroom: Computers through the
Lens of Feminist Pedagogy. In C. Handa (Ed.), Computers and Community:
Teaching Composition in the Twenty-first Century (pp. 118–139).
Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching.
Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Siko, J., Barbour, M., & Toker, S. (2011). Beyond Jeopardy and Lectures: Using
“Microsoft PowerPoint” as a Game Design Tool to Teach Science. Journal
of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 30(3), 303-320.
Stickles, P. R. (2011). An Analysis of Secondary and Middle School Teachers’
Mathematical Problem Posing. Investigations in Mathematics Learning,
3(2), 1-34.
Integrating Technology, Pedagogy and Content in Mathematics Education 413

Stols, G., & Kriek, J. (2011). Why Don’t all Maths Teachers Use Dynamic Ge-
ometry Software in their Classrooms? Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 27, 137-151.
Thomas, M. O. J. (2006). Teachers Using Computers in Mathematics: A Lon-
gitudinal Study. In J. Novotná, H. Moraová, M. Krátká & N. Stehlíková
(Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the International
Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 5, pp. 265-272).
Prague, Czech Republic: Program Committee.
Thomas, M. O. J., & Chinnappan, M. (2008). Teaching and Learning with Tech-
nology: Realising the Potential. In H. Forgasz, A. Barkatsas, A. Bishop, B.
Clarke, S. Keast, W-T. Seah, P. Sullivan, & S. Willis (Eds.), Research in
Mathematics Education in Australasia 2004-2007 (pp. 167-194). Sydney:
Sense Publishers.
Thompson, A. D., & Mishra, P. (2007). Breaking News: TPCK becomes
TPACK. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 24(2), 38.
Walrave, M., & Heirman, W. (2011). Cyberbullying: Predicting Victimisation
and Perpetration. Children & Society, 25(1), 59-72.
Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does It Compute? The Relationship between
Educational Technology and Student Achievement in Mathematics.
Educational Testing Service, Rosedale Road, Princeton.
Wright, D. (2010). Orchestrating the Instruments: Integrating ICT in the
Secondary Mathematics Classroom through Handheld Technology
Networks. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(2), 277-284.
Yang, C.-H., Tzuo, P. W., & Komara, C. (2011). Using WebQuest as a Universal
Design for Learning Tool to Enhance Teaching and Learning in Teacher
Preparation Programs. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 8(3), 21-
29.
Zelkowski, J. (2011). The TI-Nspire CAS: A Happy-Medium Mobile Device for
Grades 8-16 Mathematics Classrooms. TechTrends: Linking Research and
Practice to Improve Learning, 55(3), 40-47.