


































Microsoft Word - 2. Math and Science-Summ 2013.docx


Vol. 2, No. 1, June 2013, pp. 17-28   
 
 
 
 
Math and Science Teacher Candidates’ Use of Technology to Facilitate 
Teaching and Learning During Student Teaching 
Janet Tassell, Rebecca Ruth Stobaugh, and Michael McDonald 
Western Kentucky University 
 
 
 
 
 

Abstract 
 

The goal of this study is to determine how effectively student teachers from a large 

comprehensive institution have used technology to complement their teaching in 

mathematics and science.  The researchers reviewed the required Teacher Work Sample 

(TWS) capstone projects of student teachers.  The TWS is an assessment instrument 

designed to guide student teachers in designing, implementing, reviewing, and adjusting 

instruction.  Student teachers document in the TWS narratives their use of technology, 

and this use was compared to the 2008 U.S. Department of Education (USDE): Measures 

of Teacher and Student Technology Use.  Data gathered in the study revealed both 

strengths and weaknesses regarding the student teachers’ use of technology to enhance 

their teaching goals.  Implications are derived about effective use of technology by 

mathematics and science teacher candidate preparation. 

  



18	
      J. Tassell, R. Stobaugh, and M. McDonald	
  
 

 
Introduction 

 
How do educators facilitate learning in light of the plethora of technology expectations 

and options available?  One repeatedly hears of a school district purchasing interactive boards to 
replace the old chalkboards or the dry-erase boards in the classroom.  However, are teachers 
truly making classrooms more interactive through the effective use of technology?  What is 
becoming common is that teachers turn to technology to energize their presentations or lectures 
to the class, receive assignments from students, enter and communicate grades, complete 
required schools reports, and develop assignments and assessments.  Teachers have confidence 
that this helps them claim to be "technology literate" and have an interactive classroom.  
However, a barrier tends to be revealed when looking at the "teacher use of technology" in 
comparison to "student use of technology for learning" where students learn the content through 
the use of technology.  While teachers often feel confident utilizing some technologies in 
presenting content, they feel uncomfortable planning instructional tasks with students. 

A great deal of technology is available for teacher use.  One method to encourage the use 
of technology tools could be to incorporate their use in teacher preparation programs.  Teachers 
may believe that they must use technology to a capture the interest of the students rather than 
viewing technology as the vehicle for authentic and engaged learning.  One thing is certain -- 
technology is rapidly changing and growing in availability.  The notion of a "static set of skills" 
does not describe the finesse it takes for teachers to interface with students in the classroom.  In 
many ways, the use of technology for presentation in the classroom has become the chalkboard 
of twenty years ago.   

In teacher preparation programs, teacher candidates should integrate technology to engage 
students in critical thinking, decision-making, and real world problem-solving.  In mathematics 
and science fields, technology is an integral part of the jobs in these areas and therefore 
technology should be a seamless focus of instruction to replicate the real-world applications of 
the content.  However, the question must be asked: Are today’s mathematics and science teacher 
candidates using technology effectively to enhance learning? In addition, are culminating 
performances in teacher preparation programs requiring teacher candidates to design instruction 
and assessment engaging K-12 students in using technology to achieve higher levels of learning? 
 

The Study 
 
 Teachers need to be as effective as possible -- every child needs to be learning to his or 
her fullest each and every day.  Without the incorporation of technology, today’s teachers run the 
risk of not connecting students to higher levels of learning.  A time to incorporate teaching and 
learning technologies for teachers is during their teacher preparation program before they are in 
the trenches of the classroom.  Programs need to prepare the teacher candidates to know what 
technology is currently available, to understand how to use technology as a tool for student 
learning, and to prepare the new teacher and their students to continue learning as technology 
evolves.  Teachers need to have a clear understanding that technology should facilitate student 
learning, and this is often best achieved through student use of technology as part of their own 
learning.  The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) has given an 
"unacceptable" rating to programs that do not technologically prepare their teachers.  In the 
"Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates," the "unacceptable" rating includes, 



 Use of Technology 19 
 

"Teacher candidates do not understand the relationship of content and content-specific pedagogy 
delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards in a way that helps them develop 
learning experiences that integrate technology and build on students’ cultural backgrounds and 
knowledge of content so that students learn" (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher 
Education, 2008). 
 Teacher education programs are faced with a two-part challenge:  (1) What technologies 
should teacher candidates understand and be able to incorporate in their teaching?  (2) How can 
the teacher candidates be assessed for their knowledge and use of technology?  NCATE supports 
the requirement that effective teachers are "able users" of technology in the following statement: 

 
COMMITMENT TO TECHNOLOGY: The unit’s conceptual framework reflects 
the unit’s commitment to preparing candidates who are able to use educational 
technology to help all students learn; it also provides a conceptual understanding 
of how knowledge, skills, and dispositions related to educational and information 
technology are integrated throughout the curriculum, instruction, field 
experiences, clinical practice, assessments, and evaluations (National Council for 
Accreditation of Teacher Education,2008). 

 
Consequently, this study was designed to determine if teacher candidates of mathematics and 
science at a large comprehensive institution’s teacher education program effectively integrate 
technology into math and science instruction.  The concern that surfaced from preliminary 
informal conversations with education faculty that coursework expectations of math and science 
teacher candidates did not consistently prepare them comprehensively to plan learning 
experiences using technology.  The framework that provided the vehicle for studying this was the 
Teacher Work Sample (TWS), a robust tool that assesses teacher candidates’ ability to embed 
technology in their instruction. 
 
Purpose of the Study 

The International Society of Technology in Education (ISTE) organization created 
technology standards for teachers and students in 1998; the most recent version of these 
standards, the National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) for Students, were released in 
2007 (International Society for Technology in Education).  These standards support and promote 
a higher level of student use of technology where students are engaged in authentic learning to 
design products and improve problem-solving skills (Kentucky Department of Education, 2008). 

The state teaching standards for this institution provide a list for initial expectations for 
teachers to demonstrate their skills and knowledge about technology.  According to Standard 6, 
"The Teacher Demonstrates the Implementation of Technology": 

6.1 Uses available technology to design and plan instruction 
6.2 Uses available technology to implement instruction that facilitates student learning 
6.3 Integrates student use of available technology into instruction 
6.4 Uses available technology to assess and communicate student learning 
6.5 Demonstrates ethical and legal use of technology  

(Kentucky Department of Education, 2008) 
In light of these standards’ mandates, this study was designed to investigate whether teacher 
candidates at the institution are effective users of technology. 
 



20	
      J. Tassell, R. Stobaugh, and M. McDonald	
  
 

Research Questions and Assumptions 
 The research questions addressed two specific questions: 

1. Are math and science teacher candidates from a state institution using technology to 
facilitate teaching and learning in the Teacher Work Sample during the student teaching 
experience? 

2. What are the differences between and among mathematics and science content areas in 
the type of technology used in the Teacher Work Sample at this institution during the 
student teaching experience? 

The researchers made the following assumptions: that the United States Department of Education 
(USDE): Measures of Teacher and Student Technology Use (U.S. Department of Education, 
2008) is an appropriate framework for evaluating the technology needed by student teachers to be 
effective, and that student teachers described their full use of technology in their Teacher Work 
Sample.  
 

Review of Related Literature 
 

 Universities are responsible for preparing teacher candidates for the state and national 
teaching standards.  However, NCATE goes a step further to push the mastery of technology 
standards: NCATE expects that schools of education incorporate technology skill instruction 
within the methods courses, field experiences, and content courses of education students.  
Vanetta and Beyerbach (2000) noted the importance of the seamless use of technology in the 
teacher education curriculum to equip the teacher candidates during their experiences as a student 
and in preparing them to be a teacher.  Within field experiences, 79% of teacher education 
programs stated teacher candidates utilized technology to some extent within the field 
experiences.  Around 51% of all teacher education programs for initial licensure stated that they 
offered a course on educational technology within their programs (Kleiner, Thomas, & Lewis, 
2007).  Teacher education accreditation agencies, state teaching standards, and federal agencies 
have advocated for the integration of technology into instruction.  Whether this is happening is 
the question.    

The National Center for Education Statistics 2007 report on education technology used in 
teacher education programs stated the following statistics about the programs (Kleiner, Thomas, 
& Lewis, 2007): 

• Utilized Internet resources and communication tools in all or some of their teacher 
education programs (100%). 

• Taught about ways to integrate technology into lesson planning (99%). 
• Stated utilizing content specific software tools while teaching (97%). 
• Noted multimedia digital content was used for instruction (95%). 
• Reported technology was used for retrieving or organizing data to enhance teaching 

(90%). 
• Instructed pre-service teachers on using technology for student assessment that aligned to 

state curriculum standards in all or some of their programs (88%). 
• Used digital portfolios in all or some of their programs (82%). 
• Instructed on the utilizing technology for student assessment in all or some programs 

(79%). 
 However, a word of caution with these statistics:  "…report of topics taught within 
programs should not be taken to mean that the topics were taught in any depth or breadth across 



 Use of Technology 21 
 

the curriculum.  Rather the estimates only indicated that the topic was taught at least to a minimal 
degree" (Kleiner, Thomas, & Lewis, 2007).  When questioned to a "major" extent about how 
teacher education programs incorporated technology instruction, the percentages dramatically 
declined: 

• Fifty-seven percent taught pre-service teachers about how to use technology to enhance 
classroom instruction.  

• Seventeen percent instructed pre-service teachers on using technology to assess student 
achievement. 

• Seventeen percent trained pre-service teachers on designing instructional interventions to 
individualize instruction. 

• Fifteen percent addressed how to utilize technology to accommodate for various student 
learning styles (Kleiner, Thomas, & Lewis, 2007). 

 Incorporating technology was reported as problematic for teacher education programs. 
According to the U.S. Department of Education report on teacher education’s use of educational 
technology, one barrier was that 93% colleges of education report that the schools for field 
experiences and student teaching experiences do not have the appropriate technology needed. 
Furthermore, pre-service teachers often lacked time to experiment with technology (93%) due to 
P-12 teachers facing pressures to pass state tests, and felt concerned about using a product 
without full knowledge of it in front of students who are savvy users of technology.  Another set 
of barriers includes that the classroom teachers had concerns about effectively implementing 
technological resources in their classroom due to their own lack of training (22%) or were 
unwilling to integrate technology (12%), in turn making it a difficult situation for the teacher 
candidate to integrate technology into the lessons they taught.  Other barriers included college of 
education faculty who lacked technology training (83%), lack of faculty time to use technology 
tools (87%), lack of willingness of faculty to incorporate technology (73%), and lack of 
infrastructure (6%).  Only 2% of teacher education programs stated that teacher candidates 
lacked technology skills as a major barrier to integrating technology.  However, institutions 
affirmed that only 48% of the teacher candidates were able to practice their technology skills at a 
medium to high range (Kleiner, Thomas, & Lewis, 2007).   
 From a more optimistic angle, according to a U.S. Department of Education survey, a 
large majority of teacher education programs (67%) strongly agreed that their graduates 
possessed the knowledge and skills to effectively employ technology resources in their 
instruction.  Furthermore, 44% strongly agreed and 52% agreed somewhat that their graduates 
can design project-based lessons enhanced with technology.  When asked about whether 
experiences include technology in lessons, 35% strongly agreed and 54% agreed somewhat.  
Fewer programs reported that graduates would effectively integrate assistive/adaptive technology 
to assist special needs (18% agreed strongly; 61% agreed somewhat) (Kleiner, Thomas, & Lewis, 
2007).  Even though teacher candidates had a generally positive attitude toward technology, 
nationally a large number stated that they are unprepared to effectively incorporate technology 
into instruction (Beckett, Wetzel, Buss, Chisholm, Misdoubted, & Padgett, 2001).  Some of the 
challenges for integrating technology into undergraduate programs are training, technical support, 
lack of funding, and limited technology resources (Duhaney, 2001).  However, due to all of the 
competing interests in an undergraduate program of course requirements, technology integration 
was and is still a challenge.  
 
 



22	
      J. Tassell, R. Stobaugh, and M. McDonald	
  
 

 
Teacher Work Sample 

A consortium of 11 universities gathered to create a tool to measure and assess the growth 
of teacher candidates -- hence the Renaissance Teacher Work Sample (TWS) was developed by 
the Renaissance Partnership (The Renaissance Partnership for Improving Teacher Quality, 2001).  
This initiative was designed to affect "a paradigm shift from a focus on the teaching process to 
learning results and connecting teacher performance to student learning" that would in turn lead 
institutions to "implement programs and practices that build their capacity to be accountable for 
the impact of their teacher candidates and graduates on student learning" (Pankratz, 1999).  To 
validate the TWS as an authentic tool to measure candidate growth and impact on student 
learning, the group developed TWS exemplars, and shared information, materials, expertise, and 
research across institutions related to the TWS. 

The resulting TWS instrument (Schalock, Schalock, & Girod, 1997) documents teacher 
candidates’ preparation on seven teaching processes or components believed critical to improving 
P-12 instruction and student learning (Denner, Norman, Salzman, Pankratz, & Evans, 2004): 
Contextual Factors, Learning Goals, Assessment Plan, Design for Instruction, Instructional 
Decision-Making, Analysis of Student Learning, and Reflection and Self-Evaluation.  All teacher 
candidates complete the Teacher Work Sample during their student teaching semester and are 
scored on a common rubric that addresses the seven required sections.  Teacher candidates are 
given descriptive prompts and rubrics to guide their development of the capstone project.  Within 
each TWS component, there are three to six indicators clarifying the expectations in each section.  
There is one indicator assessing students’ technology abilities in the Design for Instruction 
section of the TWS.  To be proficient in this area, a pre-service teacher must describe the 
incorporation of technology in their unit or offer a strong rationale for not using technology. 
 

Methodology 
 

 This study reviewed a random selection of Teacher Work Sample (TWS) capstone 
projects produced by mathematics and science student teachers.  Due to the design and credibility 
of the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) (2008) research study, a framework was available 
to examine student teacher technology use at this institution via the TWS projects.  Specifically, 
the study narrowed the focus to the indicators from the USDE study to form a checklist by which 
to analyze the TWS samples. This study reviewed the area(s) of the TWS portfolios that dealt 
specifically with the ways student teachers described their use of technology to enhance their 
teaching effectiveness.  The teacher candidates are required to describe the ways they use 
technology in their student teaching semester of instruction in their narrative. 
 Two initial teacher certification programs were selected for the study: Math K-12 and 
Science K-12.  The TWS projects of ten students in each major were randomly selected.  For 
each student teacher submission, a score of one (1) was recorded if the student teacher revealed 
evidence of satisfying a USDE technology standard on the checklist.  A zero (0) was recorded if 
no evidence was offered satisfying a USDE technology standard on the checklist.  The student 
teacher TWS projects were reviewed by three researchers and the results were compiled for this 
study.  The administration of the study was conducted during the Spring 2009 semester at this 
institution. 
 The following provides evidence from a randomly selected TWS used in the study: 

 



 Use of Technology 23 
 

Technology has been a huge part of my unit.  It has helped me create my lesson 
plans.  I have also incorporated on-line activities in my lessons.  There are two 
days of my unit where I will pull up internet sites and model or reinforce skills….  
I have also incorporated United Streaming into my unit.  I chose to show a short 
video about how to subtract fractions.  I also used the internet to challenge 
students who finished their work early.  I have found several websites that 
reinforce skills... so that the students can work independently.  In addition, my 
class visits the computer lab… using the fraction websites and fraction software to 
reinforce skills (Teacher Work Sample #4600, 2006).   

 
 For an example of coding, this sample was coded as a one (1), for each of the following 
indicators:   

• Teacher’s Use of Technology in Instruction 
o Develop curricula or assignments 
o Do research and lesson planning using the Internet 
o Present concepts to students 

• Students’ Use of Technology in Learning 
o Practice or review content 
o Extend learning with enrichment activities 

All other indicators were not present in the sample including the third category of indicators, 
"Students’ Use of Technology for the Critical Thinking and Decision-Making Skills Related to 
Technology Literacy." 
 

Findings 
 
 The sample for the case study included 20 student teachers from the following initial 
teacher certification majors at this institution: 10 from Math K-12 and 10 from Science Education 
(SCI K-12).  Table One shows the checklist including the cumulative scores of each content area 
major.  This table also reports the total obtained from all groups for each checklist item, the 
maximum score possible and the percentage of the codes received by each major in relation to 
each checklist item. 
 
Table One 
Checklist and Codes Calculated on a Comparison of TWS Samples and USDE Indicators.  
  

Math  
K-12 

SCI  
K-12   

Both 
Groups 
Total 

Total 
Indicators 

Present 

% of 
Codes 

Received 
Teacher’s Use of Technology in Instruction 
Develop curricula or 
assignments 8 7   15 20 75% 

Create tests or quizzes 2 2   4 20 20% 
Do research and lesson planning 
using the Internet 5 8   13 20 65% 

Present concepts to students 9 10   19 20 95% 



24	
      J. Tassell, R. Stobaugh, and M. McDonald	
  
 

Test students 1 2   3 20 15% 
Adapt instructional activities to 
student’s individual needs 1 1   2 20 10% 

Collaborate with experts to 
teachers in other locations 0 0   0 20 0% 

Students’ Use of Technology in Learning 
Practice or review content 5 3   8 20 40% 
Extend learning with enrichment 
activities 1 1   2 20 10% 

Take tests or quizzes using a 
computer 1 2   3 20 15% 

Conduct online research 1 0   1 20 5% 
Prepare for standardized tests 0 0   0 20 0% 
Produce media, Web, or 
presentation products 1 1   2 20 10% 

Students’ Use of Technology for the Critical Thinking and Decision-Making Skills Related 
to Technology Literacy 
Work cooperatively or 
collaboratively with other 
students 

0 0   0 20 0% 

Communicate electronically 
about academic content with 
experts, peers, or others 

0 0   0 20 0% 

Visually represent or investigate 
concepts 2 0   2 20 10% 

Take tests or quizzes using a 
computer 0 0   0 20 0% 

Use inquiry-based strategies 0 1   1 20 5% 
Solve real-world problems 0 1   1 20 5% 
Work in content in multiple 
disciplines 0 0   0 20 0% 

Use authentic tools 0 1   1 20 5% 
Create products that had real-
world audiences 0 0   0 20 0% 

Codes Received 
(20max/sample)    37 40   77     

Codes Possible (10 TWS 
samples) 220 220        

Percentage Received 16.81% 18.18%         
 
 The findings show mathematics and science K-12 teacher candidates utilizing technology 
most prominently in the “Teacher’s Use of Technology in Instruction” category.  Both 
mathematics and science teacher candidates used technology to “Present concepts to students” in 
95% of the cases.    Two other checklist items received more than 50% of the possible codes 



 Use of Technology 25 
 

indicating student achievement in the content area: "Develop curricula or assignments" in 75% of 
the cases, and "Do research and lesson planning using the Internet," in 65% of the cases.   

In the Teacher Work Samples examined, neither content major studied received 20% or 
more of the codes possible on the scoring checklist.  Science Education K-12 received the highest 
percentage with 18.18% occurrences of the possible codes on the checklist.  Math K-12 received 
the lowest percentage with 16.81% occurrences of the possible codes on the checklist.  All other 
indicators received less than 50% occurrences of the possible codes on the checklist.  Seven items 
received no codes on the checklist, indicating no achievement in these areas by the teacher 
candidates; most of these items fell within the categories that tracked student use of technology 
and student learning with technology:  

1. Collaborate with experts to teachers in other locations 
2. Prepare for standardized tests 
3. Work cooperatively or collaboratively with other students 
4. Communicate electronically about academic content with experts, peers, or others 
5. Work in content in multiple disciplines 
6. Create products that had real-world audiences 
7. Take tests or quizzes using a computer (in the "Students’ Use of Technology for the 

Critical Thinking and Decision-Making Skills Related to Technology Literacy" category) 
 

 There were various ranges among the three categories:  "Teacher Use of Technology in 
Instruction" (which ranged from 0 to 95% of the students indicating achievement in the content 
area), "Student Use of Technology in Learning" (which ranged from 0 to 40% of the students 
indicating achievement in the content area), and "Students’ Use of Technology for the Critical 
Thinking and Decision-Making Skills Related to Technology Literacy" (which ranged from 0 to 
10% of the students indicating achievement in the content area).  As the percentages indicate, the 
data reveals a lower rate of technology use when referring to students’ use of technology of 
critical thinking and decision-making skills compared to the other categories. 
 

Conclusions 
 

 Based on the findings of this study, the following conclusions are drawn: 
1. The math and science TWS documents studied show that the undergraduate program is 

preparing student teachers in the category of "Present concepts to students." 
2. Math Education K-12 is preparing student teachers in the category of "Develop curricula 

or assignments." 
3. Science Education K-12 is preparing student teachers in the category of "Do research and 

lesson planning using the Internet." 
4. Concerning the remainder of the items detailed by the USDE (2008), math and science 

content areas included in the study are deficient in preparing student teachers to use 
technology to accomplish the goals of "Students’ Use of Technology in Learning" and 
"Students’ Use of Technology for the Critical Thinking and Decision-Making Skills 
Related to Technology Literacy." 

 
Implications 

Most of the math and science student teachers in the study reported using technology for 
delivering instruction.  Teachers indicated the technology they used most included PowerPoint 



26	
      J. Tassell, R. Stobaugh, and M. McDonald	
  
 

presentations, electronic whiteboards, and online videos.  The technology mentioned second most 
were used to develop curricula or assignments, including word processing technology to create 
documents such as handouts and tests.  The third most prevalent result indicates that math and 
science student teachers use the Internet for conducting research for lesson planning.  Even 
though these were the second- and third-strongest findings from the data, since only 75% of 
student teachers were developing curricula or assignments and 65% were conducting research 
and lesson planning using the Internet with technology, more attention should be paid to this part 
of their training by teacher education programs.  

The study revealed that very little technology was reported in the area of student use in 
completing work or assessments, or engaging in higher-level thinking.  No math and science 
student teacher reported using technology to have students prepare for standardized tests; work 
cooperatively or collaboratively with other students; communicate electronically about academic 
content with experts, peers, or others; work in content in multiple disciplines; or create products 
that had real-world audiences.  All of the areas dealing with the ways students used technology as 
addressed in the USDE (2008) needed attention by teacher education programs in preparing 
student teachers.  

During student teaching, many teacher candidates did not have the opportunity to 
incorporate the level of technology they wished to due to constraints imposed by the school or 
due to limited technology access in their schools.  This stifling of the student teaching experience 
itself was unfortunate but  could be overcome by improving an understanding of what technology 
integration means and how to troubleshoot difficult situations.  The students in K-12 classrooms 
should not be going without technology experiences.  

The findings of this study are being woven back into the mathematics and science 
methods coursework and TWS design to strengthen its technological components. The TWS 
technology indicator was itself not written in such a way that provided a detailed expectation 
within the technology indicator, whereas the USDOE holds a much higher standard for what 
should  be achieved.  Math Education K-12 and Science Education K-12 reported virtually equal 
use of technology by their student teachers.  This study indicated that the content areas should 
invest more time and resources in preparing student teachers to use technology when planning 
instructional experiences where students engage technology for real-world tasks.   
 
Limitations 
 The study had the several limitations.  The sample reviewed was limited to student 
teachers enrolled in this institution during Spring 2009.  The study reviewed only two content 
area majors: Math K-12 and Science K-12. The dichotomous checklist was used to code each 
technology indicator (which limited the degree that each indicator was actually met).   
 
Recommendations for Further Study 
 This study involved student teachers at one university.  Future studies should investigate 
whether the results from other universities in other regions report similar results.  Further 
research should investigate if discrepancies exist between elementary, middle school, and 
secondary grade teacher education programs to discover if teacher education programs are 
preparing student teachers in the most effective and most recent technologies.  Finally, future 
investigations should focus on the knowledge and skills of faculty in teacher education programs 
and their readiness to prepare future educators in the most effective use of technology. 



 Use of Technology 27 
 

The math and science teacher candidates’ effective use of technology should and can be 
utilized to develop strong lessons that engage students in higher levels of learning.  Teacher 
candidates are at a stage of learning the importance of strong lesson planning, and teacher 
programs have been expecting them to be masters in the area of “Teacher Use” more so than in 
the area of “Student Use” of technology.  Further study should be conducted to determine how to 
incorporate and encourage “Student Use” of technology to promote critical thinking, 
collaboration, and achievement in mathematics and science classes.   

 
References 

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education.  (2008).  Professional Standards for  

the Accreditation of Teacher Preparation Institutions.  National Council for Accreditation 

of Teacher Education: Washington, D.C.     

International Society for Technology in Education.  (2007).  The National Educational  

 Technology Standards for students.  International Society for Technology in Education: 

 Eugene, OR. 

Kentucky Department of Education.  (2008).  Kentucky teaching standards.  Retrieved  from 

http://www.kyepsb.net/teacherprep/standards.asp. 

U.S. Department of Education.  (2008).  National educational technology trends study: Local-

level data summary.  U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and 

Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service: Washington, D.C.   

Vanetta, R. & Beyerbach, B.  (2000).  Facilitating a constructivist vision of technology 

 integration among education faculty and preservice teachers.  Journal of Research on 

 Computing in Education, 33(2), 133-48. 

Kleiner, B., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L.  (2007).  Educational technology in teacher  education 

program for initial licensure (NCES 2008-040).  National Center for Educational 

Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education: Washington, 

D.C.   



28	
      J. Tassell, R. Stobaugh, and M. McDonald	
  
 

Beckett, E., Wetzel, K., Buss, R., Chisholm, I., Misdoubted, E., & Padgett, H.  (2001).  

 Preservice and in-service teachers collaborate to integrate technology into K-8 

 classrooms.  SITE Conference:  Norfolk, VA.   

Duhaney, D.C.  (2001).  Teacher education:  Preparing teachers to integrate technology.  

 International Journal of Instructional Media, 28(1), 23-30. 

 


