MIller Proof Final


Educational Renaissance Vol. 8  (2019)

"Am  I Doing What  I Think  I?m  Doing??: The Im por t ance 
of  a Theoret ical Fram e when Int egrat ing Tablet s in 
Teacher  Educat ion 
Libbi Mil ler , EdD.  Humboldt State University

     email: elizabeth.miller@humboldt.edu 

Freder ick  Peinado Nelson, PhD.  California State University, Fresno

     email: fnelson@csufresno.edu

Cat hy Yun, PhD.  Learning Policy Institute

     email: cyun@learningpolicyinstitute.org

Lisa Bennet t , PhD.  California State University, Fresno

     email: lbennett@csufresno.edu

Em y Lopez Phil l ips, EdD.  University of California San Francisco, Fresno Campus

     email: ephillips@fresno.ucsf.edu 

Feature Article

Int roduct ion

In recent elections for the Los Angeles school 
board, a program designed to provide an iPad to 
every student became a critical issue. Since the 
adoption of the tablet program, L.A. Unified, the 
second largest district in the country, has 

experienced problems with start-up, planning, and 
intended use of tablets for learning (Blume, 2015). 
The trend of providing tablet devices to students 
has migrated to higher education with the hope of 
transforming student learning and faculty teaching 
practices (Moran, Hawkes and Gayer, 2010). In 
early 2014, Fresno State committed to making this 

Abst ract   

In the following self-study, we share our investigation of the shifts in faculty pedagogical beliefs, 
instructional practices, and curricular decision-making while engaged in a cycle of reflection on 
tablet-focused teacher education course. We conducted this inquiry into our practice, using 
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) and the 
Substitution-Augmentation-Modification-Redefinition (SAMR) model as frameworks to examine data 
from interviews and reflective writing. We conclude the need for the explicit connection of technology 
professional development, specifically tablet technology, with a meaningful theoretical framework, in 
order for faculty to engage in effective integration. We also share our model for examining the 
development of instructor?s thinking about integrating technology, including influences on thinking 
and classification of instructional decisions into the SAMR taxonomy.

Keywords: Tablets, educational technology, teacher education, technological pedagogical content 
knowledge, samr model

mailto:fnelson@csufresno.edu
mailto:cyun@learningpolicyinstitute.org
mailto:lbennett@csufresno.edu
mailto:ephillips@fresno.ucsf.edu


M ILLER, NELSON, YUN, BENNETT, & LOPEZ-PHILLIPS |  AM I DOING WHAT I THINK I AM DOING?

move through the development of a tablet 
program. The tablet program at our institution 
began as an initiative from the university 
president, connecting to efforts to reduce costs 
and integrate technology. We all participated in the 
program and teach courses in the teacher 
education program that integrate tablet 
technology. 

Tablet technology has potential for a significant 
impact on teaching and learning, but not without 
appropriate professional development and 
support. Beavis (2014) noted that tablets in the 
classroom can have transformational impact on 
learning, but also recognized the need for training 
and support to facilitate effective use. Moran, 
Hawkes and Gayer (2010) suggest that students 
also need preparation in order to increase the 
success rate for tablet integration. Additionally, 
they found differences in students who used 
tablets at their own discretion and those who were 
required to use the tablets. In a study investigating 
university students? perceptions of technology, van 
Oostveen, Muirhead and Goodman (2011) found 
litt le evidence that tablet integration impacts 
students? attitudes about learning. The researchers 
of this study contend that despite student 
familiarity with the technology, that technology by 
itself cannot lead to the redefinition of educational 
practice.

In a study looking at tablet integration in a teacher 
education course, Geist (2011) found that 
preservice teachers primarily used tablets for 
reading eBooks and finding resources through the 
web browser. The preservice teachers expressed 
that they hoped to use the technology in their 
future classrooms. The researcher concludes that 
there is value in incorporating mobile technology 
into the classroom and suggests that there is a 
need for faculty support regarding this 
implementation. While this study found the tablets 
to be a useful tool in teacher education, the tablets 
themselves did not transform the course. 

Expanding on Beavis?s (2014) call for training and 
development accompanying tablet 
implementation, we assert the need for 

meaningful reflective practice by faculty on the 
entire experience. In this self-study, we investigate 
the impact of our participation in a tablet program 
and professional development opportunities on 
our instructional practices and pedagogical beliefs 
in our work with preservice teachers. 

Purpose 

The purpose of this self-study was to investigate 
changes in faculty beliefs and decisions about 
pedagogy, curriculum and instructional practices 
in relationship to the integration of tablets into 
course design. We used two research questions to 
focus the study.  

1. What changes occurred to our pedagogical 
beliefs, curricular decisions, and 
instructional practices? 

2. What experiences, including professional 
development, contributed to these 
changes? 

These questions were examined through a model 
for faculty conceptions of reflection developed by 
Nelson (2015), which uses Schwab?s (1973) 
commonplaces as influences on faculty thinking. 

Background 

The authors of this paper were involved in a 
campus-wide initiative to integrate tablets in 
teacher education courses at Fresno State, a 
regional comprehensive public university. The 
tablet initiative is currently in its third year. The 
first year of the program included 40 participants 
from various colleges and departments across 
campus. The program expanded in its second year 
to around 70 participants. Prior to teaching their 
tablet-based courses, the faculty involved in the 
initiative participated in a faculty learning 
community that met regularly throughout the 
academic year. During the summer immediately 
before teaching a tablet-based course, the faculty 
members engaged in a week-long summer 
academy. The faculty learning community and the 
summer academy focused on introducing faculty 
to tablet technology and different apps that could 
be integrated into coursework and instructional 
practices. In the summer academy, the faculty 

21



M ILLER, NELSON, YUN, BENNETT, & LOPEZ-PHILLIPS |  AM I DOING WHAT I THINK I AM DOING?

created learning activities and a tablet-based 
course syllabus. Participating faculty members 
were required to teach one tablet-based course in 
the academic year following the completion of the 
summer academy. Faculty were supplied with a 
tablet of their choice ? iOS, Android or Windows ? 
and also received a stipend and professional 
development funds. Students who enrolled in 
tablet courses received a subsidy from the 
university to offset the cost of their tablet.  

Fresno State serves a diverse population. 
Demographics for Fall 2015 included 45.8% Latino, 
22.4% White, 14.0% Asian, 3.3% African American, 
2.9% two or more, 0.3% Native American, and 
11.3% Other. The Federal government has 
designated the university as a Hispanic Serving 
Institution (HSI) and an Asian American Native 
American Pacific Islander-Serving Institution 
(AANAPISI). The university reports that first 
generation college students make up over two 
thirds of the undergraduate population. 

Theoret ical Fram ework

This study draws upon the constructs of 
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge 
(TPCK) and the Substitution-Augmentation- 
Modification-Redefinition (SAMR) model as a 
theoretical frame. TPCK, which looks at the 
intersections between content knowledge (CK), 
pedagogical knowledge (PK), and technological 
knowledge (TK), provides a space for these 
deliberations on curriculum and pedagogy to 
occur (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). While historically, 
teacher education focused on content knowledge, 
more recently this shift has been to pedagogical 
knowledge. Shulman (1987) claimed that these two 
areas of CK and PK were not mutually exclusive 
and could not be treated in such a way, leading to 
the construct of Pedagogical Content Knowledge 
(PCK), sometimes operationalized as knowledge 
for teaching (Ball, Thames, & Phelps; 2008). Similar 
to the way that content and pedagogy cannot be 
considered mutually exclusive, educational 
technology should also not be viewed as separate 
from pedagogy and content (Mishra & Koehler, 
2006). TPCK requires understanding of 

technological integration to best support already 
effective pedagogy and a depth of content 
knowledge. 

In addition to TPCK, the SAMR model helps to 
inform the investigation of technology integration. 
Developed by Puentedura (2013), SAMR serves as 
a classification system for identifying the level of 
technology integration based on learning activities. 
The SAMR model includes the following four levels 
of technology integration:

- Substitution: technology acts as a direct 
substitute with no functional improvement.

- Augmentation: technology acts as a direct 
substitute with functional improvements.

- Modification: technology allows for task 
redesign.

- Redefinition: technology allows for new 
tasks that were previously not possible. 

For example, simply providing an electronic text 
without any examination of the new ways of 
interacting with text afforded by an e-reader would 
be classified at the substitution level (Puentedura, 
2013). An evolution in the beliefs and practices of 
teacher educators must first occur in order for 
tablet technology to have an impact on TPCK and 
understanding of the SAMR model when used with 
preservice teachers. (Geist, 2011).

Met hodology

This inquiry takes the form of a self-study, in which 
we consider our own experiences as instructors 
implementing tablet technology in a teacher 
education program. Zeichner (1999) called the 
development of self-study research ?probably the 
single most significant development even in the 
field of teacher education? (p. 8).  Self-study 
researchers focus on significant issues in teacher 
education and utilize a variety of methods to 
reveal and investigate complexities of the field. 
Zeichner (1999) acknowledged that self-study is a 
form of research that could potentially transform 
teacher education. 

For this investigation of our practice, we drew 
upon reflective processes and self-inquiry in order 
to situate ourselves at the center of our study. 

22



M ILLER, NELSON, YUN, BENNETT, & LOPEZ-PHILLIPS |  AM I DOING WHAT I THINK I AM DOING?

Hamilton and Pinnegar (1998) define self-study as 
?the study of one?s self, one?s actions, one?s ideas, 
as well as the ?not self?? (p. 238). Self-study 
problematizes the individual along with personal 
and professional practices with the goal of 
reframing these practices (Feldman, 2002). Barnes 
(1998) identified three characteristics of self-study 
research: collaboration, openness, and reframing 
of practice. Self-study cannot be conducted in 
isolation because it involves collective reflection 
and meaning making. This collaborative 
component requires that participants are open to 
sharing experiences and considering the ideas of 
others. The final characteristic involves applying 
the new ideas and insights to reframe the 
individual?s practice. Reframing can allow for 
significant shifts to occur in beliefs and 
perspectives. 

Par t icipant s

At the time of the self-study, the five participants 
were assistant professors who worked in teacher 
education at the university, teaching courses in 
various parts of the teacher credential program. 
Prior to participation in the tablet initiative, the five 
participants integrated various levels of technology 
in their instruction, ranging from teaching online 
and computer-based courses to teaching 
traditional face-to-face courses. 

Libbi Miller taught curriculum, instruction and 
educational technology in the secondary 
teacher education program. Prior to 
participating in the tablet initiative, she taught 
all of her courses in a computer classroom 
setting and regularly used educational 
technology as a tool for instruction. She 
participated in the tablet initiative beginning in 
its second year. 

Frederick Nelson taught courses in science 
methods and instructional theory and was a 
member of the first cohort of faculty to use 
tablets with students. He regularly integrated 
tablets into his science methods courses over 
the two years since the inception of the tablet 
initiative. He also taught an introductory 

course on curriculum, instruction, and 
technology. 

Cathy Yun taught in the early childhood 
education teacher education program and 
master?s program. As part of the master?s 
program, she instructed an advanced course in 
educational psychology. Prior to participating 
in the tablet initiative, she primarily used slide 
presentations, video footage, and websites as 
tools for teaching and learning. 

Lisa Bennett coordinated the elementary 
teacher education program and taught early 
literacy methods courses. Prior to participating 
in the tablet initiative, her use of educational 
technology as a tool for instruction consisted 
primarily of PowerPoint presentations and 
videos. 

Emy Lopez Phillips taught curriculum, 
instruction and educational technology in the 
secondary teacher education program. Prior to 
participating in the tablet initiative, she served 
as a Director of Instructional Technology at the 
K-12 level for the local county office of 
education. Her experiences included training 
K-12 educators on the use of technology for 
teaching and learning. She participated in the 
tablet initiative in its final year of grant funding. 

Met hods

We found that qualitative methods of data 
collection and analysis most closely aligned with 
the purpose of this study. We conducted self-study 
focus groups and used critical incident reflective 
writing as methods of data collection. 

Focus Groups

We conducted two focus groups which utilized 
dialogue as a mode of inquiry. In self-study, 
dialogue is more than a conversation and often 
involves more than two participants (East, 
Fitzgerald & Heston, 2009). Dialogue as a method 
allows for participants to jointly create meaning 
and expand individual ideas and perspectives 
(Wells, 1999). The act of participating in dialogue 
can also be can impetus for immediate change in 

23



M ILLER, NELSON, YUN, BENNETT, & LOPEZ-PHILLIPS |  AM I DOING WHAT I THINK I AM DOING?

the participants? practices or teaching. In order to 
meet the scheduling needs of all of our group 
members, we held two focus groups. There were 
three participants present in each focus group. 
One participant attended both focus groups. We 
followed a semi-structured protocol and used 
guiding questions to direct the conversation.

Reflective Writing

We also used reflective writing as an additional 
tool for data collection. We drew on the concept of 
critical incidents to provide a stimulus for 
reflection. Griffin (2003) suggests that critical 
incident reflection ?provides a deeper and more 
profound level of reflection because it goes 
beyond a detailed description of an event that 
attracted attention, to analysis of and reflection on 
the meaning of the event? (p. 208).  As researcher 
participants, we individually participated in 
reflective writing based on the following prompt: 

Identify a ?critical incident? that you experienced at 
any phase during [the tablet] program that 
influenced the way you perceive the role of 
technology in teacher education.  

Prior to our second focus group, each participant 
read all of the group member?s reflections. We 
found the reflective writing process to be useful in 
advancing our focus group discussion. 

Dat a Analysis

Data from the focus groups and reflective writing 
were dual coded to allow themes to emerge from 
the data (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). A list of themes 
was developed in the initial round of open coding. 
We conducted a second round of focused coding 
to solidify the themes identified during open 
coding (Esterberg, 2002). Themes were reviewed 
with all of the participants in the study. 

Trustworthiness

We accept the need for an approach that is 
committed to checking our interpretations with 
each other to increase the credibility of our 
conclusions (Bullough & Pinnegar, 2001; 
Whitehead, 2004). For this project, we used 
member checking to review our findings and to 

explore conclusions. We also engaged in peer 
debriefing to refine and redirect our work. As the 
inquiry is a self-study, transferability is enhanced 
through purposive sampling of the participants, 
since we are all providing rich detail about our 
experiences (Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, & Allen, 
1993). We also analyzed data both independently 
and collaboratively to contribute to 
trustworthiness of the inquiry. 

Findings

We found that our thinking about integrating 
tablet technology was influenced by several factors 
that align to Schwab?s commonplaces of 
instruction ? teachers, subject matter, learners, 
and the milieu (Schwab, 1973). This corresponds to 
Nelson?s (2015) model for the development of 
reflection by teacher educators, where the 
influences of the commonplaces function as input 
on personal conceptions of reflection that are then 
reified in the intended curriculum. In this model, 
an instructor?s formal education, personal 
experiences outside of schooling, and professional 
experiences inside of schooling all inform the 
teacher commonplace. The influences of learners, 
subject matter, and the milieu of instruction 
comprise the other commonplaces. The 
magnitude of each of these factors is fluid, based 
on the individual instructor and the teaching 
episode. Figure 1 illustrates this model, with larger 
shapes indicating greater magnitude of the 
influence of particular commonplaces. The 
instructor?s thinking about technology integration, 
representing TPCK (Mishra & Koehler, 2006), is 
manifested in the choices made about learning 
experiences in coursework. These individual 
assignments can then be classified according to 
the SAMR taxonomy (Puentedura, 2013). In the 
following sections, we examine the experience of 
one faculty member, Nelson, in more depth 
through the application of this model for 
examining thinking about technology integration. 
We will also share the thinking of four other faculty 
members who participated in the tablet project.

24



M ILLER, NELSON, YUN, BENNETT, & LOPEZ-PHILLIPS |  AM I DOING WHAT I THINK I AM DOING?

Figure 1. Influences of learners, subject matter, and 
the milieu of instruction

Shape Shifters

Nelson experienced tension about his instructional 
decisions, based on his desire to provide a 
learner-centered experience for students and his 
lack of expertise in tablet applications. 
Learner-centered teaching is a central aspect of his 
beliefs about teaching and learning, where power 
and responsibility are shared with students 
(Weimer, 2013). When teaching the tablet course, 
Nelson experienced dissonance between his belief 
in learner-centered instruction and his insecurity 
due to a lack of self-efficacy about his tablet skills. 
Initially, he treated the use of tablets as an ?add 
on? to his other assignments. The first learning 
activity in the science methods course instructed 
students to write a review of an application that 
could be used in teaching science, a 
substitution-level activity in the SAMR model. He 
focused on technical skills and teaching the 
students how to use various apps such as 
Evernote and Explain Everything. While he 
embraces learner-centered education and 
constructivist teaching, he experienced discomfort 
when he realized that the students had a better 
understanding of the technology than he did. This 
realization provided the impetus for a shift in the 
way that he integrated the use of tablets into his 
course. He no longer the teaches how to use the 
tablet or particular apps, but he uses the tablet as 
a tool to engage his learner in collaboration. These 

tensions that Nelson experienced are 
characterized in his reflective writing: 

At first, I was anxious about my lack of expertise in 
these various applications. This should not have 
been an issue for me, as my instructional decisions 
are typically very learner-centered and 
inquiry-oriented. The newness of using a tablet as 
a pedagogical innovation seemed to cause me to 
default to a more teacher-centered mode of 
authority for content. I soon came to the 
realization that I could not be an authority on all of 
these applications, but could instead rely on the 
expertise of my own students, based on their own 
interests and experience.

Nelson?s thinking about technology integration in 
this experience is represented by the model in 
Figure 2. The major influences on his TPCK come 
from the commonplaces of the teacher, the 
students, and the subject matter. In Nelson?s own 
formal education, a learner-centered approach to 
teaching had a significant impact, as characterized 
by this statement from his syllabus about grading 
on an assignment: ?The community of learners will 
determine the criteria for evaluating this 
assignment.? The education influence is, therefore, 
of greater influence than personal experiences, 
professional experiences, or the milieu. Actually, 
Nelson rejected the influence of tablet technology 
professional development, instead relying on the 
expertise of his own students, as indicated by the 
relative sizes of these influences in the model. 
Finally, Nelson explicitly focused on how preservice 
teachers in the course could use tablet technology 
in science teaching and learning, including data 
collection and analysis, as shown by the larger size 
of the subject matter influence in the model. 

Nelson?s thinking about integrating TPCK informs 
his decisions about the design of learning 
experiences in his courses. These learning 
experiences can then be classified into different 
SAMR categories. An example of his thinking 
includes the choices of techniques afforded 
preservice teachers in the course in the 
completion of the Inquiry Lesson Plan, such as 
collaboration via Google Docs or data collection 

25



M ILLER, NELSON, YUN, BENNETT, & LOPEZ-PHILLIPS |  AM I DOING WHAT I THINK I AM DOING?

using wireless temperature probes. These 
technology tools allow a significant redesign of the 
task; the Modification level of the SAMR model. 
While no assignments were categorized in the 
Redefinition level, most fit into the Augmentation 
or Modification levels. As with other taxonomies, 
Nelson?s purpose was not to move all activities to 
the highest level, but rather to engage in 
thoughtful examination of the diversity of his 
instructional choices.

Figure 2. Nelson?s thinking about technology 
integration

Bennett?s professional experience while teaching 
in the tablet program also led to a shift in her 
practice. In the end, the integration of tablets was 
transformative for Bennett?s practice, but this shift 
occurred in several phases and was facilitated by 
reflection. The first course Bennett taught in the 
tablet program was outside of the teacher 
credential program. In this course, she reports 
using the tablet to remove the focus from herself 
as the instructor and to create a more 
learner-centered classroom. However, the next 
semester when she began using tablets in a 
teacher credential course, her approach changed. 

And then the next semester, I taught the tablet 
course with my credential class, and I had this idea 
in my mind that I had to shift from using the tablet 
as a vehicle to helping teachers think about how 
they would use a tablet in their classroom. And I 
think it set me back a whole semester because I 

was starting to use it just as a gadget and not as a 
transformational tool, so, for example, I taught 
them a lot of really useful apps... it took me an 
entire additional semester to then get to the place 
where I was using the technology in a more 
transformational way so that the students were 
engaging differently, and I wasn?t the disseminator 
of knowledge.

Initially in the credential course, she focused on 
teaching her students the applications they could 
use once they entered the teaching profession. 
Like Nelson, she later shifted her teaching 
approach to become more learner-centered. She 
stopped teaching her students how to use the 
tablet and began integrating it into the design of 
her instruction.

The Critics

Both Miller and Phillips were instructors of 
educational technology. We found that their 
education and professional knowledge heavily 
influenced their experience in the professional 
development opportunities that were provided in 
the tablet program. Miller found herself critiquing 
the program?s professional development for its 
lack of a strong theoretical frame and focus on 
developing pedagogical beliefs. Without these 
elements, she feared that the tablet initiative 
would neglect to truly transform classroom 
practices across campus. In the focus group, she 
shared her concern: ?I wonder, if we look at how 
people are using tablets across campus, if they?re 
really changing what they?re doing. Or if it?s mostly 
just a substitute.?

In addition to her education and professional 
experience, Phillips?s critical perspective was 
influenced by her understanding of our students 
and the societal milieu along with personal 
experience in the geographic area. Our university 
serves a high population of disadvantaged 
students with many residing in rural areas with 
limited access to technology. Phillips was initially 
drawn to the program because she felt it would 
provide students living in outlying areas affordable 
access to technology. The university also has a 

26



M ILLER, NELSON, YUN, BENNETT, & LOPEZ-PHILLIPS |  AM I DOING WHAT I THINK I AM DOING?

partnership program, which allows preservice 
teachers to take classes off campus often in rural 
areas. She hoped that the tablets would be a 
valuable resource for our preservice teachers who 
have limited access to campus, while also serving 
as a tool during their student teaching experience. 
Once the program stopped funding tablets for 
students, Phillips became concerned about issues 
of equity and access related to enrollment in a 
tablet course and the tablet program. 

The Seeker

Participation in the tablet program provided us 
with the opportunity to reflect on our practice as 
teacher educators. We found that the educational 
theories and pedagogical approaches that we 
personally value were not always present in our 
teaching. This led us to begin to shift the theories 
that influence our practice from being personal to 
more observable. While this reflective experience 
was shared by all of the researchers, the impact on 
Yun?s practice was the particularly notable. 

Yun?s educational and professional background is 
in cognitive psychology, and she indicates that she 
is always seeking a theoretical frame. While Miller 
critiqued the professional development, Yun 
sought more information, and the tablet program 
provided a new source of stimuli for reconsidering 
her practice as a teacher educator. She began to 
rethink whether or not the instructional practices 
that she was implementing in her teaching were 
truly aligned with her pedagogical beliefs. In a 
focus group discussion, Yun reflected on her 
practice and the growth that she experienced by 
participating in the tablet program. 

Before I was like, ?Yeah, of course I?m a 
constructivist.? But it?s not like I explicitly sat down 
and thought about the tenets of a constructivist 
lesson. I didn?t do that explicitly. My thinking didn?t 
reach that far.  Because it didn?t, it was this 
implicit, vague application of this theory, I was not 
as critical of my own pedagogy.? 

The tablet program also resulted in Yun seeking a 
new framework for understanding her teaching 
and deepening her practice. In the tablet 

professional development, the SAMR model was 
briefly introduced. After initially learning about this 
taxonomy, Yun began to seek out more 
information about SAMR. She consulted with 
colleagues in educational technology and also did 
additional readings on the topic. Now Yun uses the 
SAMR model as a tool for reflecting on her 
teaching and classroom activities. 

Im plicat ions

Our self-study has important implications for 
teacher education faculty who seek to move 
beyond simple substitution of technology to a level 
of redefinition, enabling the creation of new 
learning experiences that were previously 
inconceivable (Puentedura, 2013). Various forms of 
technology are being implemented across 
disciplines at universities nationwide. Often these 
tools come with great promises such as the ability 
to revolutionize teaching, engage students and 
increase achievement. As faculty engage with 
these innovations, we conclude the need to 
carefully consider our own fundamental ideas 
about teaching and learning. In order for 
technology to be an integral component of 
transformative teacher education, it must move 
beyond technology integration and become 
entangled with pedagogical content knowledge. 
Without this core, we can become stuck in the 
?app? model by focusing on the tools instead of 
our pedagogical and instructional beliefs.

The model for instructor thinking about 
technology presented in this study (Figure 1) is 
useful in encouraging thoughtful consideration of 
the ideas and values that faculty bring to their 
pedagogical and curricular decisions. The model 
provides a structure for working backwards from 
enacted learning experiences to examining the 
SAMR level and significant influences on the 
integration of technology. These analyses bring 
focus to the importance the theoretical and 
practical rationale that faculty use in the design of 
instruction, affording a lens into the TPCK brought 
to bear.

As we asserted in the introduction to this article, 

27



M ILLER, NELSON, YUN, BENNETT, & LOPEZ-PHILLIPS |  AM I DOING WHAT I THINK I AM DOING?

professional development is necessary for faculty 
to successfully integrate technology into their 
courses (Beavis, 2014; Geist, 2011). We conclude 
that a strong theoretical frame must be present in 
this professional development. Professional 
development itself does not have the ability to 
transform practice. We are not advocating on 
behalf of any particular framework, be it TPCK, 
SAMR, learner-centered teaching, and so on. We 
do posit that when the explicit theoretical frame is 
absent, practice is left to be informed only by 
personal and professional experiences of the 
faculty member. Learning activities developed 
based on what has been previously done are 
unlikely to transform the learning environment.  

References

Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). 
Content knowledge for teaching what makes it 
special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 
389-407.

Barnes, D. (1998). Looking forward: The concluding 
remarks at the Castle conference. In M. L. 
Hamilton, with S. Pinnegar, T. Russell, J. 
Loughran, & V. LaBoskey (Eds.). 
Reconceptualizing teaching practice: Self-study in 
teacher education (pp. ix-xiv). London, UK: 
Falmer Press.

Bullough, R. V., Jr., & Pinnegar, S. (2001). Guidelines 
for quality in autobiographical forms of 
self-study research. Educational Researcher, 
30(3), 13-21.

Beavis, G. (2015, March 14). An Apple for teacher: 
How tablets are changing education. Techradar. 
Retrieved from http://www.techradar.com/us
/news/mobile-computing/tablets/an-apple-for-
teacher-how-tablets-are-changing-education-1
288300 

Blume, H. (2015, May 13). In L.A. Unified races, 
there's one issue where charter schools and 
teachers union agree. Los Angeles Times. 
Retrieved from 
http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-
lausd-election-20150513-story.html 

East, K., Fitzgerald, L. M. & Heston, M. L. (2009). 
Talking teaching and learning: Using dialogue 
in self-study. In D. L. Tidwell, M. L. Heston, & L. 
M. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Research methods for 
self-study of practice (55-72). New York, NY: 
Springer.

Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, 
S. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to 
methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Esterberg, K. G. (2002). Qualitative methods in social 
research. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. 

Feldman, A. (2002). Becoming a teacher educator, 
In C. Kosnik, A. R. Freese, & A. P. Samaras (Eds.), 
Making a difference in teacher education through 

28

http://www.techradar.com/us
/news/mobile-computing/tablets/an-apple-for-
teacher-how-tablets-are-changing-education-1
288300 
http://www.techradar.com/us
/news/mobile-computing/tablets/an-apple-for-
teacher-how-tablets-are-changing-education-1
288300 
http://www.techradar.com/us
/news/mobile-computing/tablets/an-apple-for-
teacher-how-tablets-are-changing-education-1
288300 
http://www.techradar.com/us
/news/mobile-computing/tablets/an-apple-for-
teacher-how-tablets-are-changing-education-1
288300 
http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-
lausd-election-20150513-story.html 
http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-
lausd-election-20150513-story.html 


M ILLER, NELSON, YUN, BENNETT, & LOPEZ-PHILLIPS |  AM I DOING WHAT I THINK I AM DOING?

self-study. Proceedings of the fourth international 
conference on self-study of teacher education 
practices, Herstmonceux Castle, East Sussex, 
England (Vol. 1, pp.66-70). Toronto, ON: OISE, 
University of Toronto. 

Geist, E. (2011). The game changer: Using iPads in 
college teacher education classes. College 
Student Journal, 45(4), 758.

Griffin, M. L. (2003). Using critical incidents to 
promote and assess reflective thinking in 
preservice teachers. Reflective Practice, 4(2), 
207-220.

Hamilton, M. L., & Pinnegar, S. (1998). Preface. In 
M. L. Hamilton, S. Pinnegar, T. Russell, J. 
Loughran, & V. K. LaBosky (Eds.), 
Reconceptualizing teaching practice: Self-study in 
teacher education (p. viii). London, UK: Falmer 
Press

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological 
pedagogical content knowledge: A framework 
for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College 
Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.

Moran, M., Hawkes, M., & El Gayar, O. (2010). 
Tablet personal computer integration in higher 
education: Applying the unified theory of 
acceptance and use technology model to 
understand supporting factors. Journal of 
Educational Computing Research, 42(1), 79-101.

Nelson, F. L. (2015). What we see when we look in 
the mirror: Conceptions of and intentions for 
reflection by science teacher educators. Cogent 
Education, 2(1), 1122139.

Puentedura, R. R. (2013). Paths to technology 
integration: SAMR & TPCK in context. Retrieved 
from http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/arch
ives/2013/05/29/PathsToTechnologyIntegration
.pdf 

Schwab, J. J. (1973). The practical 3: Translation into 
curriculum. The School Review, 81(4), 501-522.

Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: 
Foundations of the new reform. Harvard 
Educational Review, 57(1), 1-23.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative 
research (Vol. 15). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

van Oostveen, R., Muirhead, W., & Goodman, W. M. 
(2011). Tablet PCs and reconceptualizing 
learning with technology: a case study in higher 
education. Interactive Technology and Smart 
Education, 8(2), 78-93.

Weimer, M. (2013). Learner-centered teaching: Five 
key changes to practice. San Francisco, CA: 
Jossey-Bass.  

Wells, G. (1999). Dialogue inquiry: Toward a 
sociocultural practice and theory of education. 
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 

Whitehead, J. (2004). What counts as evidence in 
self-studies of teacher education practices? In J. 
J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V. K. LaBoskey, & T. 
Russell (Eds.). International handbook of 
self-study of teaching and teacher education 
practices (Vol 2, pp. 871-903). Dordrecht: Kluwer 
Academic Publishers.

Zeichner, K. M. (1999). The new scholarship in 
teacher education. Educational Researcher,28(9), 
4-15.

 

29

http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/arch
ives/2013/05/29/PathsToTechnologyIntegration
.pdf 
http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/arch
ives/2013/05/29/PathsToTechnologyIntegration
.pdf 
http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/arch
ives/2013/05/29/PathsToTechnologyIntegration
.pdf 

	MIller Proof Final
	Page 1
	Page 2
	Page 3
	Page 4
	Page 5
	Page 6
	Page 7
	Page 8
	Page 9
	Page 10