Pre-Service Teachers and Technology Integration: International Cases and Generational Attitudes Toward Technology in Education

Digital Collections @ Dordt

Faculty Work Comprehensive List

2016

Pre-Service Teachers and Technology Integration: International Cases and Generational Attitudes toward Technology in Education

David J. Mulder Dordt College, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/faculty_work

Part of the Education Commons

Recommended Citation Mulder, D. J. (2016). Pre-Service Teachers and Technology Integration: International Cases and Generational Attitudes toward Technology in Education. Handbook of Research on Global Issues in Next- Generation Teacher Education, 83. Retrieved from https://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/faculty_work/950

This Book Chapter is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Collections @ Dordt. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Work Comprehensive List by an authorized administrator of Digital Collections @ Dordt. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Pre-Service Teachers and Technology Integration: International Cases and Generational Attitudes toward Technology in Education

Abstract The current generation of young teachers entering the profession is often presumed to have an easy comfort with and seemingly innate understanding of technology. Prensky (2001) has gone so far as to name them “digital natives” and has claimed that members of the millennial generation “think and process information fundamentally differently from their predecessors” (p. 1). However, recent studies in several English-speaking western nations call the millennial generation’s innately skillful use of technology into question, and some studies of millennial teachers indicate that they are, in fact, no better at integrating technology into their teaching than their colleagues from other generations. Rogers’ (2003) diffusion of innovations theory provides an alternative to the digital native/digital immigrant approach for explaining teachers’ technology integration habits. Based on this approach, suggestions for teacher educators are recommended for training millennial teachers to integrate technology and pedagogy.

Keywords digital immigrants, digital natives, educational technology, information and communication technology, millenials, novice teacher, pedagogy, pre-service teacher, TPACK, technology integration

Disciplines Education

Comments Mulder, David J. "Pre-Service Teachers and Technology Integration: International Cases and Generational Attitudes toward Technology in Education." Handbook of Research on Global Issues in Next-Generation Teacher Education. Edited by Jared Keengwe, Justus G. Mbae, and Grace Onchwari. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global), 2016. 83-103. ISBN: 978-1-46669-949-6.

This book chapter is available at Digital Collections @ Dordt: https://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/faculty_work/950 Handbook of Research on Global Issues in Next- Generation Teacher Education

Jared Keengwe University of North Dakota, USA

Justus G. Mbae Catholic University of Eastern Africa, Kenya

Grace Onchwari University of North Dakota, USA

A volume in the Advances in Higher Education and Professional Development (AHEPD) Book Series Published in the United States of America by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global) 701 E. Chocolate Avenue Hershey PA, USA 17033 Tel: 717-533-8845 Fax: 717-533-8661 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: http://www.igi-global.com

Copyright © 2016 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher. Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Keengwe, Jared, 1973- editor. Title: Handbook of research on global issues in next-generation teacher education / Jared Keengwe, Justus G. Mbae, and Grace Onchwari, editors. Description: Hershey PA : Information Science Reference, [2016] | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2015050774| ISBN 9781466699489 (hardcover) | ISBN 9781466699496 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Teachers--Training of--Cross-cultural studies. | Teachers--In-service training--Cross-cultural studies. | Education and globalization. Classification: LCC LB1707 .H3543 2016 | DDC 370.71/1--dc23 LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2015050774

This book is published in the IGI Global book series Advances in Higher Education and Professional Development (AHEPD) (ISSN: 2327-6983; eISSN: 2327-6991)

British Cataloguing in Publication Data A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library.

All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.

For electronic access to this publication, please contact: [email protected]. 83

Chapter 5 Pre-Service Teachers and Technology Integration: International Cases and Generational Attitudes toward Technology in Education

David J. Mulder Dordt College, USA

ABSTRACT

The current generation of young teachers entering the profession is often presumed to have an easy comfort with and seemingly innate understanding of technology. Prensky (2001) has gone so far as to name them “digital natives” and has claimed that members of the millennial generation “think and process information fundamentally differently from their predecessors” (p. 1). However, recent studies in several English-speaking western nations call the millennial generation’s innately skillful use of technology into question, and some studies of millennial teachers indicate that they are, in fact, no better at integrating technology into their teaching than their colleagues from other generations. Rogers’ (2003) diffusion of innovations theory provides an alternative to the digital native/digital immigrant approach for explaining teachers’ technology integration habits. Based on this approach, suggestions for teacher educators are recommended for training millennial teachers to integrate technology and pedagogy.

INTRODUCTION tion, and possessing learning style preferences different from earlier generations (Oh & Reeves, In schools today, there are as many as four dis- 2014; Southall, 2013). Prensky (2001) named tinct generations at work, which each have their this generation “digital natives” because of their own unique characteristics to describe them (Oh preferences and proclivities for using technology. & Reeves, 2014; Pegler, Kollewyn, & Crichton, However, other voices have noted concern with 2010). The youngest generation of teachers—those this assumption that today’s novice teachers are just entering the profession—are often assumed to somehow “native” in their use of technology be technologically savvy, interested in collabora- (Bennett & Maton, 2010; Kennedy et al, 2009;

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-9948-9.ch005

Margaryan, Littlejohn, & Vojt, 2011). Bauerlein in every classroom “integration,” regardless of (2009) went so far as to name this generation “the how (or even if) they are being used. However, Dumbest Generation,” which raises concern about true integration must involve more than simply their ability to teach at all! having technology tools present. Roblyer (2003) At the forefront of this collision of perspec- defines “integrating educational technology” as tives is the question of the abilities of this young “determining which electronic tools and which generation of teachers to integrate technology into methods for implementing them are appropriate their teaching practices. If they are truly “digital for given classroom situations and problems” (p. natives,” they should be able to integrate technol- 8). Similarly, Mishra and Koehler (2006) describe ogy with ease and facility. Does the literature bear technology integration as a combination of tech- this out? If so, to what degree? And if not, what are nology and pedagogy within a particular content the implications for teacher preparation programs area. In other words, technology in the classroom charged with training this generation of teachers? should not be an institution unto itself; it should be a natural and low-profile part of the teaching and learning environment. It is along these lines BACKGROUND that Spector (2012) describes technology integration as the use of technology being regarded “an What is Technology Integration? unobtrusive facilitator of learning, instruction, or performance” (p. 150). Thus, true integration of Over the past decades, technology and educa- technology and teaching must be viewed as the tion have become intrinsically entwined. Pierson skillful understanding of how and when technol- (2000) suggested that integrating technology in ogy can support teaching and learning, and how to one’s teaching practice is “becoming an insepa- select the right technological tools to incorporate rable part of good teaching” (p. 1598). Teo (2011) given a teacher’s instructional goals. indicated that technology integration has become The question might then be raised: are all basic job requirement for teachers in contempo- teachers equally able to integrate technology and rary society. However, simply having technology pedagogy in this way? Or is it more likely that some present in the classroom is not enough. Spector teachers are better able to integrate technology into (2012) noted, “technology integration is perhaps their teaching because of their personal proclivi- the most challenging and complex aspect of de- ties for using technology? A further question may signing educational environments and systems of stem from these: are younger teachers better able instruction” (p. 151). to integrate technology, because of their prefer- Although there are now a wide variety of tech- ence for using technology in other areas of life? nological tools available for teachers to integrate into their teaching practices (Brown & Green, Understanding Generational 2013; Gray, Thomas, & Lewis, 2010), it is impor- Attitudes and Behaviors tant to determine exactly what is meant by “technology integration.” Certainly, different teachers In order to answer these questions, it is necessary will place different levels of emphasis on the tools, to first understand some generational attitudes and may even have their own definitions for “tech- and behaviors. A significant body of research has nology integration” (James, 2009). Pierson (2000) developed in recent years examining the differ- proposes that the term “integration” may often ences between generations and how they approach be used too lightly, suggesting that some schools working with technology (Harris, Grandgenett, & and districts seem to consider having a computer Hofer, 2012; Murray, 2011; Oblinger & Oblinger,

84 Pre-Service Teachers and Technology Integration

2005; Oh & Reeves, 2014; Pegler, et al., 2010; learning a new culture. In his seminal work, Pren- Prensky, 2001; Tapscott, 2009; Wang, Hsu, sky (2001) introduced the idea that because of the Campbell, Coster, & Longhurst, 2014). It can be proliferation of digital media and technology tools challenging to name the different generations, around them, “today’s students think and process and different authors have their own unique ter- information fundamentally differently from their minology. However, it is generally agreed “four predecessors” (p. 1), and that this is the essence primary generational cohorts may be observed of what it means to be a “digital native.” across Western society since the early/mid 1900s, each sharing similar motivators, work styles, and attitudes, although the labels of these generations EXPLORING THE ISSUES vary even within particular societies” (Murray, 2011, p. 55). Digital Natives: Becoming Teachers In their synthesis of much research on generational attitudes toward technology, Oh and Reeves Having been named “digital natives,” there has (2014) include Lancaster and Stillman’s (2010) been much interest in the ability of young teach- descriptions of these four generations: ers—millennials—entering the profession, and how well they are able to integrate technology into • Traditionalists, including those born in their teaching practices (Bate, 2010; Bennett & 1900-1945, Maton, 2010; Bullen, Morgan, & Qayyum, 2011; • Baby boomers, including those born in Pegler, Kollewyn, & Crichton, 2010; Southall, 1946-1964, 2013; Wang et al., 2014). Southall (2013) suggests, • Generation X, including those born in 1965-1980, and There is a common assumption supported by edu- • Millennials, including those born in 1981- cators and popular media that today’s preservice 1999 (see p. 820). teachers are ‘digital natives.’ They have been raised with digital media and have spent a great These are the names for the various generations deal of time using the Internet and engaging with that will be used throughout this chapter. different digital technologies. This group is said to Several authors have noted that the members be different as compared to previous generations of the millennial generation have an easy facility because they supposedly think, behave, and learn in using technology in their day-to-day lives—or differently as a result of continuous, pervasive at least they are perceived that way (Bang & Luft, exposure to modern technology. (p. 1428). 2013; Dawson, 2008; Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005; Prensky, 2001; Tapscott, 2009). In fact, Oblinger This echoes the ideas expressed by Prensky and Oblinger (2005) choose to refer to the mil- (2001) and Tapscott (2009); they see the next lennials as “The Net Generation,” because they generation as living a fully digital life, and are the first generation to have grown up with thinking—and acting—differently from previous ready access to the Internet, and they argue that generations. widespread usage of online resources is a defin- How well does this conception of the digital ing feature of this generation. Beginning in 2001, native novice teacher work out in practice? In Prensky argued that the millennial generation is their exploration of technology integration among comprised of “digital natives,” and that older millennial science teachers entering the profes- generations are made up of “digital immigrants,” sion, Bang and Luft (2013) enthusiastically sup- for whom the technology-infused life is akin to port the idea of digital natives having exemplary

85 Pre-Service Teachers and Technology Integration

technology integration skills, stating, “Using the claims that millennials think differently as a technology effectively in the classroom may be result of their exposure to technology (Kennedy best accomplished by new science teachers, who et al., 2009; Oh & Reeves, 2014; Southall, 2013), tend to be digital natives and who are more likely and some researchers have called into question to work toward adopting new technologies in their the whole concept of whether or not the digital daily instruction” (p. 118). Along the same lines, native/digital immigrant dichotomy has any merit Towell (2009) describes today’s students as quick (Bennett, & Maton, 2010; Bullen et al., 2011; to embrace new technologies, while the older Littlejohn et al., 2012; Margaryan, Littlejohn, generation may need repeated experiences with & Vojt, 2011; Wang et al., 2014). Questions a particular technology before adopting it. Fluck remain whether high personal technology usage and Dowden (2013) agree, asserting, “Pre-service in fact correlates to high abilities among millen- teachers are especially well positioned to support nial teachers to integrate technology into their the more advanced uses of ICT [information and teaching practices (Oh & Reeves, 2014; Pierson communication technology]” (p. 2). & Cozart, 2005). Not all authors have this rosy view of the millennials’ abilities to integrate technology and Comparing Millennials across pedagogy. Bennett and Maton (2010) call the as- English-Speaking, Western Nations sertion of innate ability for technology integration into question, noting that although millennials Studies of the millennial generation’s use of may have a greater overall preference for using technology (particularly within higher education technology, “everyday technology-based activi- settings, but also among recent graduates) have ties may not prepare students well for academic been conducted across English-speaking West- practices” (p. 325). Further, research conducted by ern nations in recent years, including Australia, Littlejohn, Beetham, and McGill (2012) indicated Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United that millennials’ supposed facility with digital States. As these nations are culturally similar, technologies are overstated, and that naming it may be productive to compare the findings of this generation “digital natives” may actually be these studies to discern the degree to which the hiding a wide diversity of different ability levels “digital native” label holds true. and comfort levels in working with technology. Australia The Digital Native: Myth or Reality? In recent years, the Australian government has Wang et al. (2014) report that there is a common emphasized developing ICT resources for primary assumption that digital natives may be character- and secondary schools (Albion, 2011; Fluck & ized by a desire to multitask, a preference for visual Dowden, 2013). In parallel, this push for tech- media over reading texts, and being less motivated nology integration has also meant technology by environments that lack technology. There are has become more prevalent in Australian higher some indications that millennials—when consid- education, and “students entering university are ered together as a group—do have proclivities assumed to be ’media literate’ and technologi- for using technology in all areas of life (Oblinger cally competent, simply needing educators to & Oblinger, 2005; Pangrazio, 2011; Tapscott, harness those skills” (Albion, 2011, p. 74). This 2009). However, other authors have noted that is the assumption, but is it borne out in practice? the literature on the development of “digital na- Many studies indicate that Australian millennials tives” is lacking in empirical research to support are no more “native” in their use of technology

86 Pre-Service Teachers and Technology Integration

than members of other generations (Bate, 2010; 2011, pp. 13-14). Pegler et al. (2010) found similar Bennett & Maton, 2010; Cameron, 2005; Fluck results; they report that younger generations may & Dowden, 2013; Kennedy et al., 2009). In their seem to have “an edge” in working with particular study of millennials’ actual technology use, Cor- technologies. However, they emphasize, “This rin, Lockyer, and Bennett (2011) found that while advantage comes from experience with technology many participants were heavy users of technology, rather than innate ability. In their study, Oblinger their technology use was actually limited to a and Oblinger suggested the evolving skills and at- small number of tools. And although their study titudes that millennials display are also displayed culminated in a case study comprising a single by older generations when those generations have individual (which limits the generalizability of increased exposure to technology” (Pegler et al., the findings) they did note, “this level of detail 2010, p. 454). While the Canadian millennials may [provided through a thorough examination of a have strong preference for using technology, they single case] reminds us to question the genera- do not seem to be any more “native” in their use tional assumptions so commonly used to justify of technologies than older generations. technological changes in higher education” (Cor- rin, Lockyer, & Bennett, 2011, p. 2949). The United Kingdom

Canada There are some indications that millennials in the UK are avid users of technology (Ashraf, 2009; In their examination of how first-year students Hammond, 2011; Selwyn, 2008). However, many at a Canadian university use technology, Gabriel studies have cast doubt on the idea that they are et al. (2012) found that there is a great differ- somehow “native” when it comes to their use of ence in the technologies students employed for technology (Hall, Nix, & Baker, 2013; Helsper & personal and academic uses. While millennial Eynon, 2010; Jones, Ramanau, Cross, & Healing, students expressed clear preference for using 2010; Littlejohn et al., 2012; Margaryan et al., technology for learning, the actual set of tools 2011). Jones et al. (2010) found a wide diversity used by the participants was limited to Internet among first year university students in the way they research, email, word processing, and accessing used technology, both for personal and academic electronic databases: “the students tended to use pursuits. Littlejohn et al. (2012) report, “Some as- digital technologies to collect, select, and work pects of learners’ everyday practices with technol- with information” (Gabriel et al., 2012, p. 11). ogy are in fact at odds with the practices valued in Other researchers have found very little difference traditional academic teaching and assessment” and between how members of the Canadian millennial “there is considerable research evidence that learn- generation and other generations use technology ers’ ICT skills are less advanced than educators (Bullen et al., 2011; Pegler et al., 2010). Bullen et tend to think” (p. 551). Regarding the research on al. (2011) found that students, regardless of their digital natives in the UK, Buckingham expresses, generation, tend to make use of a rather limited “The optimistic view of young people as a ‘digital set of technologies based on three key issues: generation’ – as somehow automatically liberated familiarity with the tools, financial cost of the and empowered through their experience of these technology, and immediacy of access. They found new technologies – is little more than a form of that millennial and non-millennial students were wishful thinking” (2007, p. 75). This sentiment just as comfortable using computers, the Internet, is borne out in the data collected by Helsper and and other information and communication tech- Eynon (2010) in their investigation of supposed nologies for a variety of purposes (Bullen et al., digital natives’ and supposed digital immigrants’

87 Pre-Service Teachers and Technology Integration

use of the Internet and other technologies; there nology has progressed, but of the way research are clearly a range of factors affecting technology has been conducted” (p. 1734), implying that use, including generation, gender, experience researchers assume that there will be a difference working with technology, self-efficacy for using between the ways these generations approach us- technology, and education. ing technology. However, researchers across the West have developed a compelling body of evi- The United States dence arguing against millennials’ “native” use of digital technologies, with other generations being In recent years, many U.S. researchers have “immigrants.” Jones & Czerniewicz (2010) assert raised questions about whether the conception that applying the label of “digital natives” to the of millennials as “digital natives” in fact works millennial generation persists “despite a growing out in practice (Martin, 2011; Oh & Reeves, body of evidence that questions the foundations of 2014; Southall, 2013; Tufts, 2010; Wang et al., the idea” (p. 317). And it is notable that even Pren- 2014) Oh and Reeves (2014) report that millen- sky himself—the originator of the terminology of nial students currently in higher education “do “digital natives” and “digital immigrants”—has not naturally adopt and adapt technologies in backpedaled from this position somewhat; in a academic settings” (p. 824). Tufts (2010) found 2011 piece, he explains that he simply meant to that the supposed generational gap between the create a metaphor, and even states: supposed-digital-native millennials and older generations is fictitious: the groups may have different Being a Digital Native is not, at its core, about preferences for the technologies they choose, but capabilities, or even knowledge, regarding all neither group had greater facility when it came things digital. No matter who you are, all those to working with technology. Martin (2011) found things have to be learned in some way. The dis- similar results in her study comparing novice tinction is, I think, much more about culture. It teachers from different generations, observing is about younger people’s comfort with digital “there are more similarities than differences be- technology, their believe in it’s ease, its useful- tween Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants in ness, and its being generally benign, and about regards to background experience and classroom their seeing technology as a fun “partner” that technology use” (p. 97). Along the same lines, they can master, without much effort, if they are Wang et al. (2014) report a synthesis of research shown or choose to. (Prensky, 2011, p. 17.) that indicates “no significant difference in ICT competencies between the digital natives and the While it may be true that younger people are digital immigrants” (p. 641) And even among the perceived to have a greater level of comfort with supposed digital natives, Hargittai and Hinnart digital technology, Jones (2011) asserts, “The (2008) found stark differences between the way generational argument [about the differences be- different members of the millennial generation tween how individuals use technology] does not used technology. have any real academic support” (p. 39). Jones goes on to explain that millennials actually have The Story so Far: What a wide diversity of ways that they choose to use are the Trends? technologies, and that while members of this generation do generally seem to have a preference Pangrazio (2011) describes the terms “digital using technology, they are a much more complex native” and “digital immigrant” as “emblematic, group than the “digital natives” narrative would not only of how the debate regarding digital tech- have us believe.

88 Pre-Service Teachers and Technology Integration

Thus, the unifying trend observed across She also found that teachers use of technology in these English-speaking, Western nations is this: their teaching practices did not correlate to their millennials do seem to have a real preference for supposed “native” or “immigrant” status—in using technology in their day-to-day lives, but fact, it varied widely, with some so-called “na- the individuals within this generation are perhaps tives” using almost no technology in their teach- not as innately skillful as they might seem at first ing practices, and some so-called “immigrants” glance (Corrin, Lockyer, & Bennett, 2011; Gabriel making heavy use of technology for all sorts et al., 2012; Margaryan et al., 2011; Prensky, 2011; of teaching tasks, from planning, to delivering Wang et al., 2014). Further, lumping members of content, to assessment (Martin, 2011). Age—and the millennial generation together into one broad the corresponding generational membership—is category of “digital natives” actually loses the not the defining feature for teachers’ technology nuance of the many different ways they actually integration habits. Indeed, Bullen et al. admonish use technology (Bennett & Maton, 2010; Bullen their readers to “avoid the temptation to base our et al., 2011; Hall et al., 2012; Hargittai & Hinnart, decision [about preferences for using technol- 2008; Jones, 2011; Oh & Reeves, 2014). Regard- ogy] on generation stereotypes and instead seek a ing the supposed digital immigrants, Palfrey and deeper understandings of how students are using Gasser (2011) bluntly state, “Many people born technology and what role it plays in learning and before 1980, too, are skilled at using new digital teaching” (2011, p. 17). technologies, often more skilled in fact than their Teachers’ beliefs about the value of technology younger counterparts” (p. 190). Cameron (2005) for teaching and learning affect their likelihood of summed up the situation, stating, “Regardless integrating technology into teaching (Bate, 2010; of age we are all – in the western world at least Ertmer, 2005; Hammond, 2011; Hughes, 2005). – surrounded by digital technology. So today’s To develop technology integration skills, teachers generation gap appears to be less about ideologi- must view themselves as learners and be willing cal or demographic differences, and more about to practice (Hughes, 2005), and it is important demonstrated comfort and ability with the tools to note that this “learner stance” can be assumed of everyday living” (p. 2). by members of any generation (Ertmer, 2005). Dweck (2012) reinforces this perspective in her Moving Beyond Natives and description of a “growth mindset.” Immigrants: Teacher Beliefs Cameron (2005) suggests, “The gap that and Technology Integration digital technology creates between students and teachers may not be so much generational as it Let us now shift our attention back toward schools, is experiential” (p. 4). In their study of Canadian and consider how teachers choose to integrate—or teachers’ technology integration habits, Pegler et choose not to integrate—technologies into their al. (2010) found that although teachers in younger teaching practices. What drives their technology generations (Generation X and millennials) adoption practices? may have greater facility with information and In her exploration of how novice teachers communication technology (ICT) applications who—by age—would fit into either the “digital compared to their older colleagues, they are, in natives” or “digital immigrants” generations, fact, no better at integrating these tools into their Martin (2011) found that teachers’ experiences teaching. Rather than assuming that differences with technology were a far greater influence on in generation membership best explain teachers’ their technology integration habits than their age. varying approaches to technology integration, they

89 Pre-Service Teachers and Technology Integration

propose Rogers’ (2003) diffusion of innovations whether to use a particular technology or not—is model might be a more likely explanation (Pegler often based on their personal level of comfort in et al., 2010). working with the technology; whether a teacher Rogers (2003) indicates a wide variety of is an expert or novice in the use of a particular reasons some individuals are more likely to adopt technology makes a tremendous difference in an innovation—such as a particular educational whether it is integrated into classroom practice! technology—than others, including: more years of (Ertmer, 2005; Judson, 2006). Ertmer (2005) formal education, higher level of literacy, higher emphasizes that teachers rely on their previous social status, greater empathy, less dogmatic belief beliefs and experiences when making decisions system, greater ability to deal with abstractions, about how and when to integrate technology. And greater rationality, better able to cope with uncer- all educators would do well to bear in mind that tainty and risk, higher aspirations, greater social “people tend to teach the way they were taught” participation, greater exposure to mass media, (Adamy & Heinecke, 2005, p. 233). greater knowledge of innovations, and higher degree of opinion leadership (Rogers, 2003). Notably absent from Rogers’ (2003) list of RECOMMENDATIONS potential factors influencing adoption of an innovation: the age of the adopter. Rogers (2003) How Can We Best Prepare specifically highlights this fact: Millennial Teachers for Technology Integration? Earlier adopters are no different from later adopters in age. There is inconsistent evidence about Because of their membership in the millennial the relationship of age and innovativeness. About generation, novice teachers entering the profession half of the many diffusion studies on this subject today are often assumed to be “digital natives” show no relationship, a few found that earlier (Bang & Luft, 2013; Fluck & Dowden, 2013; adopters are younger, and some indicate they are Murray, 2011). However, as we have seen, there older. (p. 288.) is a large body of evidence that this assumption does not imply that they are better at integrating This provides a strong indication that diffu- technology than their more experienced peers. sion of innovations theory might be a more likely While they may have greater perceived comfort explanation of the differences between teachers’ in working with technology in their day-to-day approaches to technology integration than gen- affairs, millennials entering the profession are, erational differences. Teachers of all generations in fact, no better at integrating technology into are more likely to adopt an innovation—perhaps their teaching than their more experienced peers changing their beliefs about the value of a particu- (Albion, 2011; Bate, 2010; Pegler et al., 2010; lar technology for teaching—when they have time Wang et al, 2014), and in some cases, may actu- to interact with colleagues, observe how they are ally be worse at technology integration (Martin, using the tool, and re-conceptualize how a technol- 2011). However, even if the assumption that mil- ogy could be integrated into their teaching (Ertmer, lennials are “native” integrators of technology and 2005; Kereluik, Mishra, & Koehler, 2010). pedagogy is flawed, a burden is placed on teacher Teachers, regardless of their generational educators to prepare millennial pre-service teach- membership, must keep up with developments ers for the expectation that they will be able to in technologies for teaching and learning (Pegler integrate technology into their teaching (Pegler et al., 2010). The approach a teacher selects— et al., 2010).

90 Pre-Service Teachers and Technology Integration

Teacher educators must not take their influ- 3. Select approaches to best meet these specific ence on the next generation of teachers lightly. As technology goals. Pierson and Cozart (2005) put it, “Novice teachers 4. Design learning activities that will incorpo- should be prepared to enter their profession with rate these approaches to deliberately meet a varied and strong repertoire of technology uses” the technology goals. (p. 3337). In order to ensure millennial teachers entering their professional career will be able Teacher educators would be well advised to to integrate technology from the beginning of reflect on this process as they consider how they their teaching practice, the relationship between will work to prepare their students to integrate technology-use and teaching ability must be technology into their future teaching. The goal of made strongly in pre-service teacher preparation the proceeding sections is to explore a practical (Pierson, 2000). However, this training likely will model for developing pre-service teachers’ abili- need to be differentiated based on the unique needs ties to connect technology with pedagogy. of individuals, because—as we have seen—the individual members of the millennial generation Shifting from Stand-Alone may have technology skills and experiences that Technology Courses to an vary dramatically. Bonk (2009) described this Integrated Approach phenomenon as “upskilling digital natives” (p. 390) and suggested that while some teachers will Historically, teacher preparation programs have need basic training on how to use web resources included a stand-alone course aimed at develop- for teaching, others might need familiarization ing pre-service teachers’ skill and knowledge at with specific tools, because “they may think that using technology (Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Glaze- they know how to use all the latest technologies, wski, & Newby, 2010; Pope, Hare, & Howard, but those intended for learning may be different 2005; Wang & Chen, 2007). While such courses or unfamiliar to them” (Bonk, 2009, p. 390). are still widespread in teacher education, Gross- man, Hammerness, and McDonald (2009) have (Re)Conceptualizing the Technology called for dissolving the artificial line teacher Component in Teacher Preparation educators have drawn between “foundations” and “methods” and instead consider integrating these Based on their analysis of over one hundred differ- two domains. In the realm of educational technol- ent teacher preparation programs at a wide variety ogy, this would mean reconsidering the value of of institutions of higher education, Ottenbreit- separating instructional technology courses from Leftwich, Glazewski, and Newby (2010) outline pedagogical methods courses, and instead look a four step process for conceptualizing (or re- for ways to integrate technology skills into other conceptualizing) the technology component for courses. As early as 2005, Pope, Hare, and Howard a teacher preparation program: raised the question of whether learning technology skills in isolation from instructional methods 1. Consider how technology expectations fit actually benefits pre-service teachers, and would into the broader context of a teacher educa- in fact result in true technology integration in the tion program. classroom. They instead advocated that teacher 2. Establish specific technology content educators deliberately integrate technology into goals for all pre-service teachers within the methods courses. program. Wang and Chen (2007) strongly supported the integration approach, while noting that the

91 Pre-Service Teachers and Technology Integration

stand-alone technology course might still provide and be able to flex to the needs of the individuals. value to the students if the knowledge and skills Fortunately, some research has already been done developed in such a course are then integrated in assessing pre-service teachers’ knowledge and throughout the entire teacher preparation program. skill in using educational technologies, and useful They argued that pre-service teachers still need tools for this assessment are available (Schmidt to learn the basic skills of how to use various et al., 2010). Students with different levels of instructional technologies, and that a stand-alone skill in using instructional technologies will course might be a good way to do so, but only if need different levels of support, but having clear this course is full of examples explaining how descriptors of the expected skills and attitudes technology can be used as a means of instruction will aid in developing the technological abilities in the context of various content areas (Wang & of all pre-service teachers (Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Chen, 2007). Simply learning how to use vari- Glazewski, & Newby, 2010). ous technological tools will not actually result in Faculty in teacher education programs will technology integration; the use of technology must thus need to decide on the skills and attitudes be contextualized. pre-service teachers most need, and then delib- This viewpoint is similar to that expressed erately provide opportunities to develop these. by Koehler, Mishra, and Yahya (2007) who have The International Society for Technology in called for a move away from stand-alone tech- Education (ISTE) has developed standards to nology courses, explaining that technology use guide teachers as they incorporate educational in teaching must always be viewed in relation to technologies into their teaching practices (ISTE, the content to be taught as well as the pedagogies 2008). Several authors argued that the ISTE stan- being employed. They argued that decontextual- dards are an excellent depiction of the technology ized approaches are in fact unlikely to promote abilities today’s teachers need (Mumford, 2011; technology integration since there is such a wide Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Glazewski, & Newby, 2010; disconnect being modeled for the students. Rodriguez & Chung, 2012). Because the ISTE standards are international standards, they are Establishing Standards written in such a way as to be applicable to many for Technology Use different school settings, rather than being tied to just one nation or location. The ISTE standards Part of the challenge for preparing pre-service for teachers include performance indicators that teachers with regard to technology is the wide clearly outline the skills effective teachers need variety of comfort with and efficacy related to be able to exhibit, which makes these ideal for to personal use of technology present among understanding what pre-service teachers must individuals (Mishne, 2012). Students will have know, understand, and be able to do with regard differing needs for developing knowledge about to instructional technology. Embedding these into and comfort with technological tools for teaching pedagogical methods courses and throughout a and learning; as we have seen, even the supposed teacher education program will help to develop “digital natives” exhibit a wide range of knowledge not just technological skills, but also develop a about and preferences for using different technolo- greater sense of efficacy for the ability to teach gies (Bennett & Maton, 2010; Bullen et al., 2011; with technology (Abbitt, 2011; Mumford, 2011). Corrin et al., 2011; Hall et al., 2012; Jones, 2011; Alongside these standards, a growing body of Oh & Reeves, 2014). A technology integration research indicates that strong connections be- model must take into account this range of ability tween technology and pedagogy are necessary for

92 Pre-Service Teachers and Technology Integration

successful teaching in the 21st Century (Abbitt, framework to guide their implementation, there is 2011; Baran, Chuang, & Thompson, 2011; Koh little indication that simply having technological & Divaharan, 2011; Mishra & Koehler, 2006; tools present in the classroom will impact students Mouza & Karchmer-Klein, 2013; Pamuk, 2012). learning. The TPACK framework depicts three over- Connecting Technology to lapping domains of teacher knowledge: Content Pedagogy and Content Knowledge: Knowledge, Pedagogical Knowledge, and Tech- The TPACK Framework nological Knowledge. Viewed as a Venn diagram as illustrated in Figure 1, the way these knowledge Today’s schools have adopted a wide variety of domains overlap result in seven distinct areas for technologies, with the hope that their addition to consideration. classrooms will have a positive impact on student Abbitt (2011) provided helpful short descrip- learning (Brown & Green, 2013; King, 2012; tors of each domain of the TPACK framework: Project Tomorrow, 2013a; Project Tomorrow, 2013b). King (2012) suggested, “Instructional 1. Pedagogy (PK) - Knowledge of the nature technologies are more present than ever” (p. of teaching and learning, including teach- 1201), but also noted, “all [educators] struggle to ing methods, classroom management, in- interpret the appropriateness and utility of new structional planning, assessment of student technology in the classroom” (p. 1204). Without a learning, etc.

93 Pre-Service Teachers and Technology Integration

2. Content (CK) - Knowledge of the subject technology integration; that is, learning how to matter to be taught (e.g., earth science, use technology is not the same thing as learning mathematics, language arts, etc.). how to teach with technology (Mishra & Koehler, 3. Technology (TK) - Continually changing 2006). Technology does not replace pedagogy. Pre- and evolving knowledge base that includes service teachers must understand how instruction knowledge of technology for information is implemented in order to understand the implica- processing, communications, and problem tions of teaching with technology (Spector, 2012). solving and focuses on the productive ap- There is widespread support of technology- plications of technology in both work and infused teacher education programs based on the daily life. TPACK framework (Abbitt, 2011; Easter, 2012; 4. Pedagogical Content (PCK) - Knowledge Harris et al., 2010; Koh & Divaharan, 2011; Mouza of the pedagogies, teaching practices, and & Karchmer-Klein, 2013; Pamuk, 2012). Of par- planning processes that are applicable and ticular interest is Koh & Divaharan’s (2011) model, appropriate to teaching a given subject which emphasizes the role of faculty modeling matter. of technology integration as well as case study 5. Technological Content (TCK) - Knowledge for developing pre-service teachers’ abilities to of the relationship between subject matter connect technology and pedagogy. and technology including knowledge of technology that has influenced and is used The Importance of Modeling in exploring a given content discipline. Technology Integration 6. Technological Pedagogical (TPK) - by Instructors Knowledge of the influence of technology on teaching and learning as well as the Many faculty members throughout higher educa- affordances and constraints of technology tion continue to rely on traditional, lecture-based with regard to pedagogical designs and teaching methods and make only modest attempts strategies. to incorporate technology into their own teaching 7. Technological Pedagogical Content (TPCK) practices (Brown & Green, 2013). To fully support - Knowledge of the complex interaction development of pre-service teachers’ ability to among the principle knowledge domains connect technology and pedagogy, it is incumbent (content, pedagogy, technology) (Abbitt, upon instructors to model technology integration. 2011, p. 136). Koh and Divaharan (2011) mentioned modeling as a key element for pre-service teachers acceptance The TPACK framework thus provides a struc- of a given instructional technology; without the ture for examining the role of technology and how opportunity to see it in use, students are far less it might support and enhancing students’ learning. likely to be able to envision how a given tool might be integrated into classroom practice. The Applying the TPACK Framework as modeling of appropriate technology instruction by a Model for Technology Integration instructors seems to be a key element to support pre-service teachers’ ability to integrate technol- The TPACK framework may best be viewed as a ogy into their own teaching practices. contextualizing approach for helping pre-service Baran, Chuang, and Thompson explicitly linked teachers develop their ability to integrate technol- instructors’ modeling the TPACK framework to ogy. Learning technology skills in isolation from pre-service teachers’ developing thinking about pedagogy and content are unlikely to result in technology integration, bluntly stating, “Teachers

94 Pre-Service Teachers and Technology Integration

tend to teach in the way they were taught” (Baran, to apply their knowledge and skills to solve au- Chuang, & Thompson, 2011, p. 374). They imply thentic, contextualized problems, collaboratively that if the only technology use pre-service teachers examining case studies can be an effective way to see modeled is PowerPoint-based lecture, their assist pre-service teachers’ developing abilities for imagination for other possibilities for technology technology integration (Kinuthia, Brantley-Dias, integration will be limited. & Junor Clarke, 2010). Several authors have argued that instructors In support of this viewpoint, Mouza and must deliberately explain their own technology Karchmer-Klein (2013) contended that cases integration, making it explicit for the students so are instrumental for aiding pre-service teachers’ they will understand the instructional decisions development of the skills and practices required being made, and how technology supports the for teaching, and that this may be especially true teaching and learning (Koehler, Mishra, & Ya- in the domain of technology, as technologies are hya, 2007; Koh & Divaharan, 2011; Pope, Hare, continuously evolving. They make heavy use of & Howard, 2005; Wang & Chen, 2007). This is Mishra & Koehler’s (2006) TPACK framework as a key element in Koh and Divaharan’s (2011) an organizing principle for the cases they assigned TPACK-based model for supporting pre-service their students, which are intended to demonstrate teachers’ understanding of technology integra- to students how complex teaching with technology tion: instructors’ modeling must be rationalized often is in practice. A clearer understanding of how and verbalized for the students. The intent is that the domains of the TPACK framework interact by examining instances of their instructors’ use might best be explored through the conversations of technology and how the lessons unfold, the about authentic cases of technology integration pre-service teachers will develop understanding (Mouza & Karchmer-Klein, 2013). of how technology and pedagogy are interrelated Pre-service teachers should also be encouraged within the context of particular content to be taught. to share their own first-hand experiences related to teaching and learning (Dunlap & Lowenthal, Case Study and Conversation 2013). Dunlap and Lowenthal suggested that col- as a Means of Exploring laboratively discussing educational experiences Technology Integration could be a rich formative experience for helping students understand how people think and learn. Case study is a key element to Koh and Divaha- Conversations of this sort might help students ran’s (2011) model, but this is by no means the clarify their thinking about technology integration, only example expressing the value of case study and even identify gaps between their beliefs and for promoting technology integration among pre- practices related to technology integration (Ertmer, service teachers. Many authors have advocated et al., 2012). Koehler, Mishra, and Yahya (2007) the case study approach for examining technol- suggested that small group discussions between ogy integration (Ertmer, et al., 2012; Mouza & teacher education faculty and pre-service teachers Karchmer-Klein, 2013; Koehler, Mishra, & Yahya, might be the key for developing strong technology 2007; Wang & Chen, 2006). Additionally, results integration skills. of an investigation of case study effectiveness by Razzouk and Johnson (2013) indicated that pre-service teachers examining case studies are CONCLUSION more engaged in their learning, and in fact learn more when compared to more didactic methods of Even the most technologically savvy, “digital na- instruction. Because case studies require students tive” pre-service teachers will need support to learn

95 Pre-Service Teachers and Technology Integration

how to infuse their pedagogy with technology. To REFERENCES adequately prepare them for the rigorous realities of teaching with technology, teacher educators Abbitt, J. T. (2011). An Investigation of the rela- will need to reconsider the role of the stand-alone tionship between self-efficacy beliefs about tech- technology course, and shift towards more of an nology integration and technological pedagogical integration approach. The development of pre- content knowledge (TPACK) among preservice service teachers’ technological knowledge is best teachers. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher conducted within the context of their learning of Education, 27(4), 134–143. doi:10.1080/215329 pedagogy and content knowledge. 74.2011.10784670 As teacher educators move away from stand- Adamy, P., & Heinecke, W. (2005). The influence alone technology courses towards the integration of organizational culture on technology integration approach, clear descriptions for what knowledge in teacher education. Journal of Technology and and skills pre-service teacher must develop are Teacher Education, 13(2), 233–255. needed, such as the ISTE (2008) standards. Once such standards are decided, faculty in teacher Albion, P. (2011). Come the revolution: Pre- preparation programs will then need to clearly service teachers’ access to, attitudes toward, articulate an approach for integrating technology and skills with ICT. In M. Koehler & P. Mishra into the program. Such is the rationale for the (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Mishra & Koehler (2006) TPACK framework, Technology & Teacher Education International which currently serves as a preeminent model for Conference 2011 (pp. 74-81). Chesapeake, VA: exploring technology integration in education. Association for the Advancement of Computing Teacher educators can thoughtfully embody the in Education (AACE). TPACK framework in their own teaching practices, Ashraf, B. (2009). Teaching the Google-eyed demonstrating technology integration by modeling YouTube generation. Education + Training, it in their own teaching. Finally, conversations 51(5), 343–352. about cases involving technology and pedagogy in contextualized teaching situations can expose Bang, E., & Luft, J. A. (2013). Secondary science gaps in students’ thinking and help them better teachers’ use of technology in the classroom during understand how they will integrate technology in their first 5 years. Journal of Digital Learning In their own teaching practices. Infusing technology Teacher Education, 29(4), 118–126. doi:10.1080 throughout a teacher education program is the /21532974.2013.10784715 best way to support pre-service teachers as they Baran, E., Chuang, H., & Thompson, A. (2011). develop a clear connection between technology TPACK: An emerging research and development and pedagogy. When millennials explore the tool for teacher educators. Turkish Online Journal relationship between technology and pedagogy of Educational Technology, 10(4), 370–377. within the context of a particular content area to develop their skill at integrating these domains, Bate, F. (2010). A bridge too far? Explaining be- they will live up to the name “digital native” when ginning teachers’ use of ICT in Australian schools. it comes to technology integration in their own Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, teaching practices. 26(7), 1042–1061.

96 Pre-Service Teachers and Technology Integration

Bauerlein, M. (2009). The dumbest generation: Dunlap, J. C., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2013). What How the digital age stupefies young Americans was your best learning experience? Our story and jeopardizes our future (Or, don’t trust anyone about using stories to solve instructional problems. under 30). New York, NY: Jeremy P. Tarcher/ International Journal of Teaching and Learning Penguin. in Higher Education, 25(2), 269–274. Bennett, S., & Maton, K. (2010). Beyond the ‘digi- Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindset: The new psychology tal natives’ debate: Towards a more nuanced un- of success. New York: Random House. derstanding of students’ technology experiences. Easter, T. N. (2012). Preparing preservice teachers Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), and technology literacy. (Doctoral Dissertation, 321–331. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00360.x Washington State University). Retrieved from Bonk, C. J. (2009). The world is open: How web ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (UMI No. technology is revolutionizing education. San 3541207) Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Ertmer, P. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: Brown, A., & Green, T. (2013). Issues and trends The final frontier in our quest for technology in instructional technology: Despite lean times, integration? Educational Technology Research continued interest and opportunity in K-12, busi- and Development, 53(4), 25–39. doi:10.1007/ ness, and higher education. In M. Orey, S. Jones, BF02504683 & R. Branch (Eds.), Educational media and tech- Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., nology yearbook (Vol. 37, pp. 55–71). New York, Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher be- NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-4430-5_5 liefs and technology integration practices: A criti- Buckingham, D. (2007). Beyond technology. cal relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. 423–435. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001 Bullen, M., Morgan, T., & Qayyum, A. (2011). Fluck, A. A., & Dowden, T. T. (2013). On the Digital learners in higher education: Generation cusp of change: Examining pre-service teachers’ is not the issue. Canadian Journal of Learning beliefs about ICT and envisioning the digital and Technology, 37(1). classroom of the future. Journal of Computer As- sisted Learning, 29(1), 43–52. doi:10.1111/j.1365- Cameron, D. (2005). The Net Generation Goes 2729.2011.00464.x to University? Presented at Journalism Education Association Conference 2005. Gabriel, M., Campbell, B., Wiebe, S., MacDonald, R., McAuley, A. & McAuley, A. (2012). The role Corrin, L., Lockyer, L., & Bennett, S. (2011). of digital technologies in learning: Expectations The life of a ‘digital native’. In T. Bastiaens, & of first year university students. Canadian Journal M. Ebner (Eds.), Proceedings of World Confer- of Learning and Technology, 38(1). ence on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2011 (pp. 2942-2951). Gray, L., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2010). Teach- Chesapeake, VA: AACE. ers’ use of educational technology in U. S. public schools: 2009. (NCES 2010-40). U.S. Department Dawson, V. (2008). Use of information com- of Education. Washington, DC: National Center munication technology by early career science for Education Statistics. teachers in Western Australia. International Journal of Science Education, 30(2), 203–219. doi:10.1080/09500690601175551

97 Pre-Service Teachers and Technology Integration

Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, Hughes, J. (2005). The Role of Teacher Knowledge M. (2009). Redefining teaching, re-imagin- and Learning Experiences in Forming Technolo- ing teacher education. Teachers and Teach- gy-Integrated Pedagogy. Journal of Technology ing: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 273–289. and Teacher Education, 13(2), 277–302. doi:10.1080/13540600902875340 International Society for Technology in Education. Hall, M., Nix, I. & Baker, K. (2013). Student (2008). ISTE standards for teachers. Retrieved experiences and perceptions of digital literacy from http://www.iste.org/docs/pdfs/nets-t-stan- skills development: Engaging learners by design?. dards.pdf?sfvrsn=2 Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 11(3), 207-225. James, M. L. (2009). Middle school teachers’ Hammond, M. (2011). Beliefs and ICT: What can understanding of technology integration. (Order we learn from experienced educators? Technology, No. 3387974, The University of North Carolina at Pedagogy and Education, 20(3), 289–300. doi:1 Chapel Hill). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 0.1080/1475939X.2011.610930 195. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/do cview/304962239?accountid=9649.(304962239) Hargittai, E., & Hinnart, A. (2008). Digital inequality: Differences in young adults use of Jones, C. (2011). Students, the Net Generation, the Internet. Communication Research, 35(5), and digital natives: Accounting for educational 602–621. doi:10.1177/0093650208321782 change. In M. Thomas (Ed.), Deconstructing digital natives: Young people, technology, and Harris, J., Grandgenett, N., & Hofer, M. (2012). the new literacies (pp. 30–45). New York, NY: Using structured interviews to assess experienced Routledge. teachers’ TPACK. In P. Resta (Ed.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Jones, C., & Czerniewicz, L. (2010). Describing or Education International Conference 2012 (pp. debunking? The net generation and digital natives. 4696-4703). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 317–320. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00379.x Harris, J., Hofer, M., Blanchard, M., Grandgen- ett, N., Schmidt, D., van Olphen, M., & Young, Jones, C., Ramanau, R., Cross, S., & Healing, C. (2010). “Grounded” technology integration: G. (2010). Net generation or digital natives: Is Instructional planning using curriculum-based there a distinct new generation entering univer- activity type taxonomies. Journal of Technology sity? Computers & Education, 54(3), 722–732. and Teacher Education, 18(4), 573–605. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.022 Helsper, E. J., & Eynon, R. (2010). Digital Judson, E. (2006). How teachers integrate tech- natives: Where is the evidence? British Edu- nology and their beliefs about learning: Is there a cational Research Journal, 36(3), 503–520. connection? Journal of Technology and Teacher doi:10.1080/01411920902989227 Education, 14(3), 581–597.

98 Pre-Service Teachers and Technology Integration

Kennedy, G., Dalgarno, B., Bennet, S., Gray, K., Littlejohn, A., Beetham, H., & McGill, L. (2012). Waycott, J., Judd, T., … Chang, R. (2009). Educat- Learning at the digital frontier: A review of ing the net generation: A handbook of findings for digital literacies in theory and practice. Journal practice and policy. Retrieved from http://www. of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(6), 547–556. netgen.unimelb.edu.au/outcomes/handbook.html doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00474.x Kereluik, K., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2010). Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., & Vojt, G. (2011). Reconsidering the T and C in TPACK: Repurpos- Are digital natives a myth or reality? University ing technologies for interdisciplinary knowledge. students’ use of digital technologies. Computers In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of & Education, 56(2), 429–440. doi:10.1016/j. Society for Information Technology & Teacher compedu.2010.09.004 Education International Conference 2010 (pp. Martin, E. M. P. (2011). Digital natives and digital 3892-3899). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. immigrants: Teaching with technology. (Order King, M. (2012). New Technologies in the Class- No. 3494484, Northeastern University). ProQuest room: How We Can Understand the Link Between Dissertations and Theses, 164. Retrieved from Strong Pedagogy, Student Learning, and the Ap- http://search.proquest.com/docview/921887406 plication of New Technologies. In P. Resta (Ed.), ?accountid=9649(921887406) Proceedings of Society for Information Technology Mishne, J. (2012). An investigation of the rela- & Teacher Education International Conference tionships between technology use and teachers’ 2012 (pp. 1201-1205). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. selfefficacy, knowledge and experience. (Doctoral Kinuthia, W., Brantley-Dias, L., & Junor Clarke, Dissertation, Pepperdine University). Retrieved P. A. (2010). Development of Pedagogical Tech- from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (UMI nology Integration Content Knowledge in Prepar- No. 3503821) ing Mathematics Preservice Teachers: The Role Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological of Instructional Case Analyses and Reflection. pedagogical content knowledge: A Framework Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 18(4), 645–669. 108(6), 1017–1054. Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Mouza, C., & Karchmer-Klein, R. (2013). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in Promoting and assessing pre-service teachers’ a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy technological pedagogical content knowledge and technology. Computers & Education, 49(3), (TPACK) in the context of case development. 740–762. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.012 Journal of Educational Computing Research, Koh, J. H. L., & Divaharan, S. (2011). Develop- 48(2), 127–152. doi:10.2190/EC.48.2.b ing pre-service teachers’ technology integration Mumford, J. (2011). Educational Media: ISTE expertise through the TPACK-developing instruc- NETS for Pre- and In-Service Teachers Through tional model. Journal of Educational Computing Service Learning. In T. Bastiaens, & M. Ebner Research, 44(1), 35–58. doi:10.2190/EC.44.1.c (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Edu- cational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecom- munications 2011 (pp. 2769-2774). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

99 Pre-Service Teachers and Technology Integration

Murray, A. (2011). Mind the gap: Technology, Pierson, M., & Cozart, A. (2005). Novice teacher millennial leadership and the cross-generational case studies: A changing perspective on technol- workforce. The Australian Library Journal, 60(1), ogy during induction Years. In C. Crawford et al. 54–65. doi:10.1080/00049670.2011.10722556 (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Oblinger, D., & Oblinger, J. (Eds.). (2005). Conference 2005 (pp. 3332-3337). Chesapeake, Educating the net generation. Washington, DC: VA: AACE. EDUCAUSE. Pope, M., Hare, D., & Howard, E. (2005). En- Oh, E., & Reeves, T. C. (2014). Generational hancing technology use in student teaching: A differences and the integration of technology in case study. Journal of Technology and Teacher learning, instruction, and performance. In J. M. Education, 13(4), 573–618. Spector et al. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (pp. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital 819–828). New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978- immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6. 1-4614-3185-5_66 doi:10.1108/10748120110424816 Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Glazewski, K., & Newby, Prensky, M. (2011). Digital wisdom and homo T. (2010). Preservice technology integration sapiens digital. In M. Thomas (Ed.), Deconstruct- course revision: A conceptual guide. Journal of ing digital natives: Young people, technology, Technology and Teacher Education, 18(1), 5–33. and the new literacies (pp. 15–19). New York, NY: Routledge. Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2011). Reclaiming an awkward term: What we might learn from ‘digi- Project Tomorrow. (2013a). From chalkboards to tal natives. In M. Thomas (Ed.), Deconstructing tablets: The digital conversion of the K-12 class- digital natives: Young people, technology, and room. Irvine, CA: Project Tomorrow. Retrieved the new literacies (pp. 186–204). New York, NY: from http://www.tomorrow.org/speakup/pdfs/ Routledge. SU12EducatorsandParents.pdf Pamuk, S. (2012). Understanding preservice teach- Project Tomorrow. (2013b). From chalkboards to ers’ technology use through TPACK framework. tablets: The emergence of the K-12 digital learner. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(5), Irvine, CA: Project Tomorrow. Retrieved from 425–439. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00447.x http://www.tomorrow.org/speakup/pdfs/SU12- Students.pdf Pangrazio, L. (2011). Young people, the Internet and agency. In S. Barton et al. (Eds.), Proceedings Razzouk, R., & Johnson, T. E. (2013). Case studies’ of Global Learn 2011 (pp. 1728–1737). AACE. effect on undergraduates’ achievement, attitudes, and team shared mental models in educational Pegler, K., Kollewyn, J., & Crichton, S. (2010). psychology. Educational Technology Research Generational attitudes and teacher ICT use. and Development, 61(5), 751–766. doi:10.1007/ Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, s11423-013-9307-4 18(3), 443–458. Roblyer, M. D. (2003). Integrating educational Pierson, M. (2000). Technology integration and technology into teaching (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle teaching expertise. In D. Willis et al. (Eds.), Pro- River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. ceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2000 (pp. 1598-1603). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

100 Pre-Service Teachers and Technology Integration

Rodriguez, M. A., & Chung, C. J. (2012). Meeting Tufts, D. R. (2010). Digital adults: Beyond the Technology Requirements in Newly Structured myth of the digital native generation gap. (Order Teacher Preparation Program. In P. Resta (Ed.), No. 3432940, Fielding Graduate University). Pro- Proceedings of Society for Information Technology Quest Dissertations and Theses, 179. Retrieved & Teacher Education International Conference from http://search.proquest.com/docview/82555 2012 (pp. 3039-3042). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. 0299?accountid=9649(825550299) Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations Wang, S., Hsu, H., Campbell, T., Coster, D., (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press. & Longhurst, M. (2014). An investigation of middle school science teachers and students use Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., of technology inside and outside of classrooms: Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2010). Considering whether digital natives are more Technological pedagogical content knowledge technology savvy than their teachers. Educational (TPACK): The Development and validation of Technology Research and Development, 62(6), an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. 637–662. doi:10.1007/s11423-014-9355-4 Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123–149. doi:10.1080/15391523.2009.10 Wang, Y.-M., & Chen, V. D.-T. (2006). Untan- 782544 gling the confounding perceptions regarding the stand alone IT course. Journal of Educational Selwyn, N. (2008). An investigation of differences Technology Systems, 35(2), 133–150. doi:10.2190/ in undergraduates’ academic use of the internet. V16T-8612-6758-8K31 Active Learning in Higher Education, 9(11), 11–22. doi:10.1177/1469787407086744

Southall, S. P. (2013). Digital natives preservice ADDITIONAL READING teachers: An examination of their self-efficacy beliefs regarding technology integration in class- Abbitt, J. T. (2011). An Investigation of the rela- room settings. In R. McBride & M. Searson (Eds.), tionship between self-efficacy beliefs about tech- Proceedings of Society for Information Technology nology integration and technological pedagogical & Teacher Education International Conference content knowledge (TPACK) among preservice 2013 (pp. 1428-1434). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. teachers. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Spector, J. M. (2012). Foundations of educational Education, 27(4), 134–143. doi:10.1080/215329 technology. New York, NY: Routledge. 74.2011.10784670 Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital: How the Bauerlein, M. (2009). The dumbest generation: net generation is changing your world. New York, How the digital age stupefies young Americans NY: McGraw-Hill. and jeopardizes our future (Or, don’t trust anyone under 30). New York, NY: Jeremy P. Tarcher/ Teo, T. (2011). Factors influencing teachers’ inten- Penguin. tion to use technology: Model development and test. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2432–2440. Bennett, S., & Maton, K. (2010). Beyond the ‘digi- doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.008 tal natives’ debate: Towards a more nuanced understanding of students’ technology experiences. Towell, L. (2009). The Student-Teacher Digital Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), Divide and Six New Technology Roller Coaster 321–331. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00360.x Rides. Distance Learning, 6(2), 53–57.

101 Pre-Service Teachers and Technology Integration

Buckingham, D. (2007). Beyond technology. Koh, J. H. L., & Divaharan, S. (2011). Develop- Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. ing pre-service teachers’ technology integration expertise through the TPACK-developing instruc- Carr, N. (2008). Is Google making us stupid? tional model. Journal of Educational Computing Why you can’t read the way you used to. Atlantic Research, 44(1), 35–58. doi:10.2190/EC.44.1.c Monthly, 302(1), 56–63. Littlejohn, A., Beetham, H., & McGill, L. (2012). Carr, N. G. (2010). The shallows: What the Internet Learning at the digital frontier: A review of is doing to our brains. New York: W.W. Norton. digital literacies in theory and practice. Journal Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychol- of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(6), 547–556. ogy of success. New York, NY: Random House. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00474.x Fluck, A. A., & Dowden, T. T. (2013). On the Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., & Vojt, G. (2011). cusp of change: Examining pre-service teachers’ Are digital natives a myth or reality? University beliefs about ICT and envisioning the digital students’ use of digital technologies. Computers classroom of the future. Journal of Computer As- & Education, 56(2), 429–440. doi:10.1016/j. sisted Learning, 29(1), 43–52. doi:10.1111/j.1365- compedu.2010.09.004 2729.2011.00464.x Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Hargittai, E. (2010). Digital na(t)ives? Variation pedagogical content knowledge: A Framework in Internet skills and uses among members of the for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Re- “Net Generation.”. Sociological Inquiry, 80(1), cord, 108(6), 1017–1054. doi:10.1111/j.1467- 92–113. doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.2009.00317.x 9620.2006.00684.x Hargittai, E., & Hinnart, A. (2008). Digital Mouza, C., & Karchmer-Klein, R. (2013). inequality: Differences in young adults use of Promoting and assessing pre-service teachers’ the Internet. Communication Research, 35(5), technological pedagogical content knowledge 602–621. doi:10.1177/0093650208321782 (TPACK) in the context of case development. Journal of Educational Computing Research, Helsper, E. J., & Eynon, R. (2010). Digital 48(2), 127–152. doi:10.2190/EC.48.2.b natives: Where is the evidence? British Edu- cational Research Journal, 36(3), 503–520. Oblinger, D. G., & Oblinger, J. L. (2005) Edu- doi:10.1080/01411920902989227 cating the net generation. An Educause e-book publication. Available at: http://www.educause. Jimenez, C., & Corral, W. H. (2012). Leaving the edu/ir/library/pdf/pub7101.pdf Land of Digital Natives. Academic Questions, 25(2), 250–256. doi:10.1007/s12129-012-9290-y Oh, E., & Reeves, T. C. (2014). Generational differences and the integration of technology Kennedy, G., Dalgarno, B., Bennet, S., Gray, in learning, instruction, and performance. In J. K., Waycott, J., & Judd, T. …Chang, R. (2009). M. Spector et al. (Eds.), Handbook of Research Educating the net generation: A handbook of on Educational Communications and Technol- findings for practice and policy. Retreived from ogy (pp. 819–828). New York, NT: Springer. http://www.netgen.unimelb.edu.au/outcomes/ doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_66 handbook.html

102 Pre-Service Teachers and Technology Integration

Palfrey, J. G., & Gasser, U. (2008). Born digital: KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Understanding the first generation of digital natives. New York, NY: Basic Books. Digital Immigrants: Individuals born prior to 1980; generally presumed to be able to learn Pamuk, S. (2012). Understanding preservice teach- to use digital technologies but with less facility, ers’ technology use through TPACK framework. intuition, and preference than members of younger Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(5), generations. 425–439. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00447.x Digital Natives: Individuals born after 1980; Pierson, M., & Cozart, A. (2005). Novice teacher generally presumed to have a high level of facil- case studies: A changing perspective on technol- ity in working with digital technologies, and an ogy during induction Years. In C. Crawford et al. intuitive understanding and preference for working (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information with such technologies. Technology & Teacher Education International Educational Technology: A technology that Conference 2005 (pp. 3332-3337). Chesapeake, may have been created for other uses that has been VA: AACE. adapted for use in an educational setting. Information and Communication Technol- Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital natives, digital im- ogy (ICT): A technological tool that allow users migrants. In On the Horizon, 9, 1–6. to more easily access and process information, or a Prensky, M. (2001b). Digital natives, digital im- tool that facilitates communication between users. migrants part II: Do they really think differently? Millennials: Members of the generation born In On the Horizon, 9, 1–9. between 1981 and 1999. Novice Teacher: A certified/credentialed/ Prensky, M. (2009) H. sapiens digital: from digital licensed professional educator in his/her first years immigrants and digital natives to digital wisdom. in the profession. Innovate 5 Available at: http://www.innovateon- Pedagogy: The “art and science” of teaching. line.info/index.php?view=article &id=705 Pre-Service Teacher: An individual in a Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations teacher-preparation program who has not yet been (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press. certified/credentialed/licensed as a professional educator. Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: The rise of Technological: Pedagogical, and Content the net generation. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Knowledge (TPACK): A widely accepted frame- Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital: How the work for technology integration first proposed by net generation is changing your world. New York, Mishra and Koehler in 2006. NY: McGraw-Hill. Technology Integration: The ability to skill- fully combine pedagogy and technology to foster Thomas, M. (2011). Deconstructing digital na- meaningful learning. tives: Young people, technology, and the new literacies. New York, NY: Routledge.

103