Jl.

of Technology and Teacher Education (2005) 13(2), 277-302

The Role of Teacher Knowledge and

Learning Experiences in Forming
Technology-Integrated Pedagogy

JOAN HUGHES
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN USA
joanh@umn.edu

Using a multiple-case embedded research design (Yin,

1994), this study examined the nature of teachers’ learning
during technology professional development activities and
the extent to which their subsequent technology-supported
pedagogy was innovative. Four English language arts teach-
ers, who ranged in teaching and technology experience,
served as contrasting case studies. Results suggested that the
power to develop innovative technology-supported pedago-
gy lies in the teacher’s interpretation of the newly learned
technology’s value for supporting instruction and learning in
the classroom; learning experiences grounded in content-
based, technology examples were most effective toward this
end. Furthermore, teachers with less professional knowledge
(e.g., preservice or novice) and/or less intrinsic interest in
identifying uses for technology may need guided or collabo-
rative, content-specific technology learning opportunities,
while teachers with more professional knowledge (e.g., vet-
eran) may be able to develop innovative technology-support-
ed pedagogy by bringing their own learning goals to bear in
professional development activities. Collaborative, subject-
specific technology inquiry groups are proposed as profes-
sional development that supports all teachers’ learning to in-
tegrate technology into their subject areas.

We are at a decisive juncture in terms of technology use in elementary,

middle and high school education. There is educational promise in the accu-
mulating technological resources that are increasingly available to teachers
278 Hughes

and school children that contribute to innovative practice and learning

across subject areas (e.g., Chen & Armstrong, 2002; Duhaney, 2000). Si-
multaneously, technology is being used in ways that replicate traditional in-
structional strategies and learning (Cuban, 1993, 2001). Given the commu-
nity support for technology use in the classroom (Starkweather, 2002), it is
unlikely, even with Cuban’s depictions of uninspired technology use in
schools, that technology resources will be extracted from schools. Thus,
while education is poised for innovation that will allow students to engage in
learning with technology in ways they, their teachers, and their parents have
never experienced, we still need to reflect on how to make those practices a
reality in classrooms today.
Indeed, increasing the effectiveness of technology-supported content
area teaching has been a national goal (Riley, Holleman, & Roberts, 2000).
Yet, only one-third of public school teachers feel “well prepared” or “very
well prepared” to integrate the use of computers into their teaching (NCES,
2000), and professional preparation for practicing teachers to integrate tech-
nology resources in support of subject area learning has been scant (Milken
Exchange on Educational Technology, 2000). An essential question con-
cerning this issue lies in how some teachers learn to infuse technology inno-
vatively into subject area instruction and learning while other teachers adopt
technologies in ways that do not significantly change student learning or in-
struction. Thus, we need to better understand how to best support and pro-
mote technology integration among subject-matter teachers in both informal
and formal learning contexts. The current study builds upon relevant litera-
ture on teacher learning and the factors that may enhance the likelihood that
teachers will use technology innovatively to support subject matter learning.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Teacher Learning

There are many teachers for whom the use of technologies for educa-
tional purposes is unfamiliar and, in some cases, a daunting prospect. Tech-
nology integration requires practicing teachers to assume a learning stance.
From a constructivist perspective, “teacher-learners” engage in learning that
is a “constructive and iterative process in which the person interprets events
on the basis of existing knowledge, beliefs, and dispositions” (Borko & Put-
nam, 1996). The goal of professional development, then, is to help teachers
make meaning of new constructs and experiences (technology, in this case)
The Role of Teacher Knowledge and Learning Experiences 279

to determine its impact on education, including learning processes, access to

content, and instructional methods. Ultimately, we hope such learning expe-
riences will change teachers’ practice in that they are better prepared to inte-
grate technology to support subject-matter learning by their students.
Teachers’ prior knowledge mediates future learning (Borko & Putnam,
1995, 1996; Bransford & Schwartz, 1999). In learning situations, teachers
interpret, question, or evaluate new knowledge through their previously ac-
quired knowledge and experiences (Bransford & Schwartz). In addition, an
important part of teachers’ life-long learning is the “expansion and elabora-
tion of their professional knowledge base” (Borko & Putnam, 1995). Over-
all, knowledge is essential because teachers use it to determine actions in the
classroom. Thus, it is strategic to identify the relevant knowledge base
teachers draw on and develop when learning to teach with technology.
The conceptual categories of subject matter knowledge, pedagogical
knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge (Grossman, 1988; Shulman,
1987) form a useful framework toward this end. Subject matter knowledge
is the depth and breadth of knowledge in a content area such as English,
physics, or algebra; teachers know facts and concepts of the discipline,
frameworks for explaining such disciplinary facts and concepts, and the path
new content takes to become part of the discipline. General pedagogical
knowledge, such as learning theories, individual cognitive development, and
classroom management, serve teachers across all subject areas for general
pedagogical choices. Pedagogical content knowledge is specific for each
content area; teachers within a discipline make pedagogical decisions about
instruction and learning based on what they believe to be the purpose(s) for
teaching the content, what knowledge they believe students should be devel-
oping (noting what has been taught in previous and subsequent grade lev-
els), what discipline-based teaching materials are available, and what repre-
sentations or activities have been successfully used in their past teaching.
Teachers who learn about technology may connect it to their subject
matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowl-
edge (Drier, 2001; Dun, Feldman, & Rearick, 2000; Margerum-Leys &
Marx, 2002). To facilitate innovative subject matter teaching with technolo-
gy, capitalizing on connections with subject matter or pedagogical content
knowledge seem particularly appropriate. Yet, it is unclear how different
learning environments or experiences may trigger teachers’ development of
or connection to any or all of these types of knowledge. Thus, the literature on
the nature of effective learning experiences may reveal insight into possible re-
lationships between the learning experience and knowledge development.
280 Hughes

Nature of Effective Learning Experiences

Cognitive constructivist learning perspectives and teacher change litera-

ture acknowledge the need for awareness of one’s own beliefs in order to
begin questioning beliefs or considering change. People, situations, or inter-
nal reflection can provide “potentially alternative ways of thinking or act-
ing” (Richardson & Placier, 2001) that lead to “cognitive conflict” (Pressley
& McCormick, 1995). For example, Sandholtz, Ringstaff, and Dwyer
(1997) documented change in instruction and beliefs when teachers, who
were aware of their own beliefs, had exposure to “alternative belief systems
and experience positive consequences of those alternatives” (p. 48). King
(2002) reasoned that inexperience with technology created “disorienting di-
lemmas” for teachers that prompted enrollment in technology-learning expe-
riences, which, in turn, can “cause adults to question their knowledge base
and to change their actions” (p. 287). King documented occurrences of “per-
spective transformations,” such as shifts from teacher-centered to student-
centered perspectives, development of a worldview of education, or changes
in instructional preparation. We may anticipate that learning experiences
that provide opportunities for teachers to access and acknowledge their prior
knowledge as well as provide alternatives or dilemmas may impel teachers
toward questioning and potentially changing their beliefs and knowledge.
Few teachers have access to quality professional development opportu-
nities that offer thoughtful, subject-matter-based technology use. In 1999,
teachers received only 5.9 hours of teacher training on “integrating technol-
ogy into instruction” (Milken Exchange on Educational Technology, 1999).
These minimal training hours are predominantly organized as short-term,
one-shot workshops focused on learning software without specific content-
based examples of their use (McKenzie, 2001) and without pedagogical and
curricular connections (Zhao, Pugh, & Sheldon, 2002). A shift toward con-
tent-based technology preparation is beginning to occur in inservice educa-
tion, and descriptive accounts (e.g., Crohen, 2001) are now available. Pro-
viding content connections may be more successful due to its implicit or ex-
plicit reference to teachers’ subject matter knowledge and the content they
teach, for teachers report a desire for grade-specific content and curriculum
integration ideas (Snoeyink & Ertmer, 2001/2002). Approaches that empha-
size content would target teachers’ subject matter knowledge and pedagogi-
cal content knowledge in contrast to when technology is learned as a sepa-
rate, unrelated skill. Thus, we may expect that teachers who learn about
technology from a content perspective may be more likely to use it to sup-
port content learning, whereas teachers who learn it as a skill may have
greater difficulty using the technology for educative purposes. Thus, to
The Role of Teacher Knowledge and Learning Experiences 281

effectively interpret the impact of professional development, one must con-

sider the outcome—specifically, teachers’ technology integration efforts and
technology-supported pedagogy.

Technology-Supported Pedagogy

The variation in technology-supported pedagogy may be captured

through three categories; (a) technology functioning as replacement, (b) am-
plification, or (c) transformation. Technology as replacement involves tech-
nology replacing and, in no way, changing established instructional practic-
es, student learning processes, or content goals. The technology serves as a
different means to the same instructional end. Technology as amplification
capitalizes on technology’s ability to accomplish tasks more efficiently and
effectively, yet the tasks remain the same (Cuban, 1988; Pea, 1985). Tech-
nology as transformation may change students’ learning routines, including
content, cognitive processes, and problem solving (Pea, 1985) or teachers’
instructional practices and roles in the classroom (Reinking, 1997). Technol-
ogy in education has the potential to innovate, as in transformative uses, but
also can maintain the status quo, as in replacement or amplification uses.
Currently, teachers are employing technology in ways that are least distant
from their practice, choosing to sustain rather than innovate current pedago-
gy (Cuban, 2001; Zhao et al., 2002). Crafting transformative technology
pedagogy may require learning experiences that inspire reflection, are
grounded in content, and provide ideas and alternatives for technology use.
Yet, the research has not examined the role that learning experiences or
teachers’ knowledge may have in the degree of innovation of teachers’
adopted use of technology.

PURPOSE OF STUDY

This research extends this discussion by researching how teachers’

knowledge is employed and possibly changed within the technology learning
activities they experience and the extent to which their subsequent technolo-
gy-supported practice is innovative. The research questions guiding this
project include:

What is the nature of practicing teachers’ educational technology

learning experiences?
282 Hughes

How do practicing teachers use technology to support their practice?

What role does teachers’ prior knowledge and learning experiences

play in the building of technology-supported pedagogy?

Specifically, do teachers have the professional opportunity to examine

and reflect on content-based technology alternatives or dilemmas? If so, is
their subsequent technology-supported practice transformative?

METHOD

This study used a multiple-case embedded research design implement-

ing an exploratory research strategy (Yin, 1994). For each case, the primary
unit of analysis was the practicing teacher, and the embedded subunits of
analysis were (a) technology learning experiences and (b) technology-sup-
ported practice in the classroom.

Participants

Multiple cases were chosen to serve as contrasts in accordance with the-

oretical replication (Yin, 1994). Potential participants, drawn from universi-
ty contacts and a listserv advertisement, participated in a phone interview
during which they briefly described their technology use, teaching experi-
ence, technology-learning experiences, and site-based technology resources,
as these were variables that the literature review revealed might precipitate
contrasting results. Four teachers were selected and agreed to participate.
All cases involved the English Language Arts content area. Table 1 summa-
rizes the cases’ contrasting features.

Data Sources and Analysis

Three life-history interviews, adapted from Kelchtermans and Vanden-

berghe’s (1994) cycle of three semi-structured biographical interviews, were
conducted that focused on education, career history, technology experience
and use in the classroom, technology learning, curriculum, and instructional
approaches to teaching English. Interviews were tape-recorded and tran-
scribed. Three direct observations, focusing on the use of technology in rela-
tion to instruction and student learning experiences were completed. Field
The Role of Teacher Knowledge and Learning Experiences 283

notes were written and any materials given to the students (e.g., handout) or
used in instruction (e.g., PowerPoint presentation) were collected. All sourc-
es of evidence were compiled into a case database that facilitated data analysis.

Table 1
Theoretical Replication within Multiple Cases

Nell Doug Roger Laura

th th th th
Grade Taught 7 &8 5 9 9th
Teaching Experience (Years)
Veteran Ê(26) Ê (25)
Mid-career Ê (6)
Novice Ê (3)
Types of Technology Learning
Experiences
Informal (e.g., self, peer, Ê Ê
books, etc.)
Formal (e.g., inservice,
higher education)
Both Informal and
Formal Ê Ê
Computers in Classroom (Number)
Multimedia & Internet
Generationa 0 2 2 1
Older Generationb 0 6 7 0
Computers in Lab/Library (Number)
Multimedia & Internet
Generationa 29 0 20 35
Older Generationb 40c 0 0 0

Note. aThis category included machines that supported multimedia (CD-ROM and
graphics/animation) and Internet-based activities. bThis category included
computers that could not support advanced multimedia and Internet due to
hardware or processing limitations. cThese 69 computers were separated into three
labs.

The analysis used explanation-building strategy (Yin, 1994) to build a

set of hypotheses (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) related to the relationships be-
tween teachers’ knowledge, learning experiences, and practice. Overall,
each case was analyzed independently, then cross-case conclusions and the-
ories began to form, rival conclusions were considered from the literature,
and developing theories were modified or further explained.
The embedded units of analysis (learning experiences and technology-
supported practice) were analyzed first and interpreted at a single case level.
Field notes and interview transcripts were coded for “instances” of (a) tech-
nology use that involved a technology (software or hardware peripheral)
284 Hughes

being used during the teaching of English language arts and (b) technology
learning (e.g., inservice, independent study, manuals, peer, etc.). Each tech-
nology use was coded for the user of the technology (teacher or student), in-
tended and enacted use (general pedagogical or content-related), software/
hardware involved (open-ended), and the degree of innovation (replacement,
amplification, transformation). Each learning instance was coded for what
technology was learned, type of learning situation, and if English subject
matter and/or general pedagogy were involved.
Each teacher’s past technology use and technology-learning were recon-
structed through timelines, diagrams, lists, metaphors, and narratives. Dur-
ing the second interview, participants examined the timeline for verification,
additions, and corrections, while a list of all the technologies they had used
was presented in the third interview for a structured participant reflection.

RESULTS

The four cases (Nell, Doug, Roger, and Laura) illustrate that the nature
of and degree to which a learning experience activated teacher’s profession-
al knowledge played a crucial role in the learning process and impacted how
the teacher used technology in his/her practice. Each case is presented, and
then cross-case analyses are described.

Nell

Educational technology learning experiences. Nell recalled beginning to

learn about technology 13 years into her career. She described learning the
following seven technologies: word processing, hypertext technologies (i.e.,
web page authoring, HyperCard, and StorySpace), PowerPoint, listserv
communication, and chat software. Although Nell described learning
through instances involving (a) playing around, (b) observing students, (c)
coaching by technology specialists, (d) presentations or communication
(e.g., teachers, conference, listserv), (e) graduate courses or formal inservic-
es, and (f) assisting other teachers in summer course. Nell acknowledged
that her most productive learning occurred through playing with technolo-
gies or receiving coaching. Regardless of the manner in which she learned,
there was always an explicit presence of her content area, literacy, within
each learning experience.
Literacy content was tightly connected to each technology Nell de-
scribed learning. When Nell learned word processing, hypertext and listserv
The Role of Teacher Knowledge and Learning Experiences 285

technologies, the connection to literacy content was provided by the learning

situation. For example, at a Writers Workshop conference in which partici-
pants focused on literacy, Nell learned about writing process theory but also
began to use the word processor on her new computer, concluding that one
cannot “truly practice the writing process without a computer because of the
ease of revising, revisioning the text” (Interview 3, p. 31). Similarly, Nell
learned about postmodern literacy theory and hypertext, computer-based
texts that are read in a nonlinear fashion and that are organized on multiple
dimensions, in a graduate-level rhetoric class in which an assignment re-
quired the construction of electronic hypertexts with web-authoring tools.
She learned listserv communication with colleagues by participating in a na-
tional writing project.
However, the literacy emphasis was not only made by teacher-figures
but also by Nell, as a learner. When Nell learned PowerPoint and chat tech-
nologies, she imposed the literacy connection as she learned and experi-
mented with these new technologies. For example, when she observed Pow-
erPoint used by a colleague, she wondered, “…how could I use that to my
advantage in the classroom?” (Interview 2, p. 14). As she learned it, she de-
veloped potential ideas for its use as a medium for her students to engage or
extend their literacy learning. In a similar way, an overview of chat software
systems at a conference presentation piqued Nell’s interest in its possible
support of literacy goals. Nell explained that the presentation “really got the
wheels turning for me…the kinds of things you can do with chat…” (Inter-
view 2, p. 8). She thought chat had the potential to support literature-based
discussions that had not always been successful in her classroom. Overall,
Nell’s technology learning was anchored in the literacy content area, wheth-
er through a guided, literacy-focused learning experience within a formal
learning context or through informal learning contexts during which she
identified literacy connections.

Classroom-based technology use. Over the course of Nell’s career, she

described using the technologies she learned, with the exception of Hyper-
Card, in 11 different ways. Her use of the technology ranged in degree of in-
novation, and she primarily put the technology into her students’ hands as 9
of the 11 instances entailed students using the technology.
There were four instances in which Nell used word processing, Power-
Point, and chat software as a replacement of traditional educational meth-
ods. For example, Nell typed a poem on slides in a PowerPoint presentation,
projected it on the computer lab’s wall, and used the looping feature so the
poem looped repeatedly while students worked on another project. This activi-
ty replicated writing the poem on a poster for the wall, with an unchanged goal
286 Hughes

for students to read and appreciate it. The use of PowerPoint did not provide
any advantage, and Nell reported the PowerPoint and chat activities were
less successful than a traditional, nontechnology approach.
Nell used word processing and Internet searching in three ways that am-
plified instruction or learning. For example, Nell’s students edited peers’
stories typed in the word processor. Peer editors typed comments in all
CAPS within the word processor file, much like they would have with hand-
written editing. Yet, the author’s ability to easily revise based on the peer’s
comments was amplified, for the student avoided completely rewriting the
story to accommodate changes.
Nell’s use of hypertext software, PowerPoint, and listserv communica-
tion led to four instances of transformation. For example, Nell’s students
used StorySpace and web authoring software to write hypertext slave narra-
tives and colonial biographies. Hypertext was not required content in tradi-
tional eighth grade English language arts according to the state standards.
Yet, Nell expanded her English goals to include hypertext writing. Students
used StorySpace and web authoring tools to visually understand the intertex-
tual roots of hypertext and to write their own hypertexts. In summary, Nell
crafted technology-supported activities that elicited student use of the tech-
nology and ranged across replacement, amplification, and transformation.

The interaction between professional knowledge, technology learning,

and practice. Nell’s learning experiences that were grounded in the English
content area provided new content or pedagogical approaches, such as hy-
pertext or writing process, connected new ideas within the established con-
tent area, offered technological tools for intellectually engaging with the
new content, and led to technology use in the classroom that was either am-
plification or transformation. Nell sought these learning experiences to be-
come a more creative and theory-based literacy teacher, and the primary fo-
cus on literacy appears to have expanded her subject knowledge (e.g., hy-
pertext and intertextuality) and her pedagogical content knowledge (e.g., a
perspective that teaching process writing requires word processors), and es-
tablished an ongoing method for learning about her craft (e.g., professional
listservs).
The other learning experiences that were not grounded in content or
pedagogy but rather, focused on providing an overview of technology tools
(e.g., PowerPoint and chat software), at first, contributed to replacement
technology use in the classroom. Nell was not satisfied with these outcomes
and began identifying more potential uses for the technologies in her curric-
ulum. In these learning experiences, Nell’s extensive professional knowl-
edge functioned in two important ways. First, she accessed her knowledge to
The Role of Teacher Knowledge and Learning Experiences 287

identify promising uses for the technology. Though her initial integration
only achieved replacement, the ways she used them were very connected to
literacy learning (e.g., using chat to facilitate sentence combining skills).
Second, she used her knowledge to interpret the success of her integration
attempts—in this case, she believed the technology-based activity did not
meet the intended outcomes, and she continued to identify other potential
uses. Because Nell was not afraid to introduce the technology into the class-
room prior to her mastery of it, her students used PowerPoint, StorySpace,
and web authoring even though Nell, herself, did not understand all features.
Overall, Nell’s technology-supported pedagogy achieved more ampli-
fied or transformed educative use in the classroom after she learned technol-
ogies framed within literacy content and pedagogy. Yet, she also was able to
identify promise for technologies she initially learned as technology tools.
Nell’s extensive professional knowledge and experience, gained through
twenty-six years of literacy teaching, enabled her to independently develop,
experiment with, and evaluate ways to use technology to serve literacy
learning goals. However, many of her initial attempts to use these technolo-
gies merely replaced her traditional practice; thus, the path toward amplified
or transformed educative uses appeared to take more experimentation, re-
flection, and time.

Doug

Educational technology learning experiences. Doug was a veteran teach-

er with 25 years of experience. Nearly 20 years ago, he began trying to un-
derstand new technologies and their potential for education. He learned five
technologies, including LOGO programming, word processing, e-mail, Hy-
perCard, and HyperStudio, (a) with colleagues, (b) by consulting books or
journals, (c) through conference presentations, and (d) through self-study.
Common across all Doug’s technology learning instances was the prelimi-
nary introduction to the technology by a colleague’s demonstration or sug-
gestion.
Though colleagues initially introduced all the technologies to Doug,
these introductions varied in the degree to which that introduction involved
examples of educative uses related to content, curriculum, or pedagogy. For
example, two of the five technologies—LOGO and HyperCard—were intro-
duced as a new technology only, without discussion of connections to literacy
learning or teaching. Yet, the other three technologies—word processing, e-
mail, and HyperStudio—were introduced as a technology that could facili-
tate writing activity. Colleagues introduced only one potential use for the
288 Hughes

word processor and e-mail and provided a range of uses for HyperStudio
during their respective introductions. Thus, these learning experiences did
not offer a range of alternatives for using technology in transformative ways,
yet they did provide at least one content-based example. Doug subsequently
was in the position to decide if he wanted to pursue learning these technolo-
gies based on these initial introductions. His learning was sustained if he
recognized technology’s capacity to support particular aspects of the English
curriculum.

Classroom-based technology use. Of the five technologies that Doug de-

scribed being introduced to him, he used LOGO as an after-school, elective
activity (due to Doug’s inability to determine a curricular use for it), used e-
mail and HyperStudio in his literacy teaching, and did not use HyperCard.
The initial e-mail and HyperStudio activities served as springboards for oth-
er related activities using Draw software, encyclopedias, and video resourc-
es. In total, Doug integrated technology into his classroom in 11 different
ways that ranged in their degree of innovation. Doug’s students used the
technology in 10 of the 11 technology-based activities.
Four of the ways Doug integrated the word processor and draw program
into his teaching served as a replacement. For example, Doug’s students
practiced recognizing parts of speech by highlighting or underlining exam-
ples within paragraphs in a word processing file, just as pen and paper might
have. Doug used e-mail, HyperStudio, encyclopedias, and cable access in
five technology-supported projects that held amplified effects. As an exam-
ple, in Doug’s first partnered e-mail project, he identified people around the
world with whom his students could correspond, as Doug described, “The
idea is that your kids get a partner, a friend they can talk to and practice
writing with and that is good. So that’s the underlying theme, to continue
writing” (Interview 2, p. 13). E-mail facilitated frequent correspondence that
motivated and inspired the students to write, provided more writing opportu-
nities, and prompted students to examine differences among people whether
it be geography, experiences, beliefs, religion, or race. E-mail amplified the
writing activity that students would have been able to accomplish with hand-
written, mailed correspondence, yet it did not change the learning or writing
outcomes.
Doug also developed two ways of using technologies that transformed
instruction and student learning. For example, Doug used web resources,
listservs, and e-mail for professional development. He found teachers
around the U.S. that, otherwise would have been unavailable, with whom he
coconstructed class projects. This range of teachers provided the opportuni-
ty to learn about ideas that Doug had never thought about at any length and
The Role of Teacher Knowledge and Learning Experiences 289

to contact teachers “outside [his] little sphere,” a shift from the cloistered
environment of many schools. As a result, the content of, not to mention the
nature of the interaction supporting, his professional development was fun-
damentally altered. This professional development led to the focus on part-
nered projects within Doug’s curriculum. It was one of these projects—an
electronic fieldtrip—that also transformed the way the students learned and
wrote about local history.

The interaction between professional knowledge, technology learning,

and practice. Doug’s learning of technology emerged from colleagues’ rec-
ommendations. Neither a curricular problem nor insatiable personal interest
in technology drove Doug’s learning. Rather, Doug understood technology’s
presence in education and was interested in considering options that came
under his radar. This passive approach limited the potential for developing
transformative technology-supported pedagogy in that Doug was reliant
upon others’ technology suggestions that varied in their suitability for edu-
cative purposes in his classroom. Doug had a challenging learning-to-prac-
tice situation, for Doug’s learning experiences varied in the amount of infor-
mation provided about the technology and the technology’s educative value;
thus, Doug had to determine the possible value for technology as well as
how to subsequently use the technology.
In every learning situation, Doug had to make a decision about the
worth of learning and using the technology in his classroom. Doug’s wealth
of knowledge and experience from a 25 year career as a teacher and a very
functional perspective concerning technology facilitated this process. Doug
explained, “I want to be able to get it, to use it, to facilitate what I’m doing”
(Interview 1, p. 1). The two technologies—LOGO programming and Hyper-
Card—that were introduced as a technology alone, without connections to
curriculum or education, were not integrated into Doug’s classroom because
he was unable to see an immediate benefit or value.
The three other suggested technologies—word processing, e-mail, and
HyperStudio—were introduced to Doug along with some discussion of cur-
ricular benefits that revealed their value. Understanding their value and us-
ing them in his own classroom launched Doug into developing, refining, and
expanding the technology use, especially the notion of partnered projects at
a distance. Doug began to draw on his general pedagogy and pedagogical
content knowledge in order to develop projects that would lead his students
toward a better understanding of and interest in writing. Yet, these three
learning experiences provided only one way of using the technologies in ed-
ucation and did not provide multiple, alternative views for their use nor were
290 Hughes

they intimately connected with content. Doug developed a “spice up” philos-
ophy for technology-supported pedagogy that went unchallenged. For Doug,
exposure to technologies that exuded clear value for writing curriculum was
essential for him to learn and integrate it into his classroom. Once he saw the
value for a technology, he launched into developing a variety of technology-
supported projects aimed at spicing up his writing curriculum, a predomi-
nantly pedagogical endeavor. This spice led to a variety of innovation be-
cause at times the motivational effects of technology were fore-grounded
(replacement) and at times the writing content was fore-grounded (amplifi-
cation and transformation). Multiple, diverse perspectives on technology use
may have spurred Doug to consider his “spice up” perspective.

Roger

Educational technology learning experiences. Roger’s interest in tech-

nology had roots in his adolescence, and he continued to learn new technol-
ogies when he became a teacher. In his six-year teaching career, Roger de-
scribed learning Internet searching, HyperStudio, electronic portfolios, Pro-
Quest database, PowerPoint, Visual Page, chat software, and database soft-
ware. Roger’s approaches to learning tended to be informal, for he described
learning technology predominantly through (a) playing around and (b) work-
ing with colleagues. Some work with colleagues included professional de-
velopment projects, such as investigating portfolio assessment, that were or-
ganized at the school-level. He also mentioned that a few school-sponsored
inservices were offered, but he found that they “never progressed” as they
taught the same software (Microsoft Works) every time. The informality of
most of Roger’s learning experiences made Roger responsible for deciding
what and how he would learn.
In each of six learning instances, a particular curricular issue spurred
Roger to identify and learn a new technology. For example, for several years
Roger wanted to include more current events in his integrated English-histo-
ry block. When the ProQuest database became available at his school, he
quickly taught it to himself and then immediately included it in a debate unit
on current topics in the state legislature. In this example, the content and re-
search experience he wanted his students to experience drove Roger to seek
options, such as ProQuest, that might support the curricular goals. Roger de-
scribed several curricular challenges that he was currently searching for pos-
sible technological solutions. For example, he wanted his students to access
and use their research more prominently during their debates. He described
The Role of Teacher Knowledge and Learning Experiences 291

how laptops and databases might enhance students’ access to information

during a debate, “The other group is talking and while they’re talking,
they’re pulling files up and doing sorts [sic] to help them present. Wow!…
It’s here, up in my head, but probably implementation is a year to two years”
(Interview 1, p. 18). Roger’s investigation of HyperStudio, electronic port-
folio options, ProQuest, PowerPoint, and databases emerged from curricular
issues in the classroom. In these learning experiences, Roger grounds his
learning of technology within his curriculum and content areas, which neces-
sarily requires Roger to be cognizant of his own content and pedagogical
knowledge. Yet, these learning experiences do not provide a range of alter-
natives or ideas for using the technology beyond what Roger identified.
In two other learning situations, Roger learned the technology first with-
out connections to content and then, later, thought about ways to use the
technology in his curriculum. He learned Visual Page and chat software in
this way. Roger loved to play with computers, and he avidly learned any
available technology. For example, he learned about chat systems without
any particular curricular use in mind. Yet, in time, he started to develop
ideas such as, “I would love it for, to set it up for like book clubs…you
could even set up where like in school and at home, parents could communi-
cate, you know. The potential is just unbelievable. I don’t know where I’m
going to go with it” (Interview 3, p. 20). These experiences offered little
more than technology tool learning, as they were not grounded in content or
pedagogy nor did they offer multiple ideas for the technology’s use in edu-
cation. Overall, Roger was responsible for his own technology learning. In
most cases, Roger used content or pedagogical challenges to spur technolo-
gy learning, but in some cases, also allowed new technologies to capture his
attention without necessarily knowing the technology’s potential educative
value.

Classroom-based technology use. In his six years as a teacher, Roger de-

scribed using the technologies he learned, with the exception of Visual Page
and chat technology for which he was still identifying purposes, in nine dif-
ferent ways that primarily functioned as amplification. Eight of Roger’s nine
technology-supported lessons put the technology into the hands of the students.
There was only one instance of technology functioning as a replace-
ment, and this occurred when Roger’s students used PowerPoint software to
present the main ideas of sections in a book. As a jigsaw, small groups of
students were responsible to teach the rest of the class about their section.
The use of PowerPoint did not provide any advantage over oral reports and
posters. Unfortunately, in this instance the students had focused on learning
292 Hughes

the software rather than using the software, distracting students from learn-
ing the content.
Roger used six technologies in ways that ultimately amplified instruc-
tion, learning, or the literacy content. For example, students had the option
to do their writers workshop daily writing using word processing software.
The use of word processing for Writer’s Workshop amplified both the stu-
dent learning process and the teacher assessment. Since Roger encouraged
students to work on one piece of writing for the entire year, he explained
how fundamental the computers were since students were given time for ed-
iting and revising their writing. In addition, Roger claimed that collecting
students’ writing on disks helped him assess it quickly and easily.
Roger’s two technology-based activities that proved transformative in
nature included the use of HyperStudio for representing ideas and the devel-
opment and use of electronic portfolios. For example, when Roger’s stu-
dents used HyperStudio to gather, organize, and present information in their
English classes, Roger believed HyperStudio and hypermedia programs like
it (e.g., PowerPoint and web authoring) allowed students to understand the
structure of English language and composition, like no other strategy he had
used before. As students constructed hypermedia-based presentations, Roger
was able to guide them in this structural analysis of their writing and organi-
zation. HyperStudio’s card and PowerPoint’s slide framework offered a con-
creteness through which students were able to talk about writing structure.
Individual or class discussions about writing, without these technologies,
were too abstract and were very difficult for students to grasp, Roger reported.

The interaction between professional knowledge, technology learning,

and practice. Because Roger’s technology learning experiences were initi-
ated and coordinated on his own, Roger chose technology topics that were
of interest to him or supported a curricular issue he had identified in his
teaching. The close connection between content and technology that Roger
maintained in his technology learning experiences offered the chance for
Roger to expand primarily his pedagogical content knowledge—in other
words, the pedagogical tactics specific to the English discipline that would
engage his students in learning.
His learning experiences did not challenge or expand his subject matter
knowledge, for he did not seek or create such an experience for himself. In-
stead, the technology-supported pedagogy that Roger developed grew out of
Roger’s established curriculum and pedagogy. Since his learning experienc-
es did not expose him to alternative perspectives that used technology in in-
novative, transformed ways, it is not surprising that his technology-support-
ed pedagogy was predominantly amplified. Finally, Roger’s two learning
The Role of Teacher Knowledge and Learning Experiences 293

experiences that focused on technology tools had not yielded actual class-
room-based technology use. Thus, the technology tool learning approach
was less productive toward developing technology-supported pedagogy.

Laura

Educational technology learning experiences. Laura had taught for three

years, and in that time, she learned about educational technologies through
(a) playing, (b) assistance from others, (c) school inservices, (d) technology
manuals, and (e) repetition and practice. Though she specifically stated that
her teacher preparation did not prepare her to use technology, she did de-
scribe learning about and using technology during childhood through col-
lege. These technologies, such as word processing, BASIC, HyperCard, e-
mail, web surfing, database, and spreadsheets, were learned in the context of
personal interests or job-related tasks, not teaching. When Laura became a
teacher, she considered how her knowledge of word processing, Internet
use, and e-mail could be useful in an education setting. She also learned
about new technologies, primarily administrative, and productivity tools that
were present in her classroom.
All of Laura’s learning experiences introduced technology as a general
tool, without explicit connection to literacy content. For example, Laura
learned word processing software by consulting manuals and colleagues dur-
ing a summer position at an insurance company. Laura learned about e-mail
during matriculation into college, and she discovered it was an inexpensive,
simple, and fast mode of communication with her family. Even in content-
based professional development, such as a National Writing Project semi-
nar, Laura described learning web page development as a set of technology
skills taught by computer technicians. School inservices had been provided
for teachers to learn technology tools contained as part of the high-tech
teacher desk that included video cameras, TV monitors, a computer, VCR,
satellite access, phone system, Internet access, and a school-wide program
that compiled grades and attendance. These inservices strictly covered oper-
ation of these primarily administrative tools. Due to focus on technology
skills in Laura’s learning experiences, she was responsible for identifying
how these technologies would be used in her own classroom. Since Laura
was accustomed to technologies and found technology to be a tool that as-
sisted her in many ways, she eagerly sought ways to use these new technolo-
gies to improve teaching and learning in her classroom.
294 Hughes

Classroom-based technology use. Laura, the most novice teacher in the

study, avidly used technology in her classroom. She described 18 different
ways she used technology in her classroom—17 of which were used as am-
plification. She used technology in 14 ways while students used the technol-
ogy in only four activities.
There was only one instance in which Laura used word processing as
replacement. Laura aimed for her students to create a class newspaper.
Though the intention was for small groups of students to write sections and
layout the newspaper using the word processing program, in the middle of
the project, the use of the technology shifted to Laura. Laura perceived that
her students’ word processing skills were not developed at a level that was
productive, so she typed up their hand-written notes for the class.
The other 17 ways Laura chose to use technology amplified her instruc-
tion or administrative duties. For the most part, she controlled the technolo-
gies in use in her classroom. For example, the word processor was used ex-
tensively in Laura’s instruction. It amplified her instructional preparation as
she produced handouts, tests, and other student materials for her English
classes using a word processor. She explained that creating these materials
on the computer served as an archive, in which she could easily and effi-
ciently change the materials for future activities. As another example, Laura
used her immediate access to the Web at her high tech teacher desk in her
daily teaching to support student questions. One day, students had difficulty
understanding Edgar Allan Poe’s “The Cask of Amontillado.” She thought
having a better picture of the story’s setting might help them. In the moment,
she searched for “catacombs” on the Web and found the Vatican offered an
electronic field trip through catacombs. Laura found that using the Web to
access information, sometimes instantaneously, offered her students the sup-
plementary information required to understand concepts and stories they
read about in class but that were not available in the school library, which
had very limited resources. In addition to these examples, Laura used e-mail
and telephone, PowerPoint, ceiling-mounted cameras, grading, attendance
and student information search programs, and library resources such as Pro-
Quest database and Encarta encyclopedias in ways that amplified instruction
and student learning. Laura did not use any technology as transformation.

The interaction between professional knowledge, technology learning,

and practice. Laura’s learning was focused on technology skills and her
practice with technology had little connection to English subject matter and
was teacher-centered. Although Laura was very skilled with technology, the
focus of her learning had been on how to operate the technology. Learning
about technology did not challenge her nor provide ideas about the use of
The Role of Teacher Knowledge and Learning Experiences 295

technology for teaching and learning English. Therefore, identifying how to

integrate the technology was her responsibility. This presented the most
challenging learning-to-practice situation among the four cases. Not only did
Laura experience learning situations that were devoid of content connections
and integration ideas, she, as a novice teacher, also possessed the least pro-
fessional knowledge with which to develop technology-supported pedagogy.
Beginning teachers struggle with classroom management and a sense of
survival (Feiman-Nemser & Floden, 1986) as opposed to exploring new cur-
riculum, content, or ways of learning. Laura’s most accessible professional
knowledge was general pedagogy, a specific focus within initial licensure
programs. Laura tended to use technology for general pedagogical purposes
to support her teaching rather than student learning. In this way, she main-
tained management of her classroom as we might expect from a beginning
teacher. Likewise, Laura expressed her need to appear knowledgeable and
competent in front of her students. Therefore, she wanted to become com-
pletely comfortable with technology before she actually used it in her class.
For example, she practiced using her high tech desk prior to the school year,
and she did not use technologies unless she was comfortable with them.
Overall, Laura established a technology-supported pedagogy that was teach-
er-centric and amplified instruction or administrative activities.

Cross-Case Analysis

Across the four cases, patterns emerged related to the teachers’ learning
experiences and their technology-integrated pedagogy. First, predominantly
informal learning experiences facilitated these teachers’ access to and use of
technology. Though Nell reported formal learning sessions to be important,
she reported it was the informal guidance provided within them that made
the difference for her. She also learned through listservs and conference pre-
sentations. Likewise, Doug reported that his learning was instigated through
colleagues’ informal recommendations and demonstrations. Roger spear-
headed his own learning, deciding how, when, and what to learn. Finally,
Laura used manuals, colleagues, and independent practice, though she also
took part in more formal inservices provided at her school. Informal learn-
ing sufficiently facilitated these teachers’ awareness, familiarity, and under-
standing of technology.
Second, content-focused learning experiences yielded content-based
technology integration in the classroom. There were two variations within
this pattern. There were the experiences Nell had in graduate courses and
296 Hughes

content workshops in which she was exposed to new literacy content knowl-
edge or content-based pedagogy by an instructor or teacher-leader. She ulti-
mately learned new content (e.g., hypertext) and, out of the experience, de-
veloped transformative technology activities. On the other hand, there were
experiences when the teacher-learner established the content-focused learn-
ing experience, such as when Roger’s content and pedagogical challenges
impelled him to search for possible solutions. He discovered technological
solutions and implemented them in his classroom, though the activities
ranged across the levels of innovation.
Introductions to new content and innovations in instruction, as in Nell’s
experience, may lead teachers to rethink their teaching. Yet, Nell was a vet-
eran teacher disposed to learn new content, and other teachers who lack such
a perspective could find this learning situation and topics outside their “in-
novation” comfort zone (Zhao et al., 2002) and will not learn. Roger’s
“problems of practice” approach may be more comfortable due to its basis
in the teacher’s content and curriculum while still maintaining a content-
base to technology learning. Teachers with more awareness of their curricu-
lum, content, and students’ learning will be able to identify these challenges
that can instigate technology learning. The degree of technology innovation
would be dependent on the types of challenges and technologies identified
and examined by the teacher.
Third, learning experiences that focused on teaching technology within
general educative examples demonstrated technology’s general educative
value that, in turn, inspired teachers to explore the possibilities for the tech-
nology in their own classrooms. Doug explicitly stated that he needed to see
a value for technology through these examples and demonstrations. After his
initial use of technology in which he replicated the examples he was provid-
ed, Doug expanded beyond these ideas to develop new, innovative ideas that
led to amplification and transformative use. Nell also viewed educative ex-
amples for the technologies demonstrated but instead of replicating the ex-
amples in her own classroom, as Doug did, Nell determined better-aligned
uses for the technology, in accordance with her teaching. The technologies
she implemented through this learning approach served as replacement and
amplification in her classroom.
It accords that the more content-specific the example, the more likely
the teacher will see value and learn it. Doug, who had literacy-based exam-
ples, learned these technologies that led to a series of expansions based on
the initial example use. However, the farther the example is from the teach-
er’s content area, the lower the likelihood that the teacher would spend time
developing other possibilities for the technology. Nell actually was willing
The Role of Teacher Knowledge and Learning Experiences 297

to invest time toward devising ways to use it. Thus, she used her knowledge
of literacy to determine possible uses.
Finally, Roger, Doug, and Laura all had learning experiences that fo-
cused solely on technology with no connections to education or their content
areas. These experiences may not lead to innovative technology-supported
pedagogy. In these instances, Doug did not see any immediate educative val-
ue for the technology, and he did not pursue learning or using them. Roger,
on the other hand, learned any new technology to which he had access and if
it was not immediately useful for teaching, he stored it as an option in his
mind until the appropriate situation presented itself. The path to actual use
was much longer in this case, as Roger described learning two technologies
in this way that he had yet to integrate in his classroom. Unlike Doug, Roger
was willing to spend time accessing his professional knowledge in order to
explore and determine educative purposes for the technology that may sup-
port his students’ literacy learning. Laura, like Roger, was willing to figure
out how to use the technologies she had learned, for technologies had assist-
ed her across her lifetime. Unlike Roger, though, Laura was a beginning
teacher whose foremost concerns were pedagogical in nature such as keep-
ing her class managed and developing productive instructional strategies.
From these learning experiences, her technology-supported pedagogy
emerged as either instructional or administrative during which she main-
tained control of the technology. This type of learning situation may lead to
innovative technology-supported pedagogy only for those teachers with
more teaching experience and knowledge and an inclination to spend time
determining best educative uses for the technology.

DISCUSSION

These case studies reveal the role that teachers’ professional knowledge
has on teachers’ engagement in technology learning and in crafting technol-
ogy-supported pedagogy. Indeed, the power to develop innovative technolo-
gy-supported pedagogy lies in the teacher’s interpretation of the technolo-
gy’s value for instruction and learning in the classroom. This interpretation
is mediated by past experience and accumulated knowledge (Bransford &
Schwartz, 1999).
The literature indicates that instructional or content alternatives and di-
lemmas might impel teachers to question or reflect on their practice and
potentially change their beliefs and practice. In this set of cases, this actually
occurred only in Nell’s formal content courses that spurred revisions within
her middle school literacy curriculum to include topics such as hypertext
298 Hughes

and writing workshop. Yet, more alternatives and dilemmas can be built into
the content-based examples used during technology training to help leverage
participants’ reflections. For example, Doug was introduced to the idea of
using e-mail in his class through an e-mail correspondence project between
his 5th graders and a group of preservice teachers. The colleague who intro-
duced this idea to Doug might have also presented other alternatives for e-
mail use for 5th grade literacy activities such as collaborative, cross-cultural
conversations or Internet writing by kids for kids in KIDCAFE (Garner &
Gillingham, 1996). The cross-cultural conversations activity could inspire
Doug to reflect about the types of cultural activities his students experience
or more generally, the role of culture in the literacy content area, opening an
area of his curriculum to thoughtful examination. Learning activities that
provide such alternatives or dilemmas provide a direct path toward
change—as long as the teacher is willing to consider and reflect on the di-
lemma or alternative that has been presented—which is not assumed. Ver-
loop, Driel, and Meijer (2001) noted that “teacher cognitions have taken
years to take shape and are, consequently, not easily changed” (p. 454),
while Zhao et al. (2002) noted that technological innovations perceived to
be far from teacher’s own practice are less likely to be established. Though
this approach has promise for introducing innovative technology and inspir-
ing reflection and possibly change, all teachers may not willingly engage in
such reflection and change. Further research is warranted to understand what
characteristics should be included in the alternatives and dilemmas as well
as with whom and in what situations these are most successful.
These cases show how content-based technology learning leads to con-
tent-based technology pedagogy. The content connection was essential for
teachers, like Doug, who require a clear content connection prior to invest-
ing time learning the technology. Snoeyink and Ertmer (2001/2002) echoed
the importance of including grade-specific content and curriculum integra-
tion ideas in technology learning opportunities. Yet, there are several ways
to create these content connections. The colleague or inservice leader can
provide these connections, as they were for Doug when his colleague not
only introduced a new technology but a classroom activity that used the
technology. This approach actually provides an opportunity to include ex-
amples that may push the teachers’ to consider new ways of teaching or new
uses for old technologies. It also provides a chance to scaffold novice teach-
ers to consider technology use for more than management and instruction.
For example, Laura might have benefited from seeing the way Roger used
PowerPoint to teach the structure of English language and composition. This
example potentially would have expanded her concept of PowerPoint be-
yond a tool for supporting lectures. On the other hand, the teacher-learner
The Role of Teacher Knowledge and Learning Experiences 299

can create these content connections through problems-of-practice, as when

Roger immediately knew that the ProQuest article database could be used
for students to study current events, a neglected area in his curriculum. This
problem-of-practice approach more likely ensures applicability of the tech-
nology learning to the teacher’s practice. However, the identification of
problems-of-practice may be limited by the scope of the teacher’s knowl-
edge as well as their ability to access that knowledge. In this situation, expe-
rienced teachers may have an advantage over novice teachers. As teachers
gain experience, their professional knowledge is further developed, and they
are more aware of the knowledge they possess and how that knowledge in-
fluences their practice (Carter, 1990).
The results of these case studies have implications for professional
preparation of teachers. Collaborative, subject-specific technology inquiry
groups may be a professional development approach that supports teachers’
ability to learn to integrate technology into their subject areas in line with
the findings of this study. In inquiry groups, teachers of similar content areas
and grade levels use their knowledge of the discipline, curricular goals, and
specific school or district goals to identify problems-of-practice or other
subject-matter related topics to guide learning of educational technology as
possible solutions. Small, collaborative inquiry groups have been shown
successful for teacher learning because this approach (a) focuses on support-
ing teachers in sharing their knowledge and questions, (b) connects learning
to contexts of teaching (site and subject-specific), and (c) promotes active
engagement with others over time (Zech, Gause-Vega, Bray, Secules, &
Goldman, 2000). Contrary to common assumptions asserting that beginning
teachers more easily integrate technology, experienced teachers (who often
have less technology experience) are more poised to integrate technology
simply because they possess more knowledge with which to connect. Veter-
an teachers’ expertise can offer a subject matter or pedagogical-based focus
to technology explorations that beginning teachers may not be able to do in-
dependently. For example, veteran teachers like Nell and Doug independent-
ly developed a range of amplification and transformative, literacy-based, in-
structional and learning activities for technologies they learned. On the other
hand, the novice teacher, Laura, independently developed general pedagogi-
cal, teacher-centered uses for technology that had an amplification impact. It
is for that reason that it may be valuable for preservice teachers to be in-
volved in such inquiry groups during their initial licensure program. The
content-based, technology inquiries that occur within such groups are in line
with recent research that found “that professional development should focus
on deepening teacher knowledge in order to foster teacher learning and
changes in practice” (Verloop et al., 2001, p. 443). Future research can
300 Hughes

examine the process of establishing and supporting subject-matter technolo-

gy inquiry groups, the knowledge participants learn and develop, and the im-
pact of their learning on their teaching practice and students’ achievement.

References

Borko, H., & Putnam, R.T. (1995). Expanding a teacher’s knowledge base.
In T.R. Guskey & M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in
education (pp. 35-65). New York: Teachers College Press.
Borko, H., & Putnam, R.T. (1996). Learning to teach. In D.C. Berliner &
R.C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 673-
708). New York: Macmillan.
Bransford, J.D., & Schwartz, D.L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple
proposal with multiple implications. In A. Iran-Nejad & P.D. Pearson
(Eds.), Review of research in education (pp. 61-100). Washington, DC:
American Educational Research Association.
Carter, K. (1990). Teachers’ knowledge and learning to teach. In W.R.
Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 291-
310). New York: Macmillan.
Chen, M., & Armstrong, S. (Eds.). (2002). Edutopia: Success stories for
learning in the digital age. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Crohen, M. (2001). Summer school and the learning is easy. Learning and
Leading with Technology, 29(1), 50-56.
Cuban, L. (1988). Constancy and change in schools (1880s to the present).
In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Contributing to educational change: Perspec-
tives on research and practice (pp. 85-105). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Cuban, L. (1993). Computers meet classroom: Classroom wins. Teachers
College Record, 95(2), 185-210.
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Drier, H.S. (2001, March). Beliefs, experiences, and reflections that affect
the development of techno-mathematical knowledge. Paper presented at
the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education Con-
ference (SITE), Orlando, FL.
Duhaney, D.C. (2000). Technology and the educational process: transform-
ing classroom activities. International Journal of Instructional Media,
27(1), 67-72.
Dun, A., Feldman, A., & Rearick, M. (2000, April). Teaching and learning
with computers in schools: The development of instructional technolo-
gy pedagogical content knowledge. Paper presented at the American
Educational Research Association (AERA), New Orleans, LA.
Feiman-Nemser, S., & Floden, R. (1986). The cultures of teaching. In M.C.
Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 505-
526). New York: MacMillan.
The Role of Teacher Knowledge and Learning Experiences 301

Garner, R., & Gillingham, M.G. (1996). Internet communication in six

classrooms: Conversations across time, space, and culture. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory.
Chicago: Aldine Publishing.
Grossman, P.L. (1988). A study in contrast: Sources of pedagogical content
knowledge for secondary English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.
Kelchtermans, G., & Vandenberghe, R. (1994). Teachers’ professional de-
velopment: A biographical perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies,
26(1), 45-62.
King, K.P. (2002). Educational technology professional development as
transformative learning opportunities. Computers & Education, 39(3),
283-297.
Margerum-Leys, J., & Marx, R.W. (2002). Teacher knowledge of educa-
tional technology: A case study of student/mentor teacher pairs. Jour-
nal of Educational Computing Research, 26(4), 427-462.
McKenzie, J. (2001). Head of the class. Retrieved January 22, 2001, from
http://www.electronic-school.com
Milken Exchange on Educational Technology (1999). Survey of technology
in the schools. Santa Monica, CA: Author
National Center for Education Statistics. (2000, April). Stats in brief:
Teacher use of computers and the Internet in public schools. Washing-
ton, DC: Author.
Pea, R.D. (1985). Beyond amplification: Using the computer to reorganize
mental functioning. Educational Psychologist, 20(4), 167-182.
Pressley, M., & McCormick, C.B. (1995). Advanced educational psycholo-
gy for educators, researchers, and policymakers. New York: Harper
Collins.
Reinking, D. (1997). Me and my hypertext:) A multiple digression analysis
of technology and literacy [sic]. The Reading Teacher, 50(8), 626-643.
Richardson, V., & Placier, P. (2001). Teacher change. In V. Richardson
(Ed.), The Handbook for Research on Teaching (4th ed., pp. 905-947).
Washington, DC: AERA.
Riley, R.W., Holleman III, F.S., & Roberts, L.G. (2000). e-learning: Put-
ting a world-class education at the fingertips of all children (Report).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Sandholtz, J.H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D.C. (1997). Teaching with tech-
nology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new
reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
Snoeyink, R., & Ertmer, P.A. (2001/2002). Thrust into technology: How
veteran teachers respond. Journal of Educational Technology Systems,
30(1), 85-111.
302 Hughes

Starkweather, K.N. (2002). ITEA/Gallup poll: Interpreting what others

think of technology teaching. The Technology Teacher, 61(8), 31-33.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics
(2000). Survey on professional development and training in U.S. Public
schools, 1999-2000. (Report No. FRSS 74). Washington, DC: Author.
Verloop, N., Driel, J.V., & Meijer, P. (2001). Teacher knowledge and the
knowledge base of teaching. International Journal of Educational Re-
search, 35, 441-461.
Yin, R.K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2 nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Zech, L.K., Gause-Vega, C.L., Bray, M.H., Secules, T., & Goldman, S.R.
(2000). Content-based collaborative inquiry: A professional develop-
ment model for sustaining educational reform. Educational Psycholo-
gist, 35(3), 207-217.
Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., & Sheldon, S. (2002). Conditions for classroom tech-
nology innovations. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 482-515.

Author Note

This article is based on research reported in the author’s doctoral disserta-

tion (Michigan State University). The author would like to acknowledge
colleagues Becky Wai-Ling Packard, Martha Bigelow, Jeremy Kahan, and
Julie Kalnin for their assistance in critiquing and editing drafts of this arti-
cle.