Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education

K-8 Pre-Service Teachers’ Technology Integration in Mathematics: Perspectives and Anticipated Practices

Monte Meyerink 1 * ,
Fenqjen Luo 2
1 Northern State University2 Montana State University* Corresponding Author
Download PDF
Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, Volume 8, Issue SI, June 2025, pp. 195-227
OPEN ACCESS VIEWS: 285 DOWNLOADS: 105 Publication date: 15 Jun 2025
ABSTRACT
This qualitative, phenomenological study sought to examine kindergarten through eighth-grade pre-service teachers’ (N = 19) perspectives on technology integration within the context of mathematics. Topics of primary interest were pre-service teachers’ knowledge of technology integration, their questions/concerns regarding technology integration, their anticipated technology integration practices, and the impact of technological resources on mathematics instruction for their proposed uses of technology. Both the SAMR and PICRAT models informed the methodology of this study. Data were collected from responses to open-ended prompts as part of a mathematics methods course and analyzed with both a priori (i.e., SAMR and PICRAT) and emergent coding. Findings showed that responses were most aligned with interactive, amplification level of the PICRAT model and the augmentation level of the SAMR model, in which pre-service teachers often described students’ use of mathematical games. Additionally, this study found that pre-service teachers reported limited knowledge of technology integration, have questions/concerns related to when and how to integrate technology, and anticipate that they will integrate technology into their future classrooms relatively frequently. Implications of the findings for both researchers and teacher educators are discussed, as well as recommendations for future research.
KEYWORDS
Pre-Service Teacher, Perspectives, PICRAT, SAMR, Technology Integration.
CITATION (APA)
Meyerink, M., & Luo, F. (2025). K-8 Pre-Service Teachers’ Technology Integration in Mathematics: Perspectives and Anticipated Practices. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 8(SI), 195-227. https://doi.org/10.31756/jrsmte.4112SI
REFERENCES
  1. Austin, C. K., & Kosko, K. W. (2022). Representations of practice used in mathematics methods courses. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 22(1). https://citejournal.org/volume-22/issue-1-22/mathematics/representations-of-practice-used-in-mathematics-methods-courses/
  2. Bouck, E. C., Chamberlain, C., & Park, J. (2017). Concrete and app-based manipulatives to support students with disabilities with subtraction. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 52(3), 317-331. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26420403
  3. Bouck, E. C., Satsangi, R., Doughty, T. T., & Courtney, W. T. (2014). Virtual and concrete manipulatives: A comparison of approaches for solving mathematics problems for students with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 44(1), 180-193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-013-1863-2
  4. Bouck, E. C., Shurr, J., Bassette, L., Park, J., & Whorley, A. (2018). Adding it up: Comparing concrete and app-based manipulatives to support students with disabilities with adding fractions. Journal of Special Education Technology, 33(3), 194-206. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643418759341
  5. Brezovszky, B., McMullen, J., Veermans, K., Hannula-Sormunen, M. M., Rodriguez-Aflecht, G., Pongsakdi, N., Laakkonen, E., & Lehtinen, E. (2019). Effects of a mathematics game-based learning environment on primary school students’ adaptive number knowledge. Computers & Education, 128(1), 63-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.011
  6. Brush, T., Glazewski, K., Rutowski, K., Berg, K., Stromfors, C., Van-Nest, M. H., Stock, L., & Sutton, J. (2003). Integrating technology in a field-based teacher training program: The PT3@ASU project. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 57-72. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504518
  7. Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299088
  8. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE.
  9. Crompton, H. (2015). Pre-service teachers’ developing technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) and beliefs on the use of technology in the K-12 mathematics classroom: A review of the literature. In C. Angeli & N. Valanides (Eds.), Technological pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 239-250). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-8080-9_12
  10. Cullen, T. A., & Greene, B. A. (2011). Preservice teachers’ beliefs, attitudes, and motivation about technology integration. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 45(1), 29-47. https://doi.org/10.2190%2FEC.45.1.b
  11. Dawson, V. (2008). Use of information communication technology by early career science teachers in western Australia. International Journal of Science Education, 30(2), 203-219. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601175551
  12. Dorman, K. (2018, October 25). Educating educators: How to use the SAMR model in teacher professional development. Edmentum. https://blog.edmentum.com/educating-educators-how-use-samr-model-teacher-professional-development
  13. Foulger, T. S., Graziano, K. J., Schmidt-Crawford, D. A., & Slykhuis, D. A. (2017). Teacher educator technology competencies. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 25(4), 413-448. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/181966/
  14. Hamilton, E. R., Rosenberg, J. M., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The substitution augmentation modification redefinition (SAMR) model: A critical review and suggestions for its use. TechTrends, 60(5), 433-441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0091-y
  15. Hughes, J., Thomas, R., & Scharber, C. (2006). Assessing technology integration: The RAT—Replacement, Amplification, and Transformation—framework. In C. C. Crawford, R. Carlsen, K. McFerrin, J. Price, R. Weber, & D. A. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2006: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1616-1620). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. http://techedges.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Hughes_ScharberSITE2006.pdf
  16. Johnson, P. E., Campet, M., Gaber, K., & Zuidema, E. (2012). Virtual manipulatives to assess understanding. Teaching Children Mathematics, 19(3), 202-206. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5951/teacchilmath.19.3.0202
  17. Kennewell, S., Tanner, H., Jones, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2008). Analysing the use of interactive technology to implement interactive teaching. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(1), 61-73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00244.x
  18. Kiger, D., Herro, D., & Prunty, D. (2012). Examining the influence of a mobile learning intervention on third grade math achievement. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(1), 61-82. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2012.10782597
  19. Kimmons, R., Graham, C. R., & West, R. E. (2020). The PICRAT model for technology integration in teacher preparation. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 20(1), 176-198. https://citejournal.org/volume-20/issue-1-20/general/the-picrat-model-for-technology-integration-in-teacher-preparation/
  20. Kleiner, B., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2007). Educational technology in teacher education programs for initial licensure: Statistical analysis report (NCES 2008-040). National Center for Education Statistics; Institute of Education Sciences; U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008040.pdf
  21. Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 17-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299087
  22. Lee, C.-Y., & Chen, M.-J. (2015). Effects of worked examples using manipulatives on fifth graders’ learning performance and attitude toward mathematics. Educational Technology & Society, 18(1), 264-275. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/jeductechsoci.18.1.264
  23. Liu, M., Ng, O.-L., Dai, Y., & Chai, C.-S. (2024). Prospective mathematics teachers’ hiccups and professional noticing during technology-rich teaching and learning. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 24, 211-228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42330-024-00340-2
  24. McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 276-282. https://www.biochemia-medica.com/en/journal/22/3/10.11613/BM.2012.031
  25. McLeod, J. K., Dondlinger, M. J., Vasinda, S., & Haas, L. (2013). Digital play: Mathematical simulations transforming curiosity into play. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations, 5(2), 34-59. https://doi.org/10.4018/jgcms.2013040103
  26. Moyer, P. S., Bolyard, J. J., & Spikell, M. A. (2002). What are virtual manipulatives? Teaching Children Mathematics, 8(6), 372-377. https://www.nctm.org/Publications/Teaching-Children-Mathematics/2002/Vol8/Issue6/What-Are-Virtual-Manipulatives_/
  27. Moyer-Packenham, P. S., & Bolyard, J. J. (2016). Revisiting the definition of a virtual manipulative. In P. S. Moyer-Packenham (Ed.), International perspectives on teaching and learning mathematics with virtual manipulatives (pp. 3-23). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32718-1_1
  28. Osmo. (2022). Genius tangram [Image]. Tangible Play. https://www.playosmo.com/en/shopping/games/tangram/
  29. Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. In S. Papert & I. Harel (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 1-11). Ablex.
  30. Puentedura, R. R. (2003, August 6). A matrix model for designing and assessing network-enhanced courses. Hippasus. http://hippasus.com/resources/matrixmodel/
  31. Reimer, K., & Moyer, P. S. (2005). Third-graders learn about fractions using virtual manipulatives: A classroom study. The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 24(1), 5-25. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1039&context=teal_facpub
  32. Root, J. R., Browder, D. M., Saunders, A. F., & Lo, Y.-Y. (2017). Schema-based instruction with concrete and virtual manipulatives to teach problem solving to students with autism. Remedial and Special Education, 38(1), 42-52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932516643592
  33. Rose, M. A., Carter, V., Brown, J., & Shumway, S. (2017). Status of elementary teacher development: Preparing elementary teachers to deliver technology and engineering experiences. Journal of Technology Education, 28(2), 2-18. http://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v28i2.a.1
  34. Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85-109. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X02239569
  35. Sen, G. L., Tengah, K. A., Shahrill, M., & Leong, E. (2017). Teaching and learning of integers using hands-on versus virtual manipulatives. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Education, TIIKM. https://doi.org/10.17501/icedu.2017.3119
  36. Suh, J., & Moyer, P. S. (2007). Developing students’ representational fluency using virtual and physical algebra balances. The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26(2), 155-173. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1031&context=teal_facpub
  37. Sung, W., An, H., & Thomas, C. L. (2024). PICRAT analysis of technology-integration activities in U.S. K-12 public schools. Computers in the Schools. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2024.2338243
  38. Teo, T. (2009). Modelling technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-service teachers. Computers & Education, 52(2), 302-312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.08.006
  39. Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Sang, G., Voogt, J., Fisser, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2012). Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology in education: A synthesis of qualitative evidence. Computers & Education, 59(1), 134-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.009
  40. Trainin, G., Friedrich, L., & Deng, Q. (2018). The impact of a teacher education program re-design on technology integration in elementary preservice teachers. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 18(5), 692-721. https://citejournal.org/volume-18/issue-4-18/general/the-impact-of-a-teacher-education-program-redesign-on-technology-integration-in-elementary-preservice-teachers/
  41. Wachira, P., Keengwe, J., & Onchwari, G. (2008). Mathematics preservice teachers’ beliefs and conceptions of appropriate technology use. AACE Journal, 16(3), 293-306. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/26142/
  42. Wijaya, T. T., Rizki, L. M., Yunita, W., Salamah, U., Pereira, J., Zhang, C., Li, X., & Purnama, A. (2021). Technology integration to teaching mathematics in higher education during Coronavirus pandemic using SAMR model. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2123, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2123/1/012043
  43. Yuan, Y., Lee, C.-Y., & Wang, C.-H. (2010). A comparison study of polyominoes explorations in a physical and virtual manipulative environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(4), 307-316. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00352.x
  44. Zipke, M. (2018). Preparing teachers to teach with technology: Examining the effectiveness of a course in educational technology. The New Educator, 14(4), 342-362. https://doi.org/10.1080/1547688X.2017.1401191
LICENSE
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.