From Coding to Lesson Planning: Developing TPACK Through Robotics in a Mathematics Methods Course
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33423/h01ff943Keywords:
higher education, mathematics, teacher education, Dash robots, TI-Innovator Rover, middle grades education, secondary education, TPACKAbstract
It is essential for PSTs to transition from their studies to classrooms with the tools and strategies to implement effective instructional practices. This mixed-methods research investigated how educational robotics instruction in two mathematics methods courses informed pre-service teachers’ (PSTs) TPACK. Conducted with middle grades and secondary PSTs using Dash and TI-Innovator Rover (robots), the quantitative findings revealed statistically significant results for PCK, TCK, TPK, and TPACK for the Spring 2024 cohort. However, the Fall 2023 results revealed statistically significant effects only in the TCK and TPK domains. The qualitative data analysis revealed that PSTs gained an understanding of how to teach with robotics to support conceptual understanding of mathematical topics, but robotics alone cannot support TPACK development. This research answered calls to provide training on educational technologies over a longer period, to develop context-based learning activities, and to compare knowledge with competency. When teacher preparation programs incorporate educational technology training into methods courses, they may simultaneously support future school district needs while ensuring that high-quality, well-prepared teachers enter the workforce.
References
Anderson, G.L., & Herr, K. (2005). The action research dissertation: A guide for students and faculty. Sage Publications.
Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators [AMTE]. (2017). Standards for preparing teachers of mathematics.
Baran, E., Canbazoglu Bilici, S., Albayrak Sari, A., & Tondeur, J. (2019). Investigating the impact of teacher education strategies on preservice teachers’ TPACK. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 357–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12565 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12565
Boaler, J. (2016). Mathematical mindsets. Jossey-Bass.
Borko, H., Whitcomb, J., & Liston, D. (2009). Wicked problems and other thoughts on issues of technology and teacher learning. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108328488 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108328488
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa DOI: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Carbonaro, M., Rex, M., & Chambers, J. (2004). Using LEGO robotics in a project-based learning environment. The Interactive Multimedia Electronic Journal of Computer-Enhanced Learning, 6(1). Retrieved from http://www.imej.wfu.edu/articles/2004/1/02/printver.asp
Casler-Failing, S.L. (2018a). Robotics and math: Using action research to study growth problems. Canadian Journal of Action Research, 19(2), 4–25. https://doi.org/10.33524/cjar.v19i2.383 DOI: https://doi.org/10.33524/cjar.v19i2.383
Casler-Failing, S. (2018b). The effects of integrating LEGO robotics into a mathematics curriculum to promote the development of proportional reasoning. Proceedings of the Interdisciplinary STEM Teaching and Learning Conference, 2, Article 5. https://doi.org/10.20429/stem.2018.020105 DOI: https://doi.org/10.20429/stem.2018.020105
Casler-Failing, S. (2021). Learning to teach mathematics with robots: Developing the “T” in technological pedagogical content knowledge. Research in Learning Technology, 29. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v29.2555 DOI: https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v29.2555
Casler-Failing, S.L., & Swann, L.C. (2023). Developing proportional reasoning via Lego robotics: Experiences of a 7th grade mathematics class. Middle Grades Review, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.70793/mgr.198 DOI: https://doi.org/10.70793/mgr.198
Casler-Failing, S., & Stephens, C. (2026, in press). Functions with robotics: Providing access to all students. Mathematics Teacher: Learning and Teaching in PK–12, 119(6). DOI: https://doi.org/10.5951/MTLT.2025.0170
Chambers, J.M., & Carbonaro, M. (2003). Designing, developing, and implementing a course on LEGO robotics for technology teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 11(2), 209–241. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/14607/
Chang, C.-F., Annisa, N., & Chen, K.-Z. (2025). Pre-service teacher professional education program (PPG) and Indonesian science teachers’ TPACK development: A career-path comparative study. Education and Information Technologies, 30, 8689–8711. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13160-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13160-6
Christensen, R. (2002). Effects of technology integration education on the attitudes of teachers and students. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(4), 411–434. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2002.10782359 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2002.10782359
Crow, G.M., & Pounder, D.G. (2000). Interdisciplinary teacher teams: Context, design, and process. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(2), 216–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X00362004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00131610021968967
Cviko, A., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2015). Teachers as co-designers of technology-rich learning activities for early literacy. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 24(4), 443–459. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2014.953197 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2014.953197
Di Blas, N. (2016). Distributed TPACK: What kind of teachers does it work for? Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 12(3), 65–74. https://doi.org/10.20368/1971-8829/1156
Dweck, C.S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Ballantine.
Dweck, C.S. (2008). Mindsets and math/science achievement. Carnegie Corporation of New York Institute for Advanced Study.
Govinda, R. (2020). NEP 2020: A critical examination. Social Change, 50(4), 603–607. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049085720958804 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0049085720958804
Greene, M.D., & Jones, W.M. (2020). Analyzing contextual levels and applications of technological pedagogical knowledge (TPACK) in English as a second language subject area: A systematic literature review. Educational Technology & Society, 23(4), 75–88. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26981745
Huang, Z. (2018). Theoretical analysis of TPACK knowledge structure of mathematics teachers based on T-TPACK mode. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 18(5), 2044–2053. http://dx.doi.org/10.12738/estp.2018.5.103 DOI: https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2018.5.103
Kennedy, T.J., & Sundberg, C.W. (2025). Twenty-first century skills. In B. Akpan & T.J. Kennedy (Eds.), Science education in theory and practice (pp. 461–486). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-81351-1_27 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-81351-1_27
Keskink Kiliç, F. (2024). The effect of STEM training with educational robotics applications designed for classroom teachers on the STEM awareness and attitudes of teachers. International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools, 6(3), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.21585/ijcses.v6i3.169 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21585/ijcses.v6i3.169
Martinez Ortiz, A. (2015). Examining students' proportional reasoning strategy levels as evidence of the impact of an integrated LEGO robotics and mathematics learning experience. Journal of Technology Education, 26(2), 46–69. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v26i2.a.3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v26i2.a.3
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810610800610
Nannim, F.A., Ibezim, N.E., Agbo, G.C., Mgboji, C., Ngwoke, S.O.R., & Mosia, M. (2025). Development of a project-based Arduino learning app: Fostering robotics programming competence among preservice teachers of computer and robotics education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 25(1), Article 10. https://doi.org/10.1145/3719016 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3719016
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM]. (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. Author.
Niess, M. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 509–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.03.006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.03.006
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (n.d.). PISA dashboard. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/en/data/dashboards/pisa-education-and-skills.html
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage.
Resnick, M., Martin, F., Sargent, R., & Silverman, B. (1996). Programmable bricks: Toys to think with. IBM Systems Journal, 35(3–4), 443–452. https://doi.org/10.1147/sj.353.0443 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1147/sj.353.0443
Roschelle, J., Pea, R., Hoadley, C., Gordin, D., & Means, B. (2000). Changing how and what children learn in school with computer-based technologies. The Future of Children, 10(2), 76–101. https://doi.org/10.2307/1602690 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1602690
Rosenberg, J.M., & Koehler, M.J. (2015). Context and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): A systematic review. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 47(3), 186–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2015.1052663 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2015.1052663
Schmid, M., Brianza, E., & Petko, D. (2021). Self-reported technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) of pre-service teachers in relation to digital technology use in lesson plans. Computers in Human Behavior, 115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106586 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106586
Schmidt, D.A., Baran, E., & Thompson, A.D. (2009). Survey of preservice teachers' knowledge of teaching and technology. Retrieved from https://news.cehd.umn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/tpck_survey.pdf
Schmidt, D.A., Baran, E., Thompson, A.D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M.J., & Shin, T.S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2009.10782544 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2009.10782544
Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
So, H.-J., & Kim, B. (2009). Learning about problem based learning: Student teachers integrating technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(1), 101–116. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1183 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1183
Soler-Costa, R., Moreno-Guerrero, A.-J., López-Belmonte, J., & Marín-Marín, J.-A. (2021). Co-word analysis and academic performance of the term TPACK in Web of Science. Sustainability, 13, 1481. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031481 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031481
Sullivan, F.R., & Heffernan, J. (2016). Robotic construction kits as computational manipulatives for learning in the STEM disciplines. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(2), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2016.1146563 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2016.1146563
Teng, Y., & Xie, F. (2024). The deep integration of digital technology with teacher education and teaching within the TPACK framework in the digital intelligence era. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Information Technology in Medicine and Education (pp. 630–634). Guiyang, China. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITME63426.2024.00129 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ITME63426.2024.00129
Teo, T., & Milutinović, V. (2015). Modelling the intention to use technology for teaching mathematics among pre-service teachers in Serbia. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(4). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1668 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1668
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Harvard University Press.
Wasti, S.P., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E.R., Sathian, B., & Banerjee, I. (2022). The growing importance of mixed-methods research in health. Nepal Journal of Epidemiology, 12(1), 1175–1178. https://doi.org/10.3126/nje.v12i1.43633 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3126/nje.v12i1.43633
Willermark, S. (2018). Technological pedagogical and content knowledge: A review of empirical studies published from 2011 to 2016. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 56(3), 315–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117713114 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117713114
Williams, K. (2025, September 19). Volunteer sampling: What, why, when, and how. SurveySparrow
Willingham, D.T. (2009). Why don't students like school? Jossey-Bass. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118269527
Yarbro, J., McKnight, K., Elliott, S., Kurz, A., & Wardlow, L. (2016). Digital instructional strategies and their role in classroom learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(4), 274–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2016.1212632 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2016.1212632
Yin, R.K. (2018). Case study research: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage.
