Examines the link between technology integration knowledge and instructional practice in K-8 science classrooms, highlighting a gap in transformative use.
The quality of technology integration in K-8 science classrooms has significant implications for educational equity, particularly in minority–majority districts where teacher practice is among the strongest predictors of STEM persistence among underserved populations. This study examined the extent to which K-8 science teachers’ technology integration knowledge translated into transformative instructional practice within a large, minority–majority district in the U.S, using the frameworks of Information and communication technology (ICT)-Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) and Passive, Interactive, Creative, Replacement, Amplification, Transformative (PICRAT) model. Technology integration planning knowledge was assessed using the ICT-TPACK instrument across elementary and middle school teachers. Instructional practice was rated using the PICRAT framework applied to teachers’ open-ended descriptions of their technology use. These responses also provided contextual illustration of quantitative patterns. Results indicate that while middle school teachers demonstrated significantly higher ICT-TPACK planning knowledge, this advantage primarily reinforced foundational science concepts through passive consumption rather than facilitating student agency. PICRAT analysis revealed that technology use across all grade levels was dominated by Replacement and Amplification practices, while creative and transformative uses remained nearly absent. These findings reveal a persistent knowing–doing gap in which planning knowledge did not translate into transformative enacted practice. Implications for equity-focused professional development and structural supports moving K-8 science teachers toward more transformative technology integration are discussed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mensah et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: