Advertisement

Integration of technology by novice mathematics teachers – what facilitates such integration and what makes it difficult?

  • Hana SteinEmail author
  • Irina Gurevich
  • Dvora Gorev
Article
  • 10 Downloads

Abstract

This research focuses on attitudes of novice mathematics teachers towards the use of technological tools in their teaching. The obtained results indicated that the novice teachers believed that integrating technology into their teaching facilitates their pupils’ learning and understanding. We found that our participants were open to technological innovations and have adopted different types of digital tools (including Information and Communication Technology - ICT) for teaching and learning in a conscious and intelligent manner. Besides the benefits of using technology in teaching, we analysed also the difficulties the participants faced when doing so. The difficulties they indicated relate to effective lesson management and lack of technical support from school authorities. When comparing these results with those obtained from the same participants during their training, we observe that most of the barriers they had experienced as students-teachers had decreased considerably, and after 3 years of teaching, they, as novice teachers, had gained much self-confident in their ability to teach mathematics while integrating technological tools. However, their classroom management problems, especially dealing with pupil diversity, remained and had even increased. The current study raises the issue of school management support as a key factor for successful integration of up-to-date technology.

Keywords

Integrating technological tools Mathematics education Novice teachers ICT-TPACK 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT–TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52(1), 154–168.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, J., & Sugden, S. J. (2007). Spreadsheets in education–the first 25 years. Spreadsheets in Education (eJSiE), 1(1), 2.Google Scholar
  3. Blatchford, P., Kutnick, P., Baines, E., & Galton, M. (2003). Toward a social pedagogy of classroom group work. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1–2), 153–172.Google Scholar
  4. Buabeng-Andoh, C. (2012). Factors influencing teachers' adoption and integration of information and communication technology into teaching: A review of the literature. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 8(1), 136–155.Google Scholar
  5. Çakir, R., & Yildirim, S. (2009). What do computer teachers think about the factors affecting technology integration in schools? Elementary Education Online, 8(3), 952–964 Google Scholar.Google Scholar
  6. Clark-Wilson, A., Hoyles, C., Noss, R., Vahey, P., & Roschelle, J. (2015). Scaling a technology-based innovation: Windows on the evolution of mathematics teachers’ practices. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47, 79–92.Google Scholar
  7. Comi, S. L., Argentin, G., Gui, M., Origo, F., & Pagani, L. (2017). Is it the way they use it? Teachers, ICT and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 56, 24–39.Google Scholar
  8. De Smet, C., Bourgonjon, J., De Wever, B., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2012). Researching instructional use and the technology acceptation of learning management systems by secondary school teachers. Computers & Education, 58(2), 688–696.Google Scholar
  9. Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199.Google Scholar
  10. Desimone, L. M., Bartlett, P., Gitomer, M., Mohsin, Y., Pottinger, D., & Wallace, J. D. (2013). What they wish they had learned: Middle school math teachers feel unprepared for the diversity in their classrooms and short on content knowledge. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(7), 62–65.Google Scholar
  11. Drijvers, P. (2012). Teachers transforming resources into orchestrations. In G. Gueudet, B. Pepin, & L. Trouche (Eds.), From text to “lived” resources: mathematics curriculum materials and teacher development (pp. 265–281). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Drijvers, P. (2015). Digital technology in mathematics education: Why it works (or doesn’t). In Selected regular lectures from the 12th international congress on mathematical education (pp. 135–151). Springer, Cham. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268368816_Digital_Technology_in_Mathematics_Education_Why_It_Works_Or_Doesn't. Accessed 25 Aug 2018.
  13. Drijvers, P., Doorman, M., Boon, P., Reed, H., & Gravemeijer, K. (2010a). The teacher and the tool: Instrumental orchestrations in the technology-rich mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75(2), 213–234.Google Scholar
  14. Drijvers, P., Kieran, C., Mariotti, M. A., Ainley, J., Andresen, M., Chan, Y. C., Dana-Picard, T., Gueudet, G., Kidron, I., Leung, A., & Meagher, M. (2010b). Integrating technology into mathematics education: Theoretical perspectives. In C. Hoyles & J. B. Lagrange (Eds.), Digital technologies and mathematics teaching and learning: Rethinking the terrain. 13 (pp. 89–132). Lisbon: Springer Science + Business Media.Google Scholar
  15. Driskell, S. O., Bush, S. B., Ronau, R. N., Niess, M. L., Rakes, C. R. & Pugalee, D. K. (2018). Mathematics education technology professional development: Changes over several decades. In Teacher Training and Professional Development: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (pp. 115-144). IGI Global.Google Scholar
  16. D'Souza, S., & Wood, L. (2004). Secondary students' resistance toward incorporating computer technology into mathematics learning. Mathematics and Computer Education, 37, 284–293.Google Scholar
  17. Eickelmann, B., Gerick, J., & Koop, C. (2017). ICT use in mathematics lessons and the mathematics achievement of secondary school students by international comparison: Which role do school level factors play? Education and Information Technologies, 22(4), 1527–1551.Google Scholar
  18. Ellis, R. A. (2014). University student experiences of inquiry and technologies. In M. Gosper & D. Ifenthaler (Eds.), Curriculum models for the 21 st century: Using learning technologies in higher education (pp. 371–388). New-York: Springer Science + Business Media.Google Scholar
  19. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284.Google Scholar
  20. Fraser, V., & Garofalo, J. (2015). Novice mathematics teachers’ use of technology to enhance student engagement, questioning, generalization, and conceptual understanding. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 23(1), 29–51.Google Scholar
  21. Gikas, J., & Grant, M. M. (2013). Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student perspectives on learning with cellphones, smartphones & social media. The Internet and Higher Education, 19, 18–26.Google Scholar
  22. Goktas, Y., Gedik, N., & Baydas, O. (2013). Enablers and barriers to the use of ICT in primary schools in Turkey: A comparative study of 2005–2011. Computers & Education, 68, 211–222.Google Scholar
  23. Goos, M., Soury-Lavergne, S., Assude, T., Brown, J., Kong, C. M., Glover, D., Grugeon, B., Laborde, C., Lavicza, Z., Miller, D., & Sinclair, M. (2010). Teachers and teaching: Theoretical perspectives and issues concerning classroom implementation. In C. Hoyles & J.-B. Lagrange (Eds.), Digital technologies and mathematics teaching and learning: Rethinking the terrain (Mathematics education and technology—rethinking the terrain: new ICMI study series) (Vol. 13, pp. 311–328). Lisbon: Springer Science and Business Media.Google Scholar
  24. Groff, J., & Mouza, C. (2008). A framework for addressing challenges to classroom technology use. AACE Journal, 16(1), 21–46.Google Scholar
  25. Guberman, R., & Gorev, D. (2015). Knowledge concerning the mathematical horizon: A close view. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 27(2), 165–182.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-014-0136-5.Google Scholar
  26. Gurevich, I., & Gorev, D. (2012). Examining the impact of an integrative method of using technology on students’ achievement, efficiency of computer usage and pedagogic procedure in geometry. The International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 19(3), 95–104.Google Scholar
  27. Gurevich, I. & Gorev, D. (2015). The challenge for mathematics teacher educators: Leading students toward teaching in a technological environment. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching (ICTMT). Faro, Portugal.Google Scholar
  28. Gurevich, I., Stein, H., & Gorev, D. (2017). Tracking professional development of novice teachers when integrating technology in teaching mathematics. Computers in the Schools, 34(4), 267–283.Google Scholar
  29. Hammond, M., Fragkouli, E., Suandi, I., Crosson, S., Ingram, J., Johnston-Wilder, P., & Wray, D. (2009). What happens as student teachers who made very good use of ICT during pre-service training enter their first year of teaching? Teacher Development, 13(2), 93–106.Google Scholar
  30. Healy, L., & de Carvalho, C. C. S. (2014). Evidence-based, theoretically informed design as a means to investigate and transform proof practices in school mathematics. Teaching mathematics and its Applications, 33(3), 150–165.Google Scholar
  31. Hershkowitz, R., Dreyfus, T., Ben-Zvi, D., Friedlander, A., Hadas, N., Resnick, T., Tabach, M., & Schwarz, B. (2002). Mathematics curriculum development for computerized environments: A designer-researcher-teacher-learner activity. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 657–694). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  32. Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223–252.Google Scholar
  33. Hinostroza, J. E., Ibieta, A. I., Claro, M., & Labbé, C. (2016). Characterisation of teachers’ use of computers and internet inside and outside the classroom: The need to focus on the quality. Education and Information Technologies, 21(6), 1595–1610.Google Scholar
  34. Hollebrands, K. F. (2007). The role of a dynamic software program for geometry in the strategies high school mathematics students employ. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(2), 164–192.Google Scholar
  35. Jang, S. J., & Tsai, M. F. (2013). Exploring the TPACK of Taiwanese secondary school science teachers using a new contextualized TPACK model. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(4), 566–580 Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education.Google Scholar
  36. Joshi, D. R. (2017). Influence of ICT in mathematics teaching. International Journal for Innovative Research in Multidisciplinary Field, 3(1), 7–11.Google Scholar
  37. Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., & Wachira, P. (2008). Computer technology integration and student learning: Barriers and promise. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(6), 560–565.Google Scholar
  38. Kieran, C., & Yerushalmy, M. (2004). Research on the role of technological environments in algebra learning and teaching. In The Future of the Teaching and Learning of Algebra The 12thICMI Study (pp. 97–152). Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  39. Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.Google Scholar
  40. Kopcha, T. J. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and practices with technology under situated professional development. Computers & Education, 59(4), 1109–1121.Google Scholar
  41. McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. (2007). Social software and participatory learning: Pedagogical choices with technology affordances in the Web 2.0 eraGoogle Scholar
  42. McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. (2010). Personalised and self-regulated learning in the Web 2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), 28–43.Google Scholar
  43. Ministry of Education, the Pedagogical Director, Israel (2011) Innovative pedagogy or quality pedagogy in an innovative environment? (in Hebrew). Retrived on 23.6.19 from: http://cms.education.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/30FB0425-3CDB-4467-B5F0-E63A88728FE4/121933/27.pdf.
  44. Minocha, S. (2009). Role of social software tools in education: A literature review. Education + Training, 51(5/6), 353–369.Google Scholar
  45. Mukama, E., & Andersson, S. B. (2008). Coping with change in ICT-based learning environments: Newly qualified Rwandan teachers’ reflections. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(2), 156–166.Google Scholar
  46. Mwalongo, A. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions about ICTs for teaching, professional development, administration and personal use. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, 7(3), 36–49.Google Scholar
  47. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston: NCTM.Google Scholar
  48. Nuggent, G., Soh, L., & Samal, A. (2006). Design, development, and validation of learning objects. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 34(3), 271–281.Google Scholar
  49. Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Brush, T. A., Strycker, J., Gronseth, S., Roman, T., Abaci, S., & Plucker, J. (2012). Preparation versus practice: How do teacher education programs and practicing teachers align in their use of technology to support teaching and learning? Computers & Education, 59(2), 399–411.Google Scholar
  50. Ozgun-Koca, S. A., Meagher, M., & Edwards, M. T. (2010). Preservice teachers’ emerging TPACK in a technology-rich methods class. Mathematics Educator, 19(2), 10–20.Google Scholar
  51. Perrotta, C. (2013). Do school-level factors influence the educational benefits of digital technology? A critical analysis of teachers’ perceptions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(2), 314–327.Google Scholar
  52. Pierce, R., & Ball, L. (2009). Perceptions that may affect teachers’ intention to use technology in secondary mathematics classes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 71(3), 299–317.Google Scholar
  53. Reid, P. (2014). Categories for barriers to adoption of instructional technologies. Education and Information Technologies, 19(2), 383–407.Google Scholar
  54. Ruthven, K. (2018). Instructional activity and student interaction with digital resources. In Research on Mathematics Textbooks and Teachers’ Resources (pp. 261–275). Springer, ChamGoogle Scholar
  55. Ruthven, K., & Lavicza, Z. (2011). Didactical conceptualization of dynamic mathematical approaches: Example analysis from the InnoMathEd program. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 6(2), 89–110.Google Scholar
  56. Sang, G., Valcke, M., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2010). Student teachers’ thinking processes and ICT integration: Predictors of prospective teaching behaviors with educational technology. Computers & Education, 54(1), 103–112.Google Scholar
  57. Seidel, J. (1995). Different Functions of Coding in the Analysis of Textual Data'in U. Kelle (editor) Computer-Aided Qualitative Data Analysis: Theory, Methods and Practice.Google Scholar
  58. Selwyn, N. (2016). Digital downsides: Exploring university students’ negative engagements with digital technology. Teaching in Higher Education, 21, 1006–1021.Google Scholar
  59. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.Google Scholar
  60. Sung, Y., Chang, K., & Liu, T. (2016). The effects of integrating mobile devices with teaching and learning on students’ learning performance: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Computers & Education, 94, 252–275.Google Scholar
  61. Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2017). Understanding the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: A systematic review of qualitative evidence. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(3), 555–575.Google Scholar
  62. Trouche, L. (2005). Instrumental genesis, individual and social aspects. In D. Guin, K. Ruthven, & L. Trouche (Eds.), The didactical challenge of symbolic calculators (pp. 197–230). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  63. Wu, W., Jim Wu, Y., Chen, C., Kao, H., Lin, C., & Huang, S. (2012). Review of trends from mobile learning studies: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 59(2), 817–827.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Achva Academic CollegeArugotIsrael

Personalised recommendations