Advertisement

Exploring the Quantitative and Qualitative Gap Between Expectation and Implementation: A Survey of English Mathematics Teachers’ Uses of ICT

  • Nicola BretscherEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Mathematics Education in the Digital Era book series (MEDE, volume 2)

Abstract

This chapter reports the results of a survey of English secondary school mathematics teachers’ technology use (n = 188). Set within the context of a broader study aiming to develop a deeper understanding of how and why mathematics teachers use technology in their classroom practice, the survey findings are used to explore the widely perceived quantitative gap and qualitative gap between the reality of teachers’ use of ICT and the potential for ICT suggested by research and policy. Teachers were asked about their access to hardware and software; their perception of the impact of hardware on students’ learning; the frequency of their use of ICT resources; their pedagogic practices in relation to ICT; and school and individual-level factors which may influence their use of ICT. This survey suggests that given the right conditions, at least those currently existing in England, ICT might contribute as a lever for change; however, the direction of this change might be construed as an incremental shift towards more teacher-centred practices rather than encouraging more student-centred practices.

Keywords

Technology integration Mathematics education Teachers’ ICT practices Hardware and software use 

References

  1. Adler, J. (2001). Teaching mathematics in multilingual classrooms. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  2. Andrews, P. (1997). Information technology in the mathematics national curriculum: Policy begets practice? British Journal of Educational Technology, 28(4), 244–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Argyris, C., & Schoen, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Fracnsico: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  4. Assude, T., Buteau, C., & Forgasz, H. (2010). Factors influencing implementation of technology-rich mathematics curriculum and practices. In C. Hoyles & J.-B. Lagrange (Eds.), The 17th ICMI study: Mathematics education and technology – rethinking the terrain (pp. 405–419). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Becker, H. J., Ravitz, J. L., & Wong, Y. T. (1999). Teacher and teacher-directed student use of computers and software. Technical Report #3: Teaching, learning and computing, 1998 national survey. Irvine: University of California at Irvine.Google Scholar
  6. Bretscher, N. (2011). A survey of technology use: The rise of interactive whiteboards and the MyMaths website. Proceedings of the Seventh Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education CERME 7. Rzeszow.Google Scholar
  7. Clark-Wilson, A. (2008). Evaluating TI-Nspire in secondary mathematics classrooms. Chichester: University of Chichester.Google Scholar
  8. Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms 1880–1990 (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. DES. (1989). Mathematics in the national curriculum. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  11. Fischer Family Trust. (2003). ICT Surveys & Research: ICT resources used in mathematics. http://www.fischertrust.org/ict_sec.aspx. Accessed 2009.
  12. Forgasz, H. (2002). Teachers and computers for secondary mathematics. Education and Information Technologies, 7(2), 111–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Forgasz, H. (2006). Factors that encourage or inhibit computer use for secondary mathematics teaching. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 25(1), 77–93.Google Scholar
  14. Gueudet, G., & Trouche, L. (2009). Towards new documentation systems for mathematics teachers? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 71(3), 199–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hadley, M., & Sheingold, K. (1993). Commonalities and distinctive patterns in Teachers’ integration of computers. American Journal of Education, 101(3), 261–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harrison, C., Comber, C., Fisher, T., Haw, K., Lewin, C., Lunzer, E., et al. (2003). ImpaCT2: The impact of information and communication technologies on pupil learning and attainment. Coventry: Becta.Google Scholar
  17. Hyde, R. (2004). A snapshot of practice: Views of teachers on the use and impact of technology in secondary mathematics classrooms. International congress on mathematics education. CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  18. Key Curriculum Press. (2003). The Geometer’s Sketchpad v.4. Emeryville: Key Curriculum Press.Google Scholar
  19. Kitchen, S., Finch, S., & Sinclair, R. (2007). Harnessing technology: Schools survey 2007. Coventry: National Centre for Social Research.Google Scholar
  20. Lagrange, J.-B., & Erdogan, E. O. (2008). Teachers’ Emergent goals in spreadsheet-based lessons: Analyzing the complexity of technology integration. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 71(1), 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Law, N., Pelgrum, W. J., & Plomp, T. (2008). Pedagogy and ICT use in schools around the world: Findings from the IEA SITES 2006 study. Hong Kong: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Miller, D., & Glover, D. (2006). Interactive whiteboard evaluation for the secondary national strategy: Developing the use of interactive whiteboards in mathematics. Keele: Keele University.Google Scholar
  23. Moss, G., Jewitt, C., Levaaic, R., Armstrong, V., Cardini, A., & Castle, F. (2007). The interactive whiteboards, pedagogy and pupil performance evaluation: An evaluation of the schools whiteboard expansion (SWE) project: London challenge. London: Institute of Education.Google Scholar
  24. Mullis, I., Martin, M., & Foy, P. (2008). TIMSS 2007 international mathematics report. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Centre, Boston College.Google Scholar
  25. OECD. (2005). Are students ready for a technology-rich world? What PISA studies tell us. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  26. Ofsted. (2008). Mathematics – understanding the score. London: Ofsted.Google Scholar
  27. Oxford University Press. (2012). MyMaths.co.uk. Oxford: Oxford University Press. www.mymaths.co.uk. Accessed 15 Oct 2012.
  28. Pampaka, M., Williams, J., Hutcheson, G. D., Wake, G., Black, L., Davis, P., et al. (2012). The association between mathematics pedagogy and learners’ dispositions for university study. British Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 473–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pierce, R., & Stacey, K. (2010). Mapping pedagogical opportunities provided by mathematics analysis software. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 15(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ruthven, K. (2009). Towards a naturalistic conceptualisation of technology integration in classroom practice: The example of school mathematics. Education and Didactique, 3(1), 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ruthven, K., & Hennessy, S. (2002). A practitioner model of the use of computer-based tools and resources to support mathematics teaching and learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49(1), 47–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ruthven, K., Hennessy, S., & Deaney, R. (2008). Constructions of dynamic geometry: A study of the interpretative flexibility of educational software in classroom practice. Computers in Education, 51(1), 297–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Selwyn, N. (2000). Researching computers and education – glimpses of the wider picture. Computers in Education, 34, 93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Selwyn, N. (2008). Realising the potential of new technology? Assessing the legacy of New Labour’s ICT agenda 1997–2007. Oxford Review of Education, 34(6), 701–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Spillane, J. P. (2006). Standards deviation: How schools misunderstand education policy. London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Stein, M. K., Remillard, J. T., & Smith, M. (2007). How curriculum influences student learning. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 319–370). Charlotte: Information Age Publishers.Google Scholar
  38. Thompson, A. G. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of research. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 127–146). Oxford: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  39. Wong, N.-Y. (2003). The influence of technology on the mathematics curriculum. In A. J. Bishop, M. A. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F. K. S. Leung (Eds.), Second international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 271–321). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zammit, S. A. (1992). Factors facilitating or hindering the use of computers in schools. Educational Research, 34(1), 57–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zbiek, R. M., Heid, M. K., & Dick, T. P. (2007). Research on technology in mathematics education: A perspective of constructs. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Charlotte: Information Age Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kings CollegeUniversity of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations