Advertisement

The Bridge21 Model of 21st Century Learning in the Mathematics Classroom – Teachers’ Perspectives

  • Aibhín BrayEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 739)

Abstract

Research highlights a need for a structured approach, consistent support and continuous professional development for teachers in order to facilitate the development of 21st Century pedagogies and the integration of technology, as well as to support their changing role in the classroom. This chapter describes a particular model of 21st Century teaching and learning, and explores teachers’ experiences of its implementation in their classrooms. A total of 15 teachers who attended a Contextual Mathematics module on a postgraduate certificate course provided consent for their data to be used in this study. A qualitative, case study approach has been taken in order to explore the teachers’ experiences of using the model of teaching and learning, as well as their perceptions of the students’ experiences. A constant comparative analytic technique has been used to analyze their written reflections. Results indicate that the approach has the potential to address many of the issues associated with the integration of 21st Century teaching and learning, identified in the literature.

Keywords

21st century learning Post-primary education Mathematics education Continuous professional development 

References

  1. 1.
    Voogt, J., Pelgrum, H.: ICT and curriculum change. Hum. Technol. 1(2), 157–175 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dede, C.: Technological supports for acquiring 21st century skills. In: International Encyclopedia of Education, pp. 158–166 (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dede, C.: Comparing frameworks for 21st century skills. In: Bellanca, J., Brandt, R. (eds.) 21st Century Skills: Rethinking How Students Learn, pp. 51–76. Solution Tree Press, Bloomington (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fullan, M., Langworthy, M.: A Rich Seam: How New Pedagogies Find Deep Learning, vol. 100. Pearson, London (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Voogt, J., Roblin, N.P.: A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences: implications for national curriculum policies. J. Curriculum Stud. 44(3), 299–321 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Martin, A., Grudziecki, J.: DigEuLit: concepts and tools for digital literacy development. Innov. Teach. Learn. Inf. Comput. Sci. 5(4), 249–267 (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ertmer, P.A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A.T.: Teacher technology change: how knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 42(3), 255–284 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Conneely, C., Lawlor, J., Tangney, B.: Technology, teamwork and 21st century skills in the irish classroom. In: Marshall, K. (ed.) Shaping Our Future: How the Lessons of the Past Can Shape Educational Transformation. Liffey Press, Dublin (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Conneely, C., et al.: 21 century learning - teachers’ and students’ experiences and views of the bridge21 approach within mainstream education. In: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (SITE), pp. 5125–5132 (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Conole, G.: New schemas for mapping pedagogies and technologies. Ariadne 56, 2 (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Commission of the European Communities, Improving competences for the 21st Century: An Agenda for European Cooperation on Schools (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Euler, M., Maaß, K.: Report about the survey on inquiry-based learning and teaching in the European partner countries. In: Maaß, K., (ed.) PRIMAS (Promoting Inquiry-Based Learning in Mathematics and Science Education Across Europe), University of Education Freiburg, Freiburg (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maaß, K., Artigue, M.: Implementation of inquiry-based learning in day-to-day teaching: a synthesis. ZDM 45(6), 779–795 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bridge21, Postgraduate Certificate in 21st Century Teaching and Learning Course Handbook 2014/2015. Dublin, Trinity College Dublin (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Donnelly, D., McGarr, O., O’Reilly, J.: A framework for teachers’ integration of ICT into their classroom practice. Comput. Educ. 57(2), 1469–1483 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bray, A., Oldham, E., Tangney, B.: The human catapult and other stories – adventures with technology in mathematics education. In: 11th International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching (ICTMT11), pp. 77–83 (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bray, A., Tangney, B.: Mathematics, pedagogy and technology - seeing the wood from the trees. In: 5th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2013), pp. 57–63 (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bray, A., Tangney, B.: Barbie bungee jumping, technology and contextual learning of mathematics. In: 6th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2014), vol. 3, pp. 206–213 (2014)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bray, A., Tangney, B.: Enhancing student engagement through the affordances of mobile technology: a 21st century learning perspective on realistic mathematics education. Mathe. Educ. Res. J. 28(1), 173–197 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lawlor, J., Conneely, C., Tangney, B.: Towards a pragmatic model for group-based, technology-mediated, project-oriented learning–an overview of the B2C model. In: Lytras, M.D., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2010 TechEduca Conference, Athens, pp. 602–609 (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lawlor, J., Marshall, K., Tangney, B.: Bridge21 – exploring the potential to foster intrinsic student motivation through a team-based, technology mediated learning mode. Technol. Pedagogy Educ. 25(2), 1–20 (2015)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Conneely, C., Girvan, C., Tangney, B.: An exploratory case study into the adaption of the bridge21 model for 21st century learning in irish classrooms. In: Butler, D., Marshall, K., Leahy, M. (eds.) Shaping our Future: How the Lessons of the Past Can Shape Educational Transformation, pp. 348–381. Liffey Press, Dublin (2015)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Department of Education and Skills, A Framework for Junior Cycle. Department of Education and Skills, Dublin (2012)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bénard, D.: A method of non-formal education for young people from 11 to 15. In: Handbook for Leaders of the Scout Section. World Scout Bureau, Geneva (2002)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Brown, T.: Design thinking. Harvard Bus. Rev. 86(6), 84 (2008)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tangney, B., Bray, A., Oldham, E.: Realistic mathematics education, mobile technology & the bridge21 model for 21st century learning - a perfect storm. In: Crompton, H., Traxler, J. (eds.) Mobile Learning and Mathematics: Foundations, Design, and Case Studies, Routledge, Oxon, UK, pp. 96–106 (2015)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ainley, J., et al.: Digital technologies and mathematics education. In: Clark-Wilson, A., Oldknow, A., Sutherland, R. (eds.) JMC Report, Joint Mathematical Council of the United Kingdom, London UK (2011)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Drijvers, P., et al.: Integrating technology into mathematics education: theoretical perspectives. In: Hoyles, C., Lagrange, J.-B. (eds.) Mathematics Education and Technology-Rethinking the Terrain: The 17th ICMI Study, pp. 89–132. Springer, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hoyles, C., Lagrange, J.B.: Mathematics Education and Technology: Rethinking the Terrain: The 17th ICMI Study, vol. 13. Springer, New York (2010)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Olive, J., et al.: Mathematical knowledge and practices resulting from access to digital technologies. In: Hoyles, C., Lagrange, J.B. (eds.) Mathematics Education and Technology - Rethinking the Terrain: The 17th ICMI Study, pp. 133–177. Springer, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Li, Q., Ma, X.: A meta-analysis of the effects of computer technology on school students’ mathematics learning. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 22(3), 215–243 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Patten, B., Sánchez, I.A., Tangney, B.: Designing collaborative, constructionist and contextual applications for handheld devices. Comput. Educ. 46(3), 294–308 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wijers, M., Jonker, V., Kerstens, K.: MobileMath: the phone, the game and the math. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Game Based Learning, pp. 507–516 (2008)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bray, A., Oldham, E., Tangney, B.: Technology-mediated realistic mathematics education and the Bridge21 model: a teaching experiment. In: Krainer, K., Vondrová, N. (eds.) Ninth Congress of European Research in Mathematics Education (CERME9), European Society for Research in Mathematics Education Prague, pp. 2487–2494 (2015)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Freudenthal, H.: Revisiting Mathematics Education: China Lectures. Mathematics Education Library, vol. 9. Springer, Dordrecht (1991). Bishop, A.J. (ed.)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Clements, M.A., et al.: From the few to the many: historical perspectives on who should learn mathematics. In: Clements, M.A., et al. (eds.) Third International Handbook of Mathematics Education, pp. 7–40. Springer, New York (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gravemeijer, K.: Developing Realistic Mathematics Education (Ontwikkelen van realistisch reken/wiskundeonderwijs). CD-Beta-Press, Utrecht (1994)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Noss, R., et al.: Broadening the sense of ‘dynamic’: a microworld to support students’ mathematical generalisation. ZDM 41(4), 493–503 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M.: Realistic mathematics education: work in progress. common sense in mathematics education. In: The Netherlands and Taiwan Conference on Mathematics Education, pp. 1–39 (2002)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Strauss, A.L., Corbin, J.M.: Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory 3e, 3rd edn. Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks (2008)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Puentedura, R.: Transformation, Technology, and Education (2006). http://hippasus.com/resources/tte/
  42. 42.
    Glaser, B.G.: The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Soc. Probl. 12(4), 436–445 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Means, B.: Technology and education change: Focus on student learning. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 42(3), 285–307 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Pierce, R., Stacey, K., Barkatsas, A.: A scale for monitoring students’ attitudes to learning mathematics with technology. Comput. Educ. 48(2), 285–300 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bray, A.: Collaborative, contextual, and technology-mediated mathematics learning activities: design heuristics and effects on student engagement. In: School of Computer Science & Statistics. Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin, Dublin (2016)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Bray, A.: Teachers’ experiences of the integration of 21st century learning in the mathematics classroom – the Bridge21 model in action. In: 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2016), vol. 2, pp. 219–230 (2016)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Boaler, J.: Encouraging the transfer of ‘school’ mathematics to the ‘real world’ through the integration of process and content, context and culture. Educ. Stud. Mathe. 25(4), 341–373 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Albert, L.R., Kim, R.: Developing creativity through collaborative problem solving. J. Mathe. Educ. Teach. Coll. 4(2), 32–38 (2013)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Oldknow, A.: Their world, our world—bridging the divide. Teach. Mathe. Appl. 28(4), 180–195 (2009)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Green, H., Hannon, C.: Their Space. Education for a Digital Generation, in ICTlogy. Demos, London (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Education and School of Computer Science and Statistics, Trinity Centre for Research in IT in Education, Trinity College DublinThe University of DublinDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations