Advertisement

Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 71, Issue 3, pp 299–317 | Cite as

Perceptions that may affect teachers’ intention to use technology in secondary mathematics classes

  • Robyn PierceEmail author
  • Lynda BallEmail author
Article

Abstract

Technology is available and accessible in many mathematics classrooms. Adopting technology to support teaching and learning requires teachers to change their teaching practices. This paper reports the responses of a diverse cohort of 92 secondary mathematics teachers who chose to respond to an Australian state-wide survey (Mathematics with Technology Perceptions Survey) developed using a Theory of Planned Behaviour framework. The items discussed in this paper targeted mathematics teachers’ perceptions of possible barriers and enablers to their intention to use technology in their teaching. The responses are varied but, overall, strength of agreement with enablers outweighed agreement with perceived barriers. However, it is clear that despite an overall positive attitude towards the use of technology for teaching mathematics, some perceived barriers to change are notable. It is, therefore, helpful if those responsible for professional development, promoting the use of technology, recognise and address these barriers as well as working to strengthening enablers.

Keywords

Teachers’ perceptions Technology Secondary mathematics Theory of planned behaviour Computer Calculator 

Notes

Acknowledgement

The authors wish to thank the reviewers for their detailed constructive comments and direction to additional literature.

References

  1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 197–211. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ajzen, I. (n.d.) The theory of planned behavior bibliography. Retrieved 22nd April 2008 from http://people.umass.edu/Ajzen/tpbrefs.html.
  3. Ball, L., & Stacey, K. (2005). Teaching strategies for developing judicious technology use. In W. J. Masalski, & P. C. Elliott (Eds.), Technology-supported mathematics learning environments (2005 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Yearbook) (pp. 3–15). Reston: NCTM.Google Scholar
  4. Baylor, A. L., & Ritchie, D. (2002). What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and perceived student learning in technology-using classrooms? Computers & Education, 39, 395–414. doi: 10.1016/S0360-1315(02)00075-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. British Educational Communications and Technology Agency. (2004). A review of the research literature on barriers to the uptake of ICT by teachers. Retrieved July 28th, 2008 from http://partners.becta.org.uk/upload-dir/downloads/page_documents/research/barriers.pdf.
  6. Cedillo, T., & Kieran, C. (2003). Initiating students into algebra with symbol-manipulating calculators. In J.T. Fey, A. Cuoco, C. Kieran, L. McMullin, & R. M. Zbiek (Eds.), Computer algebra systems in secondary school mathematics education (pp. 219–240). Reston: NCTM.Google Scholar
  7. Coffland, D., & Strickland, A. (2004). Factors related to teacher use of technology in secondary geometry instruction. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 2(4), 347–365.Google Scholar
  8. DEECD.(2007). Department of Education and Early Childhood Development Annual Reports 2006-2007. Retrieved 10th July 2008 from http://www.education.vic.gov.au/about/publications/annualreport/annual2007.htm.
  9. 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
  10. Forgasz, H. J., & Griffith, S. (2006). Computer algebra system calculators: gender issues and teachers’ expectations. Australian Senior Mathematics Journal, 20(2), 18–29.Google Scholar
  11. Francis, J., Eccles, M., Johnston, M., Walker, A., Grimshaw, J., Foy, R., et al. (2004). Constructing questionnaires based on the theory of planned behaviour: A manual for health services researchers. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: University of Newcastle.Google Scholar
  12. Gardiner, T. (2001). Education or castration? Micromath, 17(1), 6–8.Google Scholar
  13. Harris, K.-L., & Jensz, F. (2006). The preparation of mathematics teachers in Australia. The University of Melbourne: Centre for the Study of Higher Education, Retrieved 10th July 2008 from http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/pdfs/Prep_Math_Teach_Aust.pdf.
  14. Hennessy, S., Ruthven, K., & Brindley, S. (2005). Teacher perspectives on integrating ICT into subject teaching: commitment, constraints, caution and change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(2), 155–192. doi: 10.1080/0022027032000276961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Herget, W., Heugl, H., Kutzler, B., & Lehmann, E. (2000). Indispensable manual calculation skills in a CAS environment. Micromath, 16(3), 8–17.Google Scholar
  16. Kendal, M., & Stacey, K. (2002). Teachers in transition: Moving towards CAS-supported classrooms. In E. Schneider (Ed.), Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 34(5), 196–203.Google Scholar
  17. Macintyre, T., & Forbes, I. (2002). Algebraic skills and CAS—could assessment sabotage the potential. International Journal of Computer Algebra in Mathematics Education, 9(1), 29–56.Google Scholar
  18. Mehta, C. R., & Patel, N. R. (1996). SPSS Exact tests 7.0 for Windows. Chicago: SPSS Inc.Google Scholar
  19. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mumtaz, S. (2000). Factors affecting teachers’ use of information and communications technology: a review of the literature. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 9(3), 319–342.Google Scholar
  21. Pierce, D., & Gunn, J. (2007). GP’s use of problem solving for depression: a qualitative study of barriers to and enablers of evidence based care. BMC Family Practice, 8, 24. doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-8-24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pierce, R., Stacey, K., & Bartaksas, A. (2007). A scale for monitoring students' attitudes to learning mathematics with technology. Computers & Education, 48(2), 285–300. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2005.01.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Prochaska, J., & DiClemente, C. (1983). Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: towards an integrative model of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 390–395. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.51.3.390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Routitsky, A., & Tobin, P. (1998). A survey of graphics calculator use in Victorian secondary schools. In C. Kanes, M. Goos, & E. Warren (Eds.), Teaching Mathematics in New Times. Proceedings of 21st Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 484–491). Sydney: MERGA.Google Scholar
  25. Ruthven, K., & Hennessey, 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, 47–88. doi: 10.1023/A:1016052130572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Scrimshaw, P. (2004). Enabling teachers to make successful use of ICT. Coventry: BECTA.Google Scholar
  27. Sugar, W., Crawley, F., & Fine, B. (2005). Critiquing theory of planned behaviour as a method to assess teacher’s technology integration attitudes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 331–334. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00462.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Thomas, M. O. J., Hong, Y. Y., Bosley, J., & Delos Santos, A. G. (2006). Use of calculators in the mathematics classroom. The Electronic Journal of Mathematics and Technology, 2(2), 229–242.Google Scholar
  29. Thomas, M. O. J., Tyrrell, J., & Bullock, J. (1996). Using computers in the mathematics classroom: the role of the teacher. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 8(1), 38–57.Google Scholar
  30. Tobin, P., Routitsky, A., & Jones, P. (1999). Graphics calculators in Victorian secondary schools: Teacher perceptions. In J. M. Truran, & K. M. Truran (Eds.), Making the difference. Proceedings of 22nd Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 502–506). Sydney: MERGA.Google Scholar
  31. Tynan, D. (2003). Student caricatures in a CAS classroom. In B. Clarke, A. Bishop, R. Cameron, H. Forgasz, & W. T. Seah (Eds.), Making mathematicians. Proceedings of the 40th Annual Conference of the MAV (pp. 311–319). Melbourne: Mathematical Association of Victoria.Google Scholar
  32. Vale, C., & Leder, G. (2004). Student views of computer based mathematics in the middle years: Does gender make a difference? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 56(3), 287–312. doi: 10.1023/B:EDUC.0000040411.94890.56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. VCAA. (2005a). Victorian Essential Learning Standards. Retrieved December 7, 2007 from Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority Web site: http://vels.vcaa.vic.edu.au/downloads/vels_standards/velsrevisedmathematics.pdf.
  34. VCAA. (2005b). VCE mathematics study design. Retrieved December 7, 2007 from Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority Web site: http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/vce/studies/mathematics/mathstd.pdf.
  35. Veen, W. (1993). How teachers use computers in instructional practice: Four case studies in a Dutch secondary school. Computers & Education, 21(1/2), 1–8. doi: 10.1016/0360-1315(93)90041-G.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Melbourne Graduate School of EducationThe University of MelbourneVictoriaAustralia

Personalised recommendations