Advertisement

Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 620–636 | Cite as

Barriers to technology implementation in community college mathematics classrooms

  • Stephen J. Pape
  • Sherri K. Prosser
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Algebra has been called the gatekeeper to higher level mathematics, college success, and higher wages, but many community college students struggle to pass college-level mathematics courses. The National Educational Technology Plan for higher education (U.S. Department of Education 2017b) calls for the integration of technology, such as real-time formative assessments, to support student learning. Community college faculty, however, struggle to implement technology to support student learning. The purpose of this ethnographic study is to describe barriers to technology implementation from the perspectives of mathematics community college instructors. A rural community college in the southeastern United States had a goal of increasing student success rates in developmental and college algebra courses by engaging in professional development to incorporate classroom connectivity technology, the Texas Instruments Navigator system coupled with the Nspire calculator, within their algebra sequence. Over the course of 3 years, mathematics faculty participated in 27 professional development days, provided input for lesson creation and revision, and had ongoing classroom support. Faculty interviews were conducted postintervention and analyzed using a grounded theory approach (Charmaz 2006). Barriers to the implementation of classroom connectivity technology at the instructor level included faculty beliefs about mathematics teaching and learning and about students’ abilities. Other findings included lack of time for planning, inadequate technical support, lack of agency related to the college’s quality enhancement plan, and the perception of misalignment between the activities and the state-mandated curriculum. Implications for supporting technology implementation in higher education will be discussed.

Keywords

Classroom connectivity technology Technology integration Community college Mathematics Discourse Professional development 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Attewell, P., Lavin, D., Domina, T., & Levey, T. (2006). New evidence on college remediation. The Journal of Higher Education, 77, 886–924.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2006.11778948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailey, T., Jeong, D. W., & Cho, S.-W. (2010). Referral, enrollment, and completion in developmental education sequences in community colleges. Economics of Education Review, 29, 255–270.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2009.09.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burnstein, R. A., & Lederman, L. M. (2001). Using wireless keypads in lecture classes. The Physics Teacher, 39, 8–11.  https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1343420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Butler, D. L., & Sellbom, M. (2002). Barriers to adopting technology. Educause Quarterly, 2, 22–28. Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu.
  5. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Chen, X. (2016). Remedial coursetaking at U.S. public 2- and 4-year institutions: Scope, experiences, and outcomes (NCES 2016-405). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2016/2016405.pdf.
  7. Chuang, Y.-T. (2014). SSCLS: A smartphone-supported collaborative learning system. Telematics and Infomatics, 32, 463–474.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2014.10.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Daher, T., & Lazarevic, B. (2014). Emerging instructional technologies: Exploring the extent of faculty use of web 2.0 tools at a Midwestern community college. TechTrends, 58, 42–50.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-014-0802-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Edwards, A. R., Sandoval, C., & McNamara, H. (2015). Designing for improvement in professional development for community college developmental mathematics faculty. Journal of Teacher Education, 66, 466–481.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487115602313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first-and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47, 47–61.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 25–39.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59, 423–435.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fike, D. S., & Fike, R. (2008). Predictors of first-year student retention in the community college. Community College Review, 36, 68–88.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552108320222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Flick, U. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research (4th ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Fortner-Wood, C., Armistead, L., Marchand, A., & Morris, F. B. (2013). The effects of student response systems on student learning and attitudes in undergraduate psychology courses. Teaching of Psychology, 40, 26–30.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628312465860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  17. Goos, M., & Bennison, A. (2008). Surveying the technology landscape: Teachers’ use of technology in secondary mathematics classrooms. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20, 102–130.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Groff, J., & Mouza, C. (2008). A framework for addressing challenges to classroom technology use. AACE Journal, 16, 21–46. Retrieved from http://www.aace.org/pubs/aacej.
  19. Hassanin, H., Essa, K., El-Sayed, M. A., & Attallah, M. M. (2016). Enhancement of student learning and feedback of large group engineering lectures using audience response systems. Journal of Materials Education, 38, 175–190. Retrieved from http://www.icme.unt.edu/journal.html.
  20. Hegedus, S. J., & Moreno-Armella, L. (2009). Intersecting representation and communication infrastructures. ZDM Mathematics Education, 41, 399–412.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-009-0191-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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, 223–252.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-9022-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. International Society for Technology in Education. (2016). ISTE standards for students. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards.
  23. Irving, K. E., Pape, S. J., Owens, D. T., Abrahamson, L., Silver, D., & Sanalan, V. (2016). Classroom connectivity and Algebra 1 achievement: A three-year longitudinal study. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 35, 131–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2015). NMC Horizon report: 2015 higher (education ed.). Austin: The New Media Consortium.Google Scholar
  25. Jonassen, D., Howland, J., Marra, R. M., & Crismond, D. (2008). Meaningful learning with technology (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  26. Kopcha, T. J. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and practices with technology under situated professional development. Computers & Education, 59, 1109–1121.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Koro-Ljungberg, M., Yendol-Hoppey, D., Smith, J. J., & Hayes, S. B. (2009). (E)pistemological awareness, instantiation of methods, and uninformed methodological ambiguity in qualitative research projects. Educational Researcher, 38, 687–699.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09351980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lee, H., Feldman, A., & Beatty, I. D. (2012). Factors that affect science and mathematics teachers’ initial implementation of technology-enhanced formative assessment using a classroom response system. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21, 523–539.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9344-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mueller, J., Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Ross, C., & Specht, J. (2008). Identifying discriminating variables between teachers who fully integrate computers and teachers with limited integration. Computers & Education, 51, 1523–1537.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.02.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Oigara, J., & Keengwe, J. (2013). Students’ perceptions of clickers as an instructional tool to promote active learning. Educational Information Technologies, 18, 15–28.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-011-9173-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pape, S. J., Irving, K. E., Owens, D. T., Boscardin, C. K., Sanalan, V., Abrahamson, A. L., et al. (2013). Classroom connectivity in Algebra I: Results of a randomized control trial. Effective Education, 4, 43–60.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19415532.2013.841059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Partnership for 21st Century Learning. (2016). Framework for 21st century learning. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org.
  33. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  34. Pierce, R., & Ball, L. (2009). Perceptions that may affect teachers’ intention to use technology in secondary mathematics classes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 71, 299–317.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-008-9177-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Preszler, R. W., Dawe, A., Shuster, C. B., & Shuster, M. (2007). Assessment of the effects of student response systems on student learning and attitudes over a broad range of biology courses. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 6, 29–41.  https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.06-09-0190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Roschelle, J., Vahey, P., Tatar, D., Kaput, J., & Hegedus, S. J. (2003). Five key considerations for networking in a handheld-based mathematics classroom. In N. A. Pateman, B. J. Dougherty, & J. T. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2003 joint meeting of PME and PMENA (Vol. 4, pp. 71–78). Honolulu: University of Hawaii.Google Scholar
  37. Shirley, M. L., & Irving, K. E. (2015). Connected classroom technology facilitates multiple components of formative assessment practice. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24, 56–68.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9520-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Thomas, M. O. J., & Hong, Y. Y. (2013). Teacher integration of technology into mathematics learning. International Journal of Technology in Mathematics Education, 20, 69–84.Google Scholar
  39. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2016). Future ready learning: Reimagining the role of technology in education (National Education Technology Plan 2016). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://tech.ed.gov.
  40. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2017a). Reimagining the role of technology in education: 2017 National Technology Plan update. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://tech.ed.gov.
  41. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2017b). Reimagining the role of technology in higher education: A supplement to the National Education Technology Plan. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://tech.ed.gov.
  42. Vannatta, R. A., & Fordham, N. (2004). Teacher dispositions as predictors of classroom technology use. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36, 253–271.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2004.10782415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wachira, P., & Keengwe, J. (2011). Technology integration barriers: Urban school mathematics teachers perspectives. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20, 17–25.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-010-9230-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wood, E., Mueller, J., Willoughby, T., Specht, J., & Deyoung, T. (2005). Teachers’ perceptions: Barriers and supports to using technology in the classroom. Education, Communication & Information, 5, 183–206.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14636310500186214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 807–840.  https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312040004807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. L. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology innovation. Teachers College Record, 104, 482–515.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9620.00170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Johns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options