Advertisement

Mathematics Education Research Journal

, Volume 30, Issue 4, pp 475–498 | Cite as

Primary school teachers’ use of digital technology in mathematics: the complexities

  • Esther Yook-Kin Loong
  • Sandra Herbert
Article
First Online:

Abstract

This paper seeks to theorise primary teachers’ degree of integration of digital technology in the mathematics classroom. In an age where digital technology use is ubiquitous, the issues surrounding teachers’ choice, and ultimately their uptake of digital technologies in the classroom, is an area that need to be further unpacked. Cross-case analysis of the two teachers’ uptake of digital technologies in their classroom, their pedagogical approaches and the reason for their choices provide insight into teachers’ technological, pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK). Differences in the way the teachers use digital technology in their classroom seem to be connected to their TPACK developmental stage.

Keywords

Digital technology TPACK development Primary mathematics education SAMR Complexities 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Al-Ali, S. (2014). Embracing the selfie craze: Exploring the possible use of Instagram as a language mLearning tool. Issues and Trends in Educational Technology, 2(2), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Attard, C., & Orlando, J. (2014). Early career teachers, mathematics and technology: device conflict and emerging mathematical knowledge. In J. Anderson, M. Cavanagh, & A. Prescott (Eds.), Curriculum in focus: research guided practice. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 71–78). Sydney: MERGA.Google Scholar
  3. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (2017). Australian curriculum: mathematics. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/mathematics/.
  4. Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544–559.Google Scholar
  5. Bragg, L. A., Polkinghorne, C., Allen, B., & Chandler, C. (2016). More than substitution: an ongoing journey of the 1:1 iPad program. In W. Widjaja, E. Y-K Loong, and L. A. Bragg, (Eds.), Proceedings of the Mathematical Association of Victoria 53rd Annual Conference (pp. 9–17). Melbourne: MAV.Google Scholar
  6. Cartwright, V., & Hammond, M. (2007). ‘Fitting it in’: a study exploring ICT use in a UK primary school. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(3), 390–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cavanagh, R. F., & Koehler, M. J. (2013). A turn toward specifying validity criteria in the measurement of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(2), 129–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chai, C., Koh, J. H., Tsai, C., & Tan, L. (2011). Modeling primary school pre-service teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) for meaningful learning with information and communication technology (ICT). Computers & Education, 57, 1184–1193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Christensson, P. (2010). ICT definition. Retrieved from https://techterms.com.
  10. Cox, M., Webb, M., Abbott, C., Blakeley, B., Beauchamp, T., & Rhodes, V. (2003). ICT and pedagogy: A review of the research literature. In ICT in schools research and evaluation series, 18. A report to the Department for Education and Skills. Nottinghamshire: Becta. Retrieved from https://wiki.inf.ed.ac.uk/twiki/pub/ECHOES/ICT/ict_pedagogy_summary.pdf
  11. Crisan, C., Lerman, S., & Winbourne, P. (2007). Mathematics and ICT: A framework for conceptualising secondary school mathematics teachers’ classroom practices. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 16(1), 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dane, F. C. (1990). Research methods. Belmont: Wadsworth, Inc..Google Scholar
  14. Earle, R. S. (2002). The integration of instructional technology into public education: promises and challenges. ET Magazine, 42(1), 5–13.Google Scholar
  15. Figg, C., & Jaipal, K. (2009). Unpacking TPACK: TPK characteristics supporting successful implementation. In: I. Gibson, R. Weber, K. McFerrin, R. Carlsen, & D. A. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology Teacher Education International Conference 2009 (pp. 4069–4073). Chesapeake: AACE. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/31295.
  16. Geer, R., White, B., Zeegers, Y., Au, W., & Barnes, A. (2017). Emerging pedagogies for the use of iPads in schools. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(2), 490–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goos, M. (2010). Using technology to support effective mathematics teaching and learning: what counts? Proceedings of the Teaching Mathematics? Make it count: What research tells us about effective teaching and learning of mathematics Research Conference. Retrieved from http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1067&context=research_conference.
  18. Hilton, J. T. (2016). A case study of the application of SAMR and TPACK for reflection on technology integration into two Social Studies classrooms. The Social Studies, 107(2), 68–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hofer, M., & Grandgenett, N. (2012). TPACK development in teacher education: a longitudinal study of preservice teachers in a secondary MA Ed. program. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(1), 83–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jamieson-Proctor, R., Burnett, P., Finger, G., & Watson, G. (2006). ICT integration and teachers’ confidence in using ICT for teaching and learning in Queensland state schools. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(4), 511–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kihoza, P., Zlotnikova, I., Bada, J., & Kalegele, K. (2016). Classroom ICT integration in Tanzania: opportunities and challenges from the perspectives of TPACK and SAMR models. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 12(1), 107–128.Google Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Larkin, K. (2015). “An app! An app! My kingdom for an app”: an 18-month quest to determine whether apps support mathematical knowledge building. In T. Lowrie & R. Jorgensen (Eds.), Digital games and mathematics learning: potential, promises and pitfalls (Vol. 4, pp. 251–276). Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Loong, E. Y. K., Doig, B., & Groves, S. (2011). How different is it really? – rural and urban primary students’ use of ICT in mathematics. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 23(2), 189–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Niess, M. L., Ronau, R. N., Shafer, K. G., Driskell, S. O., Harper, S. R., Johnston, C., ..., & Kersaint, G. (2009). Mathematics teacher TPACK standards and development model. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 4–24.Google Scholar
  27. Northcote, M. (2011). Teaching with technology: step back and hand over the cameras! Using digital cameras to facilitate mathematics learning with young children in K-2 classrooms. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 16(3), 29–32.Google Scholar
  28. Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2012). The importance of using subject-specific technology uses to teach TPACK: A case study. In D. Polly (Ed.), Developing technology-rich teacher education programs: key issues (pp. 152–169). Hershey: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pierce, R., & Stacey, K. (2013). Teaching with new technology: four ‘early majority’ teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 16(5), 323–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Puentedura, R. (2006). Transformation, technology and education. Retrieved from http://hippasus.com/resources/tte/puentedura_tte.pdf.
  31. Puentedura, R. (2017) Why prudence is (sometimes) not prudent: the trouble with too much Substitution [Blogpost]. Retrieved from http://hippasus.com/blog/.
  32. Romrell, D., Kidder, L. C., & Wood, E. (2014). The SAMR Model as a framework for evaluating mLearning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 18(2).Google Scholar
  33. Rowland, T., Turner, F., Thwaites, A., & Huckstep, P. (2009). Developing primary mathematics teaching: reflecting on practice with the knowledge quartet. London: SAGE Publications Ltd..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sampsons, D., & Karagiannidis, C. (2002). Personalised learning: educational, technological and standardisation perspective. Interactive Educational Multimedia, 4, 24–39.Google Scholar
  35. Softonic. (2000). TuxMath: Softonic. Retrieved from http://tuxmath.en.softonic.com.
  36. State Government of Victoria (2017). Teaching with digital technologies. Retrieved from http://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/support/Pages/elearningcurriculum.aspx.
  37. Sullivan, P., & Lilburn, P. (1997). Open-ended maths activities: using “good” questions to enhance learning. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Symons, D. (2011). Using Microsoft Word to teach area. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 16(3), 20–24.Google Scholar
  39. Tay, L. Y., Lim, S. K., Lim, C. P., & Koh, J. H. L. (2012). Pedagogical approaches for ICT integration into primary school English and Mathematics: a Singapore case study. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(4), 740–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Urbina, A., & Polly, D. (2017). Examining elementary school teachers’ integration of technology and enactment of TPACK in mathematics. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 34(5), 439–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Watson, A., & Mason, J. (2006). Seeing an exercise as a single mathematical object: using variation to structure sense-making. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 8(2), 91–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Whyburn, L., & Way, J. (2012). Student perceptions of the influence of IWBs on their learning in mathematics. Australian Educational Computing, 27(1), 23–27.Google Scholar
  43. Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: an analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers’ use of technology in a laptop computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 165–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research design and methods (4th ed.). California: Sage Publications Inc..Google Scholar
  46. Zuber, E. N., & Anderson, J. (2013). The initial response of secondary mathematics teachers to a one-to-one laptop program. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 25(4), 279–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Deakin University - Melbourne Burwood CampusBurwoodAustralia

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options