Abstract
Given the importance of teacher in the implementation of computer technology in classrooms, the technology acceptance model and TPACK model were used to better understand the decision-making process teachers use in determining how, when, and where computer software is used in mathematics classrooms. Thirty-four (34) teachers implementing Geometer’s Sketchpad and Fathom in algebra and geometry classrooms were observed and interviewed using the above models. The factors of perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness, and their contributing sub-factors, were used to elaborate on how teachers differed in their perceptions and actual use of these two software tools in different instructional contexts. The two primary themes that emerged were teachers’ comfort level with using the software tools and how this interacted with their perceived ease of use, and their understanding of the software’s capabilities and alignment with their curricular and teaching goals. This alignment became the over-riding factor driving perceived usefulness. Secondary factors influencing perceived usefulness included alignment with preferred pedagogical strategies and support from fellow teachers. This last factor probably also crossed over to perceptions of ease of use.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT–TPCK: advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52(1), 154–168.
Argueta, R., Huff, J. D., Tingen, J., & Corn, J. (2011). 1:1 Laptop initiatives: a summary of research findings across six states White Paper Series. Raleigh: Friday Institute for Educational Innovation, North Carolina State University.
Behrend, T. S., Wiebe, E. N., London, J., & Johnson, E. (2011). Cloud computing adoption and usage in community colleges. Behaviour & Information Technology, 30(2), 231–240. doi:10.1080/0144929X.2010.489118.
Bernard, H. R., & Ryan, R. W. (2010). Analyzing qualitative data: systematic approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Bourgonjon, J., Valcke, M., Soetaert, R., & Schellens, T. (2010). Students’ perceptions about the use of video games in the classroom. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1145–1156. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.10.022.
Cavanagh, M., & Mitchelmore, M. (2011). Learning to teach secondary mathematics using an online learning system. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 23(4), 417–435. doi:10.1007/s13394-011-0024-1.
Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI). (2012). Standards for mathematical practice. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/Math. Accessed 5 Dec 2012.
Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19, 189–211.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–339.
Doerr, H. M., & Zangor, R. (2000). Creating meaning for and with the graphing calculator. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 41(2), 143–163.
Drayton, B., Falk, J. K., Stroud, R., Hobbs, K., & Hammerman, J. (2010). After installation: ubiquitous computing and high school science in three experienced, high-technology schools. Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 9(3), 5–56.
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.
Fram, S. (2013). The constant comparative analysis method out- side of grounded theory. The Qualitative Report, 18, 1–25.
Goos, M., Soury-Lavergne, S., Assude, T., Brown, J. P., Kong, C. M., Glover, D., et al. (2010). Teachers and teaching: theoretical perspectives and issues concerning classroom implementation. In C. Hoyles & J. B. Lagrange (Eds.), Mathematics education and technology-rethinking the terrain (pp. 311–328). New York: Springer.
Graham, C. R., Borup, J., & Smith, N. B. (2012). Using TPACK as a framework to understand teacher candidates’ technology integration decisions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(6), 530–546. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00472.x.
Handal, B., Campbell, C., Cavanagh, M., Petocz, P., & Kelly, N. (2013). Technological pedagogical content knowledge of secondary mathematics teachers. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 13(1), 22–40.
Harris, J. B., & Hofer, M. J. (2011). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in action: a descriptive study of secondary teachers’ curriculum-based, technology-related instructional planning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(3), 211–229.
Harris, J. B., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge: curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393–416.
Hegedus, S. J., Tapper, J., & Dalton, S. (2016). Exploring how teacher-related factors relate to student achievement in learning advanced algebra in technology-enhanced classrooms. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 19(1), 7–32.
Hew, K. F., & Hara, N. (2007). Empirical study of motivators and barriers of teacher online knowledge sharing. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(6), 573–595.
Hollebrands, K., & Zbiek, R. (2004). Teaching mathematics with technology: an evidence-based road map for the Journey. In R. Rubenstein & G. Bright (Eds.), Perspectives on the teaching of mathematics: sixty-sixth yearbook (pp. 259–270). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Kim, C., Kim, M. K., Lee, C., Spector, J. M., & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and technology integration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 76–85. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.08.005.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.
Lee, H. S., & Hollebrands, K. F. (2011). Characterising and developing teachers’ knowledge for teaching statistics with technology. In C. Batanero, G. Burrill, & C. Reading (Eds.), Teaching statistics in school mathematics-challenges for teaching and teacher education (pp. 359–369). New York: Springer.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K., & Hewson, P. (1996). Principles of effective professional development for mathematics and science education: a synthesis of standards. NISE Brief, 1(1), 1–7.
Manfra, M. M., & Hammond, T. C. (2008). Teachers’ instructional choices with student-created digital documentaries: case studies. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(2), 223–245.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192–222.
Nastasi, B. K., & Schensul, S. L. (2005). Contributions of qualitative research to the validity of intervention research. Journal of School Psychology, 43(3), 177–195.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston: NCTM.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2009). Focus on high school mathematics: reasoning and sense making. Reston: NCTM.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to actions: ensuring mathematical success for all students. Reston: NCTM.
Ng, W. (2012). Empowering scientific literacy through digital literacy and multiliteracies. New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Nistor, N., Göğüş, A., & Lerche, T. (2013). Educational technology acceptance across national and professional cultures: a European study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(4), 733–749. doi:10.1007/s11423-013-9292-7.
Norton, S., McRobbie, C. J., & Cooper, T. J. (2000). Exploring secondary mathematics teachers’ reasons for not using computers in their teaching: five case studies. Journal of research on computing in education, 33(1), 87–109.
O’Connor, M. K., Netting, F. E., & Thomas, M. L. (2008). Grounded theory: managing the challenge for those facing institutional review board oversight. Qualitative Inquiry, 14(1), 28–45.
Polly, D. (2011). Examining teachers’ enactment of technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) in their mathematics teaching after technology integration professional development. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 30(1), 37–59.
Polly, D., & Hannafin, M. J. (2010). Reexamining technology’s role in learner-centered professional development. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(5), 557–571.
Segall, A. (2004). Revisiting pedagogical content knowledge: the pedagogy of content/the content of pedagogy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(4), 489–504.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
Spires, H. A., Wiebe, E. N., Young, C. A., Hollebrands, K., & Lee, J. K. (2012). Toward a new learning ecology: professional development for teachers in 1:1 learning environments. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 12(2), 232–254.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Stols, G., & Kriek, J. (2011). Why don’t all maths teachers use dynamic geometry software in their classrooms? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(1), 137–151.
Sun, H. S., & Zhang, P. (2006). The role of moderating factors in user technology acceptance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(2), 53–78. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.04.013.
Swan, B., & Dixon, J. (2006). The effects of mentor -supported technology professional development on middle school mathematics teachers’ attitudes and practice. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 6(1), 67–86.
Tabach, M. (2011). A mathematics teacher’s practice in a technological environment: a case study analysis using two complementary theories. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 16(3), 247–265.
Thomas, M. O. J. (2006). Teachers using computers in mathematics: A longitudinal study. In J. Novotná, H. Moraová, M. Krátká, & N. Stehlíková (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 5, pp. 265–272). Prague: Charles University.
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
Wiebe, E. N., Williams, L., Yang, K., & Miller, C. (2003). Computer science attitude survey. Raleigh: Department of Computer Science, North Carolina State University.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Charity Cayton and Ethan Boehm, who provided help on the teacher interview portion of this research. This material is based upon work partially supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DRL-0929543.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Okumuş, S., Lewis, L., Wiebe, E. et al. Utility and usability as factors influencing teacher decisions about software integration. Education Tech Research Dev 64, 1227–1249 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9455-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9455-4