Mathematics Education Research Journal

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 107–121 | Cite as

Digital natives come of age: the reality of today’s early career teachers using mobile devices to teach mathematics

  • Joanne Orlando
  • Catherine AttardEmail author
Original Article


Digital natives are now of age and comprise the new generation of early career teachers (ECTs). This is an important change in teacher demographics given that new technologies have been introduced into classrooms with expectations that teachers embed them effectively into the teaching of mathematics. This paper draws on the data of three separate studies and reanalyses it to explore how a small group of four early career primary school teachers use information and communication technologies (ICT) in their teaching of mathematics. Two of the ECTs were observed using interactive whiteboards in their mathematics teaching, and two were observed predominantly using tablets. Two important variables developed from the research presented in this paper suggest that ECT’s uses of technology to teach mathematics may not be without complications. First, the teachers appeared to experience “device conflict”, in that the type of device and its particular affordances and limitations were the primary factors that influenced their mathematics. This was particularly evident in the uses of fixed and mobile devices. The interactive whiteboard (IWB) did not pose pedagogical challenges to the ECTs as their stable location facilitated the opportunity to still use these devices in traditional teaching ways. However, tablets did pose a problem because of their mobility and the need to reconfigure the organisation and to some extent the roles of teacher and student. The second finding was that the teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching appeared to be directly related to the ways they used their technology.


Mathematics Mobile technologies Early career teachers Digital technologies 


  1. Attard, C. (2013). Introducing iPads into primary mathematics pedagogies: An exploration of two teachers’ experiences. In V. Steinle, L. Ball, & C. Bardini (Eds.), Mathematics education: yesterday, today and tomorrow. (Proceedings of the 36th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia) (pp. 58–65). Melbourne: MERGA.Google Scholar
  2. Attard C., & Curry, C. (2012) Exploring the use of iPads to engage young students with mathematics, In J. Dindyal, L. P. Cheng, & S. F. Ng (Eds.), Mathematics Education: Expanding Horizons. (Proceedings of the 35th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia), pp 75–82. Singapore: MERGA.Google Scholar
  3. Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: a critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bennison, A., & Goos, M. (2010). Learning to teach mathematics with technology: a survey of professional development needs, experiences and impacts. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 22(1), 31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Board of Studies New South Wales. (2012). Mathematics K-10 syllabus. Retrieved from
  6. Connelly, F., & Clandinin, J. (Eds.). (1999). Shaping a professional identity. Stories of educational practice. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  7. Curriculum, A., & Authority, R. (2012). Australian curriculum: Mathematics F-10. Retrieved from Scholar
  8. Facer, K., & Selwyn, S. (2013). The need for politics in education and technology. In N. Selwyn & K. Facer (Eds.), The politics and education and technology. Conflicts, controversies, and connections. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  9. Frand, J. L. (2000). The information-age mindset. Educause Review, 35(5), 14–24. Retrieved from
  10. Galbraith, P., Goos, M., Renshaw, P., & Geiger, V. (2000). Reshaping teacher and student roles in technology-enriched classrooms. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 12(3), 303–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gardner, H., & Davis, K. (2013). The app generation. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Guerrero, S. (2010). Technological pedagogical content knowledge in the mathematics classroom. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 26(4), 132–139.Google Scholar
  13. Henderson, R. (2011). Classroom pedagogies, digital literacies and the home-school digital divide. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 6(2), 152–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Herrington, J., Mantei, J., Herrington, A., Olney, I., & Ferry, B. (2008). New technologies, new pedagogies: Mobile technologies and new ways of teaching and learning. Melbourne: Paper presented at the Annual Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education Conference.Google Scholar
  15. Highfield, K., & Goodwin, K. (2013). Apps for mathematics learning: a review of ‘educational’ apps from the iTunes app store. In V. Steinle, L. Ball, & C. Bardini (Eds.), Mathematics education: Yesterday, today and tomorrow (Proceedings of the 36th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia) (pp. 378–385). Melbourne: MERGA.Google Scholar
  16. Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ireland, G.V., & Woollerton, M. (2010). The impact of the and iPhone on education. Journal of Bunkyo Gakuin University Department of Foreign Languages and Bunkyo Gakuin College(10), 31–48.Google Scholar
  18. Johnson, L., Adams, S., & Cummins, M. (2012). NMC horizon report: 2012 K–12 Edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.Google Scholar
  19. Kiger, D., Herro, D., & Prunty, D. (2012). Examining the influence of a mobile learning intervention on third grade math achievement. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(1), 61–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technoogy and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.Google Scholar
  21. Larkin, K. (2013). Mathematics education: Is there an app for that? In V. Steinle, L. Ball, & C. Bardini (Eds.), Mathematics education: Yesterday, today and tomorrow (Proceedings of the 36th Annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia) (pp. 426–433). Melbourne: MERGA.Google Scholar
  22. Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2008). Teachers’ views on factors affecting effective integration of information technology in the classroom developmental scenery. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(2), 233–263.Google Scholar
  23. Li, Q., & Ma, X. (2010). A meta-analysis of the effects of computer technology on school students’ mathematics learning. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 215–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Loveless, A., & Williamson, B. (2013). Learning identifies in a digital age: Rethinking creativity, education and technology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Margolis, J. (2008). What will keep today’s teachers teaching? Looking for a hook as a new career cycle emerges. The Teachers College Record, 110(1), 160–194.Google Scholar
  26. McGrath, J., Karabas, G., & Willis, J. (2011). From TPACK concept to TPACK practice: an analysis of the suitability and usefulness of the concept as a guide in the real world of teacher development. International journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 7(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
  27. Melhuish, K., & Fallon, G. (2010). Looking to the future: M-learning with the iPad. Computers in New Zealand Schools: Learning, Leading, Technology, 22(3), 1–16.Google Scholar
  28. Moyer-Packenham, P., Baker, J., Westenskow, A., Anderson, K., Shumway, J., et al. (2013). A study comparing virtual manipulatives with other instructional treatments in third- and fourth-grade classrooms. Journal of Education, 193(2), 25–39.Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Orlando, J. (2013). Engaging practices with technology in low SES schools. In G. Munns, W. Sawyer, & B. Cole (Eds.), Exemplary teachers of students in poverty. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Orlando, J. (2014). Veteran teachers and technology: change fatigue and knowledge insecurity influence practice. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 20(4), 427–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Polly, D. (2008). Modeling the influence of calculator use and teacher effects on first grade students’ mathematics achievement. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 27(3), 245–263.Google Scholar
  33. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Selwyn, N., Potter, J., & Cranmer, S. (2009). Primary pupils’ use of information and communication technologies at school and home. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(5), 919–932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shin, N., Sutherland, L., Norris, C., & Soloway, E. (2012). Effects of game technology on elementary student learning in mathematics. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 540–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 15(2), 4–14.Google Scholar
  37. Wallace, J., & Loughran, J. (2011). Science teacher learning. In B. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 295–306). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism as the negotiation of dilemmas: an analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72, 131–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Inc. 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Educational ResearchWestern Sydney UniversitySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations