Advertisement

Mathematics Education Research Journal

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 199–221 | Cite as

Characterising the perceived value of mathematics educational apps in preservice teachers

  • Boris Handal
  • Chris Campbell
  • Michael Cavanagh
  • Peter Petocz
Original Article

Abstract

This study validated the semantic items of three related scales aimed at characterising the perceived worth of mathematics-education-related mobile applications (apps). The technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) model was used as the conceptual framework for the analysis. Three hundred and seventy-three preservice students studying primary school education from two public and one private Australian universities participated in the study. The respondents examined three different apps using a purposively designed instrument in regard to either their explorative, productive or instructive instructional role. While construct validity could not be established due to a broad range of variability in responses implying a high degree of subjectivity in respondents’ judgments, the qualitative analysis was effective in establishing content validity.

Keywords

Mathematics education Mobile apps Pedagogy Technology TPACK 

References

  1. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  2. Attard, C. (2013). Integrating 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, VIC: MERGA.Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). Australia Curriculum. http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/mathematics/curriculum/f-10?layout=1
  5. Baya’a, N., & Daher, W. (2009). Students’ perceptions of mathematics learning using mobile phones. Paper presented at the IMCL2009, Jordan.Google Scholar
  6. Calder, N. (2015). Apps: appropriate, applicable and appealing? In T. Lowrie & R. Jorgensen (Eds.), Digital games and mathematics learning: potential, promises and pitfalls. The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Churchill, D., & Churchill, N. (2008). Educational affordances of PDAs: a study of a teacher’s exploration of this technology. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1439–1450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Education Services Australia. (2014). Fraction fiddle: reach the target. Retrieved from: https://www.scootle.edu.au
  10. Franklin, T., & Peng, L. W. (2008). Mobile math: math educators and students engage in m-learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 20(2), 69–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Handal, B. (2015). Mobile makes learning free: building conceptual, professional and school capacity. in Gene Glass (Ed). North Carolina: Information Age PublishingGoogle Scholar
  12. Handal, B., Campbell, C., Cavanagh, M., Petocz, P., & Kelly, N. (2012). Integrating technology, pedagogy and content in mathematics education. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 31(4), 387–413.Google Scholar
  13. Handal, B., El-Khoury, J., Cavanagh, M., & Campbell, C. (2013). A framework for categorising mobile learning applications in mathematics education. Proceedings of the Australian Conference on Science and Mathematics Education (pp. 142–147). Canberra: IISME. Retrieved from: http://ojs-prod.library.usyd.edu.au/index.php/IISME/article/view/6933
  14. Handal, B., Campbell, C., Cavanagh, M., Petocz, P., & Kelly, N. (2013). Pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) of secondary mathematics teachers. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 13(1). Retrieved from :http://www.citejournal.org/vol13/iss1/mathematics/article1.cfm
  15. Handal, B., Campbell, C., Cavanagh, M., & Dave, K. (2014). Appraising maths apps using the TPACK model. 15th Australasian Computer Education Conference, Adelaide, South Australia (pp. 169–187).Google Scholar
  16. Jonas-Dwyer, D., Clark, C., Celenza, A., & Siddiqui, Z. (2012). Evaluating apps for learning and teaching. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 7(1), 54–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kearney, M., Shuck, S., Burden, K., & Aubusson, P. (2012). Viewing mobile learning from a pedagogical perspective. Research in Learning Technology, 20, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kiekel, J., & Kirk, E. (2013). Evaluating apps to ensure learning outcomes. In R. McBride & M. Searson (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2013 (pp. 2171–2174). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).Google Scholar
  19. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In The AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Eds.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge for educators (pp. 1–29). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Learnbat Inc. (2015). ShowMe Interactive Whiteboard. Retrieved from: http://www.showme.com/
  22. Lee, H., & Hollebrands, K. (2008). Preparing to teach mathematics with technology: an integrated approach to developing technological pedagogical content knowledge. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 326–341.Google Scholar
  23. Lyublinskaya, I., & Tournaki, N. (2011). The effects of teacher content authoring on TPACK and on student achievement in algebra: research on instruction with the TI-Nspire™ Handheld. Educational Technology, Teacher Knowledge, and Classroom Impact: A Research Handbook on Frameworks and Approaches, 295Google Scholar
  24. MacCallum, K., & Jeffrey, L. (2009). Identifying discriminating variables that determine mobile learning adoption by educators: an initial study. Same places, different spaces. Proceedings ASCILITE Auckland 2009.Google Scholar
  25. Muijs, D. (2011). Doing quantitative research in education with SPSS. Niess: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Niess, M. L., Ronau, R. N., Shafer, K. G., Driskell, S. O., Harper, S. R., Johnston, C., Browning, C., Özgün-Koca, A., & Kersaint, G. (2009). Mathematics Teacher TPACK Standards and Development Model. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education (CITE Journal), 9(1), 4–24.Google Scholar
  27. Niess, M. L., van Zee, E. H., & Gillow-Wiles, H. (2011). Knowledge growth in teaching mathematics/science with spreadsheets: moving PCK to TPACK through online professional development. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(2), 42–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Regular Berry Software LLC (2013). Long Division Touch. Retrieved from: http://www.regularberry.com/
  29. Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): the development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 42(2), 123.Google Scholar
  30. Schulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 414.Google Scholar
  31. Schulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: foundations for a new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sollarvall, H., Gildelaiglesia, D., Milrad, M., Peng, A., Pettersson, O., SalavatiI, S., & Yau, J. (2011). Trade-offs between pedagogical and technological design requirements affecting the robustness of a mobile learning activity. Paper presented at the 19th International Conference on Computers in Education, Chiang Mai, ThailandGoogle Scholar
  33. Sollarvall, H., Otero, N., Milrad, M., Johansson, D., & Vogel, B. (2012, March 27–30). Outdoor activities for the learning of mathematics: designing with mobile technologies for transitions across learning contexts. Paper presented at The 7th IEEE International conference on wireless, mobile and ubiquitous technology in education. Takamatsu, Kagawa, Japan.Google Scholar
  34. Spencer, P. (2013). iPads: improving numeracy learning in the early years. 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. 610–617). Melbourne, VIC: MERGA.Google Scholar
  35. Thomas, M. O. J., & Hong, Y. Y. (2013). Teacher integration of technology into mathematics learning. International Journal of Technology for Mathematics Education, 20(2), 69–84.Google Scholar
  36. Urban-Woldron, H. (2013). Integration of digital tools into the mathematics classroom: a challenge for preparing and supporting the teacher. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 20(3), 115–123.Google Scholar
  37. Watlington, D. (2011). Using iPod Touch and iPad educational apps in the classroom. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, Vol. 1 (pp. 3112–3114).Google Scholar
  38. Webb, D.C. (2013). Bloom’s taxonomy in mathematics education. In Steve Lerman (Editor-in-Chief), Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education. Springer. Retrieved from: http://www.springerreference.com/docs/html/chapterdbid/313196.html

Copyright information

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Inc. 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Boris Handal
    • 1
  • Chris Campbell
    • 2
  • Michael Cavanagh
    • 3
  • Peter Petocz
    • 3
  1. 1.The University of Notre Dame AustraliaSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.The University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  3. 3.Macquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations