Advertisement

Teacher Beliefs and Practice When Teaching with Technology: A Latent Profile Analysis

  • Daniel ThurmEmail author
Chapter
Part of the ICME-13 Monographs book series (ICME13Mo)

Abstract

Designing effective teacher education for teaching mathematics with technology requires a profound understanding of teacher beliefs and classroom practice. In this quantitative study with 160 upper secondary in-service teachers from Germany the relation between technology-related beliefs and classroom practice is examined. A latent profile analysis reveals four subgroups of teachers with respect to the relation of beliefs and practice: “positive beliefs—frequent users”, “positive beliefs—infrequent users”, “negative beliefs—infrequent users” and “negative beliefs—frequent users”. Furthermore, beliefs referring to discovery learning and time constraints show the strongest link to frequency of technology use. Based on the results, recommendations for teacher education are given.

Keywords

Teacher education Professional development Beliefs Technology Mathematics 

References

  1. Barzel, B., & Möller, R. (2001). About the use of the TI-92 for an open learning approach to power functions. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 33(1), 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bretscher, N. (2014). Exploring the quantitative and qualitative gap between expectation and implementation: A survey of english mathematics teachers’ uses of ICT. In A. Clark-Wilson, O. Robutti, & N. Sinclair (Eds.), The mathematics teacher in the digital era: An international perspective on technology focused professional development (Vol. 2, pp. 43–70). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burrill, G., Allison, J., Breaux, G., Kastberg, S., Leatham, K., & Sanchez, W. (Eds.). (2002). Handheld graphing technology in secondary mathematics: Research findings and implications for classroom practice. Dallas, USA: Texas Instruments.Google Scholar
  4. Byrne, B. M. (2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 709–725). New York: Macmillan Library Reference.Google Scholar
  6. Chen, C. H. (2008). Why do teachers not practice what they believe regarding technology integration? The Journal of Educational Research, 102(1), 65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clarke, D. M. (1994). Ten key principles from research for the professional development of mathematics teachers. In D. B. Aichele & A. F. Croxford (Eds.), Professional development for teachers of mathematics (pp. 37–48). Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  8. Drijvers, P., & Trouche, L. (2008). From artifacts to instruments: A theoretical framework behind the orchestra metaphor. In: G. W. Blume & M. K. Heid (Eds.), Research on technology and the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 363–392). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar
  9. Duval, R. (2006). A cognitive analysis of problems of comprehension in a learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61(1–2), 103–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ellington, A. J. (2006). The effects of non-CAS graphing calculators on student achievement and attitude levels in mathematics: A meta-analysis. School Science and Mathematics, 106(1), 16–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ertmer, P. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research, 38(1), 47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goodman, L. A. (2002). Latent class analysis: The empirical study of latent types, latent variables, and latent structures, and some notes on the history of this subject. In J. A. Hagenaars & A. L. McCutcheon (Eds.), Applied latent class analysis (pp. 3–55). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher, 15(5), 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3/4), 381–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hennessy, S., Ruthven, K., & Brindley, S. (2005). Teacher perspectives on integrating ICT into subject teaching: Commitment, constraints, caution, and change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(2), 155–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hoyles, C., & Lagrange, J.-B. (Eds.). (2010). Mathematics education and technology: Rethinking the terrain: The 17th ICMI Study. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Jost, K. L. (1992). The implementation of technology in the calculus classroom: An examination of teacher beliefs, practice and curriculum change (Doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts International, 53/06, 1876.Google Scholar
  19. Kaput, J. J. (1992). Technology and mathematics education. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of teaching and learning mathematics (pp. 515–556). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  20. Kissane, B. (2003). A model for professional development for graphics calculator use. In A. Rogerson (Ed.), The mathematics education into the 21st century project (pp. 153–157). September 19–25, 2003. Brno, Czech Republic.Google Scholar
  21. Mayer, D. P. (1999). Measuring instructional practice: Can policymakers trust survey data? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 29–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Molenje, L. (2012). High school teachers’ use of graphing calculators when teaching linear and quadratic functions: Professed beliefs and observed practice (Doctoral thesis). Syracuse University, Syracuse.Google Scholar
  23. Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (1998–2015). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.Google Scholar
  24. Penglase, M., & Arnold, S. (1996). The graphics calculator in mathematics education: A critical review of recent research. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 8(1), 58–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Philipp, R. A. (2007). Mathematics teachers’ beliefs and affect. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (Vol. 1, pp. 257–315). Charlotte: IAP.Google Scholar
  26. Rögler, P., Barzel, B., & Eichler, A. (2013). Teachers’ beliefs referring to teaching with technology. In A. Lindmeier & A. Heinze (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 5, p. 154). Kiel: PME.Google Scholar
  27. Simmt, E. (1997). Graphing calculators in high school mathematics. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 16(2/3), 269–290.Google Scholar
  28. Simonsen, L. M., & Dick, T. P. (1997). Teachers’ perceptions of the impact of graphing calculators in the mathematics classroom. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 16(2/3), 239–268.Google Scholar
  29. Staub, F. C., & Stern, E. (2002). The nature of teachers’ pedagogical content beliefs matters for students’ achievement gains: Quasi-experimental evidence from elementary mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 344–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tharp, M. L., Fitzsimmons, J. A., & Ayers, R. L. B. (1997). Negotiating a technological shift: Teacher perception of the implementation of graphing calculators. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 16(4), 551–575.Google Scholar
  31. Thurm, D., Klinger, M., & Barzel, B. (2015). How to professionalize teachers to use technology in a meaningful way—Design research of a CPD program. In S. Carreira & N. Amado (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching. Faro: University of Algarve.Google Scholar
  32. Vermunt, J. K., & Magidson, J. (2002). Latent class cluster analysis. In J. Hagenaars & A. McCutcheon (Eds.), Applied latent class models (pp. 89–106). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Willis, G. (2005). Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zbiek, R. M., Heid, M. K., Blume, G. W., & Dick, T. P. (2007). Research on technology in mathematics education—A perspective of constructs. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 1169–1207). Charlotte: Information Age.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Duisburg-EssenEssenGermany

Personalised recommendations