Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The initial response of secondary mathematics teachers to a one-to-one laptop program

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Mathematics Education Research Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Studies of one-to-one programs consistently report lower use of laptops in mathematics classrooms compared to other subjects but do not elaborate reasons for these observations. This mixed-method study investigated the experiences and beliefs of 28 mathematics teachers at five secondary schools during the second year of the New South Wales Digital Education Revolution laptop program. While some mathematics teachers planned for students to use their laptops up to once a week, most reported less frequent use in the classroom. Teachers were grouped into categories “Non Adopters,” “Cautious Adopters,” and “Early Adopters” according to reported classroom use of laptops, then analysed for differences in confidence, knowledge, and beliefs relating to technology for teaching and learning mathematics. A prevalent belief limiting laptop use is that students authentically learn mathematics only using pen and paper. Cautious Adopters and Non Adopters expressed beliefs that laptops exacerbate classroom management problems, especially for lower-achieving students. In the context of ability-streamed classes these beliefs effectively ruled out use of laptops for entire classrooms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality and behaviour. Milton Keynes: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J., White, P., & Sullivan, P. (2005). Using a schematic model to represent influences on, and relationships between, teachers’ problem-solving beliefs and practices. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 17(2), 9–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2010). Technical paper—index of community socio-economic advantage (ICSEA). Retrieved June 20, 2010 from http://myschool.edu.au/Resources/pdf/My%20School%20ICSEA%20TECHNICAL%20PAPER%2020091020.pdf.

  • Bebell, D., & Kay, R. (2010). One to one computing: A summary of the quantitative results from the Berkshire wireless learning initiative. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(2), 6–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bebell, D., & O’Dwyer, L. M. (2010). Educational outcomes and research from 1:1 computing settings. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(1), 5–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beswick, K. (2005). The beliefs/practice connection in broadly defined context. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 17(2), 39–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavanagh, M. (2006a). Mathematics teachers and working mathematically: Responses to curriculum change. In G. Grootenboer, R. Zevenbergen, & M. Chinnappan (Eds.), Identities, Cultures and Learning Spaces Proceedings of the 28th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, (Vol 1 (pp. 115–122). Melbourne: MERGA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavanagh, M. (2006b). Implementing a reform-oriented mathematics syllabus: A survey of secondary teachers. In J. Novotná, H. Moraová, M. Krátká & N. Stehlíková (Eds.), Proceedings 30th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 2, pp. 273–280. Prague: PME.

  • Constant, M. D. (2011). One-to-one laptop project: Perceptions of teachers, parents, and students. Dissertations. Paper 5. Retrieved July 10, 2011 from http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/diss/5.

  • Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, D. (2009). Alignment, cohesion, and change: Examining mathematics teachers’ belief structures and their influence on instructional practices. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 12, 325–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: computers in the classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, K., Cavanaugh, C., & Ritzhaupt, A. (2008). Florida’s EETT leveraging laptops initiative and its impact on teaching practices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(2), 143–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. (2009). Listening to student’s and educator’s voices. Retrieved October 23, 2009 from http://www.deewr.gov.au.

  • Dunleavy, M., Dexter, S., & Heinecke, W. (2007). What added value does a 1:1 student to laptop ratio bring to technology-supported teaching and learning? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 2007(23), 440–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forgasz, H. (2010). Streaming for mathematics in years 7–10 in Victoria: An issue of equity? Mathematics Education Research Journal, 22(1), 57–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francis, J., Eccles, M., Johnston, M., Walker, A., Grimshaw, J., Foy, R., Kaner, E., Smith, L., & Bonetti, D. (2004). Constructing questionnaires based on the theory of planned behaviour: A manual for health services researchers. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: University of Newcastle.

  • Goos, M., & Bennison, A. (2007). Technology-enriched teaching of secondary mathematics: Factors influencing innovative practice. In J. Watson & K. Beswick (Eds.), Mathematics: Essential Research, Essential Practice—Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (Vol. 1, pp. 315–324). Wahroonga: MERGA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goos, M., & Bennison, A. (2008). Surveying the technology landscape: Teachers’ use of technology in secondary mathematics Classrooms. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20(3), 102–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2008). Learning with laptops: A multi-method case study. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38(3), 305–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inan, F., & Lowther, F. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 classrooms: a path model. Education Technology Research and Development, 58(2), 137–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ireson, J., Hallam, S., Hack, S., Clark, H., & Plewis, I. (2002). Ability grouping in English secondary school: Effects on attainment in English, mathematics, and science. Educational Research and Evaluation: an International Journal on Theory and Practice, 8(3), 299–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jimoyiannis, A., & Komis, V. (2007). Examining teachers’ beliefs about ICT in education: Implications of a teacher preparation programme. Teacher development, 11(2), 149–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lei, J. (2009). Quantity versus quality: A new approach to examine the relationship between technology use and student outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology (2009) Early View.

  • Lei, J. (2010). Conditions for ubiquitous computing: What can be learned from a longitudinal study. Computers in the Schools, 27(1), 35–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lei, J., & Zhao, Y. (2008). One-to-one computing: what does it bring to schools? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 39(2), 97–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Q. (2007). Student and teacher views about technology: A tale of two cities? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(4), 377–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowther, D., Ross, S., & Morrison, G. (2003). When each has one: The influences on teaching strategies and student achievement of using laptops in the classroom. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(3), 23–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108, 1017–1054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, J., Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Ross, C., & Specht, J. (2008). Identifying discriminating variables between teachers who fully integrate computers and teachers with limited integration. Computers in Education, 51(4), 1523–1537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • New South Wales Department of Education and Training. (2009). Digital education revolution—NSW Policy. Retrieved May 20, 2010 from https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/policies/technology/computers/l4l/PD20090395.shtml.

  • Penuel, W. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: A research synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38, 329–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, R., & Ball, L. (2009). Perceptions that may affect teachers’ intention to use technology in secondary mathematics classes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 3(71), 299–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, R., Treharne, D., & Tripp, H. (2003). ICT—the hopes and the reality. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(2), 151–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rockman, R,. Chessler, M., & Walker, L. (2003). A more complex picture: laptop use and impact in the context of changing home and school access. Anytime Anywhere Learning. Retrieved November 25, 2009 from http://beta.aalf.org/cms/?page=Research%20Art-%202000%20A%20More%20Complex%20Picture.

  • Silvernail, D. (2009). Research and evaluation of the Maine learning technology initiative (MLTI) laptop program. Maine Internal Centre for Digital Learning. Retrieved November 25, 2009 from http://www.usm.maine.edu/cepare.

  • Thomas, M. (2006). Teachers using computers in mathematics: A longitudinal study. In J. Novotná & H. Moraová (Eds.), Proceedings 30th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 5, pp. 265–272). Prague: PME.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, M., & Hong, Y. (2005). Teacher factors in integration of graphic calculators into mathematics learning. In H. L. Chick & J. L. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th annual conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 257–264). Melbourne: University of Melbourne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weston, M. E., & Bain, A. (2010). The end of techno-critique: The naked truth about 1:1 laptop initiatives and educational change. Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 9(6), 5–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zbiek, R., & Hollebrands, K. (2008). A research informed view of the process of incorporating mathematics technology into classroom practice by in-service and preservice teachers. In M. Heid & G. Blume (Eds.), Research on Technology and the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics (Research Syntheses, Vol. 1, pp. 287–344). North Carolina: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zevenbergen, R. (2003). Reforming mathematics education: A case study within the context of new times. In P. Clarkson, A. Downton, D. Gronn, M. Horne, A. McDonough, R. Pierce, & A. Roche (Eds.), Building connections: Research, theory and practice (Proceedings of the 28th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (Vol. 2, pp. 791–798). Melbourne: MERGA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zucker, A. (2004). Developing a research agenda for ubiquitous computing in schools. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(4), 371–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zucker, A., & McGhee, R. (2005). A study of one-to-one computer use in mathematics and science instruction at the secondary level in Henrico County public schools. Arlington: SRI International.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

    Edward Nordin Zuber & Judy Anderson

Authors
  1. Edward Nordin Zuber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Judy Anderson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edward Nordin Zuber.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zuber, E.N., Anderson, J. The initial response of secondary mathematics teachers to a one-to-one laptop program. Math Ed Res J 25, 279–298 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-012-0063-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-012-0063-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation