{"id":609,"date":"2012-09-01T01:11:00","date_gmt":"2012-09-01T01:11:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost:8888\/cite\/2016\/02\/09\/the-challenge-to-situate-digital-learning-technologies-in-preservice-teacher-mathematics-education\/"},"modified":"2016-06-04T02:20:43","modified_gmt":"2016-06-04T02:20:43","slug":"the-challenge-to-situate-digital-learning-technologies-in-preservice-teacher-mathematics-education","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/volume-12\/issue-4-12\/mathematics\/the-challenge-to-situate-digital-learning-technologies-in-preservice-teacher-mathematics-education","title":{"rendered":"The Challenge to Situate Digital Learning Technologies in Preservice Teacher Mathematics Education"},"content":{"rendered":"

Current preservice teachers may be collectively referred to as \u201cdigital natives\u201d (Prensky, 2001), yet universities that provide teacher education programs must consider the extent to which this facility with information and communication technologies (ICTs) can be embedded into the emerging pedagogical practices of these students as they develop their identities as teachers.<\/p>\n

Chan, Kim, and Tan (2010) found that more than 90% of preservice teachers (N<\/em> = 1,554) commencing their studies at the National Institute of Education in Singapore used ICTs primarily for social networking and expedient information retrieval. Other researchers have also found similar high usage of ICTs by preservice teachers (e.g., Caruso & Kvavik, 2005; Iding, Crosby, & Speitel, 2002). However, despite an apparent facility with ICTs as social or entertainment technologies, the progression for preservice teachers to using ICTs as learning<\/em> technologies is difficult (Katz, 2005; Kirkwood & Price, 2005). Educators in preservice teacher programs are charged with the responsibility to provide learning environments in which these students develop an appreciation of and facility with the relationship between content, pedagogy, and technology (Lock, 2007).<\/p>\n

Using the term ICTs collectively seems inappropriate in the realm of teacher education. Preservice teacher training programs need to direct focus to what is referred to in this study as digital learning technologies<\/em> (DLTs), with the emphasis on learning<\/em>. This term is used to differentiate between communication and information-retrieval technologies and applications that have the capacity to provide engaging models and representations of fundamental concepts, supported by student interaction.<\/p>\n

In mathematics education, DLTs necessitate preservice teachers having sound content, pedagogical content, and technical pedagogical content knowledge (Mishra & Kohler, 2006). Obtaining this knowledge is a challenge for many preservice primary teachers who do not have a positive self-efficacy in doing<\/em> or teaching<\/em> mathematics. The issue is compounded further by preservice teachers\u2019 beliefs about how mathematics is learned and should be taught, which for many are based upon their personal experiences at school and experiences at practicum schools rather than exposure to relevant research.<\/p>\n

The prolific provision of interactive whiteboards, laptops, and handheld digital devices (such as iPads) throughout schools in Australia has prompted universities to evaluate their teacher education programs. Universities need to be sure that they produce digitally competent graduates who will be teaching in schools that will require them to be proficient users and adapters of DLTs.<\/p>\n

Clifford, Friesen, and Lock (2004) and Hughes (2004) argued that effective technology integration in preservice teacher education should be addressed within curriculum and pedagogy units and not as an isolated just-in-case<\/em> ICT course (Jacobsen, Clifford, & Friesen, 2002) or an add-on unit (Kent, 2004). Furthermore, researchers have promoted the idea of providing preservice teachers with opportunities to create, develop, implement, and evaluate instructional activities that incorporate technology skills (Brush et al., 2003; Howard, 2002; Kariuki & Duran, 2004).<\/p>\n

For this project, the work of Ertmer (2005) and Pierson and McNeil (2000) were melded to frame a process that could challenge or formulate the preservice teachers\u2019 beliefs about DLT integration through successfully executing original applications, observing and sharing ideas and skills with their peers, and increasing their positive self-efficacy in relation to teaching mathematics.<\/p>\n

Background<\/strong><\/p>\n

This study was carried out at the Brisbane campus of the Australian Catholic University (ACU). All mathematics content and pedagogy tutorials are conducted in the mathematics laboratory, which is equipped with seven standalone networked computers, a data projector, and a Smartboard with a number of mathematics-specific software programs (e.g., Geometer\u2019s Sketchpad, 2011).<\/p>\n

In the ACU bachelor of education, primary students undertake four units of mathematics: two content and two teaching methodology units. Table 1 shows the placement of these units in the 4-year program.<\/p>\n

Table 1<\/strong>
\nMathematics Units in the Bachelor of Education (Primary)<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
Year\u00a0<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Semester 1<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Semester 2<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
One<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong>No mathematics unit<\/td>\nContent unit (whole number, measurement, and geometry)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Two<\/td>\nTeaching and learning unit (whole number, measurement, and geometry)<\/td>\nNo mathematics unit<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Three<\/td>\nContent unit (rational number, algebra, probability & statistics) \u2013 Exploring Mathematics 2; EDMA309<\/td>\nTeaching and learning unit (rational number, algebra, probability & statistics) \u2013 Teacher and Learning Mathematics 2, EDMA310<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Four<\/td>\nNo mathematics unit<\/td>\nNo mathematics unit<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

An investigation into the use of DLTs as instructional tools within the mathematics units at ACU seemed warranted after students expressed \u00a0concerns about the mismatch between the use of DLTs at ACU and their practicum schools. A communal constructivism environment (Holmes, Tangney, Fitzgibbon, Savage, & Meehan, 2001) was the framework used to implement the unit EDMA310, so that the students and I could work together to develop understandings about the potential and practical application of readily available digital technologies. Furthermore, the knowledge and skills generated by the students was for their personal benefit and also for their peers and me (as in Foulger, Williams, & Weyzel, 2008). The rationale for using this framework was my lack of experience and expertise with the interactive whiteboard (and associated software) that resided in the mathematics laboratory where all units of mathematics are taught.<\/p>\n

Methodology<\/strong><\/p>\n

Participants<\/strong><\/p>\n

Eighty-eight third-year bachelor of education students (aged between 20 and 50+ years of age) were invited to participate in this study at the beginning of the semester. Project details were explained during the first lecture of the semester, and interested students were provided with an information letter and a consent form. Ninety percent of the students agreed to be involved in the research dimension of the unit; the other students still participated in the assessment tasks and tutorials but did not undertake the questionnaires or postpresentation reflection.<\/p>\n

DLTs in the Teacher Education Program<\/strong><\/p>\n

Students were exposed to digital learning technologies during both the lectures and the tutorials of the third year bachelor of education unit (Learning and Teaching Mathematics 2; EDMA310). I used the technologies in electronic slideshows to cover unit content as well as standalone modelling of pedagogical practices, commensurate with a focus upon the use of technology as a tool to represent mathematical concepts.<\/p>\n

The DLTs targeted for this study included<\/p>\n