{"id":9365,"date":"2020-02-12T15:50:22","date_gmt":"2020-02-12T15:50:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/\/\/"},"modified":"2020-05-18T18:06:01","modified_gmt":"2020-05-18T18:06:01","slug":"why-and-how-secondary-mathematics-teachers-implement-virtual-manipulatives","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/volume-20\/issue-1-20\/mathematics\/why-and-how-secondary-mathematics-teachers-implement-virtual-manipulatives","title":{"rendered":"Why and How Secondary Mathematics Teachers Implement Virtual Manipulatives"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
In today\u2019s classrooms, teachers are expected to integrate technology as a means to enhance student understanding and engagement. Depending on the content area, the technology tool <\/em>can take on many forms (e.g., interactive white boards, tablets, computers, games, software, virtual manipulatives, etc.) and roles (see Cullen, Hertel, & Nickels, 2020). Yet, teachers often report that they are not prepared to integrate technology in an effective and innovative manner (Albion, Tondeur, Forkosh-Baruch, & Peeraer, 2015). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Over the past 30 years, virtual manipulatives (VMs) are one technology tool that teachers have been encouraged to implement to enhance student learning (Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators [AMTE], 2017; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM], 2000). A VM is an \u201cinteractive, technology-enabled visual representation of a dynamic mathematical object, including all of the programmable features that allow it to be manipulated, that presents opportunities for constructing mathematical knowledge\u201d (Moyer-Packenham & Bolyard, 2016, p. 13). <\/p>\n\n\n\n As with any technology\ntool, the potential for VMs to support student learning lies not within the\ntool itself but in how students engage with the VM and the relevant mathematics\n(Moyer-Packenham & Bolyard, 2016). Therefore, teachers must be prepared to\ncreate opportunities that promote quality engagement with VMs, thus presenting\nopportunities for students to develop conceptual understanding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Unfortunately, most of the studies investigating teachers\u2019 use of VMs occur at the prekindergarten through Grade 6 levels, with minimal studies conducted at the middle school, high school, and above levels (Moyer-Packenham & Westenskow, 2013). Therefore, this article reports the findings of a study on a professional development (PD) opportunity for secondary mathematics teachers aimed at supporting their efforts to teach with VMs. (See http:\/\/bit.ly\/VirtManips<\/a> for an annotated list of VM collections and http:\/\/bit.ly\/VMActivities<\/a> for a repository of VM tasks used during the PD.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n VMs\nare commonly categorized into five environments: single representation,\nmultirepresentations, tutorial, gaming, and simulation (Moyer-Packenham &\nBolyard, 2016). The single-representation<\/em>\nVM \u201cenvironment contains an interactive pictorial\/visual representation (i.e.,\nimage) of a dynamic mathematical object and is not accompanied by numerical or\ntext information\u201d (p. 14). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Typically,\nthis environment requires teachers to design tasks to focus students\u2019 attention\non the relevant mathematical ideas and learning goals. The multi-representation<\/em> \u201cenvironment contains the interactive visual\nrepresentation (i.e., image) of the dynamic mathematical object and is accompanied\nby numerical and, sometimes, text information\u201d (Moyer-Packenham & Bolyard,\n2016, p. 15). Typically, the numeric information is linked simultaneously with the\nvisual representation, thus promoting students to make connections and see\npatterns more easily. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The\ntutorial \u201c<\/em>environment contains the interactive\nvisual representation (i.e., image) of the dynamic mathematical object and is\naccompanied by numerical and text information in a format that guides the user\nthrough a tutorial of the mathematical procedures and processes being\npresented\u201d (Moyer-Packenham & Bolyard, 2016, p. 17). The tutoring and guiding\ncharacteristics of this environment distinguish it from the multirepresentation\nenvironment. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In\nthe gaming<\/em> environment, the VM is\n\u201cembedded in a format that allows the user to play a game with the object to\nreach goals that are reflected in the gameplay\u201d (Moyer-Packenham & Bolyard,\n2016, p. 18). Finally, in the simulation <\/em>environment\nthe VM is an interactive image \u201cof the dynamic mathematical object\u201d and other\nrepresentations (e.g., text and numeric) embedded in a manner that enables \u201cthe\nuser to run a simulation intended to represent or draw attention to embedded\nmathematics concepts\u201d (p. 20). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Teachers\nin the PD described here interacted with VMs from all five environments;\nhowever, VMs were primarily from the single-representation,\nmultirepresentation, and tutoring environments. Appendix A<\/a>\ncontains examples of VMs from the different environments that teachers\ninteracted with during the PD. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Moyer-Packenham and Westenskow\u2019s (2013) meta-analysis of studies investigating the effects on student achievement when VMs are used identified five interrelated categories of affordances of VMs: <\/p>\n\n\n\n focused constraint <\/em>(i.e., VMs focus and constrain students\u2019 attention on mathematical objects and processes), creative variation<\/em> (i.e., VMs encourage creativity and increase the variety of students\u2019 solutions), simultaneous linking <\/em>(i.e., VMs simultaneously link representations with each other and with students\u2019 actions), efficient precision (i.e., VMs contain precise representations allowing accurate and efficient use), and motivation (i.e., VMs motivate students to persist at mathematical tasks). (p. 35)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Amongst the affordances,\nthe interaction between the dynamic object, the learner, and the mathematics is\nwhat determines the actual affordance of the VM for student learning (Moyer-Packenham\n& Westenskow, 2013). Both Tucker, Moyer-Packenham, Westenskow, and Jordan\u2019s\n(2016) and Moyer-Packenham and Westenskow\u2019s (2016) more recent meta-analysis\nfound that creative variation was the least frequent affordance category\nidentified by evidence as contributing to student learning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Beyond these affordances, additional reasons exist for promoting teachers\u2019 use of VMs in the classroom. For example, studies indicate that VMs can be used as a tool to support students\u2019 learning by providing opportunities for immediate feedback (Edwards Johnson, Campert, & Zuidema, 2012). In today\u2019s dynamic classrooms, VMs can be used to support teachers\u2019 differentiation efforts (Bouck, Flanagan, & Bouck, 2015; Shin et al., 2017) to support students\u2019 emerging understanding, as well as a means for challenging (or encouraging) students to explore a mathematical idea from a different perspective. Bouck and colleagues (2015) also suggested that VMs benefit students with learning disabilities in both their performance, their confidence, and possibly, their development of conceptual understanding. Finally, VMs can provide equal access for students to learn content by reducing effects of students\u2019 demographics (socioeconomic status and English language learner status) as predictors of achievement (Moyer-Packenham et al., 2014). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Providing\naccess to technology tools is \u201cnot enough\u201d in supporting teachers to teach with\nthe tools; rather teachers need to \u201ccome to know the appropriate and\nconstructive uses of technology\u201d (Wilson, 2008, p. 415). Our PD aimed to\nsupport teachers implementing VMs and tasks in appropriate and constructive\nways. Since minimal studies have been done investigating secondary mathematics\nteachers\u2019 use of VMs, this study aimed to extend the findings from studies at\nthe elementary levels investigating teachers\u2019 implementation of VMs to the\nsecondary levels. Specifically, this\nstudy explored the following research question: Why and how do secondary mathematics teachers report implementing\nvirtual manipulatives while participating in a focused professional development\nopportunity?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rather than studying teachers\u2019 implementation efforts in isolation, teachers\u2019 implementation of VM tasks are considered to be mediated by their mathematical goals for the task, the tools available related to their implementation (i.e., technology and otherwise), and the students they teach (Zbiek, Heid, Blume, & Dick, 2007). A VM task refers to a VM and all accompanying instructional materials (e.g., prompts and directions) whether on screen or in printed form. The VM task could include more than one task (Sinclair, 2003) focused on investigating a particular concept (e.g., through alternative exploration paths), but it may include only one task.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To\nunderstand why and how teachers implemented VMs, the following study drew from the\nthird strand of activity theory (Engestr\u00f6m, 1987, 1999; Nardi, 1996). Activity\ntheory takes a multidimensional approach to investigating activities in which\npeople are engaged and acknowledges that activities are mediated by the context\nof the activity, the subjects\u2019 experiences, how they use tools and how tools\nare transformed through activity and so forth. Engestr\u00f6m (1987, 1999) discuss\nhow this strand draws and differs from the Russian strand of activity theory\noriginating with Vygotsky, Leont\u2019ev, and Luria.<\/p>\n\n\n\n An\nactivity consists of a subject, object, and actions. In this study, the\nteachers engaged in the PD are the subject,\n<\/em>as they are the learners. The object,\n<\/em>which motivates the activity and gives the activity specific direction are\nthe teachers\u2019 implementations of VMs and VM tasks. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Teachers\u2019 practices related to planning and preparing to implement VMs and tasks constitute the actions <\/em>(the goal-directed processes undertaken by the subject to achieve the object) of an activity system in this study. \u201cActions are chains of operations\u201d (Jonassen & Rohrer-Murphy, 1999, p. 63) and require conscious effort. Through repeated practice, actions can become operationalized (subconscious). Examples of actions include critiquing a VM task, process of developing an instructional guide to accompany a VM, and so forth. Other aspects of an activity system (see Figure 1) include the tools\/mediating artifacts (the VMs and tasks, the task analysis framework), rules (curriculum, instructional style), community (their students and other teachers in the school), and division of labor (do teachers work collaboratively or primarily individually). The focus of this study was on why and how teachers implemented VMs and tasks (the object). <\/p>\n\n\n\n To address the gap in literature about secondary mathematics teachers\u2019 use of VMs and tasks, the aim of this study was to investigate why and how secondary mathematics teachers reported they implemented VMs and tasks while participating in a PD opportunity. Teachers\u2019 conversations and responses during the PD sessions, as well as interviews with some of the participants, were used to investigate teachers\u2019 reported implementation of VM tasks. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The design of the PD was based on five components of effective PD (e.g., Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon, & Birman, 2002). That is to say, content focus<\/em> (grounded in the teachers\u2019 mathematics curriculum), active learning <\/em>(teachers engaged with VMs and tasks related to their identified learning goals), and duration<\/em> (at least 20 contact hours spread across 6 months). The PD was coherent with the district initiatives regarding teacher and student technology use and promoted collaboration amongst participants through collective participation (teaching pairs from the same school). <\/p>\n\n\n\n In phase I, teachers reflected on the role of technology in the classroom and their current technology use. Additionally, tools (guiding questions and a task analysis framework) were introduced to support teachers\u2019 integration efforts and knowledge growth (see Appendix B<\/a>; Reiten, 2018). The task analysis framework drew from work by Trocki (2014) and Sinclair (2003) with dynamic geometry software tasks and was intended to help teachers critique and develop tasks aimed at promoting students\u2019 development of conceptual understanding of mathematics through reflection and communication (Hiebert et al., 1997), as well as through using and connecting mathematical representations (NCTM, 2014). <\/p>\n\n\n\n During this phase, teachers completed, critiqued, and compared three VMs\/VM tasks (i.e., Modeling and Solving Two-Step Equations from ExploreLearning, https:\/\/www.explorelearning.com\/index.cfm?method=cResource.dspDetail&ResourceID=226<\/a>; Algebra Tiles from Illuminations, https:\/\/www.nctm.org\/Classroom-Resources\/Illuminations\/Interactives\/Algebra-Tiles\/<\/a>; and Virtual Algebra Tiles from Michigan Virtual University, http:\/\/media.mivu.org\/mvu_pd\/a4a\/homework\/applets_two_step.html<\/a>) for solving two-step equations. As teachers progressed from the first phase through the third phase, they took on more responsibility for finding and selecting the VMs and tasks. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Beginning with the second PD session, teachers recorded their responses to the guiding questions and how they were using the task analysis framework using Google Docs. <\/strong>The Google Docs encouraged teachers to use the task analysis framework to critique VMs and tasks. Additionally, the Google Docs included a prompt that encouraged teachers to reapply the task analysis framework after they made or thought about potential modifications\/adaptions to the VMs and tasks that they were exploring. (Appendix C<\/a> contains an example of a Google Doc from the latter portion of the PD).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Phases\nII and III focused on teachers\u2019 learning goals and refining their instructional\npractices related to implementing VM tasks. In Phase II teachers were given VM\ntasks to critique, whereas in Phase III teachers found the tasks to critique\nand modify. During the PD sessions in these two phases, teachers spent the\nfirst part of each session completing and critiquing VM tasks related to their\nidentified learning goals. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For\nthe remaining part of the PD session, teachers selected a VM or task and then\nspent time preparing the task to use with their students (e.g., modifying or creating\ninstructional guides). Due to the attention given to individual teacher\u2019s\ngrowth, some teachers were at Phase II while other teachers were at Phase III. Teachers\nused the guiding questions and task analysis framework throughout the three\nphases of the PD as they critiqued and modified\/developed instructional guides\nto accompany VMs. Therefore, teachers\u2019 use of these tools constituted some of\nthe actions investigated during\nthe study that supported teachers\u2019 implementations of VM tasks (the object) of an activity system. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Fourteen\nteachers in a suburban district participated in a PD opportunity aimed at\nfostering their use of VMs and tasks. Middle school teachers were originally\nencouraged to participate due to all middle school students having Chromebooks.\nTen middle school teachers, three high school teachers, and one fifth-grade teacher\ncomprised the participants. Table 1 contains additional information about the participants.\nIn the remainder of this article, \u201cteacher\u201d or \u201cteacher(s)\u201d refers to the\nteachers who participated in the PD and \u201cstudents\u201d refers to the teachers\u2019\nstudents. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 1<\/strong>Virtual\nManipulatives<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Theoretical Background<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Methods<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Professional\nDevelopment Opportunity<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Participants<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Information About Participants in the Professional Development Opportunity<\/p>\n\n\n\n