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

Mathematics Education Research Journal

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 279-298

  Zuber, Edward Nordin ^a   Anderson, Judy ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

One to one laptop; Secondary mathematics; Teacher beliefs; Technology

Indexed keywords

EID: 84877070650     PISSN: 10332170     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s13394-012-0063-2     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality and behaviour. Milton Keynes: OUP.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Beswick, K. (2005). The beliefs/practice connection in broadly defined context. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 17(2), 39-68.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
11. 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.
12. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: computers in the classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. Ertmer, P. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25-39.
17. 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.
18. Forgasz, H. (2010). Streaming for mathematics in years 7-10 in Victoria: An issue of equity? Mathematics Education Research Journal, 22(1), 57-90.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2008). Learning with laptops: A multi-method case study. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38(3), 305-332.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. Jimoyiannis, A., & Komis, V. (2007). Examining teachers' beliefs about ICT in education: Implications of a teacher preparation programme. Teacher development, 11(2), 149-173.
26. 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.
27. Lei, J. (2010). Conditions for ubiquitous computing: What can be learned from a longitudinal study. Computers in the Schools, 27(1), 35-53.
28. Lei, J., & Zhao, Y. (2008). One-to-one computing: what does it bring to schools? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 39(2), 97-122.
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108, 1017-1054.
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. 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.
35. 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.
36. Reynolds, R., Treharne, D., & Tripp, H. (2003). ICT-the hopes and the reality. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(2), 151-167.
37. 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.
38. 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.
39. 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.
40. 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.
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. 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.
44. Zucker, A. (2004). Developing a research agenda for ubiquitous computing in schools. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(4), 371-386.
45. 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.