Teachers' Critical Evaluations of Dynamic Geometry Software Implementation in 1:1 Classrooms

Computers in the Schools

Volumn 31, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 134-153

  Ware, Jennifer ^a   Stein, Sarah ^b  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

1:1 laptop; dynamic geometry software; network access; STEM education; TPACK

Indexed keywords

LAPTOP COMPUTERS; PERSONNEL TRAINING;

1:1 LAPTOP; DYNAMIC GEOMETRY SOFTWARES; NETWORK ACCESS; STEM EDUCATION; TPACK;

TEACHING;

EID: 84906347773     PISSN: 07380569     EISSN: 15287033     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/07380569.2014.931779     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Argueta, R., Huff, J., Tingen, J., & Corn, J. (2011). 1:1 Laptop Initiatives: A summary of research findings across seven states. Raleigh, NC: The William and Ida Friday Institute. Retrieved from https://www.fi.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/laptop-initiatives-summary-of-research-across-seven-states.pdf
2. Baek, E., & Freehling, S. (2007). Using Internet communication technologies by low-income high school students in completing educational tasks inside and outside the school setting. Computers in the Schools, 24(1-2), 33-55. doi: 10.1300/J025v24n01_04
3. Blank, R., & Strickling, L. E. (2011). Exploring the digital nation-Computer and Internet use at home. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, National Telecommunications and Information Administration. Retrieved from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/exploring_the_digital_nation_computer_and_internet_use_at_home_11092011.pdf
4. Boyatzis, R.E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5. Gulek, J.C., & Demirtas, H. (2005). Learning with technology: The impact of laptop use on student achievement. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3(2), 1-39. Retrieved from http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/jtla/article/view/1655
6. Hannafin, R.D., Burruss, J.D., & Little, C. (2001). Learning with dynamic geometry programs: Perspectives of teachers and learners. The Journal of Educational Research, 94(3), 132-144. doi: 10.1080/00220670109599911
7. Hannafin, R.D., Liu, Y., Truxaw, M.P., & Vermillion, J.R. (2008). Effects of spatial ability and instructional program on geometry achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 101(3), 148-157. doi: 10.3200/JOER.101.3.148-157
8. Holcolmb, L.B. (2009). Results & lessons learned from1:1 laptop initiatives: A collective review. TechTrends, 53(6), 49-55. doi: 10.1007/s11528-009-0343-1
9. Hollebrands, K.F. (2007). The role of a dynamic software program for geometry in the strategies high school mathematics students employ. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(2), 164-192. doi: 10.2307/30034955
10. Hu, W. (2007, May 4). Seeing no progress, some schools drop laptops. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/education/04laptop.html
11. Inan, F., & Lowther, D. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 classrooms: A path model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2), 137-154. doi: 10.1007/s11423-009-9132-y
12. King, C. (2011, February 17). Survey of online access finds digital divide. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/17/AR2011021707234.html
13. Lee, H.S., & Hollebrands, K.F. (2006). Students' use of technological features while solving a mathematics problem. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 25(3), 252-266. doi: 10.1016/j.jmathb.2006.09.005
14. Lei, J. (2010). Conditions for ubiquitous computing: What can be learned from a longitudinal study. Computers in the Schools, 27(1), 35-53. doi: 10.1080/07380560903536264
15. Lemke, C., & Martin, C. (2003). One-to-one computing in Maine: A state profile. Retrieved from: http://www.metiri.com/NSFStudy/MEprofile.pdf
16. Lindlof, T.R. (2011). Qualitative communication research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17. Maddux, C.D., & Johnson, D.L. (2010). Information technology in higher education: Tensions and barriers. Computers in the Schools, 27(2), 71-75. doi: 10.1080/07380561003801574
18. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108, 1017-1054. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
19. Mishra, P., Koehler, M.J., & Kereluik, K. (2009). The song remains the same: Looking back to the future of educational technology. TechTrends, 53(5), 48-53. doi: 10.1007/s11528-009-0325-3
20. Mistretta, R.M. (2005). Integrating technology into the mathematics classroom: The role of teacher preparation programs. Mathematics Educator, 15(1), 18-24. Retrieved from http://tme.coe.uga.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/v15n1_Mistretta.pdf
21. Muir, M., Christensen, R., & Knezek, G. (2004). The power of one to one: Early findings from the Maine learning technology initiative. Learning and Leading with Technology, 32(3), 6-11. Retrieved from http://www.mcmel.org/storage/Power_1to1.pdf
22. Muir, M., Owen, A., Knezek, G., Christensen, R., Soloway, E., Norris, C., Gibson, I. (2006, March). Lessons learned from 1-to-1 laptop initiatives: Reflections on the critical components. Paper presented at the 17th International Conference of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education (SITE) (pp. 4366-4371), Orlando, FL. Retrieved from: http://www.editlib.org/noaccess/22794/
23. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
24. North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2010). NC school report cards. Retrieved 2010 from http://www.ncschoolreportcard.org/src/stateDetails.jsp?Page=1&pYear=2009-2010
25. North Carolina Public Schools. (2010). Statistical profile 2009. Retrieved 2010 from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/fbs/resources/data/statisticalprofile/2009profile.pdf
26. Penuel, W.R. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: A research synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38, 329-348. doi: 10.1080/15391523.2006.10782463
27. Riessman, C.K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
28. Spires, H.A., Wiebe, E., Young, C., Hollebrands, K.F., & Lee, J.K. (2012). Toward a new learning ecology: Professional development for teachers in 1:1 learning environments. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 12, 232-254. Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol12/iss2/currentpractice/article1.cfm
29. Stein, S., & Ware, J. (2010). Scaling up STEM learning with the VCL: The process. Retrieved from http://scaleupstem.ncsu.edu/process
30. Stein, S., Ware, J., Laboy, J., & Schaffer, H.E. (2013). Improving K-12 pedagogy via a cloud designed for education. International Journal of Information Management, 33(1), 235-241. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2012.07.009
31. Wachira, P., & Keengwe, J. (2011). Technology integration barriers: Urban school mathematics teachers perspectives. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(1), 17-25. doi: 10.1007/s10956-010-9230-y
32. Warschauer, M. (2006). Laptops and literacy: Learning in the wireless classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.