Evolving pedagogy and practice: The 1:1 mathematics classroom through a TPACK lens

Handbook of Research on Teacher Education in the Digital Age

Volumn , Issue , 2015, Pages 577-603

  Hennessey, Susan ^a   Olofson, Mark W ^a   Swallow, Meredith J C ^a   Downes, John M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84956980989     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-8403-4.ch022     Document Type: Chapter

References (76)

1. Abell Foundation. (2008). One-to-one computing in public schools: Lessons from "laptops for all" programs. Retrieved December 12, 2014 from http://www.abell.org/pubsitems/ed_onetoone_908.pdf
2. Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT-TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52(1), 154-168. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.006
3. Ansalone, G. (2010). Tracking: Educational differentiation or defective strategy. Educational Research Quarterly, 34(2), 3-17.
4. Argueta, R., Huff, D. J., Tingen, J., & Corn, J. O. (2011). Laptop initiatives: Summary of research across six states. Raleigh, NC: Friday Institute for Educational Innovation, North Carolina State University.
5. Association for Middle Level Education. (2010a). This we believe in action: Implementing successful middle level schools. Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association.
6. Association for Middle Level Education. (2010b). This we believe: Keys to educating young adolescents. Westerville, OH: National Middle School Association.
7. Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559.
8. Bebell, D., & Kay, R. (2010). One to one computing: A summary of the quantitative results from the Berkshire wireless learning initiative. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(2).
9. Bell, A. (1993). Principles for the design of teaching. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24(1), 5-34. doi:10.1007/BF01273293
10. Bowers, J. S., & Stephens, B. (2011). Using technology to explore mathematical relationships: A framework for orienting mathematics courses for prospective teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14(4), 285-304. doi:10.1007/s10857-011-9168-x
11. Chandra, V., & Briskey, J. (2012). ICT driven pedagogies and its impact on learning outcomes in high school mathematics. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 7(1), 73-83. doi:10.5172/ijpl.2012.7.1.73
12. Cohen, E. G., Lotan, R. A., Whitcomb, J. A., Balderrama, M. V., Cossey, R., & Swanson, P. E. (1994). Complex instruction: Higher-order thinking in heterogeneous classrooms. Handbook of Cooperative Learning Methods, 82-96.
13. Cox, S., & Graham, C. R. (2009). Using an elaborated model of the TPACK framework to analyze and depict teacher knowledge. TechTrends, 53(5), 61.
14. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15. Crowe, S., Creswell, K., Robertson, A., Huby, G., Avery, A., & Sheikh, A. (2011). The case study approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11(100), 1-9. PMID:21707982
16. Daniels, J. S., Jacobsen, M., Varnhagen, S., & Friesen, S. (2014). Barriers to systemic, effective, and sustainable technology use in high school classrooms. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 39(4), 1-14.
17. Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council.
18. Dawson, K., Cavanaugh, C., & Ritzhaupt, A. D. (2008). Florida's EETT leveraging laptops initiative and its impact on teaching practices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(2), 143-159. doi:10.1080/15391523.2008.10782526
19. Dawson, K., Ritzhaupt, A., Liu, F., Rodriguez, P., & Frey, C. (2013). Using TPCK as a lens to study the practices of math and science teachers involved in a year-long technology integration initiative. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 32(4), 395-422.
20. Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House LLC.
21. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255-284. doi:10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551
22. Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge: an introduction and orientation. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge: The Construct and its Implications for Science Education. Dordrecht, Boston: Kluwer Academic.
23. Handal, B., Campbell, C., Cavanagh, M., Petocz, P., & Kelly, N. (2013). Technological pedagogical content knowledge of secondary mathematics teachers. Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education, 13(1), 22-40.
24. Heritage, M. (2010). Formative assessment and next-generation assessment systems: Are we losing an opportunity? Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved December 12, 2014 from http://www.ccsso.org/documents/2010/formative_assessment_next_generation_2010.pdf
25. Herr, K., & Anderson, G. (2005). The action research dissertation: A guide for students and faculty. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
26. Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223-252. doi:10.1007/s11423-006-9022-5
27. Howard, S. K., Chan, A., & Caputi, P. (2014). More than beliefs: Subject areas and teachers' integration of laptops in secondary teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology. doi:10.1111/bjet.12139
28. Hruschka, D. J., Schwartz, D., St. John, D. C., Picone-Decaro, E., Jenkins, R. A., & Carey, J. W. (2004). Reliability in coding open-ended data: Lessons learned from HIV behavioral research. Field Methods, 16(3), 307-331. doi:10.1177/1525822X04266540
29. Inserra, A., & Short, T. (2013). An analysis of high school math, science, social studies, English, and foreign language teachers' implementation of one-to-one computing and their pedagogical practices. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 41(2), 145-169. doi:10.2190/ET.41.2.d
30. Jacobsen, M., Clifford, P., & Friesen, S. (2002). Preparing teachers for technology integration: Creating a culture of inquiry in the context of use. Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education, 2(3), 363-388.
31. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2005). Participatory action research: Communicative action and the public sphere. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed., pp. 559-603). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
32. Klepfer, K., & Hull, J. (2012). High school rigor and good advice: Setting up students to succeed. Alexander, VA: The Center for Public Education.
33. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
34. Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Bouck, E. C., De-Schryver, M., Kereluik, K., Shin, T. S., & Wolf, L. G. (2011). Deep-Play: Developing TPACK for 21st century teachers. International Journal of Learning Technology, 6(2), 146-163. doi:10.1504/IJLT.2011.042646
35. Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy and technology. Computers & Education, 49(3), 740-762. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.012
36. Lannin, J. K., Webb, M., Chval, K., Arbaugh, F., Hicks, S., Taylor, C., & Bruton, R. (2013). The development of beginning mathematics teacher pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 16(6), 403-426. doi:10.1007/s10857-013-9244-5
37. Lee, H., & Hollebrands, K. (2008). Preparing to teach mathematics with technology: An integrated approach to developing technological pedagogical content knowledge. Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education, 8(4), 326-341.
38. Lee, J. (2013). College for all: Gaps between desirable and actual P-12 math achievement trajectories for college readiness. Educational Researcher, 42(2), 78-88.
39. Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. The Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34-46. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1946.tb02295.x
40. Little, M., & King, L. (2007). Using on-line modules for professional development in action research: Analysis of beta testing results. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(2). http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/6.2.1.pdf Retrieved December 12, 2014
41. Loveless, T. (2013). The resurgence of ability grouping and persistence of tracking. The Brookings Institution. Retrieved December 12, 2014 from http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2013/03/18-brown-centerloveless/2013-brown-center-report-web.pdf
42. Manfra, M. M., & Spires, H. A. (2013). Creative synthesis and TPACK: Supporting teachers through a technology and inquiry-rich graduate degree program. Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education, 13(4), 386-418.
43. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2011). Designing Qualitative Research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
45. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices [NGACBP] & Council of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO]. (2010). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers.
46. Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 509-523. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.03.006
47. Niess, M. L. (2011). Investigating TPACK: Knowledge growth in teaching with technology. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(3), 299-317. doi:10.2190/EC.44.3.c
48. Niess, M. L., Ronau, R. N., Shafer, K. G., Driskell, S. O., Harper, S. R., Johnston, C., & Kersaint, G. et al. (2009). Mathematics teacher TPACK standards and development model. Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education, 9(1), 4-24.
49. Oliver, M. (2011). Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators. Learning, Media and Technology, 36(1), 91-93. doi:10.1080/17439884.2011.549829
50. Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
51. Penuel, W. R. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: A research synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 329-348. doi:10.1080/15391523.2006.10782463
52. Pierson, M., & Borthwick, A. (2010). Framing the assessment of educational technology professional development in a culture of learning. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 26(4).
53. Polly, D., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Examining how learner-centered professional development influences teachers' espoused and enacted practices. The Journal of Educational Research, 104(2), 120-130. doi:10.1080/00220671003636737
54. Polly, D., Mims, C., Shepherd, C. E., & Inan, F. (2010). Evidence of impact: Transforming teacher education with preparing tomorrow's teachers to teach with technology (PT3) grants. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 863-870. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.024
55. ResearchWare, Inc. (2013). HyperRESEARCH (Version 3.5.2) [Software]. Retrieved December 12, 2014 from http://www.researchware.com/
56. Richardson, J., Mcleod, S., Flora, K., Sauers, N., Kannan, S., & Sincar, M. (2013). Large-scale 1: 1 computing initiatives: An open access database. International Journal of Education and Development Using ICT, 9(1).
57. Roesken, B., Pepin, B., & Toerner, G. (2011). Beliefs and beyond: Affect and the teaching and learning of mathematics. ZDM, 43(4), 451-455. doi:10.1007/s11858-011-0354-1
58. Ruthven, K. (2009). Towards a naturalistic conceptualisation of technology integration in classroom practice: The example of school mathematics. Education & Didactique, 3(1), 131-159. doi:10.4000/educationdidactique.434
59. Sams, A., & Bergmann, J. (2013). Flip Your Students' Learning. Educational Leadership, 70(6), 16-20.
60. Sauers, N. J., & McLeod, S. (2012). What does the research say about school one-to-one computing initiatives? UCEA Center for the Advanced Study of Technology Leadership in Education. University of Kentucky.
61. Sell, G. R., Cornelius-White, J., Chang, C.-W., McLean, A., & Roworth, W. R. (2012). A meta-synthesis of research on 1:1 technology initiatives in K-12 education (p. 57). Missouri State University: Ozarks Educational Research Initiative Institute for School Improvement. Retrieved December 12, 2014 from http://education.missouristate.edu/assets/clse/Final_Report_of_One-to-One_Meta-Synthesis__April_2012_.pdf
62. Shapley, K., Sheehan, D., Maloney, C., & Caranikas-Walker, F. (2009). Evaluation of the Texas Technology Immersion Pilot: Final outcomes for a four-year study (2004-05 to 2007-08). Texas Center for Educational Research. Retrieved December 12, 2014 from https://etcjournal.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/etxtip_final.pdf
63. Shapley, K., Sheehan, D., Maloney, C., & Caranikas-Walker, F. (2011). Effects of technology immersion on middle school students' learning opportunities and achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 104(5), 299-315. doi:10.1080/00220671003767615
64. Shinas, V. H., Yilmaz-Ozden, S., Mouza, C., Karchmer-Klein, R., & Glutting, J. J. (2013). Examining domains of technological pedagogical content knowledge using factor analysis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(4), 339-360. doi:10.1080/15391523.2013.10782609
65. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. doi:10.3102/0013189X015002004
66. Smith, G. E., & Throne, S. (2009). Differentiating instruction with technology in the middle school classrooms. Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education. Retrieved December 12, 2014 from http://www.iste.org/docs/excerpts/DIFF68-excerpt.pdf
67. Stiggins, R. (2004). New assessment beliefs for a new school mission. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), 22-27. doi:10.1177/003172170408600106
68. Urban-Woldron, H. (2013). Integration of digital tools into the mathematics classroom: A challenge for preparing and supporting the teacher. The International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 20(3), 115-124.
69. Vermont Middle Grades Task Force. (2009). Middle school is not a building: Educating Vermont's young adolescents in the 21st century. Marlboro, VT: Vermont Association for Middle Level Education.
70. Wimberly, G. L., & Noeth, R. J. (2005). College readiness begins in middle school. Washington, DC: ACT. Retrieved December 12, 2014 from http://act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/CollegeReadiness.pdf
71. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case Study Research: Design and Method (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
72. Zeichner, K. M. (2003). Teacher research as professional development for P-12 educators in the USA [1]. Educational Action Research, 11(2), 301-326. doi:10.1080/09650790300200211
73. Zuber, E. N., & Anderson, J. (2012). The initial response of secondary mathematics teachers to a one-to-one laptop program. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 25(2), 279-298. doi:10.1007/s13394-012-0063-2
74. Houston, M., & Lin, L. (2012). Humanizing the classroom by flipping the homework versus lecture equation. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (Vol. 2012, pp. 1177-1182).
75. Murthy, P., Shannon, E., Short, T. K., Morote, E.-S., & Inserra, A. (2013). One-to-One Computing, One-to-One Learning Predictors for Implementation of Differentiated Instruction. Issues and Trends in Educational Technology, 1(2). Retrieved December 12, 2014 from https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/itet/article/view/16929
76. Worthy, J. (2010). Only the names have been changed: ability grouping revisited. The Urban Review, 42(4), 271-295. doi:10.1007/s11256-009-0134-1