Perceptions of Preservice Teachers about Adaptive Learning Programs in K-8 Mathematics Education

Abstract

Adaptive learning programs are frequently used in the K-8 mathematics classroom. These programs provide instruction to students at the appropriate level of difficulty by presenting content, providing feedback, and allowing students to master skills before progressing. The purpose of the study was to seek to interpret how preservice teachers’ experiences influence their perceptions and plans to integrate adaptive learning programs in their future K-8 mathematics classroom. This was a qualitative study with 17 participants who were enrolled in an undergraduate teacher education program. Data was collected and analyzed from archived journals the participants completed as a part of their K-8 Math Methods course, a survey, and semi-structured interviews. The findings from this study indicate that the participating preservice teachers perceive adaptive learning programs to be beneficial for students, and they recognize they have many decisions to make regarding what adaptive learning programs are used and how they are integrated into the classroom. The study also found that the instruction the preservice teachers received in their K-8 Math Methods course played a critical role in making them aware of the features available and myriad of options available in adaptive learning programs.

Keywords

• Preservice teacher education,Mathematics education,Adaptive learning systems,Perceptions for technology

Kaynakça

1. Albee, J. J. (2003). A study of preservice elementary teachers’ technology skill preparedness and examples of how it can be increased. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 11(1), 53–71.
2. Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators on Technology (AMTE). (2015, November). Position of the Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators on Technology. Retrieved from https://amte.net/sites/default/files/technologypositionstatement-nov2015.pdf
3. Beal, C. R., Cohen, P. R., & Woolf, B. P. (2010). Evaluation of AnimalWatch: An intelligent tutoring system for arithmetic and fractions. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(1), 64–77.
4. Bochniak, J. S. (2014). The effectiveness of computer-aided instruction on math fact fluency. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/
5. Brahier, D. J. (2013). Teaching secondary and middle school mathematics. Boston, Massachusetts. Pearson.
6. Braun, V., & Clark, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
7. Chai, C. S., Hwee, J., Koh, L., & Tsai, C.-C. (2010). Facilitating Preservice Teachers’ Development of Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge (TPACK). Educational Technology & Society, 13(4), 63–73.
8. Cheung, A. C. K., & Slavin, R. E. (2013). The effectiveness of educational technology applications for enhancing mathematics achievement in K-12 classrooms: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 9, 88-113.

9. Clark, A. K., & Whetstone, P. (2014). The Impact of an online tutoring program on mathematics achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 107(6), 462–466.
10. Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP). (2013). 2013 CAEP Standards. Retrieved from http://www.caepnet.org/standards/introduction
11. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
12. Davis, N., Preston, C., & Sahin, I. (2009). ICT Teacher Training: Evidence for Multilevel Evaluation from a National Initiative. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 135-148.
13. Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York: McGraw Hill.
14. De Witte, K., & Rogge, N. (2014). Does ICT matter for effectiveness and efficiency in mathematics education? Computers and Education, 75, 173–184. doi: doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.012
15. Dynarski, M., Agodini, R., Heaviside, S., Novak, T., Carey, N., & Campuzano, L. (2007). Effectiveness of reading and mathematics software products: Findings from the first student cohort. (NCEE 2007-4005). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
16. Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(4), 25–39.
17. Eyyam, R., & Yaratan, H. S. (2014). Impact of use of technology in mathematics lessons on student achievement and attitudes. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 4231-42.
18. Gross, T. J., & Duhon, G. (2013). Evaluation of Computer-Assisted Instruction for Math Accuracy Intervention. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 29, 246–261. http://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2013.810127
19. Hanover Research (2014). Emerging and future trends in K-12 education. Hanover Research, (October), 1–30. Retrieved from http://www.hanoverresearch.com/media/Emerging-and-Future-Trends-in-K-12-Education-1.pdf
20. Hennessy, S., Ruthven, K., & Brindley, S. (2005). Teacher perspectives on integrating ICT into subject teaching: commitment, constraints, caution, and change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(2), 155–192. http://doi.org/10.1080/0022027032000276961
21. Imbimbo, J. (2003). The voice of the new teacher. Washington, DC: Public Education Network.
22. International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE]. (2016). ISTE Standards for Administrators. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/standards-for-administrators
23. Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2015). NMC Horizon Report: 2015 K-12 Edition. Retrieved from http://www.nmc.org/publication/nmc-horizon-report-2015-k-12-edition/
24. Kim, C., Kim, M. K., Lee, C., Spector, J. M., & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and technology integration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29(1), 76–85. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.08.005
25. King, N., & Horrocks, C. (2010). Interviews in qualitative research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
26. Klinkenberg, S., Straatemeier, M., & Van Der Maas, H. L. J. (2011). Computer adaptive practice of maths ability using a new item response model for on the fly ability and difficulty estimation. Computers and Education, 57(2), 1813–1824.
27. Koedinger, K. R., McLaughlin, E. A., & Heffernan, N. T. (2010). A quasi-experimental evaluation of an on-line formative assessment and tutoring system. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 43(4), 489–510.
28. Kulik, J. A. (2003). Effects of using instructional technology in elementary and secondary schools: What controlled evaluation studies say final report. Science and Technology, 45(May), 82.
29. Lee, H., & Hollebrands, K. (2008). Preparing to teach mathematics with technology: An integrated approach to developing technological pedagogical content knowledge. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 326–341. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/28191
30. Liao, Y. K. C. (2007). Effects of computer-assisted instruction on students’ achievement in Taiwan: A meta-analysis. Computers and Education, 48(2), 216–233. doi: doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.12.005
31. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
32. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2016). Designing qualitative research (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
34. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
35. Murphy, R., Gallagher, L., Krumm, A., Mislevy, J., & Hafter, A. (2014). Research on the Use of Khan Academy in Schools. Retrieved from SRI Education web site: http://www.sri.com/sites/default/files/publications/khan-academy-implementation-report-2014-04-15.pdf
36. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2011, October). Technology in teaching and learning mathematics: A position of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.nctm.org/Standards-and-Positions/Position-Statements/Strategic-Use-of-Technology-in-Teaching-and-Learning-Mathematics/
37. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
38. National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. U.S. Department of Education.
39. Nguyen, D. M., Hsieh, Y.-C., & Allen, G. D. (2006). The impact of web-based assessment and practice on students’ mathematics learning attitudes. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 25(3), 251–279.
40. Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.03.006
41. Ojose, B. (2009). Promising practice of technology integration in math and science instruction: A case of California Charter High School. International Education Studies, 2(3), 3.
42. Oxman, S., & Wong, W. (2014). White paper: Adaptive learning systems. DV X Innovations DeVry Education Group.
43. Ozel, S., Yetkiner, Z. E., & Capraro, R. M. (2008). Technology in K-12 mathematics classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 108(2), 80. doi: doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2008.tb17807.x
44. Pane, J. F., Griffin, B. A., McCaffrey, D. F., & Karam, R. (2013). Effectiveness of Cognitive Tutor Algebra I at Scale. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(2), 127–144. doi: doi.org/10.3102/0162373713507480
45. Schacter, J. (1999). The impact of education technology on student achievement: What the most current research has to say. Milken Exchange on Education Technology, 1–13.
46. Shih, S. C., Kuo, B. C., & Liu, Y. L. (2012). Adaptively ubiquitous learning in campus math path. Educational Technology and Society, 15(2), 298–308.
47. Sutton, S. R. (2011). The preservice technology training experiences of novice teachers. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 28(1), 39–47. http://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2011.10784678
48. The White House ConnectED Initiative. (2013, June 6). ConnectED Initiative. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/k-12/connected
49. Tondeur, J., Van Braak, J., Sang, G., Voogt, J., Fisser, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2012). Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology in education: A synthesis of qualitative evidence. Computers and Education, 59(1), 134–144. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.009
50. U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology. (2016). Future ready learning: Reimagining the role of technology in education. 2016 National Education Technology Plan. Washington, D.C.
51. Weaver, G. (2000). An examination of the national educational longitudinal study (NLES:88) database to probe the correlation between computer use in school and improvement in test scores. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 9(2), 121–133. doi: doi.org/10.1023/A:1009457603800
52. Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does it compute? The relationship between educational technology and student achievement in mathematics. Retrieved from Educational Testing Service Policy Information Center web site: https://www.ets.org/research/policy_research_reports/pic-technology
53. Ysseldyke, J., Spicuzza, R., Kosciolek, S., & Boys, C. (2003). Effects of a learning information system on mathematics achievement and classroom structure. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(3), 163–173.
54. Zhang, M., Trussell, R. P., Gallegos, B., & Asam, R. R. (2015). Using math apps for improving student learning: An exploratory study in an inclusive fourth grade classroom. TechTrends, 59(2), 32–39. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-015-0837-y