Collaborative Virtual Environments (CVEs) in the Preparation of Pre-service Mathematics Teachers

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 2, 55 - 63, 10.07.2024

Babawande Olawale

https://doi.org/10.53850/joltida.1359772

Öz

In recent times, teacher preparation programmes have faced significant challenges as many universities transitioned to fully online or hybrid instructional models as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak. These sudden shifts drastically decreased classroom teaching opportunities, which was a cornerstone of teacher preparation programmes to help preservice teachers learn how to teach effectively. Therefore, considering the importance of visualizations in mathematics education for facilitating teaching, motivating students, and satisfying their desire to comprehend abstract mathematical concepts, this study investigates the barriers to utilizing, and the effective ways of integrating Collaborative Virtual Environments (CVEs) in the preparation of pre-service mathematics teachers. Underpinned by an interpretivist paradigm, the study employed a qualitative research approach and a case study design. Data were collected from twenty-five pre-service mathematics teachers, two mathematics teacher educators, and one department head. For this study, data collected were analysed using thematic analysis, and data trustworthiness was ensured through triangulation of the unit of analysis. Research findings revealed that the use of CVEs in teacher education programs is hampered by several factors, which include resistance to change, technological limits, costs and time constraints, assessment difficulties, equality and access issues, and a lack of training and support. Furthermore, the findings highlighted that for CVEs to be effective in teacher preparation programmes, mathematics educators should encourage the simulation of classroom scenarios, facilitate group discussions and cooperative learning and participate in virtual professional development opportunities.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Collaborative Virtual Environments, COVID-19 pandemic, Instructional model, Mathematics Education, Teacher Preparation programme.

Kaynakça

• Adamy, P., & Boulmetis, J. (2006). The impact of modeling technology integration on pre-service teachers’ technology confidence. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 100-120.
• Alalwan, N., Cheng, L., Al-Samarraie, H., Yousef, R., Alzahrani, A. I., & Sarsam, S. M. (2020). Challenges and prospects of virtual reality and augmented reality utilization among primary school teachers: A developing country perspective. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 1-12.
• Alharbi, M. T., Platt, A., & Al-Bayatti, A. H. (2013). Personal learning environment. International Journal for E-Learning Security, 3(1), 280-288.
• Alves, P., Miranda, L., & Morais, C. (2017). The influence of virtual learning environments in students’ performance. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(3), 517-527.
• Andreassen, R., & Bråten, I. (2013). Teachers' source evaluation self‐efficacy predicts their use of relevant source features when evaluating the trustworthiness of web sources on special education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(5), 821-883.
• Azuma, R. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 6(4), 355-385.
• Banas, J. R., & York, C. S. (2014). Authentic learning exercises as a means to influence preservice teachers’ technology integration self-efficacy and intentions to integrate technology. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(6), 1-18.
• Billinghurst, M., Kato, H., & Poupyrev, I. (2001). The MagicBook - Moving seamlessly between reality and virtuality. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 21(3), 6-8.
• Burrows, A. C., Swarts, G. P., Hutchison, L., Katzmann, J. M., Thompson, R., Freeman, L., & ... & Reynolds, T. (2021). Finding spaces: Teacher education technology competencies (TETCs). Education Sciences, 11(11), 1-21.
• CaberoAlmenara, J. (2013). Self-regulated learning as a theoretical framework for the educational application of virtual communities and personal learning environments. Revista Teoría de la Educación: Educación y Cultura en la Sociedad de la Información, 14(2), 133-156.
• Christopoulos, A., & Sprangers, P. (2021). Integration of educational technology during the Covid-19 pandemic: An analysis of teacher and student receptions. Cogent Education, 8(1), 1-11.
• deNoyelles, A., & Seo, K. K.-J. (2012). Inspiring equal contribution and opportunity in a 3d multiuser virtual environment: Bringing together men gamers and women non-gamers in second life. Computers & Education, 58(1), 21-29.
• Dhakal, B. P., & Sharma, L. (2016). Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) in Mathematics Education. Education Journal, 5(6), 126-135.
• Di Blas, N., & Poggi, C. (2007). European virtual classrooms: building effective “virtual” educational experiences. Virtual Reality, 129-143.
• Dogan, S., Dogan, N. A., & Celik, I. (2021). Teachers’ skills to integrate technology in education: Two path models explaining instructional and application software use. Education and Information Technologies, 26(1), 1311-1332.
• Drijvers, P. (2013). Digital technology integration in mathematics education: Why it works (or doesn’t). PNA, 8(1), 1-20.
• Foulger, T., Graziano, K., Schmidt-Crawford, D., & Slykhuis, D. (2017). Teacher Educator Technology Competencies. . Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 413–448.
• Francom, G. M. (2020). Barriers to technology integration: A time-series survey study. Journal of Research in Technology Education, 52(1), 1-16.
• Franklin, H., & Harrington, I. (2019). A review into effective classroom management and strategies for student engagement: Teacher and student roles in today’s classrooms. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 7(12), 1-12.
• Geszten, D., Komlódi, A., Hercegfi, K., Hámornik, B., Young, A., Köles, M., & Lutters, W. G. (2018). A content-analysis approach for exploring usability problems in a collaborative virtual environment. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica, 15(5), 67-88.
• Gillies, R. M., & Boyle, M. (2010). Teachers' reflections on cooperative learning: Issues of implementation. Teaching and teacher Education, 933-940.
• Gomez, F. C., Trespalacios, J., Hsu, Y. C., & Yang, D. (2022). Exploring teachers’ technology integration self-efficacy through the 2017 ISTE Standards. TechTrends, 1-13.
• Habibi, A., Mukminin, A., Yaqin, L. N., Parhanuddin, L., Razak, R. A., Nazry, N. N., . . . Fathurrijal, F. (2021). Mapping instructional barriers during COVID-19 Outbreak: Islamic education context. Religions, 12(1), 1-11.
• Hearrington, D. (2010). Evaluation of learning efficiency and efficacy in a multi-user virtual environment. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(2), 65-75.
• Inan, F. A., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 classrooms: A path model. Educational technology research and development, 58(1), 137-154.
• Johannesen, M., Øgrim, L., Pangeni, S. K., & Dhakal, B. P. (2016). Implementing online learning in Nepalese Teacher Education: Faculty use of Learning Management Systems. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2082-2094). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
• Johnson, A. M., Jacovina, M. E., Russell, D. G., & Soto, C. M. (2016). Challenges and solutions when using technologies in the classroom. In Adaptive educational technologies for literacy instruction (pp. 13-30). New York, NY: Routledge.
• Kaufmann, H. (2011). Virtual environments for mathematics and geometry education. Themes in science and technology education, 2 (1-2), 131-152.
• Khanal, P. (2014). Making virtual learning interactive and meaningful: Implications of constructivism for adult students. International Journal of Research Studies in Education, 3(1), 91-102.
• Kopcha, T., Rieber, L., & Walker, B. (2016). Understanding university faculty perceptions about innovation in teaching and technology. British Educational Research Association, 945–957.
• Kozma, R. B. (2003). Technology and classroom practices: An international study. Journal of research on technology in education, 36(1), 1-14.
• Leavy, P. (2017). Research design: Quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, arts-based, and community-based participatory research approaches. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.
• Lei, J. (2009). Digital natives as preservice teachers: What technology preparation is needed? Journal of Computing in teacher Education, 25(3), 87-97.
• McGehee, J. J. (1998). Interactive technology and classic geometry problems. The Mathematics Teacher, 91(3), 204-208.
• Mncube, V., & Olawale, E. (2020). Exploring Readiness of South African Universities for the Fourth Industrial Revolution. 12th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies, (pp. 8989-8995).
• Mncube, V., Olawale, E., & Bitso, C. (2021). Democratisation of Knowledge through Open Educational Resources: Opportunities and Challenges at a South African University. 10th International Conference of Global Education Network (GEN) (pp. 207-220). Global Education Network.
• Mncube, V., Olawale, E., & Hendricks, W. (2019). Exploring teachers’ readiness for e-Learning: On par with the Fourth Industrial Revolution? International Journal of Knowledge, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 5-20. Mokhtar, F. A. (2016). Rethinking conventional teaching in language learning and proposing Edmodo as intervention: A qualitative analysis. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 4(2), 22-37.
• Monk, S. (2003). Representation in school mathematics: Learning to graph and graphing to learn. A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics, 250-262.
• Navarro-Ibarra, L. A., Salazar, O. C., García, J. X., & Leyva, J. C. (2017). Teaching-learning mathematics in a virtual environment. Empirical evidence in scenarios of higher education. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 12(3), 397-408.
• Olawale, B. E. (2021). Democratic Citizenship in Mathematics Teachers’ Preparation in South African Universities. Alice: Unpublished PhD Thesis submitted to the University of Fort Hare, South Africa.
• Olawale, B. E. (2022). Democratic Citizenship in Mathematics Teacher Preparation in South African Universities: Contradictions in Theory and Practice. International Journal of Pedagogy and Teacher Education, 6(2), 126-139.
• Olawale, B., & Mutongoza, B. (2021). Digital transformation in higher education institutions: issues of functionality amid the COVID-19 pandemic. GEN 2021 Conference Proceedings (pp. 265-275). East London: South Africa: GEN CONFERENCE.
• Passos, C., Nazir, S., Mol, A. C., & Carvalho, P. (2016). Collaborative virtual environment for training teams in emergency situations. Chemical Engineering Transactions, 217-222.
• Pem, U., Dorji, C., Tshering, S., & Dorji, R. (2021). Effectiveness of the virtual learning environment (VLE) for online teaching, learning, and assessment: Perspectives of academics and students of the Royal University of Bhutan. International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences, 6(4), 183-197.
• Perifanou, M., Economides, A. A., & Nikou, S. A. (2022). Teachers’ views on integrating augmented reality in education: Needs, opportunities, challenges and recommendations. Future Internet, 15(1), 1-20.
• Razak, N. A., Alakrash, H., & Sahboun, Y. (2018). English language teachers’ readiness for the application of technology towards fourth industrial revolution demands. Asia-Pacific Journal of Information Technology and Multimedia, 7(2-2), 89-98.
• Redfern, S., & Galway, N. (2002). Collaborative virtual environments to support communication and community in internet-based distance education. Journal of Information Technology Education, 1-11.
• Ritzhaupt, A. D., Dawson, K., & Cavanaugh, C. (2012). An investigation of factors influencing student use of technology in K-12 classrooms using path analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 46(3), 229-254.
• Riva, G. (2003). Applications of virtual environments in medicine. Methods of information in medicine, 42(5), 524-534.
• Shudayfat, E. A., & Alsalhi, N. R. (2023). Science learning in 3D virtual environment multi-users online in basic education stage. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(1), 1-16.
• Taylor, C., Dewsbury, B., & Brame, C. (2022). Technology, equity, and inclusion in the virtual education space. In H. Witchel, & M. Lee, Technologies in biomedical and life sciences education (pp. 33-60). Springer.
• Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Ertmer, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2017). Understanding the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: A systematic review of qualitative evidence. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(3), 555–575.
• Trien Do, V., & Lee, J. W. (2007). Geometry education using augmented reality. Paper presented at Workshop 2: Mixed Reality Entertainment and Art (at ISMAR 2007). Nara, Japan.
• Wei, H. C., & Chou, C. (2020). Online learning performance and satisfaction: do perceptions and readiness matter? Distance Education, 41(1), 48-69.
• Wong, S. L., & Wong, S. L. (2021). Effects of motivational adaptive instruction on student motivation towards mathematics in a technology-enhanced learning classroom. Contemporary Educational Technology, 13(4), 1-12.
• Yin, R. (2014). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.