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

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

Adaptive learning programs are frequently used in the K-8 mathematics classroom. Theseprograms provide instruction to students at the appropriate level of difficulty by presentingcontent, providing feedback, and allowing students to master skills before progressing. Thepurpose of the study was to seek to interpret how preservice teachers’ experiencesinfluence their perceptions and plans to integrate adaptive learning programs in their futureK-8 mathematics classroom. This was a qualitative study with 17 participants who wereenrolled in an undergraduate teacher education program. Data was collected and analyzedfrom archived journals the participants completed as a part of their K-8 Math Methodscourse, a survey, and semi-structured interviews. The findings from this study indicate thatthe participating preservice teachers perceive adaptive learning programs to be beneficialfor students, and they recognize they have many decisions to make regarding what adaptivelearning programs are used and how they are integrated into the classroom. The study alsofound that the instruction the preservice teachers received in their K-8 Math Methodscourse played a critical role in making them aware of the features available and myriad ofoptions available in adaptive learning programs.

___

  • 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
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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.
  • 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
  • The White House ConnectED Initiative. (2013, June 6). ConnectED Initiative. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/k-12/connected
  • 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
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 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
  • Oxman, S., & Wong, W. (2014). White paper: Adaptive learning systems. DV X Innovations DeVry Education Group.
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 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.
  • National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. U.S. Department of Education.
  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  • 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/
  • 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
  • Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  • Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  • Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2016). Designing qualitative research (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • King, N., & Horrocks, C. (2010). Interviews in qualitative research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
  • 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
  • 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/
  • International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE]. (2016). ISTE Standards for Administrators. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/standards-for-administrators
  • Imbimbo, J. (2003). The voice of the new teacher. Washington, DC: Public Education Network.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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.
  • Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(4), 25–39.
  • 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.
  • 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
  • Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York: McGraw Hill.
  • 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.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  • Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP). (2013). 2013 CAEP Standards. Retrieved from http://www.caepnet.org/standards/introduction
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Braun, V., & Clark, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
  • Brahier, D. J. (2013). Teaching secondary and middle school mathematics. Boston, Massachusetts. Pearson.
  • Bochniak, J. S. (2014). The effectiveness of computer-aided instruction on math fact fluency. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 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.