Research in Mathematical Education (한국수학교육학회지시리즈D:수학교육연구)

Korean Society of Mathematical Education (한국수학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Examining the enactment of learning technologies to support learners' access, power, and achievement in elementary school mathematics

  • Drew Polly (Department of Reading and Elementary Education, University of North Carolina at Charlotte) ;
  • Christie S. Martin (Department of Teacher Education, University of South Carolina)
  • Received : 2024.03.12
  • Accepted : 2024.09.24
  • Published : 2024.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Technology has potential to support mathematics teaching and learning when technology is used in specific ways. This study examines how the use of mathematics learning technologies (MLTs) promotes students' Access, Power, and Achievement, as defined by Gutiérrez' (2009, 2012) equity-based framework. The article includes two cases that were collected during the authors' time engaging with students in mathematics classrooms through work in elementary school classrooms. The inductive qualitative analysis of data conducted during teaching episodes concluded that teachers' launch of the activities that used MLTs and their support during MLT use influenced students' Access, Power, and Achievement. Specifically, the more support that a teacher provided with direct telling was associated with decreases in Access and Power. There was also evidence of student engagement and Achievement based on teachers' actions during MLT activities. The article concludes with implications to support teachers' enactment of specific pedagogies during the use of MLTs in order to promote Access, Power, and Achievement.

Keywords

References

  1. Bakker, A., Cai, J., & Zenger, L. (2021). Future themes of mathematics education research: An international survey before and during the pandemic. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 107, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-021-10049-w
  2. Buchheister, K., Jackson, C., & Taylor, C. (2019). "Sliding" into an equitable lesson. Teaching Children Mathematics, 25(4), 224-231. https://doi.org/10.5951/teacchilmath.25.4.0224
  3. Chao, T., Murray, E., & Gutierrez, R. (2015). Classroom practices that support equity-based mathematics teaching. National Council for Teachers of Mathematics.
  4. Gutierrez, R. (2009). Framing equity: Helping students "play the game" and "change the game." Teaching for Excellence and Equity in Mathematics, 1(1), 4-8.
  5. Gutierrez, R. (2012). Context matters: How should we conceptualize equity in mathematics education? In J. Choppin, B. Herbel-Eisenmann, & D. Wagner (Eds.), Equity in discourse for mathematics education: Theories, practices, and policies (pp. 17-33). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2813-4_2
  6. Hannafin, M.J., Hall, C., Land, S.M., & Hill, J.R. (1994). Learning in open-ended environments: Assumptions, methods, and implications. Educational Technology, 34(8), 48-55.
  7. Hattie, J., Fisher, D. B., Frey, N., Gojak, L. M., Moore, S. D., & Mellman, W. (2018). Visible learning in mathematics, Grade K-12: What works best to optimize student learning. Corwin Press.
  8. Howerton, A. & Polly, D. (2023). The impact of an online mathematics activity on elementary school students' engagement and learning in a high-needs context. In H. An & D. Fuentes (Eds.), Digital learning in high-needs schools: A critical approach to technology access and equity in preK-12 (pp. 157-166). Routledge.
  9. Hughes, C. A., Morris, J. R., Therrien, W. J., & Benson, S. K. (2017). Explicit instruction: Historical and contemporary contexts. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 32(3), 140-148. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12142
  10. Illustrative Mathematics (2021). Illustrative mathematics K-5 curriculum. https://illustrativemathematics.org/math-curriculum/k-5-math/
  11. Kim, Y. (2024). Learning motivation of groups classified based on longitudinal change trajectory of mathematics academic achievement: For South Korean students. Research in Mathematics Education, 27(1), 129-150. https://doi.org/10.7468/JKSMED.2024.27.1.129
  12. Kong, J. E., Yan, C., Serceki, A., & Swanson, H. L. (2021). Word-problem-solving interventions for elementary students with learning disabilities: A selective meta-analysis of the literature. Learning Disability Quarterly, 44(4), 248-260. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948721994843
  13. Land, S. (2000). Cognitive requirements for learning with open-ended learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 61-78.
  14. Mathematics Learning Center (n.d.). Number frames [Online app]. Available at https://apps.mathlearningcenter.org/number-frames/
  15. McCulloch, A. W. & Lovett, J. N. (2023). Exploring math with technology. Routledge.
  16. Morin, L. L., Watson, S. M. R., Hester, P., & Raver, S. (2017). The use of a bar model drawing to teach word problem solving to students with mathematics difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 40(2), 91-104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948717690116
  17. Moyer-Packenham, P. & Suh, J. (2012). Learning mathematics with technology: The influence of virtual manipulatives on different achievement groups. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 31(1), 39-59.
  18. National Center for Educational Statistics (2022). NAEP Report card: 2022 NAEP mathematics assessment. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/highlights/mathematics/2022/
  19. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2011). Strategic use of technology in teaching and learning mathematics. https://www.nctm.org/Standards-andPositions/Position-Statements/Archived-Position-Statements/Strategic-Use-ofTechnology-in-Teaching-and-Learning-Mathematics/
  20. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2014). Access and equity in mathematics: A position of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. https://www.nctm.org/Standards-and-Positions/Position-Statements/Access-andEquity-in-Mathematics-Education/
  21. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2023). PISA 2022 results (Volume I): The state of learning and equity in education. PISA, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en.
  22. Paris, D. & Alim, H. S. (2017). Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world. Teachers College Press.
  23. Park, J., Bryant, D. P., & Shin, M. (2022). Effects of interventions using virtual manipulatives for students with learning disabilities: A synthesis of single-case research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 55(4), 325-337. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194211006336
  24. Polly, D. (2021). Advancing equity-based mathematics teaching in the primary grades: The case of two clinical practice experiences. International Journal of Teacher Education and Professional Development, 4(1), 68-88. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/IJTEPD.2021010105
  25. Polly, D. (2024). Leveraging clinical practice experiences to advance equity-based mathematics teaching. In J. Feinberg & S. Ogeltree (Eds.), Advancing school-university partnerships and professional development schools through national research: Revitalized perspectives for social justice, equity, growth, and inclusivity. Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003497721-7
  26. Polly, D. & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Examining how learner-centered professional development influences teachers' espoused and enacted practices. Journal of Educational Research, 104, 120-130.
  27. Polly, D. & Hannafin, M. J. (2010). Reexamining technology's role in learner-centered professional development. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(5), 557-571. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-009-9146-5
  28. Polly, D. & Holshouser, K. (2021). Supporting elementary education teacher candidates' knowledge and implementation of equity-based practices. PDS Partners: Bridging Research to Practice, 16(3), 42-53.
  29. Polly, D. & Howerton, A. (2023). The Influence of online mathematics activity on elementary school students' engagement and learning in a high-needs context. In C. S. Martin, B. Miller, & D. Polly (Eds.), Technology integration and transformation in STEM classrooms (pp. 185-197). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-5920-1.ch010
  30. Polly, D. & Martin, C. S. (2024). Considering the design and use of differentiated activities and fluency games to advance equity-based mathematics practices. Educational Designer: An International E-Journal for Design and Development in Education, 5(17), 1-16. https://www.educationaldesigner.org/ed/volume5/issue17/article69/
  31. Powell, S. R., Berry, K. A., & Benz, S. A. (2020). Analyzing the word-problem performance and strategies of students experiencing mathematics difficulty. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 58, Article 100759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2020.100759
  32. Rich, K. M. (2021). Virtual manipulatives in elementary mathematics: A critical review of research. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 40(2), 163-177.
  33. San Francisco Unified School District (2024). Three reads protocol. https://www.sfusd.edu/departments/mathematics-department-page/math-teachingtoolkit/math-teaching-strategies/signature-strategies/three-read-protocol
  34. Sinha, T. & Kapur, M. (2021). When problem solving followed by instruction works: Evidence for productive failure. Review of Educational Research, 91(5), 761-798. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211019105
  35. UnboundEd (2021). What is GLEAM? https://www.unbounded.org/blog/what-is-gleam
  36. United States Department of Education (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/report/final-report.pdf
  37. Urbina, A. & Polly, D. (2017). Examining elementary school teachers' integration of technology and enactment of TPACK in mathematics. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 34(5), 439-451. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-06-2017-0054
  38. Yeo, S. (2023). Elementary preservice teachers' noticing and evaluation of digital mathematical resources. Research in Mathematical Education, 26(2), 105-120. https://doi.org/10.7468/jksmed.2023.26.2.83
  39. Zaretta-Hammond, Z. L. (2014). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain: Promoting authentic engagement and rigor among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Corwin Press.
  40. Zbiek, R. M., Heid, M. K., Blume, G. W., & Dick, T. P. (2007). Research on technology in mathematics education: A perspective of constructs. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 1169-1208). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.