Research in Mathematical Education (한국수학교육학회지시리즈D:수학교육연구)

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

DOI QR Code

Technology as an equity lever: Applying the EqT-tech framework to center equitable integration of technology in the math classroom

  • Jennifer Suh (College of Education and Human Development, George Mason University) ;
  • Kate Roscioli (College of Education and Human Development, George Mason University) ;
  • Gretchen Maxwell (Fairfax County Public Schools )
  • Received : 2024.03.12
  • Accepted : 2024.09.13
  • Published : 2024.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this paper, we describe a framework developed by synthesizing and combining scholarship from the fields of equity in mathematics education and effective integration of technology in the classroom. This framework allows researchers, educators, and teachers to examine the potential of technology-enhanced mathematics lessons to advance equity along six identified dimensions. We share a case study of a research lesson that applied this framework and implemented technology as an equity lever by allowing students to explore social justice issues using a suite of technology tools. Implications for mathematics teacher educators and researchers are discussed as ways the framework can be used to promote the equitable integration of technology.

Keywords

References

  1. Aguirre, J. M., Mayfield-Ingram, K., & Martin, D. B. (2013). The impact of identity in K-8 mathematics learning and teaching: Rethinking equity-based practices. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  2. AMTE. (2022). Position of the Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators on Technology [Position Statement]. https://amte.net/news/2022/06/press-release-amte-statement-technology
  3. Attewell, P. (2001). The first and second digital divides. Sociology of Education, 74(3), 252-259. https://doi.org/10.2307/2673277
  4. Berry, R. Q. (2003). Voices of African-American male students: A Portrait of successful middle school mathematics students. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
  5. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), 8-21. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170408600105
  6. Borthwick, A., Foulger, T., & Graziano, K. J. (Eds.). (2020). Championing technology infusion in teacher preparation: A framework for supporting future educators (First edition). International Society for Technology in Education.
  7. Byun, S., Weiland, T., Cannon, S., Fernandes, A., Nti-Asante, E., Peterson, F., Smucker, K., & Engledowl, C. (2023). Teaching and learning with data investigation: Working group report from 2022. In T. Lamberg & D. Moss (Eds.), Proceedings of the forty-fifth annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 674-678). University of Nevada Reno.
  8. Carpenter, T., Fennema, E., Franke, M., Levi, L. & Empson, S. (2014). Children's mathematics: Cognitively guided instruction, 2nd Edition. Heinemann.
  9. Cavey, L., Lee, H., Hernandez, M., & Yokley, K. (2022). Online tools to support mathematical modeling and community building. The Centroid, 47(2), 11-17.
  10. Chval, K., Smith, E.M., Trigos-Carrillos, L., Pinnow, R.J. (2021). Teaching math to multilingual students, grades K-8: Positioning english learners for success. Corwin.
  11. Civil, M. (2007). Building on community knowledge: An avenue to equity in mathematics education. In N. Nassir & P. Cobb (Eds.), Improving access to mathematics: Diversity and equity in the classroom (pp. 105-117). Teachers College Press.
  12. Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (1995). Producing equal-status interaction in the heterogeneous classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 32(1), 99-120. https://doi.org/10.2307/1163215
  13. Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (2014). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom (Third edition). Teachers College Press. 
  14. Cohen, K. (2019, August 11). Kids aren't playing enough sports. The culprit? Cost. ESPN News. https://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/27356477/kids-playing-enough-sports-culprit-cost
  15. Cullen, C. J., Hertel, J. T., & Nickels, M. (2020). The roles of technology in mathematics education. The Educational Forum (West Lafayette, Ind.), 84(2), 166-178. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2020.1698683
  16. Dick, T. P., & Hollebrands, K. F. (2011). Focus in high school mathematics: Technology to support reasoning and sense making. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  17. Featherstone, H., Crespo, S., Jilk, L., Parks, A. N., & Wood, M. B. (2011). Smarter together! Collaboration and equity in elementary mathematics. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  18. Fennell, F. M., Kobett, B. M., & Wray, J. A. (2017). The formative 5: Everyday assessment techniques for every math classroom. Corwin Mathematics/National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  19. Fingal, D., & ISTE (Eds.). (2018). Edtech for the K-12 classroom: ISTE readings on how, when and why to use technology. International Society for Technology in Education.
  20. Freeman, B. (2012). Using digital technologies to redress inequities for English language learners in the English speaking mathematics classroom. Computers & Education, 59(1), 50-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.11.003
  21. Gresalfi, M., Martin, T., Hand, V., & Greeno, J. (2009). Constructing competence: An analysis of student participation in the activity systems of mathematics classrooms. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(1), 49-70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-008-9141-5
  22. 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.
  23. Gutstein, E., & Peterson, B. (Eds.). (2013). Rethinking mathematics: Teaching social justice by the numbers (Second edition). Rethinking Schools.
  24. Gutstein, E. (2006). Reading and writing the world with mathematics: Toward a pedagogy for social justice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203112946
  25. Hackenberg, A. J., Jones, R., & Borowski, R. (2020). Tiering instruction for seventh-grade students. Mathematics Teacher: Learning and Teaching PK-12, 113(2), 124-131. https://doi.org/10.5951/MTLT.2018.0048
  26. Hollebrands, K. (2017). A framework to guide the development of a teaching mathematics with technology massive open online course for educators (mooc-ed). In Galindo, E., & Newton, J., (Eds.). Proceedings of the 39th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, (pp. 80-89). Hoosier Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators.
  27. Horn, I. S. (2012). Strength in numbers: Collaborative learning in secondary mathematics. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  28. Jemal, A. (2017). Critical consciousness: A critique and critical analysis of the literature. The Urban Review, 49(4), 602-626. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-017-0411-3
  29. Jilk, L. M. (2016). Supporting teacher noticing of students' mathematical strengths. Mathematics Teacher Educator, 4(2), 188-199. https://doi.org/10.5951/mathteaceduc.4.2.0188
  30. Kimmons, R., Graham, C. R., & West, R. E. (2020). The PICRAT model for technology integration in teacher preparation. Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education, 20(1), 176-198.
  31. Knoop-van Campen, C., & Molenaar, I. (2020). How teachers integrate dashboards into their feedback practices. Frontline Learning Research, 8(4), 37-51. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v8i4.641
  32. Kobett, B. M., & Karp, K. S. (2020). Strengths-based teaching and learning in mathematics: Five teaching turnarounds for grades K-6. Corwin Press.
  33. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
  34. Kolb, L. (2020). Frameworks that scaffold learning to teach with technology. In Borthwick, A. C., Foulger, T. S., & Graziano, K. J. (Eds.), Championing technology infusion in teacher preparation: A framework for supporting future educators (pp. 69-94). International Society for Technology in Education.
  35. Liljedahl, P., Clarke, A., & Morrison, N. (2021). Building thinking classrooms: A conversation with Dr. Peter Liljedahl. Journal of Mathematics Education at Teachers College, 12(1), 1-7.
  36. Martin, D. B. (2009). Mathematics teaching, learning, and liberation in the lives of Black children. Routledge New York.
  37. McCulloch, A. W., Leatham, K., & Bailey, N. (2021). Theoretically framing the pedagogy of learning to teach mathematics with technology. Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education, 21(2), 325-359.
  38. McCulloch, A. W., & Lovett, J. N. (2023). Exploring math with technology: Practices for secondary math teachers. Routledge.
  39. Munson, J. (2018). In the moment: Conferring in the elementary math classroom. Heinemann.
  40. NCTM (Ed.). (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  41. NCTM. (2020). Catalyzing change in early childhood and elementary mathematics: Initiating critical conversations. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  42. NCTM. (2023). Equitable integration of technology for mathematics learning: A position of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. https://www.nctm.org/Standards-and-Positions/Position-Statements/Equitable-Integration-of-Technology-for-Mathematics-Learning-2146929161/
  43. Reich, J. (2019). Teaching our way to digital equity. Educational Leadership, 76(5), 30-35.
  44. Rubel, L. H., & Nicol, C. (2020). The power of place: Spatializing critical mathematics education. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 22(3), 173-194. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2020.1709938
  45. Schoenfeld, A. H., & the Teaching for Robust Understanding Project. (2016). An introduction to teaching for robust understanding (TRU) framework. http://truframework.org
  46. Seda, P., & Brown, K. (2021). Choosing to see: A framework for equity in the math classroom. Dave Burgess Consulting Incorporated.
  47. Shirley, M., & Irving, K. (2015). Connected classroom technology facilitates multiple components of formative assessment practice. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 24(1), 56-68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9520-x
  48. Smith, M. S. & Stein, M. K. (1998). Selecting and creating mathematical tasks: From research to practice. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 3, 344-50.
  49. Suh, J., & Roscioli, K. (2023a). Learning trajectory-based formative assessment & sequenced digital learning activities in math class. In C. L. Webb & A. L. Lindner (Eds.), Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology in K-12 classrooms: Standards and best practices. IGI Global.
  50. Suh, J., Maxwell, G., Roscioli, K., Tate, H., Seshaiyer, P., & Marttinen, R. (2023b). Young mathematicians take action through sport clinics. Mathematics Teacher: Learning and Teaching PK-12, 116(11), 845-855. https://doi.org/10.5951/MTLT.2023.0105
  51. Suh, J., Roscioli, K., Morrow-Leong, K., Tate, H. (2022). Transformative technology for equity-centered instruction. In E. Langran (Ed.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1559-1567). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/220920
  52. Wager, A. A. (2014). Noticing children's participation: Insights into teacher positionality toward equitable mathematics pedagogy. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 45(3), 312-350. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.45.3.0312
  53. Wiburg, K. M. (2003). Technology and the new meaning of educational equity. Computers in the Schools, 20(1-2), 113-128. https://doi.org/10.1300/J025v20n01_09
  54. Wills, T. (2021). Teaching math at a distance, grades K-12: A practical guide to rich remote instruction. Corwin, a Sage Company.
  55. Wills, T., Crawford, D., Roscioli, K., & Sanghavi, S. (2021). Mathematical representations in a synchronous online mathematics specialist preparation program. Journal of Mathematics and Science: Collaborative Explorations. 17(1), Article 9. https://doi.org/10.25891/XZY1-8Q44
  56. Witt, N. E. (2022). Leveraging technology to support sociopolitical dispositions. In A. E. Lischka, E. B. Dyer, R. S. Jones, J. Lovett, J. Strayer, & S. Drown (Eds.), Proceedings of the forty-fourth annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. (pp. 2084-2092). https://www.pmena.org/pmenaproceedings/PMENA%2044%202022%20Proceedings.pdf
  57. Zavala, M. del R., & Aguirre, J. (2023). Cultivating mathematical hearts: Culturally responsive mathematics teaching in elementary classrooms (First). Corwin Press.
  58. 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. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (2nd ed., pp. 1169-1207). Information Age Publishing, Incorporated.