Marcia Burrell -Ihlow

1. Marcia Burrell-Ihlow QUEST 2006 April 19, 2006Lanigan Hall 106 8:30 a.m.Dissertation Research The Impact of Computer Technology on Constructivist Practices of Secondary Mathematics Teachers

2. My Background • Certified Mathematics and Social Studies Teacher • Teacher of Educational Assessment since 1996 • Work for a professional Development project • Math teacher want to be (wannabe)

3. Background Mathematics teachers are expected to use technology (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM], 2000). They are unclear about how computer technology use can move students toward constructing knowledge consistent with the NCTM’s mathematics reform practices.

4. Problem • Although professional development funds are often allocated for integrating technology and for applying constructivist practices into the mathematics curriculum, little is known about the return on these investments.

5. Problem Restated • If professional development funds are allocated for increasing technology use in the classroom and for using and implementing constructivist practices, but the teacher beliefs around what works in the classroom are so powerful, then what evidence do we have that teachers perceive that technology has an impact on their particular teacher behaviors?

6. Connections to the Literature • Research on computer technology (Bransford, Brown & Cocking, 2000; Pierson 2001) • Technology use in mathematics classrooms (Arcavi & Hadas 2000; Cuoco, 2001) • Reform movement mathematics (Edwards, 1994; Frykholm, 2004) • Constructivist practices (Becker & Riel, 2000; Edwards, 1994; Pugalee, 2001; Rakes, Flowers, Casey, & Santana 1999),

7. So What? • Teacher beliefs about technology are formed either through classroom interactions with students or as the teacher makes use of the technology (Lumpe & Chambers, 2001). • Research by Gales and Yan (2001) found “a significant negative relationship between constructivist teacher beliefs and mathematics that is practical, structured, and a formal guide for addressing real world situations and student achievement” (p. 12). • Technology in the classroom may be one of the ways that learning tools create an environment for teachers to help negotiate individual needs for learning and teaching (Hung, 2001; Ross et al., 2002; Flake, 2001). • Even though mathematics teachers believe that constructivism is a correct theoretical framework for practice, the ordinary teacher has trouble figuring out exactly how to teach under the constructivist mantra (Inch, 2002).

8. Significance 1 • According to Arcavi and Schoenfeld 1992; Lesh 2003 problem solving and critical thinking are best taught through constructivist methods. • These constructivist skills are difficult to teach and as noted in the “Accidental Constructivist” difficult to maintain. • Inch 2002

9. Significance 2 • Teacher beliefs about what works in the classroom is a strong factor in what works well in the classroom. • The issues around teaching with more constructivist leanings may have more to do with the individual beliefs and self-efficacy of the teacher than it has to do with the curriculum. (Collopy, 2003). • (page 33 in the dissertation)

10. NCTM-TIME Grant • Innovation Grant—Many used technology • 1997-2003 (2004) • Are the funds making an impact on what teachers perceive as important? • MATH WARS • Mathematically Correct • Recent Schoenfeld Educational Researcher on censorship

11. Questions • Research Question 1 • How do secondary mathematics teachers who have received a TIME Grant perceive the connection between instructional technology and constructivist instructional practices? • Research Question 2 • To what extent do secondary mathematics teachers who have earned a TIME Grant award in three time-based cohorts, respond differently to the impact of technology on particular constructivist statements?

12. Theoretical Framework The appropriate and efficient use of software applications and related media to access and evaluate information, analyze and solve problems, and communicate ideas is essential to maximizing the instructional process. Such use of technology supports teaching and learning regardless of individual learning style, socioeconomic background, culture, ethnicity or geographic location. (Jossey-Bass, 2000, p. 34)

13. Methodology • Mail in Survey • 25-question mail-in survey instrument • A 4 level Likert Scale • A Strong Impact • Some Impact • Little Impact • No Impact • 239 secondary mathematics teachers • Awarded Innovation Grants from NCTM • 1997- 2003 • 55 Teachers responded

14. Findings • Using ANOVA (comparison of means among and between cohorts) • Teachers who earned a TIME Grant in the earlier years (for example in cohort 1) did not perceive the impact of technology on constructivist practices any differently than teachers who earned a TIME grant in the later years (for example, in cohorts 2 or 3).

15. Discussion • Funds expended for professional development on technology use in instruction may be a justifiable investment yielding long-term benefits. • This study contributes to social change in professional development • You have a copy of a model for determining the efficacy for professional development in mathematics and technology.

16. Questions • Find one other person to talk to: • What are your recommendations for future research? • Ask one question that critiques an aspect of the study.

17. Recommendations for future research • Explore different computer technologies • Examine student perceptions • Interventions impacting teacher thinking • Exploring teacher technology use • Teacher Self-efficacy

18. Thank you • Your attention is appreciated!