IT6720 Research Report - HS Math Tech Use

TECHNOLOGY USED TO TEACH HIGH SCHOOL MATH 1

Action Research Report: Technology Used to Teach High School Math

Bruce Barker

University of Colorado - Denver

April 26, 2010


Introduction and Problem Statement

This report documents a study to identify the types of instructional technology used by high school

mathematics teachers within my school district. I was a computer programmer before becoming a secondary

math teacher fourteen years ago, and have always had a desire to stay up-to-date with the technology being used

in the classroom, especially as a teacher in an alternative school where technology often seems to be a hook to

motivate our „alternative‟ students. However, the everyday time demands of teaching have made it difficult to

remain current with the latest instructional technology, let alone to determine which are the most beneficial for

student learning, or to learn how to use them effectively. In my periodic quests to learn about and find the „best‟

tools out there, often as part of planning our department budget for the next year or two, I am overwhelmed by

all of the different hardware, software and web-based tools that are available. I end up spending a great deal of

time searching, often without success, to find the right simulation, video, web tool, etc. for what I‟m teaching. It

was this desire to identify those technological tools that can most benefit our students‟ learning and our teaching

that has driven me to enroll in the Information and Learning Technology (ILT) program at the University of

Colorado – Denver, and to pursue this research project.

I am not the only one who has experienced these frustrations. I have talked with a few other math

teachers whose technology searches have been very time-consuming and have met with limited success. Others

have been too daunted to know where to start. From these conversations, it seemed that the technology focus

(or lack thereof) varies significantly between the different high school math departments in our district, and even

within departments. There has also been a lack of a clear, systemic plan for instructional technology from the

district level.

I believe that the nature of education is facing rapid and accelerating change, and that technology is a big

part of that change. I am not a blind proponent of using instructional technology just for technology‟s sake, but

for determining which tools are most effective for motivating students and helping them learn more, and more


deeply. And I believe that lacking a coherent plan for integrating technology, or the information necessary to

formulate such a plan will have serious consequences for our teachers and schools in the not-so-distant future.

Purpose and Intended Audience

The purpose of this research was to determine what types of hardware, software, web tools and media

resources are being used by math teachers in our school district. Additionally, it asked teachers what types of

technology they are interested in using or learning more about, as well their general interest in instructional

technology and their experiences in using it. My ultimate purpose is to use the results of this study to drive the

direction of an upcoming internship project within my ILT program. If the results of this study indicate that

there is a need and desire by our district‟s math teachers to learn about what resources and tools are available and

beneficial, my plan is to develop a central repository – a “knowledge base” – of information about, and links to,

these resources, focused on the types of tools of the greatest interest and need to math teachers. My hope is that

by helping math teachers and their departments learn about what tools are being used successfully within the

district and in other schools around the country and world, they will be able to take advantage of that technology

more quickly and effectively. It will hopefully also help open communication between schools in order to take

advantage of different technological expertise around the district.

The primary audience for, and participants in, this research are the high school math teachers in the

Adams Twelve Five Star School District based in Thornton, Colorado, along with a few teachers from middle

schools, other subject areas, and other school districts. In addition to the teachers, the audience for the results of

this research includes the district‟s math curriculum director, the high school math coach, the district‟s

instructional technology department, and the high school principals.


Research Questions

The primary and secondary research questions that have guided this research follow directly from the

purpose that was explained above. The primary research question to be answered by this research is:

1. What types of technology (hardware, software, web tools and media resources) do high school math teachers in Adams 12 Five Star Schools use in their teaching, and how often?

The secondary research questions are:

a. What types of instructional technology are they interested in using or learning more about? b. What are teacher‟s experiences with, and opinions about using instructional technology?

c. Would district math teachers be interested in, and help determine the content of, a common instructional technology knowledge base for the district?

d. What changes in student learning outcomes or engagement do teachers observe when using these

tools in their teaching?

This set of questions has been modified since the original research proposal. The primary question was

modified by: adding a „hardware‟ category, integrating the original first secondary question (about how often they

use the technology) into it, changing „secondary‟ to „high school‟ in order to narrow the scope and focus to the

level I teach, and adding in the name of my school district to also narrow the scope and focus. Secondary

question „a‟ is a combination of the second and third secondary questions in the proposal, and questions „b‟

through „d‟ were added. Question „b‟ was added because I felt it was important to include an open-ended

question in order to let teachers say what was on their mind regarding technology. Question „c‟ was important

because the follow-on knowledge base project shouldn‟t be undertaken if no teachers are interested in it, and for

it to be successful I would need to incorporate the input and experience of many teachers. Question „d‟ was

desirable, since only those tools that have a beneficial effect on learning and/or teaching should be pursued; this

did not make it into the survey, but was asked of some of the interviewees.

Context

The main setting for this research study, and the possible actions taken as a result of the study, are the

high school math departments of the Adams Twelve Five Star school district, located in parts of Westminster,


Northglenn, Thornton, Broomfield and Brighton. There are five „main‟ high schools – Horizon, Legacy,

Mountain Range, Northglenn, and Thornton, and one much smaller alternative high school – Vantage Point,

where I teach. The total number of high school math teachers is currently about 80. The student populations at

the schools vary from a diverse, lower socio-economic population at one high school to a mostly Caucasian,

upper middle class population at another.

Whereas our district has progressed significantly in recent years in terms of cohesion amongst the

different high school math departments – due to the adoption of a common curriculum, the creation of a „math

coach‟ position, and the efforts of the secondary math coordinator, there are still inconsistencies between them,

as there are in many school districts. From conversations with other teachers in the district, it seemed that one

notable area of difference between our math departments was the use of instructional technology.

After conducting some interviews in the fall of 2009 for a class project, I found that, besides the

graphing calculators that are used daily in almost every math class, each school‟s math departments seemed to be

using what their school and/or department had acquired for everybody (e.g., digital projectors and document

cameras), and possibly a variety of other tools – depending on the preferences of influential and/or tech-savvy

teachers within the department. For instance, a new math teacher at my school talked the principal into buying

some very expensive TI-Navigator systems after seeing one in use, but without conferring with the rest of the

math department or arranging for the training and time needed to learn the system and develop the necessary

resources for it. She quit, and that equipment mostly sits in the closets.

The desire to spend our math and/or technology budgets wisely, my own frustrations of not knowing or

being able to find effective instructional technological tools, my belief that tools do exist that could have a

significant effect on students‟ motivation and achievement, and my hope that I can help implement a common

district math knowledge base to inform our math teachers about these tools, were the primary motivators behind

this research project. I have talked to other teachers who also hear about all the “big advances” in teaching

technology, and who would like to learn more about what might benefit their teaching and students, but who

(like me) also do not have a large amount of „free‟ time to do all the research and self-training necessary to


effectively employ these tools in their classrooms. This project was conducted to see if this desire is shared by

other teachers, and to figure out which areas in particular on which to focus. Besides the desire to do what‟s best

for students, an additional motivator for teachers to pursue instructional technology might be recent national

requirements to assess and report students‟ and teachers‟ technological proficiencies.

Literature Review

The number and types of technological tools available to the secondary mathematics teacher have grown

steadily over the last hundred years, but have really exploded in the last couple of decades – largely due to the

advent of the internet and its proliferation of shared programs, tools and media resources. However, the fact that

there are now so many teaching tools out there at our „fingertips‟ has not necessarily resulted in a proportional

increase in the use of technology in the math classroom.

The demands on teachers leave a limited amount of „free‟ time, and many get frustrated from the large

amount of time needed to search around the internet for some tool that will help their students learn a concept,

not to mention the time and effort needed to learn to use that tool effectively. As a result, the average teacher,

out of necessity, sticks mostly to the same “tried and true” teaching methods, and misses out on using newer

technology that might have a significant, positive effect on their student‟s math learning.

This section of the research report summarizes the results of a literature review which was undertaken to

discover the current state of instructional technology in the high school math classroom, and the associated

research. Information from this review will be one of the factors, along with the analysis of the teacher surveys,

to help determine the areas of focus when building a knowledge base of math instructional technology.

Literature Search Question

This literature review addressed the research question: What types of computer technology (hardware,

software, web tools and media resources) are being used for teaching high school mathematics, and what are the

student outcomes?

Search Procedures


A variety of databases and search tools were utilized to locate research papers and articles relevant to the

topic of technology in math teaching. In addition to using the Auraria Library facilities (Skyline, WorldCat, etc.),

various other online repositories such as Google Scholar, NCTM (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics)

periodicals, the electronic repository of ICTCM (International Conference on Technology in Collegiate

Mathematics), and eJMT (The Electronic Journal of Mathematics and Technology) were explored. Search

descriptors included various combinations of the following terms: math. mathematics, technology, teaching, teacher,

education, secondary, high school, web, web 2.0, and Core-plus. Other, more specific terms were used when trying to

locate particular references cited in other papers.

Findings

The findings from this review are organized into the four categories of technology involved in the

surveys and interviews for this research project – hardware, math software, web tools and media. A further

section on views about the benefits of using technology in teaching math has also been included.

Hardware

The studies in this review focus mainly on graphing calculators, interactive whiteboards, and student

response systems (clickers). Other hardware implied by the type of tool being studied and their use includes

computers, fast internet connections and digital projectors. The only study found during this review which

surveyed teacher use for an extensive list of hardware was done on a very small number (23) of teachers, and in

Northern Cyprus (Isman and Yaratan, 2005), which cannot be extended to the focus school district, seven years

later.

In many places, such as in our school district, graphing calculators are a regular part of daily math work

for all students. However, as late as 2005 only 27% of calculators used in schools were graphing calculators, and

27% of teachers actually felt that using calculators was detrimental to student understanding of mathematics

(Thomas, 2008, “Conclusion,” para. 1). However, a meta-analysis of studies of student use of graphing

calculators shows a significant positive effect of regular use of graphing calculators, “often increasing an average

student‟s achievement by 10 to 20 percentile points.” (Roschelle, Pattan and Tattar 2007, p. 9)


Kennewell and Beauchamp (2007, p. 238) found that interactive white boards helped to engage the less

able, improve student focus and motivation, help students to visualize structures and ideas, and improve the pace

and flow of the class. They are also able to record the writing and notes of the teacher and students, which, in

conjunction with a screencasting tool allows for absent students to see and hear what they missed via the web,

and all students to review previous classes (Hofacker, 2008, p. 12). Student response systems (aka. „clickers‟) were

found by Ernie and Hofacker (2009, p. 13) to positively affect their students‟ math learning: “Our students are

engaged in problem solving. Reluctant learners are involved that have been concerned about sharing incorrect

ideas in class.” Oldknow (2009, p. 7) studied the effects of students using motion probes and web cams to

measure and graph the motion of various objects, such as bungee jumpers, walkers/runners, rockets and springs

– doing real-life math to collect and analyze real data, vs. just manipulating „canned‟ data.

Math Software

Barton (2009, p. 32) states that “After reviewing how technology has been successfully used as a teaching

and learning tool in doing mathematics”, that the most important software for teachers to know are spreadsheet,

geometry, math equation generation and computer algebra system software, and the built-in programs of a

graphing calculator.

Gillispie, Martin and Parker (2010, p. 9) found that a highly interactive 3D math game resulted in a

“significant gain in student achievement.” Hopper (2009, p. 42) studied the effects of using a dynamic geometry

software package such as Geometer‟s Sketchpad, and found that “the key benefit that students reported from the

technology use was that it helped them visualize the information in a more clear and organized manner.” It is

“effective in helping the students develop three-dimensional visualization and achieve conceptual understanding

of geometry content.”

Web Tools

As mentioned in conjunction with interactive whiteboards, web-based screencasting tools allows for

absent students to keep up with a class via the web, all students to review, and teachers to prepare an effective


class at home, since can access web-based tools anywhere, for a substitute who might not be a math teacher

(Hofacker, 2008, p. 12), as well as to build a collection of tutorials.

Solomon and Schrum (2007, p. 61) explain how Web 2.0 tools facilitate a constructivist model of

learning, since they are designed to assist the user in exploring and creating products, and then to share their

work, and collaborate with others. They talk about how blogs, wiki‟s and discussion groups may be used in

cooperative group work. Surveys and polling can be used as a free alternative to clicker systems for formative

assessments and class sharing. Google Sketchup is a powerful (and free) modeling tool with which students can

draw and explore the properties of 2D and 3D shapes. Johnson (2009, p. 186) researched how online discussion

boards improve students‟ mathematical literacy and enable reticent and deliberative students who ordinarily don‟t

join a class conversation to share their thinking.

Media

Niess and Walker (2009, p. 2) illustrate ways in which “digital videos can be used to present challenging

mathematical questions for students.” “Video clips can be used to introduce new mathematical concepts and

processes; explore mathematics in nature, art, or other contexts in the real world; and engage students in

expressing their mathematical understandings as they think about what has been said or displayed. Integrating

digital videos with other media, such as Geometer's Sketchpad, spreadsheets, calculators, and virtual

manipulatives, affords students many opportunities to create, use, and make sense of multiple representations of

mathematical ideas.” Oldknow (2009) also looks into the use of digital video, including having students record

the flight of projectiles, the oscillations of a spring, etc., and using the program „vidshell2000‟ to match the flight

paths with a quadratic equation. Using digital cameras to find and record examples of different kinds of

geometry is also discussed. Only qualitative student outcomes were mentioned in these papers, such has how the

activities “have proved inspiring for both students and teachers” and how students‟ interest and motivation are

increased by relating the math to real-world situations and events. (Oldknow, 2009, p. 143)


Views and Benefits of Technology in Teaching Math

“Mathematics is a discipline that has significantly advanced through the use of digital technologies with

improved computational, graphical, and symbolic capabilities” (Niess and Walker, 2009). Haapasalo (2007, p. 8)

states that “when considering technology-based learning to reinforce and implement creative thinking, the focus has

been shifted from a technology-oriented viewpoint to a humanistic view, stressing cognitive, affective and social

variables involved in the learning process.” He stresses that teachers need to be aware of the way their students use

technology in today‟s society when incorporating technology in their lessons.

Hopper, in what seems to be a reply to those who might refute that technology improves student

learning, notes that technology has become “increasingly important for the development of 21st century skills; . . .

students must know how to use technology effectively and ethically in order to succeed in a global community . .

. Thus integrating technology into core content courses promotes technological literacy as well as a better

understanding of core concepts.” (2009, p. 37) And the NCTM (National Council for Teachers of Mathematics)

views technology as an integral part of mathematical learning; “Technology is essential in teaching and learning

mathematics; it influences the mathematics that is taught and enhances students' learning,” (NCTM, 2000, p. 26).

Quality of Literature

The literature that I was able to gather in this area included both papers based on data-driven studies

with quantitative results, and those which resulted in more qualitative, observational results and opinions. Several

of the qualitative studies (those that purported to do controlled experiments) though, did not give the numerical

data and results but rather a more general description of the results – using subjective terms such as „slightly‟ or

„significantly‟, which makes it harder to trust, or to fully understand the results. The majority of the qualitative

articles, when commenting on student outcomes, dealt mostly with observations as to the students‟ participation

and motivation when using the technology. While the ultimate goal is improved student learning, and hard data

would be preferred, students‟ motivation and participation are necessary precursors to learning, especially in my

alternative high school math classes.


Gap in Literature

One significant gap that I found was a lack of research literature regarding how web-based (e.g., Web 2.0)

tools, as well as the many internet math „applets‟ (simulations, virtual manipulatives, games, etc.) are being used

in teaching math. I assume that one reason for this would be the fact many of these web tools and sites are very

new – so there hasn‟t been time to study them and publish the results, and that many are quite transient; for

instance, every one of the four video editing tools cited in the recent book Web 2.0 Tools (Solomon and

Schrum, 2007, p. 61) – jumpcut.com, eyespot.com, grouper.com and videoegg.com have disappeared from the

web. Those papers that did deal with more recent web tools and media resources tended to either deal in general

categories of technology, or else concentrated on one or two specific sites or programs.

In addition to this significant literature gap in web-based math tools, I could not locate any

comprehensive studies of math-specific hardware and software, only specific tools or programs. Also, besides a

discussion of the central role of graphing calculators on the publisher‟s site, the particular „reform‟ mathematics

curriculum being taught in our district – Core-plus – is barely referenced in the search tools and databases

utilized in this review, let alone research of which non-calculator technologies would aid the instruction.

Literature Review Summary

This literature review has attempted to identify the prevalent hardware, software and media that are being

used in secondary math classes, and the affect that they have on student motivation and learning. Although it

could not specifically identify all of the most popular technology, it did find many representative examples in the

different categories, and some of their effects on student learning. A gap in the literature – a dearth of research

on the use of current Web 2.0 tools in math, as well as the absence of a comprehensive survey/study of math

teaching technology, supports the necessity of performing a wide-ranging survey of the most popular and

effective technology within the Adams 12 school district. This will in turn help determine which technologies

and resources on which to focus for a future common repository of math technology tools in order to inform

and support teachers‟ use of technology in their math teaching.


Methods

Participants

The participants in this research included those district high school math teachers who volunteered to

take the survey, and those teachers whom I requested (and agreed) to be interviewed by myself. In addition, one

science teacher, two middle school teachers - one from the district and one from Aurora Public Schools and a

high school teacher from Boulder Valley School District also participated.

Data Gathering Procedures

This project was an action inquiry study, and data was gathered in two ways – via a voluntary survey and

face-to-face interviews. I developed a survey (in Appendix A) to send to all high school math teachers in the

district, requesting that they volunteer to fill it out and return it to me. As soon as I had written my research

proposal, I contacted our district‟s secondary math coordinator and ask to be placed on the agenda of the next

district meeting of math department heads from each school – so I could ask their permission to send the

surveys out. That meeting was canceled due to not enough agenda items (only me), so I asked the math

coordinator for permission. After a wait, she told me she had submitted it to an assistant superintendent to OK

it. After bothering him for a while, I was given some forms to fill out and submit to him. Then I needed to get

them OK‟d by every high school principal. The process was taking so long, that I assumed it would not happen

in time, and so I did not develop an online survey. I finally did get permission, and sent out the emails with an

enticement of a raffle for five $10 coffee cards; I later had to send them all again after finding out the email lists

didn‟t go to teachers‟ inboxes.

The second method of data collection was face-to-face or phone interviews with 12 teachers. This group

consisted of between 1 and 3 teachers at each high school, plus a science, middle school math teacher, and two

math teachers from outside the district. I attempted to interview the more technologically-inclined teachers (that

I knew of), as my main purpose for this group is to get information about a wider variety of technology tools

that are being tried and used in their departments. During these interviews I asked the same survey questions,


and also asked some follow questions, such as “what was your experience with using that tool?”, or “what

changes did you observe in your students‟ performance or engagement?”

Data Analysis Procedures

The first step in analyzing the results of the teacher surveys and interviews was to compile the data for

each survey question. The survey form is in Appendix A, and the two sections (A and B) in Appendix B display

the responses from the corresponding sections of the teacher surveys. Quantitative results are displayed by

simple bar graphs. The complete written comment responses from Section B of the survey and paraphrased

quotes from interviews are listed out in full in order to get the best idea of the teachers‟ thoughts.

As the primary research question asks what types of instructional technology is being used, and how

often, by high school math teachers in the district, the major part of the analysis for that question is the

compilation of the teacher responses, which is displayed by the „Usage‟ plots in Section A of Appendix B. To the

right of each usage plot is an „Interest‟ plot – displaying teachers‟ interest in using or learning more about that

particular tool. Trends and interesting findings from inspecting these responses are noted in the „Findings‟

section below.

The other three secondary research questions (b-d) are addressed by questions in Section B of the survey,

for which trends have been identified and analyzed in the „Findings‟ section. Since the primary purpose of this

research is to identify the most important areas on which to focus for a common district math technology

knowledge base, the data and most analyses are devoid of the mention of the specific school(s); however, in a

couple of cases where a finding might benefit from knowledge of the locations, the schools have been

mentioned. No results or comments have been identified by the individual teacher.


Research Schedule

Week Beginning

Activities, Deliverables

2/15 1. Get permission to send questionnaires via email to teachers

2. Create survey and interview forms

2/22 1. Arrange face-to-face teacher interviews

2. Finalize questions and build survey instrument

3/1

1. Send surveys to teachers via email

1. Teacher interviews

2. Begin literature review

3/8 1. Finish interviewing teachers

2. Complete draft literature review

3/15 1. Organize and compile data from teacher interviews and surveys

3/22 Spring Break

3/29 1. Analyze survey data and literature review results

2. Start writing final report

4/5 1. Work on writing final report – data analysis section

4/12 1. Post draft Data Analysis section, review team‟s sections

2. Incorporate feedback and turn in final Data Analysis section

4/19 1. Organize final Action Research Report

4/26

1. Post draft of Final Action Research Report

2.Review team members‟ draft reports

3. Incorporate feedback from group members and turn in Final Report

Ethical Procedures

All participation in this study was voluntary, and any participant was able to choose to withdraw at any

time. I ensured that all survey and interview results were kept secure and confidential. No names were written on

the survey or interview forms, only school names. All quantitative and qualitative results were aggregated. I

cannot foresee any potential negative impacts from this research on myself, the participants, schools, or the

district.


Checks for Rigor

Some of the steps I have taken to ensure accuracy include: involving a wide cross-section of teachers –

between three and six from each high school in the district, plus one middle school and two out-of-district math

teachers; using the language of secondary math teachers and their curriculum; and keeping the original copies of

all surveys and interview forms along with a log with the date, time and place of each interview. During the

course of the research, four different products – the research proposal, literature review, data analysis report, and

this final report – were reviewed by both a team of peers at UC-Denver and the instructor based on

comprehensive sets of rubrics, and the feedback was incorporated into the research procedures and

documentation.

Findings

The following paragraphs summarize the major findings of this research project, including the survey

responses (displayed in Appendix B) as well as additional comments made during the one-on-one interviews

which were conducted with between one and three teachers from each high school, as well as one middle school

teacher and two math teachers from other districts (Aurora and Boulder Valley); many of the in-district

comments are included with the questions 9 and 14 responses in section B of the Appendix B survey results.

Each of the following sections deals with the analysis for a single research question. The first, Technology Usage,

is the primary question, and the following three sections discuss the secondary research questions.

Technology Usage

Appendix B displays the usage plots for each technology tool in the survey. Although the usage numbers

are primarily discrete ratings, I have still calculated the mean usage rating for each tool, as shown in Table 1

below. Keep in mind that seeing the complete picture of a tool‟s usage must include viewing the usage plot.


Table 1

Technology Tool/Resource Usage

Rank Tool Mean Rank Tool Mean

1 Digital Projector 3.81 14 Interactive Wireless Tablet 0.37

2 Presentation Software 2.41 14 Response System (clickers) 0.37

3 Document Camera 2.33 14 Work Collaboration (shared docs) 0.37

4 Spreadsheet Program 1.70 17 Brainstorming, Concept Maps 0.22

5 Graphing Program 1.11 17 Video Editing 0.22

6 Interactive Whiteboard 1.07 19 Surveys, Polling 0.19

6 Web-based Applications (applets) 1.07 19 Graphics, Photo Editing 0.19

6 Videos 1.07 21 Podcasts, Audio 0.15

9 Webpage Creation 0.85 21 Collaboration/Discussion Groups 0.15

10 Photos, Graphics 0.78 23 Mobile Applications 0.11

11 Music 0.67 23 Audio, Podcast Editing 0.11

12 Geometry, Drawing Program 0.52 25 Screencasting Program 0.07

13 Presentations (slideshows) 0.44

Usage ratings: 0 = never, 1 = 1-3 times/year, 2 = 1-3 times/month, 3 = 1-3 times/week, 4 = daily

By far the most-used technology tool in the survey was the digital projector, with 24 of the 27

respondents using them daily for a mean usage rating of 3.81. It should be noted, however, that graphing

calculators – not included in the survey due to the assumption that they are used virtually every day – would

likely be rated slightly higher than the projector. Presentation software, with a usage rating of 2.41, and

document cameras (at 2.33) were the next most-used tools, though at a much lower rate than projectors. The

presentation software usage should probably have been slightly higher, however, since a couple of SMART

Board users did not count their SMART Board‟s presentation software in this category. Spreadsheet programs –

mostly Excel but also Google Docs and Apple‟s Numbers – were a step down with a 1.70 rating.

Another significant step lower at a 1.11 rating were graphing programs such as Winplot, Grapher and

Green Globs, and three tools at 1.07 – interactive whiteboards (mostly SMART Boards), web-based applets

(simulations, games, etc. from a variety of websites), and videos (from YouTube, Google Videos, PBS, etc.).


Interactive whiteboard usage stands out from the other three when you look at its plot, as the majority of users

use them daily, while the other three tools have an average usage in the 1-3 times per month range. This

difference would be even more noticeable, and interactive whiteboard usage would have received a higher rating,

had more Legacy H.S. math teachers participated in the survey – as they all use SMART Boards regularly.

Webpage creation is the 9th most used type of tool, at 0.85. A perusal of math teacher websites at the

different high schools supported the survey distribution for this category as shown in its plot, as the majority of

teachers either have no website or just a skeleton, some have a small set of pages and information (e.g., teaching

schedule, course syllabi), and a few teachers maintain very comprehensive and up-to-date sites including class

calendars, homework, class slides, skill sheets, etc. Table 1 shows a fairly gradual decrease in usage from this

point down to the lowest-ranked screencasting tools with a rating of 0.07.

The results of the technology surveys and the face-to-face interviews showed that the different high

school math departments have significant differences in terms of their technology direction. There are several

reasons for this, with the foremost being that most planning and budgeting decisions are decentralized to the

individual schools and departments. Also, individual teachers with knowledge and interests in certain areas may

further exert a significant influence on the technology focus and acquisitions for their department. A few

examples of these differences include: the acquisition of SMART Boards for the entire Legacy math department

thanks to a successful grant written by a couple of its teachers; a significant number of interactive tablets used by

Northglenn teachers; a higher number of comprehensive teacher websites at Mountain Range, multiple sets of

TI-Navigator systems and Mimio interactive whiteboard tools acquired by a short-term teacher at Vantage Point

(though without consulting the department or arranging for training), and wireless keyboards and mice for

Mountain Range classroom computers which can be passed to students to do the „driving‟.

Technology Interest

Appendix B also displays of the number of teachers who expressed that they are slightly interested,

interested, or very interested in either using or learning more about a tool. Due to the fact that the first round of

interviews did not explicitly ask for this information, and that many surveyed teachers did not include any


interest ratings, there are fewer responses in this category. Table 2 below ranks the technology tools by the sum

of each tool‟s „interested‟ and „very interested‟ responses, with the number of „very interested‟ responses in

parentheses used to break ranking ties.

Table 2

Number of Teachers Interested or Very Interested in Technology Tools

Rank Tool Totals Rank Tool Totals

1 Interactive Wireless Tablet 11 (3) 13 Graphing Program 4 (1)

2 Interactive Whiteboard 10 (6) 15 Surveys, Polling 3 (2)

3 Web-based Applications (applets) 8 (6) 16 Video Editing 3 (1)

4 Webpage Creation 8 (4) 17 Collaboration/Discussion Groups 3 (0)

5 Response System (Clickers) 7 (4) 18 Photos, Graphics 2 (1)

6 Geometry, Drawing Program 6 (3) 19 Music 2 (0)

6 Work Collaboration (shared docs) 6 (3) 19 Screencasting Program 2 (0)

8 Presentations (slideshows) 6 (2) 19 Presentation Software 2 (0)

9 Graphics, Photo Editing 6 (0) 19 Music 2 (0)

10 Videos 5 (3) 23 Podcasts, Audio 1 (1)

11 Document Camera 4 (3) 24 Audio, Podcast Editing 1 (0)

12 Mobile Applications 4 (2) 25 Digital Projector 0 (0)

13 Spreadsheet Program 4 (1)

Note: “8 (6)” means this tool had 8 responses of „interested‟ or „very interested‟, with 6 of those being „very interested‟

The two technologies that received the highest levels of interest were wireless tablets with eleven teachers

interested, and interactive whiteboards with ten interested, although the whiteboards had three more „very

interested‟ teachers than for the tablets. These are closely related tools, and these responses, along with

comments like “I wish we had interactive whiteboards in every classroom, like mine!” indicate a significant desire

among teachers to acquire and utilize these devices. Interactive wireless tablets also show the biggest difference

between usage and interest, as they were ranked the 14th-mosed used tool, but were number one in terms of

interest.

Web-based applications, with eight interested (and six of those very interested) have the 3rd highest

interest level. This is backed up by teachers‟ comments, including several about the desire to find various web-


based simulations, games, etc. to use in their teaching, and general comments about their desire, and difficulties,

in finding internet resources, such as: “I would like to learn how to find teaching tools on the web.” and “There

are so many different types of instructional technology available, but finding and determining the best tools „out

there‟ for improving student learning is extremely frustrating and time-consuming!” Webpage creation tools

(eight interested) and response systems or „clickers‟ (seven interested) rounded out the top five tools in terms of

interest. There were fewer comments about these two tools, with a technology coordinator wanting to help her

department do more with their websites, and clickers receiving interest mostly from those teachers who had

never tried them.

The responses for question 3 in Section B of the survey about general technology interest (In general,

what is your interest in learning about and using instructional technology?) are quite high, with ten very

interested, fifteen interested, two slightly interested and zero not interested. Interestingly, several teachers who

utilize very little technology indicated the highest interest level in learning to use it. The combination of these

usage and interest results will help determine the focus areas when building the shared math technology

knowledge base for the district.

Technology Experiences and Attitudes

The most enthusiastic and positive experiences were those related by interactive whiteboard (all SMART

Board) users, who reported a big increase in students‟ motivation and engagement, as well as the better

interactive capabilities of the SMART Board software compared to PowerPoint – enabling students to easily

manipulate objects such as geometric figures (e.g., resizing the sides and angles of a polygon). One teacher

expressed his interactive whiteboard experience this way: “Now that I use the SMART Board for teaching math,

I can‟t imagine teaching without it!” as the SMART Board and its software package increases his teaching

capabilities and his students‟ engagement and learning.

The challenges encountered with technology usage were fairly evenly spread among the four choices

given in Appendix B, Section B, question 6 – technical problems, learning curve/time, finding what they need,

and computer/network restrictions – with the third choice (difficulties finding resources) the most frequent with


nine responses. Many of the teacher comments for question 7 address these challenges. The difficulty and time

involved in finding useful internet resources was a common them, including the responses: “I‟d like to know

what‟s „out there‟ on the web” and “It takes a lot of time to find really useful things. I would like to have a math

tech person to do that.” The comment: “It took 12 hours to make a 15-minute „clicker‟ activity!” was similarly

voiced by others – who mentioned using clickers once or twice, but not again due to the large amount of time

needed to implement a short class activity.

Computer and network IT restrictions vary by school. At most schools, teachers are blocked from the

same internet sites as students, and it is a significant hassle to either override or get permission to access a site.

Other schools have fewer restrictions, where teachers are given the password to override, or are even asked by

the IT people for those programs they would like included in the computer image for the school.

Math Technology Knowledge Base

Questions 4 (interest in a shared technology website being created) and 5 (willingness to contribute to the

website) in survey Section B of Appendix B both got very positive responses, with the first receiving 25 (out of

27) responses of „Interested‟ or „Very Interested‟, and the latter receiving 23 (out of 26) for the same two interest

ratings. This shows that most math teachers would like this knowledge base to be implemented, even though

they most likely have little idea at this point what this website will look like.

Implications for Practice

Based on the high percentage of teachers indicating an interest in finding internet math resources such as

simulations and videos to complement their teaching, and the number having trouble finding what they need, I

would recommend that the effort to develop a common knowledge base of technology tools and resources tied

to our curriculum proceed. The survey responses also indicated a very high interest in both the knowledge base,

and in contributing to it.

I further recommend that at least a fraction of a math FTE in the district be dedicated to the building

and updating of this common repository and to helping other teachers utilize it. This would also contribute to


another recommendation, which is for more dialogue and collaboration in math technology planning to take

place at the district level and among the different math departments, compared to the current fragmentation and

diversity in direction amongst the different math departments.

I also recommend that all math departments pursue the acquisition of interactive whiteboards, based on

the positive effects on student engagement and performance experienced by teachers who are currently using

them, the high level of interest of other teachers in them, and on the research literature regarding their use.

Conclusion

Reliability and Validity

The reliability and validity of this study are influenced by a few factors. The most desirable method of

choosing survey and interview participants would have been to identify a random sample of the approximately

80 high school math teachers in the district. However, this would have entailed requiring those particular

teachers to participate – which was not possible politically or practically. I decided that by making the survey

voluntary and offering coffee card prizes, that I would generate a fairly high number of participants – which I did

– though possibly not a totally representative cross-section. I also tried to target the technology leaders and/or

department heads from each school for my interviews in order to learn as much as possible about their

department‟s technology practices..

As a result, I feel that the results obtained are a fairly strong representation of the state of instructional

technology in our school district. These results may not be transferable to other school districts – as they may

have very different district and school technology plans. During an interview with high school math teachers in

Boulder Valley, however, many of the same themes, interests and challenges were brought up.

Limitations

One limitation with the study involves the difficulty in classifying the wide variety of instructional

technology. There are many multi-function tools (e.g., the majority of tools include a social networking


component) that are difficult to categorize, and the category names might not be clear to many teachers, such as

the possibility that some respondents confused „interactive wireless tablets‟ – small pads on which a teacher or

student uses a special pen to interact with the computer – with tablet PCs or iPads. I also thought of interesting

questions that I would have liked to include too late in the process, such as “What student learning and

motivational changes have you observed from the use of these tools?” Another potential limitation of this study

might be the lack of students‟ viewpoints about their experiences, interests, and capabilities regarding technology

in the classroom. However, I believe these to be relatively minor issues which have done little to detract from the

overall success of the study.

Comparison of Research to the Literature Review

As noted in the Literature Review, only one paper was located which did a comprehensive study of the

technology use in a school district, and that was in Cyprus (Greece) a number of years ago. Some of the papers

dealt with the use of instructional technology in general, but consisted mainly of a listing of possible tools and

how they might be used for instruction (e.g., in Soloman and Shrum, 2007), without the benefit of research into

which were most effective. Many of the research papers which sought quantitative results generally dealt with a

particular tool, in order to see if the technology improved students‟ learning or engagement. For example,

Kennewell and Beauchamp (2007) focus only on interactive whiteboard features; Ernie (2009) on the use of

clickers, and Johnson (2009) on the use of online discussion boards. Our district math teachers‟ technology usage

and interests identified in this study, along with the research about these tools‟ benefits for student learning, and

technology-related findings from other brain and learning research, will all be combined to determine which

types of tools and resources will be of the most benefit to students‟ math learning, and hence the focus for the

district math knowledge base to be built in the coming months.

Summary of Findings

The primary goal of this research study was to determine which technologies are used the most by the

high school math teachers in my school district, and those that teachers are the most interested in learning about


and using, in order to guide the development of a math technology knowledge base for the district‟s math

teachers. While there is considerable variation in technology integration and focus among the high school math

departments in the district, the survey and interview results shown in Appendix B and summarized in the

Findings sections above point to a few areas of high interest, including interactive whiteboards and tablets, web-

based applications (simulations, games, tutorials), webpage creation tools, drawing programs and math-related

videos. While the whiteboards are of highest interest, their use is still restricted to a relatively small percentage of

teachers who have them in their classrooms. The knowledge base will initially focus more on other categories

such as web applets, website building tools, media files and other web-based tools which can be utilized by every

teacher via internet-connected classroom and lab computers to support student learning of CMIC and the other

district math courses. The creation of this shared knowledge base will hopefully address some of the challenges

that teachers face – the difficulty and time involved in finding and learning how to use beneficial and effective

technological tools to complement their curriculum and increase student learning.


References

Barton, S. (2009). Developing a Course for Preservice Teachers Demonstrating Valid Uses of Technology for Solving

Mathematical Problems. Paper presented at the Twenty-first Annual International Conference on

Technology in Collegiate Mathematics. Retrieved, March 5, 2007, from

http://archives.math.utk.edu/ICTCM/VOL21/S072/paper.pdf

Ernie, K. and Hofacker, E. (2009). Using Clickers to Encourage Communication and Self-Reflection in Mathematics. Paper

presented at the Twenty-first Annual International Conference on Technology in Collegiate

Mathematics. Retrieved, March 5, 2007, from


Gillispie, L., Martin, F., Parker, M. (2010). Effects of a 3-D video game on middle school student achievement

and attitude in mathematics. Electronic Journal of Mathematics and Technology, 4(1), pp. 68-81.

Haapasalo, L. (2007). Adapting Mathematics Education to the Needs of ICT. The Electronic Journal of Mathematics

and Technology, 1(1).

Hopper, (2009). The Effect of Technology Use on Student Interest and Understanding in Geometry, Studies in

Teaching, 2009 Research Digest.Paper presented at Annual Research Forum, Wake Forest University. pp. 37-42.

Isman, A. and Yaratan, H. (2005) - How Technology is Integrated into Math Education. International Journal of

Instructional Technology and Distance Learning. 2(7).

Johnson, E. (2009). Using Digital Ink and Podcast to Teach Mathematics. Paper presented at the Twenty-first Annual

International Conference on Technology in Collegiate Mathematics. Retrieved, March 5, 2007, from


Johnson, E. (2009). Using Online Discussion Boards to Foster Mathematical Dialogue. Paper presented at the Twenty-

first Annual International Conference on Technology in Collegiate Mathematics. Retrieved, March 5,

2007, from http://archives.math.utk.edu/ICTCM/VOL21/C013/paper.pdf

Kennewell, S. and Beauchamp, G (2007). The features of interactive whiteboards and their influence on learning.

Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), pp. 227- 241.


National Council for Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston,

VA: author unknown.

Niess, M., Walker, J. (2009). This rock „n‟ roll video teaches math. Learning & Leading with Technology, 36(8), pp.

36-37.

Oldknow, E. (2009). ICT bringing mathematics to life and life to mathematics. The Electronic Journal of Mathematics

and Technology, 3(2). pp. 137-149.

Roschelle, J., Pattan, C., and Tattar, D. (2007). Designing Networked Handheld Devices to Enhance School

Learning. Advances in Computers, 70(1), pp. 1-61.

Solomon, G. and Schrum, L. (2007). Web 2.0: new tools, new schools. Washington D.C.: ISTE.

Thomas, M. (2008). Use of calculators in the mathematics classroom. Electronic Journal of Mathematics and

Technology, 2(2), pp. 229-243. http://archives.math.utk.edu/ICTCM/VOL21/C013/paper.pdf


Appendix A: Math Technology Survey

Purpose of Survey: This survey is part of a study to determine what types of instructional technology secondary math teachers are using, or are interested in using, in their classrooms. It will help determine what types of information to include in a website intended to help math teachers find and use effective software, websites, media files, etc. in their teaching.

Survey contact: Bruce Barker 720 771-9823, [email protected]

Section A: Usage and Interest Inventory

For each type of technology below, fill in the last 3 columns, as applicable. Leave ‘Usage’ and ‘Describe’ blank if you don’t use, and ‘Interest’ blank if you already use (or aren’t interested).

Usage: How often do you use this type of tool or resource in your teaching? (0 or blank = never, 1 = 1-3 times/year, 2 = 1-3 times/month, 3 = 1-3 times/week, 4 = daily)

Describe: If you use that type of tool, write the name(s), website(s) or short description of what you use. Interest: Are you interested in using this or learning more about this? (leave blank if you already use)

(0 or blank = not interested, 1 = slightly interested, 2 = interested, 3 = very interested)

1. Hardware (& its associated software)

Examples Usage (0-4)

Describe (name, website or short description)

Interest (0-3)

Digital projector Epson, InFocus (not required)

Document camera AverMedia, Elmo (not required)

Interactive whiteboard SMART, Mimio

Interactive wireless tablet Mimio, Interwrite

Response system (clickers) CPS, Interwrite

Other: --------------------------

2. Software


Describe (name, website or short description)

Interest (0-3)

Presentation PowerPoint, Keynote

Spreadsheet Excel, Google Docs

Graphing Winplot, Green Globs

Geometry/drawing program Geo Sketchpad, Sketchup

Internet ‘applets’ Simulations, games

Mobile applications iPhone/iTouch ‘apps’

Other: --------------------------

3. Web Tools


Describe (name, website, or short description)

Interest (0-3)

Webpage creation Wordpress, Google Sites

Group collaboration Wikispaces, Google Docs

Screencasting Jing, Screencast

Surveying, polling SurveyMonkey, PollDaddy

Collaboration, discussion Ning, Google Groups

mailto:[email protected]


Brainstorming, concept maps Inspiration, bubbl.us

Graphics/photo editing Photoshop, GIMP

Video editing Moviemaker, iMovie

Audio/podcast editing Audacity

Other: --------------------------

4. Media Resources


Describe (name, website, or short description)

Interest (0-3)

Video Unitedstreaming, YouTube

Photos, graphics Wikimedia, Flickr

Presentations Slideshare, YouTube

Music iTunes

Podcasts, other audio PodcastAlley, TeacherTube

Other: --------------------------

Section B: Questions 1. Are there any other types of teaching technology that you’ve used which are not mentioned above?

2. Are there any particular math concepts for which you would like to find a resource (e.g., a simulation) to help your students’ learning? If so, briefly describe:

3. In general, what is your interest in learning about and using instructional technology?

(0 =not interested, 1 = slightly interested, 2 = interested, 3 = very interested)

4. Would you be interested in a shared website for math teachers containing information about technology resources used by other math teachers? (e.g., program comparisons, links to websites, tutorials, etc.)

(0 =not interested, 1 = slightly interested, 2 = interested, 3 = very interested)

5. Would you be interested in contributing to this site – e.g., typing onto a web page or sending an email about a useful resource you’ve found?

(0 =no, 1 = maybe, 2 = yes)

6. What are your biggest challenges with incorporating technology in your teaching? (‘X’ up to two choices)

Technical difficulties Learning curve Finding what I need Computer/network restrictions

Other:

7. Do you have any other comments about the use of technology in teaching that you would like to share?

Your school (initials):


Appendix B: Math Technology Survey Data

The two sections below (Sections A and B) display the responses from the corresponding sections of the

teacher surveys. Quantitative results are displayed by simple bar graphs. The complete written responses from

Section B of the survey and paraphrased quotes from interviews are listed. The data is analyzed and notable

findings and trends are summarized in the subsequent sections.

Section A: Usage and Interest Inventory

This section presents the results of the usage and interest data for the four categories of instructional

technology – hardware, software, web tools, and media resources. Usage data was gathered for twenty seven

teachers; interest data was obtained from fewer, as earlier interviews did not fully collect this information and

many survey respondents did not enter any interest values. Blanks on surveys for Interest will not be displayed as a

„0‟ (not interested), due to the respondents who did not enter any Interest values – so giving 0‟s for all of them

would not be valid; only the values between 1 and 3 will be displayed.

1. Hardware

Digital Projector

Interest

1 2 3

0

4

6

2

8

Usage

0 1 2 3 4

0

10

15

5

25

20


Document Camera

Interactive Whiteboard

Wireless Tablet (to remotely interact

with computer display)

Response System (“Clickers”)

Interest

1 2 3

0

4

6

2

8

Usage

0 1 2 3 4

0

10

15

5

25

20

Interest

1 2 3

0

4

6

2

8

Usage

0 1 2 3 4

0

10

15

5

25

20

Interest

1 2 3

0

4

6

2

8

Usage

0 1 2 3 4

0

10

15

5

25

20

Interest

1 2 3

0

4

6

2

8

Usage

0 1 2 3 4

0

10

15

5

25

20


2. Software

Presentation

Geometry/Drawing

Spreadsheet

Graphing

Interest

1 2 3

0

4

6

2

8

Usage

0 1 2 3 4

0

10

15

5

25

20

Interest

1 2 3

0

4

6

2

8

Usage

0 1 2 3 4

0

10

15

5

25

20

Interest

1 2 3

0

4

6

2

8

Usage

0 1 2 3 4

0

10

15

5

25

20

Interest

1 2 3

0

4

6

2

8

Usage

0 1 2 3 4

0

10

15

5

25

20


Photo/Graphics Editing

Video Editing

3. Web-based Tools

Webpage Creation

Interest

1 2 3

0

4

6

2

8

Usage

0 1 2 3 4

0

10

15

5

25

20

Interest

1 2 3

0

4

6

2

8

Usage

0 1 2 3 4

0

10

15

5

25

20

Interest

1 2 3

0

4

6

2

8

Usage

0 1 2 3 4

0

10

15

5

25

20


Web-based applications (Simulations, games, tutorials, etc.)

Group Work Collaboration (shared files)

Group Discussions

Interest

1 2 3

0

4

6

2

8

Usage

0 1 2 3 4

0

10

15

5

25

20

Interest

1 2 3

0

4

6

2

8

Usage

0 1 2 3 4

0

10

15

5

25

20

Interest

1 2 3

0

4

6

2

8

Usage

0 1 2 3 4

0

10

15

5

25

20


Screencasting

Surveys, Polling

Brainstorming, Concept Maps

Interest

1 2 3

0

4

6

2

8

Usage

0 1 2 3 4

0

10

15

5

25

20

Interest

1 2 3

0

4

6

2

8

Usage

0 1 2 3 4

0

10

15

5

25

20

Interest

1 2 3

0

4

6

2

8

Usage

0 1 2 3 4

0

10

15

5

25

20


Audio/Podcast Editing

4. Media Resources

Videos

Photos, Graphics

Interest

1 2 3

0

4

6

2

8

Usage

0 1 2 3 4

0

10

15

5

25

20

Interest

1 2 3

0

4

6

2

8

Usage

0 1 2 3 4

0

10

15

5

25

20

Usage

0 1 2 3 4

0

10

15

5

25

20

Interest

1 2 3

0

4

6

2

8


Presentations (slideshows)

Music

Podcasts, other audio

Interest

1 2 3

0

4

6

2

8

Usage

0 1 2 3 4

0

10

15

5

25

20

Interest

1 2 3

0

4

6

2

8

Usage

0 1 2 3 4

0

10

15

5

25

20

Interest

1 2 3

0

4

6

2

8

Usage

0 1 2 3 4

0

10

15

5

25

20


Section B: Additional Questions

1. Are there any other types of teaching technology that you‟ve used which are not mentioned above?

Hardware: Graphing calculators (assumed all teachers use daily); TI-Nspires; TI-Navigators; CBR/CBL – probes for distance, temperature; wireless mouse and keyboard; mobile laptop cart

Software: Kagan group spinner and timer programs; A+ System; TI Smartview (graphing calculator simulator)

2. Are there any particular math concepts for which you would like to find a resource (e.g., a simulation) to help your students‟ learning? If so, briefly describe:

a. Trigonometry simulations (e.g., to graph the motion of the Ferris wheel problem) b. A simulation to visualize equation balancing c. Interactive graphing sites for CMIC 2,Unit 3 on Pearson‟s Correlation Coefficient d. Many things – often web applications are at the wrong level or must pay for them e. Videos for real-world situations, such as crows dropping whelks for CMIC 4 f. Many things from the math texts, like domain and range demos g. It would be nice to have a web program that could test and allow them to practice their basic skills or concepts

that we believe they need further assistance with to be properly prepared for the current concepts. h. Solving equations is always a struggle for the students – and often slows down their learning of new material. i. Simulation for the Law of Cosines j. Any and all!

3. In general, what is your interest in learning about and using instructional technology? (0 =not interested, 1 = slightly interested, 2 = interested, 3 = very interested)

Not interested 0

Slightly interested 2

Interested 15

Very interested 10

4. Would you be interested in a shared website for math teachers containing information about technology resources used by other math teachers? (e.g., program comparisons, links to websites, tutorials, etc.)

Not interested 0

Slightly interested 3

Interested 11

Very interested 12

5. Would you be interested in contributing to this site – e.g., typing onto a web page or sending an email about a useful resource you‟ve found?

No 2

Maybe 8

Yes 16

6. What are your biggest challenges with incorporating technology in your teaching? („X‟ up to two choices)

Technical difficulties 6

Learning curve/time 7


Finding what I need 9

Computer/network restrictions 7

Other Challenges:

Sometimes a lot of development time is required (e.g., creating files to be used with clickers).

Don‟t know how to use the different programs.

Don‟t have access to the technology.

7. Do you have any other comments about the use of technology in teaching that you would like to share?

a. I think that it is important to integrate technology into today‟s classroom. I have found that student engagement increases when I incorporate technology. I just started using a SMART Board daily and the students are very interested in it. They have asked if I bought it and love to write on it.

b. Students love the SMART Board and the interactions; but it‟s a pain to reorient it every time we switch PC‟s (2 times per day). Its SW is not as useful as PP. We wrote a grant for several class sets of TI-Nspires from Qwest.

c. The SMART Board SW makes presentations and diagram creation SUPER easy and accurate. d. Now that I use the SMART Board for teaching math, I can‟t imagine teaching without it! e. I wish we had interactive whiteboards in every classroom, like mine! f. I‟ll try anything to reach kids easier. g. We just got new clickers, I would like to use them more. h. It took 12 hours to make a 15-minute clicker activity!

i. I had wanted to set up clickers for Jeopardy games and IN‟s, but it was taking so long to learn how to set up and use them that I scrapped that.

j. The Klickerz are really easy to incorporate into a powerpoint and I think they have been very beneficial in the ACT prep class.

k. I would like a document camera so I can show student work. l. I would like to have a set of netbooks for my class. m. I would like a gizmo to convert my VHS math tapes to DVDs. n. I would use document cameras more if we had one in each room. o. I would like to see textbooks go online. p. My district has a major gap right now with technology. We may as well still be using transparencies. q. A former teacher wrangled some expensive technology without consulting the department or providing time or

funds for training. They‟ve mostly sat idle for the past few years. r. I would like to learn how to find teaching tools on the net. s. I‟d like to know what‟s “out there” on the web. t. I would like to know what kind of technology is available. u. I would be interested in learning how to easily update and incorporate the school‟s webpage into my classroom so

that I can post documents there so that when students lose the first copy they can go to the website instead of asking me.

v. I would be interested in seeing how the above Webpage creation and Google Docs would be interconnected. w. I think that technology can be an easily applicable connection to our classrooms, but finding a way to incorporate

it, learn about it if we are unfamiliar, and the time to do it all is what is difficult. x. There are so many different types of instructional technology available, but finding and determining the best tools

“out there” for improving student learning is very frustrating and time-consuming! y. It takes a lot of time to find really useful things. I would like to have a math tech person to do that. z. We didn‟t even purchase anything for our last software adoption – couldn‟t find anything worthwhile! (BVSD

teacher) aa. Our curriculum doesn‟t allow for time to implement the technology. bb. I would like to get more class and supplementary resources for students on my school website. cc. I did a Masters in Instructional Technology, but it‟s difficult to incorporate things in the classroom. dd. I use videos on Studybeat in conjunction with my StarBoard a lot. I think it‟s a great combo. ee. I often joke that my teaching would be more effective if I could do it via a podcast – but I don‟t think kids would

actually listen to it if I went to the trouble of creating one.


ff. Using animated PowerPoints, web applet simulations, videos, etc., I am able to demonstrate concepts and ideas in a way that is more visually stimulating and demonstrates relationships better than on a white board or from a book.

gg. I see many people using technology, but it doesn‟t improve learning, it‟s just a different way of doing the same thing. You need to keep asking: “does this help them understand the concept better?”

hh. Do you think this might have been easier for compilation and analysis if you used some of the technology you talked about?

Documents

IT6720 Research Report - HS Math Tech Use