Technology in Geometry Classrooms and Its Effects
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The Views of High School Geometry Teachers regarding the Effect of Technology on Student Learning Honors Thesis Final Project April 2012 Melanie Lolli Ohio Dominican University Dr. James Cottrill Dr. Marlissa Stauffer Dr. Matthew Ponesse Lolli 2 The Views of High School Geometry Teachers regarding the Effect of Technology on Student Learning The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics claims that technology is necessary to student learning in math and, in fact, enhances it. There are some studies to support this claim, but these studies leave some unanswered questions. The purpose of this study was to find out from current high school math teachers, of geometry specifically, what their views of technology are. The goal of the study was to ask these teachers which technologies they use and whether they believe technology has beneficial effects on student learning. Data was collected for the survey by asking teachers to take brief electronic surveys and conduct in-person interviews. All questions in both the survey and interviews were focused on the effects of technology that they see in their classrooms. The scope of the participants was restricted to Columbus, Ohio, and thus, generalizations for any classroom or any school building cannot be made. However, this study did find a consensus among the participants as to which technologies they felt were the most beneficial in their classrooms, as well as those that might not be needed at all in a classroom. The three technologies that these teachers claimed to be the most beneficial were SMART boards, TI-nspire calculators and Geometer’s Sketchpad/GeoGebra. Again, this study cannot make solid conclusions, but it is safe to say that this study gives insight into teachers’ viewpoints, which, in a sense, are more important than those of outside researchers. The teachers agreed on a few technologies that are the most beneficial and thus future studies should focus on really studying the effects of these technologies as well as focus on getting a wider range of teachers’ opinions on this topic. Technology is a major driving force of today’s world. Businesses and individual jobs depend on technology to function properly, most all forms of communication use technology, and entertainment is found more often through technology than not. Since technology is such a large part of the current world, it would seem that technology should be incorporated in school classrooms. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics has determined six principles, which describe aspects of high-quality mathematics education. One of these principles states that “technology is an essential tool for teaching and learning mathematics effectively; it extends the mathematics that can be taught and enhances students’ learning” (NCTM, 2000). The claim is Lolli 3 that technology is essential to learning and that it enhances it. What research has been done to support this claim? Several studies have explored technology in geometry classrooms and its effects. A few studies have shown positive student attitudes towards geometry when using technology. Charles Funkhouser observed and tested students in two classrooms; one with computer-augmented instruction and one without. He found that the students’ test scores in the computer-augmented instruction classroom were better, and according to surveys, the students’ attitudes toward geometry changed for the better (Funkhouser, 2002). Another study found that using an open-ended learning environment, where students have more power over their own learning, in conjunction with dynamic geometry software led to positive attitudes of students towards learning geometry (Hannafin, 2001). In addition to students’ attitudes towards technology, teachers’ attitudes towards technology have been explored by several studies. In open-ended learning environments, teachers need to accept the role of facilitator and supporter. Hannafin found, with his research using dynamic geometry software, that teachers have a hard time relinquishing their control of the classroom because they feel responsible for their students’ learning (Hannafin, 2001). Another study found that the motivations of teachers to use technology are often personal and not focused on the needs of the students. Incorporating technology into lessons requires more time for planning a lesson and often more time executing the lesson. Implementing technology in the classroom also requires training and support for teachers (Holden, 2008). This same study found that teachers can see the benefits of incorporating technology but are neutral on whether technology affects in-class activities (Holden, 2008). Lolli 4 Bryan Dye led a study implementing a particular dynamic geometry program into 10 classrooms and observing the effects. Dye had found previously that teachers find it difficult to incorporate dynamic geometry programs in their classroom because it takes a long time to teach the students how all the symbols and icons are associated; it often turns into a technology lesson instead of a geometry lesson. However, with this particular program, Dye found that teachers were surprised that it was not just a computer lesson; more math learning took place than they expected (Dye, 2001). Another study explored teachers’ attitudes and beliefs of technology and how those beliefs affected the teachers’ use of technology in their classrooms. The reasons a teacher uses a new technology include how useful they think it will be, how easy it will be to use, and if it is compatible with existing technology. Whether they use the technology also depends on the expectations of colleagues and parents as well as the extent of support they have from technology staff. The study concluded that to understand why teachers use the amount of technology they do, it is necessary to take into account their individual pedagogical beliefs (Stols & Kriek, 2011). Stols and Kriek also stated that “further investigations should focus on how and for what purpose teachers used dynamic geometry software in their classrooms” (Stols & Kriek, 2011). In 2010, Grunewald and Associates presented an article titled, “Educators, Technology and 21st Century Skills: Dispelling Five Myths.” First, they found that teachers do not believe that they were well prepared to incorporate technology during their pre-service education classes. Also, teachers and administrators often disagree as to how much technology incorporation is occurring. Teachers find that all students, including high achieving students, students with academic needs, and ESL learners, benefit from technology use. Grunewald and Associates also found that veteran teachers and new teachers are equally likely to support technology in their Lolli 5 classrooms; teachers that are not using technology believe that it is not necessary for their lessons and not because they do not know how to use it. And finally, this report found that teachers who frequently use technology state good effects on students; the students learn how to use technology more effectively (Grunewald and Associates, 2010). Studies have determined whether students and teachers like a specific technology for geometry as well as why teachers use technology or not. However, it has yet to be determined which particular technologies, out of those available to schools, geometry teachers believe are the best to be used in their classrooms. Do certain technologies enhance learning in geometry? Are these technologies essential to teaching and learning geometry? The purpose of this study is to gain the opinions and views of teachers who have first-hand experience with technology in a high school geometry classroom. Obtaining the views of teachers regarding effects of technology in the classroom is important because they are the ones that witness first-hand the effects a technology has on students. Several teachers will have taught the same lessons with and without certain technologies. Thus, they will be able to compare whether the lesson was enhanced with the incorporation of technology, the technology had little or no effect, or the technology was actually detrimental to the lesson. Researchers and investigators can only see so much when they observe a classroom for a month or even a year to ‘test’ the effects of a particular technology. Teachers, on the other hand, are in their classrooms every day of the week and know their students the best. Thus, they will be able to more effectively judge which technologies have better effects on student learning. This study will also be beneficial because these teachers will be able to compare a vast list of varying technologies and report which one(s) they believe have the best effects on student learning. As a Lolli 6 result, schools and researchers will be able to see which technologies to focus on for further study and possible implementation in classrooms. Methods The participants of this study were high school geometry teachers in public, private, and charter schools in Franklin County. The teachers were asked if they wanted to participate and if they agreed, they were sent an online survey. The survey asked these teachers to evaluate the effects of various technologies on student learning and determine which one(s) they believe to be the most beneficial. Student learning was defined as engagement in class, ability to recall information, ability to apply information, and performance on in-class assessments. The last question of the survey asked if the teacher would be willing to discuss his or her ideas and opinions further via an in-person interview. After the surveys were completed, those that agreed to a further interview were contacted and an interview time was set up. With the use of three websites, “Franklin County Charter Schools,” “Franklin County Private Schools,” and “High Schools in Franklin County, Ohio,” a list of 60 high schools in Franklin County was compiled (see Appendix A). From each school’s website, the main information email address or the main secretary’s email address was obtained. An email was then sent to each school with a brief explanation of this study and requesting for the name(s) and contact information of the geometry teacher(s) at the school.