20 SES 13 JS, JS NW 20 and NW 24
Paper Session Joint Session NW 20 and NW 24
Our proposal aims to report on a study with experienced Hungarian teachers who introduced mathematical concepts through a sequence of lessons utilising a pedagogical framework (Lavicza etal., 2009a; 2009b) for general technology integration. We had the opportunity to observe teachers’ integration of technology into their classes as part the GEOMATECH project an EU-Funded national project aiming to introduce technology into Hungarian classrooms in 800 schools, and develop technology resources for the entire curriculum for the Hungarian Education system from year 1 to 12 in most topics in mathematics and physics together with a range of pedagogical approaches. In the pilot study, we worked with 45 teachers and their students and integrated findings into the material and teacher training resources developed for GEOMATECH and the 2400 teacher participants.
While educators widely agree that there is much potential value in integrating technology into classroom practices so students can experience its potential as a powerful learning tool (Lavicza, 2010), it is also widely agreed that there are concerns for the implementation (Hoyles & Lagrange 2010; Ruthven, 2014). Having in mind the critical importance of appropriate pedagogical approaches in technology-enhanced teaching environments, the theoretical model for teachers’ process of technology integration proposed by Lavicza et al. (2009a, 2009b) involves three phases. In the first phase, the teachers demonstrate new techniques in anticipation of the content material that will follow. In the second phase, the classroom setting is favourably arranged for promoting discussions of students’ work on teacher-created files. As exploitation modes, teachers may take student work as a point of departure for the explanation, or start with their own solution for a task. The teachers’ may use different exploitation modes that may consider students’ work as a starting point or a point of departure for a problem or task that they wish to engage their students with. In the third phase, students create their own files and teachers may select different exploitation modes, such as having a group of students show their work and discuss the main ideas embedded in their work with other students.
During project, we observed this framework in action in classrooms, and also to work with experienced teachers and their students to see that this framework could also work for developing teaching sequences to introduce mathematical concepts. One of the major concerns of the study was to explore issues related to the transfer of control described by Lavicza et al. (2009a, 2009b). In implementing an educational program on the large scale, teacher practices necessitates to have students more engaged through use of the technology, then there is a significant concern about how and how quickly teachers can move through the three phases of our model. In another paper (Prodromou et al., 2015/in press), we have examined issues related to the teachers’ issues in allowing the students to take more control over classroom activities, as described in the Lavicza et al. (2009a, 2009b) model. In that paper, we focused on the teachers’ experience and issues that arose as they tried to implement that transition in their classes. In this proposal, we now look at that transition from the perspective of the students of the 45 teachers.
In the previous papers, we mentioned how the students reported an appreciation of the pedagogy, their engagement with the material, and their thoughts on how the technology affected their learning. In this proposed talk, we will follow up on those basic claims with a tighter focus on the students’ experience of the shift in the classroom dynamic — we will examine how students felt about and responded to teacher demonstrations and about the student-led activities.
BERA. (2011). Revised Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research. British Educational Research Association. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.bera.ac.uk/publications/guides.php Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2011) Research Methods in Education (7th Edition). London: Routledge Falmer. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2007). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hoyles, C., & Lagrange, J.-B. (2010). Introduction. In C. Hoyles & J.-B. Lagrange (Eds.), Mathematics education and technology: Rethinking the terrain: The 17th ICMI study (pp. 1–11). New York: Springer. Lavicza, Z., Hohenwarter, M., Jones , K., Lu, A., & Dawes, M. (2009a). Establishing a professional development network around dynamic mathematics software in England. International Journal of Technology in Mathematics Education, 16(1), pp. 37-42. Lavicza, Z., Hohenwarter, M., & Lu, Y. W. (2009b). Establishing a professional development network: working with GeoGebra. Project report for the National Centre for Excellence in the Teaching of Mathematics, London, UK. Lavicza, Z. (2010). Integrating technology into mathematics teaching: A review. ZDM: The International Journal of Mathematics Education. 42(1), 105-119. Prodromou, T., Lavicza, Z., & Koren, B. (2015/in press). Increasing students’ involvement in technology-supported mathematics lesson sequences. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education. Ruthven, K. (2014), Frameworks for Analysing the expertise that underpins successful integration of digital technologies into everyday teaching practice. In A. Clark-Wilson, O. Robutti, & N. Sinclair (Eds.), The Mathematics Teacher in the Digital Era: An International Perspective on Technology Focused Professional Development (pp. 373-394). Dordrecht: Springer.
00. Central Events (Keynotes, EERA-Panel, EERJ Round Table, Invited Sessions)
Network 1. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations
Network 2. Vocational Education and Training (VETNET)
Network 3. Curriculum Innovation
Network 4. Inclusive Education
Network 5. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education
Network 6. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures
Network 7. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Network 8. Research on Health Education
Network 9. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement
Network 10. Teacher Education Research
Network 11. Educational Effectiveness and Quality Assurance
Network 12. LISnet - Library and Information Science Network
Network 13. Philosophy of Education
Network 14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Network 15. Research Partnerships in Education
Network 16. ICT in Education and Training
Network 17. Histories of Education
Network 18. Research in Sport Pedagogy
Network 19. Ethnography
Network 20. Research in Innovative Intercultural Learning Environments
Network 22. Research in Higher Education
Network 23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Network 24. Mathematics Education Research
Network 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Network 26. Educational Leadership
Network 27. Didactics – Learning and Teaching
The programme is updated regularly (each day in the morning)
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.