#
The Role of Technology in Increasing Preservice Teachers’ Anticipation of Students’ Thinking in Algebra
PROCEEDINGS

## Steve Rhine, Willamette University, United States ; Rachel Harrington, Western Oregon University, United States ; Brandon Olszewski, ISTE, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Jacksonville, Florida, United States ISBN 978-1-939797-07-0 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA

## Abstract

The collision between a growing, inexperienced teaching force and students’ algebra struggles should be one of great concern. A collaboration of four public and private universities in Oregon restructured Mathematics Methods courses for preservice teacher candidates by using the affordances of technology to counteract this loss of experience. Over time, veteran math teachers develop extensive knowledge of how students engage with concepts. Preservice teachers on the other hand, do not have that same experience to rely upon to anticipate important moments in the learning of their students. To address preservice teachers’ lack of experience with student thinking the Algebraic Thinking Project synthesized over 800 articles of research into multiple technology-based resources: 1. Encyclopedia of Algebraic Thinking, 2. Student Thinking Video Database, 3. Formative Assessment Database & Class Response System, and 4. Virtual Manipulatives.

## Citation

Rhine, S., Harrington, R. & Olszewski, B. (2014). The Role of Technology in Increasing Preservice Teachers’ Anticipation of Students’ Thinking in Algebra. In M. Searson & M. Ochoa (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2014--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2298-2316). Jacksonville, Florida, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved May 22, 2019 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/131124/.

© 2014 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

## References

View References & Citations Map- Bakeman, R. (2000). Behavioral observation and coding. In H.T. Reis& C.M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 138159).
- Ball, D.L., Bass, H., Sleep, L., & Thames, M. (2005). A theory of mathematical knowledge for teaching. Paper presented at the Fifteenth ICMI Study: The Professional Education and Development of Teachers of Mathematics, 15-21 May, State University of Sao Paolo, Brazil.
- Ball, D.L., Thames, M.H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 389–407.
- Carpenter, T.P., Fennema, E., Loef-Franke, M., Levi, L., & Empson, S. (2000). Cognitively Guided Instruction: A research-based teacher professional development program for elementary school mathematics. Madison, WI: National Center for Improving Student Learning and Achievement in Mathematics and Science.
- Ewing, R. & Manuel, J. (2005). Retaining quality early career teachers in the profession: New teacher narratives. Change: Transformations in Education, 8(1), 1-16.
- Feldman, A., & Capobianco, B.M. (2008). Teacher Learning of Technology Enhanced Formative Assessment. Journal of Science Education& Technology, 17(1), 82-99.
- Fennema, E., Carpenter, T.P., Franke, M.L., Levi, L., Jacobs, V.R., & Empson, S.B. (1996). A longitudinal study of learning to use children’s thinking in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 403-34.
- Franke, M., Carpenter, T., Fennema, E., Ansell, E., & Behrend, J. (1998). Understanding Teachers’ Self-Sustaining, Generative Change in the Context of Professional Development. Teaching And Teacher Education, 14(1), 67-80.
- Franke, M.L., Carpenter, T.P., Levi, L., & Fennema, E. (2000). Capturing teachers’ generative growth: A follow-up study of professional development in mathematics. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 653-689.
- Gearhart, M., & Saxe, G.B. (2004). When Teachers Know What Students Know: Integrating Mathematics Assessment. Theory Into Practice, 43(4), 304-313.
- Heid, M. & Blume, G. (2008). Technology and the development of algebraic understanding. In M. Heid & G. Blume (Eds.) Research on Technology and the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics. Information Age Publishing, 55-108.
- Herbert, S., & Pierce, R. (2008). An ‘Emergent Model’ for Rate of Change. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 13(3), 231-249.
- Langman, J., & Fies, C. (2010). Classroom response system-mediated science learning with English language learners. Language& Education: An International Journal, 24(2), 81-99.
- Leatham, K.R., Peterson, B.E., Stockero, S.L., & Van Zoest, L.R. (2011). Mathematically important pedagogical opportunities. In L.R. Wiest, T. Lamberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 838-845). Reno,
- Monk, S. (1992). Students’ understanding of a function given by a physical model. In G.H.E. Dubinsky (Ed.), The Concept of Function: Aspects of Epistemology and Pedagogy. USA: Mathematical Association of America.
- Moses, R. & Cobb, C. (2001). Organizing algebra: The need to voice a demand. Social Policy, 31(4), 4-12.
- Nathan, M.J., and Koedinger, K.R. (2000). An investigation of teachers’ beliefs of students’ algebra development. Cognition and Instruction, 18(2), 207-235.
- Nathan, M.J., & Petrosino, A. (2003). Expert blind spot among preservice teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 905-928.
- National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and Standards of School Mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
- National Educational Technology Plan (2010). U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010. Peterson, B.E., & Leatham, K.R. (2009). Learning to use students’ mathematical thinking to orchestrate a class discussion. In L. Knott (Ed.), The role of mathematics discourse in producing leaders of discourse (pp. 99-128). Charlotte, NC: Information
- Sarama, J., & Clements, D.H. (2008). Linking research and software development. In G.W. Blume & M.K. Heid (Eds.), Research on technology and the teaching and learning of mathematics: Volume 2, cases and perspectives (pp. 113-130). New York:
- Singh, D.K., & Stoloff, D.L. (2008). ASSESSMENT OF TEACHER DISPOSITIONS. College Student Journal, 42(4), 1169-1180.
- Smith, M. & Stein, M. (2011). 5 Practices for Orchestrating Productive Mathematics Discussion. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
- Suh, J.M., & Moyer-Packenham, P.S. (2007). Developing students’ representational fluency using virtual and physical algebra balances. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching. 26(2), 155-173.
- Thadani, V., Stevens, R.H., & Tao, A. (2009). Measuring complex features of science instruction: Developing tools to investigate the link between teaching and learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(2), 285-322.
- Wasicsko, M.M. (2002). Assessing educator dispositions: A perceptual psychological approach. Washington, DC: ERIC-The Education Resources Information Center(ED 193 193).
- Wells, G., & Arauz, R.M. (2006). Dialogue in the classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(3), 379-428.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References