You are here:

Promoting transformative changes in mathematics teaching and learning in elementary schools through international online collaboration.

, College of Staten Island, United States

E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in Las Vegas, NV, United States ISBN 978-1-939797-35-3 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), San Diego, CA


This paper describes experiences and results of an online collaboration between College of Staten Island (New York, USA) and Vladimir State University (Vladimir, Russia). The project included collaborative development of curriculum materials for teaching geometry in elementary school with GeoGebra and jointly taught synchronous course on how to integrate best practices with technology into teaching elementary school mathematics for pre-service elementary teachers (PSTs) in both countries. Online course followed by classroom implementation of GeoGebra lessons developed by the participants during their student teaching practicum. The preliminary analysis showed that while Russian PSTs outperformed American PSTs in geometry, American PSTs demonstrated more positive attitudes towards using computers in teaching. Analysis of videos suggests that participants from both countries developed different levels of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) with about the same distribution in each country. This project proposes a model of innovative international collaboration that could be implemented in teacher education programs to promote transformative changes in teaching and learning.


Lyublinskaya, I. (2018). Promoting transformative changes in mathematics teaching and learning in elementary schools through international online collaboration. In Proceedings of E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 1133-1139). Las Vegas, NV, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 22, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map


  1. Lyublinskaya, I. & Tournaki, N (2012). The Effects of teacher content authoring on TPACK and on student achievement in algebra: Research on instruction with the TI-Nspire handheld. In R. Ronau, C. Rakes, & M. Niess (Eds.), Educational Technology, Teacher Knowledge, and Classroom Impact: A Research Handbook on Frameworks and Approaches. (pp. 295-322) Hershey, PA: IGI Global
  2. Blömeke, S., Suhl, U., & Döhrmann, M. (2013) Assessing strengths and weaknesses of teacher knowledge in Asia, Eastern Europe, and western countries: Differential item functioning in TEDS-M. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(4), 795-817.
  3. Bransford, J.D., Brown, M.L., & Cocking, R.R. (Eds.) (2001). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  4. Christensen, R., & Knezek, G. (2000). Internal consistency reliabilities for 14 computer attitude scales. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 327-336.
  5. Depaepe, F, Torbeyns, J., Vermeersch, N., Janssens, D., Janssen, R., Kelchtermans, G., Verschaffel, L., Van Dooren, W. (2015). Teachers' content and pedagogical content knowledge on rational numbers: A comparison of prospective elementary and lower secondary school teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 47, 82-92.
  6. Duatepe-Paksu, A., Iymen, E., & Pakmak, G.S. (2012). How well elementary teachers identify parallelogram? Educational Studies, 38(4), 415-418.
  7. Fennema, E., & Sherman, J.A. (1976). Fennema-Sherman mathematics attitudes scales; instruments desinged to measure attitudes towards the learning of mathematics by females and males. Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 6(1), 31.
  8. Harris, J., Grandgenett, N., & Hofer, M. (2010). Testing a TPACK-based technology integration assessment rubric. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 3833-3840)
  9. Hsieh, F.-J., Law, C.-K., Shy, H.-W., Wang, T.-Y., Hsieh, C.-J., & Tang, S.J. (2011) Mathematics teacher education quality in TEDS-M: Globalizing the views of future teachers and teacher educators. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(2), 172– 187
  10. Koehler, M., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy and technology. Computers & Education, 49(3), 740–762.
  11. Lo, J.J., & Luo, F. (2012). Prospective elementary teachers' knowledge of fraction division. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 15(6), 481-500.
  12. Margerum-Leys, J., & Marx, R.W. (2002). Teacher knowledge of educational technology: A study of student teacher/mentor teacher pairs. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26(4), 427-462
  13. Marsh, H.W., Hau, K.T., Balla, J.R., & Grayson, D. (1998). Is more ever too much? The number of indicators per factor in confirmatory factor analysis. Multivariate behavioral research, 33(2), 181-220.
  14. Meaney, T., & Lange, T. (2012). Knowing mathematics to be a teacher. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 14(2), 50-69.
  15. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
  16. National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The Nation’s report card: Mathematics 2011. Jessup, MD: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Dept. Of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
  17. Ng, D. (2011). Indonesian primary teachers' mathematical knowledge for teaching geometry: Implications for educational policy and teacher preparation programs. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39(2), 151-164.
  18. Niess, M.L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 509-523.
  19. Niess, M.L., van Zee, E.H., & Gillow-Wiles, H. (2011). Knowledge growth in teaching mathematics/science with spreadsheets: Moving PCK to TPACK through online professional development. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(2), 42-52.
  20. Pierson, M.E. (2001). Technology integration practices as a function of pedagogical expertise. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33, 413-429.
  21. Schmidt, W., Houang, H., & Cogan, R. (2012). Preparing primary teachers in the United States: Balancing selection and preparation. ZDM, 44(3), 265-276.
  22. Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
  23. Tapia, M., & Marsh, G.E. (2004). An instrument to measure mathematics attitudes. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 8(2), 16-21.
  24. Tatto, M.T., Schwille, J., Senk, S.L., Bankov, K., Rodriguez, M., Reckase, M., Ingvarson, L., Rowley, G. & Peck, R. (2012). The Teacher Education Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M): Policy, practice, and readiness to teach primary and secondary mathematics. Findings from the IEA Study of the mathematics preparation of future teachers. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: IEA.
  25. Van Steenbrugge, H., Lesage, E., Valcke, M., & Desoete, A. (2014). Preservice elementary school teachers’ knowledge of fractions: a mirror of students' knowledge? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(1), 138–161.
  26. Wilkie, K.J. (2014). Upper primary school teachers' mathematical knowledge for teaching functional thinking in algebra. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 17(5), 397-428
  27. Zhao, Y. (2003). What teachers should know about technology: Perspectives and Practices. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Acknowledgements Project is funded by US-Russia University Partnership Program through Eurasia Foundation and US Department of State, award #W16-1020.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact