You are here:

Digital Fabrication Scaffolds for Developing Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Mathematics Pedagogy
PROCEEDINGS

, , University of Virginia, United States ; , University of Houston, United States ; , University of Virginia, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Nashville, Tennessee, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-84-6 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA

Full Text

Abstract

This pilot study was designed to facilitate determination of a role for supports in assisting preservice elementary teachers to develop a mathematics pedagogy that includes using digital fabrication. Although results were statistically insignificant, the pattern of results regarding interest in math and regarding a career related to math suggest that additional exposure to the intervention might positively influence the size of differences between the pre-intervention and the post-intervention scores. Results from this pilot study thereby suggest it is possible that with proper supports preservice elementary teachers might develop a mathematics pedagogy that includes using digital fabrication, and this may influence their interest and engagement in mathematics teaching. Despite limits to the generalizability of results due to a small sample size, this pilot study provided a testing-ground for refining the theoretical framework, design-based guidelines, and research methods that will be utilized in a more robust follow-up study planned for the 2011 spring semester.

Citation

Tillman, D., Kjellstrom, W., Smith, S. & Yoder, E. (2011). Digital Fabrication Scaffolds for Developing Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Mathematics Pedagogy. In M. Koehler & P. Mishra (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2011--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 892-897). Nashville, Tennessee, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved December 8, 2019 from .

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Ainsworth, S. (2006) DEFT: A conceptual framework for learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction. 16(3), 183-198.
  2. Ainsworth, S., Bibby, P. & Wood, D. (2002). Examining the effects of different multiple representational systems in learning primary mathematics. Journal of the Learning Sciences. 11(1), 25-62. ISSN 1050-8406.
  3. Berry, R., Bull, G., Browning, C., Thomas, C., Starkweather, K., & Aylor, J. (2010). Preliminary considerations regarding use of digital fabrication to incorporate engineering design principles in elementary mathematics education. CITE Journal, 10(2). Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol10/iss2/editorial/article1.cfm Brown, M.C., McNeil, N.M., & Glenberg, A.M. (2009). Using concreteness in education: Real problems, potential solutions. Child Development Perspectives, 3(3), 160-164.
  4. Clement, L. (2004, September). A model for understanding, using, and connecting representations. TCM, 97-102.
  5. Clements, D. (2003). Teaching and learning geometry. In J. Kilpatrick, W. Martin& D. Shifter (Eds.), Research companion to Principles and Standards for school mathematics (pp. 151-178). Reston, VA: NCTM.
  6. De Jong, T., Ainsworth, S., Dobson, M., Hulst, A., Levonen, J., Reimann, P., Sime, J., van Someren, M., Spada, H. & Swaak, J. (1998). Acquiring knowledge in science and math: The use of multiple representations in technology based learning environments. In M. Van Someren, P. Reimann, H. Bozhimen, & T. De Jong (Eds.), Learning with multiple representations. (pp. 9-40). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
  7. Friedman, T. (2005). The World is Flat: A Brief History of the 21st Century. NY, NY: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
  8. Kaminski, J., Sloutsky, V., and Heckler, A. (2009). Transfer of mathematical knowledge: the portability of generic instantiations. Child Development Perspectives, 3(3), 151-155.
  9. Knezek, G., Christensen, R., Tyler-Wood, T. (2010). Contrasts in teacher and student perceptions of STEM content and careers. Paper submitted to the CITE Journal.
  10. Knezek, G., Christensen, R., Tyler-Wood, T. (2009). Instruments for assessing interest in STEM content and careers. Paper submitted to the Journal of Technology and Teacher Education.
  11. Lajoie, S. (2003). Transitions and trajectories for studies of expertise. Educational Researcher, 32(8), 21-25.
  12. Lesh, R., and Doerr, H.M. (Eds.) (2003). Beyond constructivism: A models and modeling perspective on mathematics problem solving, learning& Teaching. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  13. Martin, T. (2009). A theory of physically distributed learning: How external environments and internal states interact in mathematics learning. Child Development, 3(3), 140-144.
  14. Obama, B. (2009, April 27). Remarks made by the President at the National Academy of Sciences annual meeting. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-the-NationalAcademy-of-Sciences-Annual-Meeting/
  15. Stevens, C. (1996). Elementary preservice teachers’ knowledge and beliefs regarding science and mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 96(1), 2-9.

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

Suggest Corrections to References

Cited By

View References & Citations Map

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.

Slides

Also Read

Related Collections