In their Research Commentary, Kitchen and Berk (2016) argue that educational technology may focus only on skills for low-income students and students of color, further limiting their opportunities to learn mathematical reasoning, and thus pose a challenge to realizing standards-based reforms. Although the authors share the concern about equity and about funds wasted by inappropriate purchases of technology before planning based on research and the wisdom of expert practice, including inadequate professional development, they believe that Kitchen and Berk's commentary contains several limitations that could be misconstrued and thus misdirect policy and practice.
Douglas H. Clements and Julie Sarama
Richard Kitchen and Sarabeth Berk
The implementation of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010) has the potential to move forward key features of standards-based reforms in mathematics that have been promoted in the United States for more than 2 decades (e.g., National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1989, 2000; National Science Foundation, 1996). We believe that this is an especially opportune time to purposely focus on improving the mathematics education of students who have historically been denied access to a high-quality and rigorous mathematics education in the United States, specifically low-income students and students of color (e.g., Kitchen, DePree, Celedón-Pattichis, & Brinkerhoff, 2007; Leonard & Martin, 2013). We discuss a challenge to realizing standards-based reforms in mathematics in the United States: computer-based interventions in mathematics classrooms.
Donna F. Berlin and Arthur L. White
Advancements in the study of learning and educational technology in the last three decades have set the stage for revolutionizing educational theory and practice.
The 1998 International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) survey on technology use in teacher education reported that one computer exists for every five students in K–12 schools in the United States. To be ready to enter these technological classrooms, prospective teachers need course experiences that incorporate educational technology for classroom teaching in meaningful ways. In teacher education programs, however, the task of integrating the use of educational technology with reform-oriented learning theories and pedagogy is not trivial (Niederhauser, Salem, and Fields 1999; Willis 1998). Different uses of educational technology lead to multiple views of learning, which affect how topics are taught and learned. Transforming curricula and pedagogy to take advantage of technology is a labor-intensive and time-consuming process. The Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA 1995) reported that only 3 percent of teacher education graduates indicated they were “very well prepared” to teach with technology. More recently, the ISTE (1999) survey on technology use in teacher education documented that taking separate information technology courses had no significant effect on prospective teachers' integration of technology in teaching or their technological skills.
Teri N. Johnson and Stephen I. Tucker
During the past thirty years, various forms of technology have facilitated teaching and learning. Recently, touchscreen tablets are among the devices growing in popularity. Many mathematics apps are available; however, they vary in their usefulness for different users. Monitoring students' interactions with selected apps is important for teachers to do to ensure that earners are benefiting from technology integration. The Modification of Attributes, Affordances, Abilities, and Distance (MAAAD) for Learning Framework (see fig. 1) emerged from evaluations of students' interactions with educational technology (Tucker 2016). Teachers can use this framework to select apps for use in the classroom, formatively assess student understanding, and evaluate the appropriateness of tasks presented by apps.
Statistical literacy, reasoning, and thinking are emerging as a significant new field in mathematics education research, fueled by the inclusion of these aspects of statistics in mathematics curricula at all levels. The distinction between the terms literacy, reasoning, and thinking has not always been clearly formulated. This book clarifies the differences and issues associated with the terms while presenting cutting-edge research in this field, based on the results reported at several international conferences (Australia, 2001; Israel, 1999; Singapore, 1998; USA, 2003). The rationale for, and goals of, the book are clearly presented: “Our goal in creating this book is to provide a useful resource for educators and researchers interested in helping students at all educational levels to develop statistical literacy, statistical reasoning, and statistical thinking” (p. 8). Thus, the audience for the book includes current and future researchers as well as teachers of statistics. Potential use in curriculum development and in the incorporation of educational technology expands the significance of the book, which could thus be a useful text for graduate courses in mathematics education.
Zachary A. Stepp
reporting that most teachers and institutions are using video content to teach students in the classroom ( Kaltura 2017 ; Klein 2019 ). From online services such as YouTube, Khan Academy, and numerous educational technology companies, video content is here
Samuel Otten, Wenmin Zhao, Zandra de Araujo and Milan Sherman
.” Journal of Educational Technology & Society 20 , no. 1 ( January ): 248 – 60 . Karp , Karen S. , Sarah B. Bush , and Barbara J. Dougherty . 2014 . “13 Rules That Expire.” Teaching Children Mathematics 21 , no. 1 ( August ): 18 – 25
Kyle M. Dunbar and Kathryn M. Rich
a doctoral candidate in educational technology at Michigan State University in East Lansing and a curriculum developer at the University of Chicago STEM Education. She is interested in how technology can be used to enhance mathematics teaching and