You are here:

Synchronous online collaborative professional development for elementary mathematics teachers
ARTICLE

, Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to Dr. Krista Francis-Poscente, Faculty of Education, University of Calgary, 2500 University Dr. N.W., Calgary AB T2N 1N4 kfrancis@ucalgary.ca ; , University of Calgary

IRRODL Volume 14, Number 3, ISSN 1492-3831 Publisher: Athabasca University Press

Abstract

Math is often taught poorly emphasizing rote, procedural methods rather than creativity and problem solving. Alberta Education developed a new mathematics curriculum to transform mathematics teaching to inquiry driven methods. This revised curriculum provides a new vision for mathematics and creates opportunities and requirements for professional learning by teachers. Conventional offsite, after school, or weekend professional development is typically “sit and listen, maybe try on Monday”. Professional development that is embedded, responsive, and personalized is known to be more effective at changing teaching practice. Alberta teachers are geographically dispersed making online professional learning a desirable alternative to on-site workshops. As access to and use of the Internet gains momentum in schools across the country, opportunities for collaborative, online professional development become more viable. The online professional development in this hermeneutic study maps on to the new vision promoted in Alberta’s math curriculum, and addresses the challenge of a distributed teacher population. Thirteen geographically dispersed participants, including 10 teachers, a PhD mathematician, and two mathematics education specialists, collaborated in an online professional learning community to build knowledge for teaching mathematics. This paper describes and interprets the shared experiences of learners within an online, synchronous learning community that focused on discipline rich, focused inquiry with mathematics. Findings show that the nature and quality of the mathematics task impacted the quality and nature of the online interaction. Mathematics problems that incorporated easily drawn symbols and minimal text worked best in the online collaborative space. Members of this learning community discovered how to assert their identity in the online environment.

Citation

Francis, K. & Jacobsen, M. (2013). Synchronous online collaborative professional development for elementary mathematics teachers. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(3), 319-343. Athabasca University Press. Retrieved March 19, 2019 from .

Keywords

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Alberta Education. (2012). Technology in schools: Alberta Supernet. Retrieved from http://education.alberta.ca/admin/technology/supernet.aspx
  2. Alberta Education. (2007). Mathematics: Kindergarten to grade 9. Alberta Government. Retrieved from http://www.education.gov.ab.ca/k%5F12/curriculum/bySubject/math/Kto9MaTh.pdf
  3. Ball, D.L., Thames, M.H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.
  4. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.
  5. Clifford, P., & Friesen, S. (2003). Hard fun: Teaching and learning for the 21st century. In Back to the basics: “Thinking the world together”. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  6. Clifford, P., Friesen, S., & Lock, J. (2004). Coming to teaching in the 21st century: A research study. Retrieved from http://www.galileo.org/research/publications/ctt.pdf
  7. Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2007). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. John Wiley& Sons.
  8. Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M.W. (2011). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(6), 81–92.
  9. DeBellis, V.A., & Rosenstein, J.G. (2004). Discrete mathematics in primary and secondary schools in the United States. ZDM, 36(2), 46–55.
  10. Fernandez, C., & Yoshida, M. (2004). Lesson study: A Japanese approach to improving mathematics teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  11. Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). The power of example. In Making social science matter (pp. 66–
  12. Glazer, E.M., Hannafin, M.J., Polly, D., & Rich, P. (2009). Factors and interactions influencing technology integration during situated professional development in an elementary school. Computers in the Schools, 26(1), 21.
  13. Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology. In The question concerning technology and other essays (pp. 3–35). New York: Harper& Row.
  14. Hiltz, S.R. (1998). Collaborative learning in asynchronous learning networks: Building learning communities. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED427705
  15. Jacobs, J.K., Hiebert, J., Givvin, K.B., Hollingsworth, H., Garnier, H., & Wearne, D. (2006). Does eighth-grade mathematics teaching in the United States align with the NCTM “standards?” Results from the TIMSS 1995 and 1999 video studies. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(1), 5–32.
  16. Jacobsen, D.M. (2006). Learning technology in continuing professional development: The Galileo Educational Network. New York, NY: Edwin Mellen Press. Vol 14 | No 3 July/13 340
  17. Jonassen, D.H. (2004). Learning to solve problems: An instructional design guide. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley& Sons.
  18. Jones, T., & Cuthrell, K. (2011). YouTube: Educational potentials and pitfalls. Computers in the Schools, 28(1), 75. Doi:10.1080/07380569.2011.553149
  19. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, E. (2007). Out of the labyrinth: Setting mathematics free. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  20. Lewis, T. (2002). The math fair booklet. Vancouver, BC: The Pacific Institute of Mathematics.
  21. Lieberman, A., & Grolnick, M. (2005). Educational reform networks: Changes in the forms of reform. In M. Fullan (Ed.), Fundamental change (pp. 40–59).
  22. Marrero, M.E., Woodruff, K.A., Schuster, G.S., & Riccio, J.F. (2010). Live, online short-courses: A case study of innovative teacher professional development. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(1), 81– 95.
  23. Martin, M.O., Mullis, I.V.S., & Foy, P. (2008). TIMSS 2007 international science report: Findings from IEA’s trends in international mathematics and science study at the fourth and eighth grades.
  24. Moore, M.G. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–6.
  25. Moore, M.G. (2007). A theory of transactional distance. In M.G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (Vol. 2, pp. 89–108). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
  26. Plante, J., & Beattie, D. (2004). Connectivity and ICT integration in Canadian elementary and secondary schools: First results from the Information and Communications Technologies in Schools Survey, 2003-2004. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-595-m/81595-m2004017-eng.pdf
  27. Preciado-Babb, A.P., & Liljedahl, P. (2012). Three cases of teachers’ collaborative design: Perspectives from those involved. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 12(1), 22–35.
  28. Rovai, A.P. (2002). Sense of community, perceived cognitive learning, and persistence in asynchronous learning networks. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(4), 319–332. Doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00130-6
  29. Schoendfeld, A.H. (2009). Why do we teach? Kappa Delta Pi Record, 46(1), 26–29.
  30. Smith, D.G. (1999). The hermeneutic imagination and the pedagogic text. In Pedagon (pp. 27–44). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
  31. Statistics Canada. (2010, May 10). Internet use by individuals, by location of access, by province. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sumsom/l01/cst01/comm36a-eng.htm
  32. Stigler, J.W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: Free Press.
  33. Stigler, J.W., & Hiebert, J. (2009). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York, NY: First Free Press. (Original work published 1999).
  34. Trust, T. (2012). Professional learning networks designed for teacher learning. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 28(4), 133–138.
  35. Van Manen, M. (1997). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy (Vol. 2). London, Ont.: Althouse Press. Vol 14 | No 3 July/13 342

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

View References & Citations Map

Cited By

  1. The Effectiveness of Online Professional Development for Teachers

    Ali Suwayied Alqarni, Southern Illinois University (SIUC), United States

    E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2015 (Oct 19, 2015) pp. 1384–1390

  2. State of the Art PD The Online Professional Learning Exchange

    James Lipuma & Bruce Bukiet, New Jersey Institute of Technology, United States

    E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2015 (Oct 19, 2015) pp. 619–624

  3. Online Professional Development: Challenges of Observation of Secondary Classroom Simulation

    Sandra Nite, Ali Bicer, Laura Reeves, Luciana Barroso & Mary Capraro, Aggie STEM, Texas A&M University, United States

    E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2015 (Oct 19, 2015) pp. 442–448

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.