You are here:

Delivering Online Professional Development in Mathematics to Rural Educators

, , University of Tennessee, United States

Journal of Technology and Teacher Education Volume 17, Number 3, ISSN 1059-7069 Publisher: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, Waynesville, NC USA


Rural school districts struggle to attract, retain, and support highly qualified mathematics teachers. A series of four online professional development courses in the form of integrated mathematics content and pedagogy courses was designed to meet the professional development needs of rural middle school mathematics teachers. Changes in teachers’ mathematics content knowledge and their pedagogical content knowledge over the duration of the courses are documented. Results suggested that while teachers’ mathematics content knowledge did not change significantly, pedagogical content knowledge did increase. Additionally, the design of the courses fostered communities of practice among the teachers, and can be used as a model for other distance learning courses.


Cady, J. & Rearden, K. (2009). Delivering Online Professional Development in Mathematics to Rural Educators. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(3), 281-298. Waynesville, NC USA: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education. Retrieved March 24, 2019 from .


View References & Citations Map


  1. American Association for Employment in Education. (1999). Educator supply and demand—1990 research report. Columbus, OH: Author.
  2. Allen, M. (2003). Eight questions on teacher preparation: What does the research say? Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
  3. Ball, D. L. (2003). What mathematical knowledge is needed for teaching mathematics?, Secretary’s Summit on Mathematics, Department of Education, Washington, DC.
  4. Belderrain, Y. (2006). Distance education trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student interaction and collaboration. Distance Education, 27(2), 139-153.
  5. Cobb, P., McClain, K., Lamberg, T., & Dean, C. (2003). Situated teachers’ instructional practices in the institutional setting of the school and district. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 13-24.
  6. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  7. DeYoung, A. J., & Lawrence, B. K. (1995). On Hoosiers, Yankees, and Mountaineers. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(2), 104-112.
  8. Franke, M. L., & Kazemi, E. (2001). Learning to teach mathematics: Focus on student thinking. Theory into Practice, 40, 102-109.
  9. Grossman, P. L., Wineberg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2001). Toward a theory of teacher community. Teachers College Record, 103, 942-1013.
  10. Hill, H. C., & Ball, D. L. (2004). Learning mathematics for teaching: Results from California’s mathematics professional development institutes. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(5), 330-349.
  11. Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371-406.
  12. Lao, T., & Gonzales, C. (2005). Understanding online learning through a qualitative description of professors and students’ experiences. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(3), 459-474.
  13. Lock, J. V. (2006). A new image of online communities to facilitate teacher professional development. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(4), 663-678.
  14. Merseth, K. K. (1996). Cases and case methods in teacher education. In J. Sikula, T. J. Buttery & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 722744). New York: MacMillan.
  15. National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.
  16. No Child Left Behind Act. (2001). Public Law #PL 107-110 issued by the 107th U.S. Congress. Retrieved December 2, 2008, from
  17. Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4 - 15.
  18. Reys, B. J., Reys, R. E., Beem, J., & Papick, I. (1998). The Missouri middle grades mathematics (M3) project. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 2, 215-222.
  19. Royster, W. C. (1994, February). Issues in rural education and the rural systemic initiative. Paper presented at Building the System: Making Science Education Work. Putting the Pieces Together Conference, Washington, DC.
  20. Schwandt, T. (2001). Qualitative inquiry: A dictionary of terms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  21. Schwartzbeck, T. D., Redfield, D., Morris, H., & Hammer, P. C. (2003). How are rural school districts meeting the teacher quality requirements of No Child Left Behind? Charleston, WV: Appalachia Educational Laboratory.
  22. Seal, K. R., & Harmon, H. L. (1995). Realities of rural school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(2), 119-120.
  23. Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningson, M. A., & Silver, E. A. (2000). Quasar project: Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development. New York: Teachers College Press.
  24. Stigler, J.W. & Hiebert, J. (2004). Improving mathematics teaching. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 12-17.
  25. Vrasidas, C., & McIsaac, M. S. (2001). Integrating technology in teaching and teacher education: Implications for policy and curriculum reform. Education Media International, 38(2-3), 127-132.
  26. Wilcox, S. J., & Jones, E. (2004). A tool for the teaching principle: Professional development through assessment. In R. Rubenstein & G. Bright (Eds.), Perspectives on the
  27. Wilson, S. M., & Floden, R. E. (2003). Creating effective teachers: Concise answers for hard questions. An addendum to the report „Teacher preparation research: Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations.“ Denver, CO: Education Commission of

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

View References & Citations Map

Cited By

  1. Synchronous Online Discourse in a Technology Methods Course for Middle and Secondary Prospective Mathematics Teachers

    Tina Starling & Hollylynne Lee, NC State University, United States

    Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education Vol. 15, No. 2 (June 2015) pp. 106–125

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