You are here:

Elementary Preservice Teachers Designing Website Supported Mathematical Investigations for Students Performing Below Grade Level
PROCEEDINGS

, California State University, Bakersfield, United States ; , Faculty of Philosophy, University of Zagreb, Croatia, Croatia ; , California State University, Bakersfield, United States

EdMedia + Innovate Learning, in Vienna, Austria ISBN 978-1-880094-65-5 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC

Full Text

Abstract

Grade retention is a common practice in the United States; it is designed to fix educational discrepancies by providing a second opportunity to learn the same material. However, research shows that this practice does not help children become more successful in education. Therefore, preservice teachers must be provided with alterative techniques to support students who are below grade level through curriculum design and development. This paper provides a framework to guide elementary preservice teachers in developing mathematics curriculum supported by the use of technology to be used as an intervention when children are failing to achieve at grade level. The curriculum model follows a constructivist approach using technology as a tool to help guide investigations.

Citation

Kurz, T., Batarelo, I. & Lopez, D.M. (2008). Elementary Preservice Teachers Designing Website Supported Mathematical Investigations for Students Performing Below Grade Level. In J. Luca & E. Weippl (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2008--World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 5993-6002). Vienna, Austria: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved December 3, 2023 from .

© 2008 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Abramovich, S. & Cho, E. (2006). Technology as a medium for elementary preteachers’ problem-posing experience in mathematics. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 25(4) 309-323.
  2. Attewell, P., & Battle, J. (1999). Home computers and school performance. The Information Society, 15(1), 1-10.
  3. Barabash, M., Guberman-Glebov, R. & Baruch, R. (2003). Decision-making in construction courses combining classroom-based and internet based learning and teaching strategies in mathematics teachers’ education. Journal of Educational Media, 28(2-3), 147-163.
  4. California State Board of Education (1997). Mathematics academic content standards for kindergarten through grade twelve [online]. Available: http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/mthmain.asp
  5. Campbell, L. (1997). How teachers interpret MI theory. Educational Leadership, 55(1), 14-19.
  6. Clark, K., Jamison, T., & Sparague, D. (2005). Digital study groups: Online learning environments in middle school. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 3(4). Retrieved December 16, 2007, from http://www.vcolr.org/jiol/issues/PDF/3.4.3.pdf
  7. Clark, R. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29.
  8. Epstein, J. (1995). School/family/community partnerships. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), 701-12.
  9. Epstein, J. & Jansorn, N. (2004). School, family and community partnerships link the plan. Education Digest, 69(6), 19-24.
  10. Gardner, H. (1983).Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  11. Gardner, H. (1997). Multiple intelligence as a partner for school improvement. Educational Leadership, 55(1), 20-1.
  12. Glazer, E. (2004). From a caterpillar to a butterfly: The growth of a teacher in developing technology-enhanced mathematical investigations. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(1), 115-138.
  13. Guha, S. & Leonard, J. (2002). Motivation in elementary mathematics: How students and teachers benefit from computers.
  14. Handal, B., & Herrington, A. (2003). Re-examining categories of computer-based learning in mathematics education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Mathematics Teacher Education [on-line] , 3(3). Available: http://www.citejournal.org/vol3/iss3/mathematics/article1.cfm
  15. Hong, G. & Yu, B. (2007). Early-grade retention and children’s reading and math learning in elementary years. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(4), 239-261.
  16. Jeynes, W.H. (2003). A Meta-Analysis: The Effects of Parental Involvement on Minority Children’s Academic Achievement. Education and Urban Society, 35(2), 202-218.
  17. Jimerson, S. (2001). Meta-analysis of grade retention research: Implications for practice in the 21st century. School Psychology Review, 30(3), 420-437.
  18. Kurz, T. & Middleton, J. (2006). Using a functional approach to change preservice teachers’ understanding of mathematics software. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(1), 51-71.
  19. Kurz, T.L., Middleton, J.A., & Yanik, H.B. (2005). A taxonomy of software for mathematics instruction. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online serial], 5(2). Available: http://www.citejournal.org/vol5/iss2/mathematics/article1.cfm
  20. Lajoie, S. (1993). Computing environments as cognitive tools for enhancing learning. In S. Lajoie& S. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools, V. 1. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lawrenz, F. Gravely, A. & Ooms, A. (2006). Perceived helpfulness and amount of use of technology in science and mathematics classes at different grade levels. School Science and Mathematics, 106(3), 133-139.
  21. Lederman N. & Neiss, M. (2000). Technology for technology’s sake or for the improvement of teaching and learning? School Science and Mathematics, 100(7), 346-8.
  22. Mann, D. & Shafer, E. (1997). Technology and achievement. The American School Board Journal, 184(7), 22-23.
  23. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
  24. Page, M. (2002). Technology-enriched classrooms: Effects on students of low socioeconomic status. Journal of Research on Technology and Education, 34(4), 389-409.
  25. Pea, R.D. (1986). Cognitive technologies for mathematics education. In A. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp. 89-122). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  26. Perkins, D.N. (1992). Technology meets constructivism: Do they make a marriage? In T. Duffy& D. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (pp.45-56). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  27. Roderick, M. & Nagaoka, J. (2005). Retention under Chicago’s high-stakes testing program: Helpful, harmful or harmless? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(4), 309–340.
  28. Roschelle, J., Pea, R., Hoadley, C., Gordin, D., & Means, B. (2000). Changing how and what children learn in school with computer-based technologies. The Future of Children, 10(2), 76-101.
  29. Sheldon, S. & Epstein, J. (2005). Involvement counts: Family and community partnerships and mathematics achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(40), 196-206.
  30. Shepard, L. & Smith, M. (1990). Synthesis of research on grade retention. Educational Leadership, 47, 84-8.
  31. Timmerman, M. (2004). Using the internet: Are prospective elementary teachers prepared to teach with technology? Teaching Children Mathematics, 10(8), 410-15.
  32. VandeWalle, J. (2007) Elementary and Middle School Mathematics Teaching Developmentally. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
  33. Waxman, H. & Padron, Y. (1995). Improving the quality of classroom instruction for students at risk of failure in urban schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 70(2), 44-65.
  34. Wentworth, N & Moroe, E. (1996). Parent beliefs about technology and innovative mathematics instruction. School Science and

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

Suggest Corrections to References