Vol. 27 No. 2 (2013)
Research Articles

The Influence of an Online Elementary Mathematics Pedagogy Course on Teacher Candidates’ Performance

Drew Polly
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Bio

Published 2014-02-05

Keywords

  • online teacher education,
  • mathematics education

How to Cite

Polly, D. (2014). The Influence of an Online Elementary Mathematics Pedagogy Course on Teacher Candidates’ Performance. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education Revue Internationale Du E-Learning Et La Formation à Distance, 27(2). Retrieved from https://ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/854

Abstract

The number of candidates seeking and completing online courses and programs in teacher education continues to increase in order to meet the licensing flexibility demands of adults pursuing teacher certification. Using the theoretical constructs of learner-centered instruction and zones of proximal development, this paper provides an overview of the design principles, analysis of qualitative evaluation data, and description of the refinement of an asynchronous online mathematics pedagogy course for graduate students seeking a teaching license in elementary education (children ages 5-12). Inductive qualitative analysis indicated that course revisions led to an increase in the frequency of teacher candidates’ high-level tasks and quality lesson plans. Implications for the design and refinement of online teacher education courses are also shared.

References

  1. APA Work Group of the Board of Educational Affairs (1997). Learner-centered psychological principles: A framework for school reform and redesign. Washington, DC: Author.
  2. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-41.
  3. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd Ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  4. Cohen, S. (2005). Teachers’ professional development and the elementary mathematics classroom: Bringing understandings to light. Mahwaw, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  5. Common Core State Standards Initiative (2011). Common Core State Standards in Mathematics. Retrieved from: http://www.corestandards.org/Math
  6. Dede, C., Ketelhut, D.J., Whitehouse, P., Breit, L., & McCloskey, R.M. (2009). A research agenda for online teacher professional development. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 8-19.
  7. Delfino, M., & Persico, D. (2007). Online or face-to-face? Experimenting with different techniques in teacher training. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 351–365.
  8. Dennen, V. P. (2007). Presence and positioning of online instructor persona. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(1), 95-108.
  9. Downing, J. J., & Dyment, J. E. (2013). Teacher educators’ readiness, preparation, and perceptions of preparing preservice teachers in a fully online environment: An exploratory study. Teacher Educator, 48(2), 96-109.
  10. Dyment, J. E., Downing, J. J., & Budd, Y. (2013). Framing teacher education engagement in an online environment. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(1), 134-149.
  11. Fishman, B. J., Marx, R. W., Best, S., & Tal, R. T. (2003). Linking teachers and student learning to improve professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(6), 643-658.
  12. Garet, M., Porter, A., Desimone, L., Briman, B., & Yoon, K. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Analysis of a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.
  13. Glazer, E. M., & Hannafin, M. J. (2006). The collaborative apprenticeship model: Situated professional development within school settings. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(2), 179-193.
  14. Greene, B. A., & Land, S. M. (2000). A qualitative analysis of scaffolding use in a resource-based learning environment involving the World Wide Web. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(2), 151-180.
  15. Hathaway, D. & Norton, P. (2012). An exploratory study comparing two modes of preparation for online teaching. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 28(4), 146-152.
  16. Heck, D.J., Banilower, E.R., Weiss, I.R., & Rosenberg, S.L. (2008). Studying the effects of professional development: The case of the NSF’s local systemic change through teacher enhancement initiative. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(2), 113-152.
  17. HEFCE. (2011). Collaborate to compete: Seizing the opportunity of online learning for UK higher education. Report to the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) by the Online Learning Task Force. Retrieved January 21, 2012, from http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/year/2011/201101/
  18. Henningsen, M., & Stein, M. K. (1997). Mathematical tasks, and student cognition: Classroom-based factors that support and inhibit high-level mathematical thinking and reasoning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 534-549.
  19. Hodges, C. B., & Cowan, S. F. (2012). Preservice teachers’ views of instructor presence in online courses. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 28(4), 139-145.
  20. IBM Corporation (2011). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corporation.
  21. Ke, F., & Xie, K. (2009). Toward deep learning for adult students in online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(3-4), 136-145.
  22. Ko, S., & Rosen, T. (2010). Teaching online: A practical guide. New York: Routledge.
  23. Levin, S. R., Waddoups, G. L., Levin, J. & Buell, J. (2001) Highly interactive and effective online learning environments for teacher professional development (electronic version), International Journal of Educational Technology, 2. Available online at: http://smi.curtin.edu.au/ijet/v2n2/slevin/index.html
  24. Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S., & Hewson, P. W. (2009). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  25. McCrory, R., Putnam, R., & Jansen, A. (2008). Interaction in Online Courses for Teacher Education: Subject Matter and Pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(2), 155-180. Chesapeake, VA: SITE.
  26. Moallem, M. (2003) An interactive online course: a collaborative design model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(4), 85–103.
  27. National Partnership for Excellence and Accountability in Teaching (NPEAT) (2000). Revisioning professional development: What learner-centered professional development looks like. Oxford, OH: Author. Retrieved September 10, 2003, from http://www.nsdc.org/library/policy/npeat213.pdf
  28. O’Connor, E. A. (2011). The effect on learning, communication, and assessment when student-centered Youtubes of microteaching were used in an online teacher-education course. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 39(2), 135-154.
  29. Orrill, C. H. (2001). Building learner-centered classrooms: A professional development framework for supporting critical thinking. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 15-34.
  30. Polly, D. (in press). Deepening pre-service teachers’ knowledge of technology, pedagogy, and content (TPACK) in elementary school mathematics methods course. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching.
  31. Polly, D. (2012). Designing and teaching in an online elementary mathematics methods course: Promises, barriers, and implications. In R. Hartshorne, T. Heafner, & T. Petty (Eds), Teacher education programs and online tools: Innovations in teacher preparation (pp. 335-56). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
  32. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-1906-7.ch018.
  33. Polly, D., & Hannafin, M.J. (2010). Reexamining technology’s role in learner-centered professional development. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(5), 71.
  34. Polly, D., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Examining how learner-centered professional development influences teachers’ espoused and enacted practices. Journal of Educational Research, 104, 120-130.
  35. Polly, D., McGee, J. R., & Martin, C. S. (2010). Employing technology-rich mathematical tasks to develop teachers’ technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK). Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 29(4), 455-472.
  36. Russell, M., Carey, R., Kleiman, G., & Venable, J. D. (2009). Face-to-face and online professional development for mathematics teachers: A comparative study. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(2), 71-87.
  37. Schwartz, C.S. (2012). Counting to 20: Online implementation of a face-to-face, elementary mathematics methods problem-solving activity. Tech Trends, 56(1), 34-39.
  38. Sobel, D. M., Sands, D. I., Dunlap, J. C. (2009). Teaching intricate content online: It can be done and done well. Action in Teacher Education, 30(4), np.
  39. Spicer, J. (2002). Even better than face-to-face? In A. Thorson (Ed.), By your own design: A teacher’s professional learning guide (pp. 32–33). Columbus, OH: Eisenhower National Clearinghouse for Mathematics and Science Education.
  40. Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33,455-488.
  41. Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., Shaw, S. M., & Liu, X. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 93-135.
  42. Thomas, J. (2011). Preservice teachers’ perceptions of learning science methods through hybridizing asynchronous and traditional experiences. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 11(3). Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol11/iss3/science/article1.cfm