You are here:

Influence of State Education Department Regulations on Teaching and Learning with Technology
PROCEEDINGS

, Sabanci University, Turkey

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

Abstract

Assessment of educational technology in K-12 schools is vital for every school district for making investment and strategic plans and reporting progress of teaching and learning with technology. This paper discusses specific findings of a qualitative study examining institutional factors that influenced teachers’ efforts of integrating graphing calculators into mathematics classrooms. The group investigated consisted of 13 mathematics teachers in three suburban school districts in a medium-sized city in Central New York. Findings suggest that New York State Education Department Regulations on the place of graphing calculators in the standardized exam influenced teachers’ practices and perceptions on teaching with graphing calculators and so influenced students’ learning on math classes. Findings suggest that if New York State had not mandated the use of the graphing calculator on the Regents exams, then teachers would use graphing calculators differently from how they used them in the previous years.

Citation

Gogus, A. (2008). Influence of State Education Department Regulations on Teaching and Learning with Technology. In J. Luca & E. Weippl (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2008--World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 4699-4708). Vienna, Austria: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved December 15, 2018 from .

Keywords

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Bitner, N. & Bitner, J. (2002). Integrating technology into the classroom: Eight keys to success. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(1), 95-100.
  2. Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. (1st ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  3. Christensen, R., Griffin, D., & Knezek, G. (2001). Measures of teacher stages of technology integration and their correlates with student achievement. Eric Document ED 451187.
  4. Clark, W.B. (1999). Professional development for teaching technology across the curriculum: Best practices for Alberta school jurisdictions. Eric Document ED 429573.
  5. Clarke, D. & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education 18, 947–967.
  6. Hoffman, R.P. (1996). Levels of technology use and instructional innovation. UMI microform 9703805. MI: UMI Dissertation Services.
  7. Holland, P.E. (2002). Professional development in technology: catalyst for school reform. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(2), 245-267.
  8. Kaput, J.J. (1992). Technology and mathematics education. In D.A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning. New York: Macmilan and Company, Inc.
  9. May, C.M. (1994). Factors affecting the integration of graphing calculator technology in the secondary precalculus classroom: attitudes, teacher training, and curriculum issues. Unpublished Doctor of Education Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, August 1994.
  10. NCTM. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), Inc.
  11. NYSED. (2002). Guidelines for graphing calculator use at the commencement level. The New York State Education Department (NYSED) Office of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment. Retrieved on 11/05/02 from http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/ciai/mst/graphing.pdf
  12. NYSED (2005). The New York State school report card for school year 2003-2004. New York State Education Department (NYSED). Retrieved on May 17, 2005 from: http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/repcrd2004/
  13. Poage, C.P. (2002). Effets of a graphing calculator intensive institute on content knowledge, confidence, and classroom use by secondary mathematics teachers. (Doctoral Dissertation, Texas A & M University, May 2002).
  14. Rodgers, K.V. (1996). The effects on achievement, retention of mathematical knowledge, and attitudes towards mathematics as a result of supplementing the traditional Algebra II curriculum with graphing calculator activities (problem-solving). (Doctoral Dissertation, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 91.
  15. Szombathelyi, A. (2001). Personal factors that influence teachers’ decisions about graphing calculator use and a descriptive model of teachers’ operational levels for using the graphing calculator in mathematics instruction. UMI microform 3020988. MI: UMI Dissertation Services.
  16. Vohra, P. (1993). An analysis of integration of technology in Mathematics education at the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy. Doctora Thesis. Northern Illinois University.

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.