Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, Vol. 9, No. 3, 2000
Preparing Student Teachers to Use Computers in Mathematics Classrooms through a Long-term Pre-service Course in Turkey ADNAN BAKI Karadeniz Technical University, Turkey
ABSTRACT Recent studies have found short in-service teacher education programs are not providing adequate technology experiences to prepare their participants for teaching mathematics with computers. As an alternative to the short-term courses the author has been teaching a two-term mandatory undergraduate course within a mathematics teacher education program since 1995 to train student teachers and to investigate their perceptions on their preparation to use computers in their own teaching. This article describes issues that emerged from the analysis of this undergraduate course. Data were gathered through questionnaires and students’ writings about the course activities. Findings indicated that computer literacy appeared to be an important key factor in utilising the course activities successfully. Students who felt prepared made the link between computer-based mathematical activities and school mathematics, and had more experience of using instructional software during the course than others. Findings of this nature can also assist teacher educators as they incorporate information technology into existing pre-service programs. The implications of these results for the designing and implementing of computer-based undergraduate courses and for further research in this field are discussed.
Introduction The need to prepare teachers to integrate technology into the range of instructional strategies they bring to their teaching is not a new concern and it has been widely addressed in the literature (for example, Criswell, 1989; Ingam, 1992). The preparation of future teachers to use technology continues to be a basic concern of teacher educators today in Turkey as well as in many other countries (Askar & Akkoyunlu, 1994; Altun, 1996; Baki, 1998). Despite the growing need to train new teachers to teach with technology, the professional development of teaching staff in teacher
343
Adnan Baki
training institutions is insufficient. Also the use of information technology (IT) applications is not yet a priority concern for most lecturers in teacher training institutions (Altun, 1996). As pre-service teachers complete their teacher education programs, they are often faced with the reality that their teacher education did not prepare them to use technology in their teaching. The Turkish education system at all levels is highly centralised under the legal authority of the Ministry of National Education. Universities have to follow the same teacher education programs prescribed and offered by the Higher Education Council in 1982. From 1982 to 1998, the mathematics teacher education programs in all education faculties included only an optional introductory computer course. Typically these courses introduced word processing and programming languages, usually BASIC and PASCAL. The computer courses taken by student mathematics teachers were frequently taught by technology specialists and rarely focused on the use of computer-assisted learning software in an instructional setting. Thus, the focus was often on the mechanics of computer use rather than on ways modeling the learning and teaching of mathematics with computers. This current pattern did not provide Turkish student mathematics teachers with an opportunity to apply new approaches to the learning and teaching of mathematics and to experience for themselves the role of the mathematics learner in the computer-integrated environment in which they are expected to teach (Ersoy, 1998). As plans for reforming schools call for increased use of technology in mathematics, teacher educators see the potential for enhancing and changing mathematics instruction with computers. Significant changes in mathematics education will only be achieved if there are marked changes in teachers’ perceptions about the effectiveness of innovative curricula and approaches. Therefore, teachers should have practical experiences with new innovative curricula, approaches, materials and activities that they are expected to employ when they teach. Learning to teach mathematics with technology is best learned as technology infused into the teacher education curriculum. This means that technology experiences should become an integral part of the pre-service curriculum rather than a separate experience. In this connection, the Turkish Higher Education Council-World Bank: National Education Development Project (1996-1998) prescribed a new curriculum for student mathematics teachers including a mandatory introductory computer course. This new curriculum has been in force since 1998. Will new teachers entering their classrooms be prepared to teach mathematics with computers? Unfortunately, the answer is not easily ‘yes’. Despite the new programs, the current teaching methodology is basically chalk-and-talk, which is not efficient enough for effective teaching, let alone when using new technologies. Turkish student mathematics teachers often find very little modeling of the use of technology during their pre-service years. It is currently not possible to change the teacher training programs 344
PREPARING STUDENT TEACHERS TO USE COMPUTERS IN CLASS
set by the Higher Education Council; you may only add some extra optional courses, not exceeding four. Foreseeing the need for the increased use of computer-based educational technology in mathematics education, the author proposed that the Faculty of Education at Karadeniz Technical University provide a two-term mandatory pre-service course called ‘Computer-based Mathematics Teaching’. The author has been teaching this course since 1995. The objectives of the course are to help prospective mathematics teachers improve their use of educational computing, to allow student mathematics teachers to have first-hand experience of the applications of instructional software, and to use this experience to begin to think about their current preparation for using computers in mathematics teaching. The question of preparing student teachers to use educational technology in the classroom through short-term or long-term courses has become a complex process with regard to what should be taught and what should not (Altun, 1996; Baki, 2000). Courses focusing on learning are different from courses focusing on teaching. This difference is reflected in the content, experiences, structure, and underlying knowledge base of the courses. Because of the complexity of the teaching and learning process, the simple presentation and transmission of techniques and methods is not sufficient to prepare student mathematics teachers to use computers in their teaching as learning tools. It has been increasingly apparent to teacher educators that in order to facilitate the learning of their students, a more cognitively oriented approach to the education of teachers is required, an approach which supports the belief that knowledge is constructed, built on prior knowledge, coupled with experience, transformed and evolving (Hoyles & Noss, 1991; Baki, 1994). Learning to teach is a development process that should include opportunities for the development of the knowledge structure that sets the expert apart from the novice. In this view, classroom instruction is characterised by its emphasis on student thinking, reasoning and conjecturing in rich problem-solving situations and by its view of teachers as facilitators of a process in which students construct an understanding of mathematics concepts through interactions with their peers and the teacher within a computer-based environment. This view of mathematics teaching and learning contrasts with the more traditional view, in which memorisation and imitation are the primary goals and the teacher is seen as the source of knowledge and intellectual authority (Jaworski, 1991). With this in mind, the computer-based course has been based on the principle that student teachers need to experience the role of the mathematics learner within a computer-based environment before they are ready to facilitate such learning among their students. In this environment, student teachers are encouraged to develop a new understanding of learning, to reflect on their past models of learning and teaching, and to build more effective models based on their own experiences in the program. They were asked to play two different roles during the course: the first as 345
Adnan Baki
secondary school students (aged 16-18) learning mathematics in a computerbased environment; and the second as secondary school mathematics teachers for whom they were developing, presenting and evaluating computer-based lessons. They were asked to evaluate their preparation to use technology in an instructional setting as it was provided by the course. Two hundred and forty-six student mathematics teachers have taken the course since 1995. The study described below presents the results of 4 years of research examining the self-perceptions of student mathematics teachers who have taken the computer-based mathematics teaching course. Sample The research was undertaken with student teachers undertaking a 4-year undergraduate program in the Faculty of Education at Karadeniz Technical University. The data source consisted of all student mathematics teachers enrolled on the course. Two hundred and forty-six student mathematics teachers in the last year of their undergraduate program have taken the course since 1995. More information about the participants is given in Table I. Years
Enrolled students
Gender
Computer use
Male
Female
Never or just a little
Several times or many times
1995-1996 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999
68 62 60 56
39 34 33 26
29 28 27 30
36 26 21 9
32 36 39 47
Total
246
132
114
92
154
Table I. Participant student mathematics teachers, grouped by year, number, gender and experience of computer use.
Instrumentation The study employed a range of information gathering techniques to suit the author’s aim during the study period at the Faculty of Education. The data were gathered through questionnaires and participants’ written reflections concerning the course activities, which took the form of journal writing. Preand post-questionnaires and participants’ writings were administered to the participants to identify if any significant changes occurred in their perceptions of their preparation to use computers in mathematics teaching.
346
PREPARING STUDENT TEACHERS TO USE COMPUTERS IN CLASS
Questionnaires The pre- and post-questionnaires included identical items. The questionnaire was a revised form of an instrument used by Gressard & Loyd (1986), and consisted of two parts. The first part included four items to elicit initial information about teachers’ previous computer experiences: A1. What currently do you know about computers? [very much] [much] [very little] [nothing] A2. Have you used a computer before? [many times] [several times] [just a little] [never] A3.What do you know about hardware? [I know exactly what it is] [I know something about it] [I know little about it] [I don’t know what hardware is] A4. What do you know about software? [computer programs] [diskettes] [monitor & keyboard] [I don’t know what software is] The rest of the items in the questionnaires were designed to gather the perceptions of the student teachers on their preparation to use computers in the classroom: B1. Do you feel that the computer will affect the quality of your life? [very much] [much] [little] [will make it worse] B2. How quickly do you feel you learn to use computers? [very quickly] [quickly] [slowly] [not at all] B3. How do you feel prepared to use Logo, Coypu and Excel in mathematics teaching? [very much] [much] [little] [not at all] The above three items were used to measure the extent to which participants felt they were capable of learning computer-related skills and knowledge. The post-questionnaire was administered during the final class meetings. Having compared the responses of the participants to these three questions, the author tried to determine to what extent the student teachers felt prepared to teach mathematics with computers before and after the course. Participant Writings If the goal is to have student teachers construct their own knowledge of Logo, Coypu and Excel, then it is appropriate to encourage them to write their reflections on the activities of the course. These reflections were in the form of journal writing based on the experiences of learning and teaching during the course. Indeed, writing their reflections led the student teachers to begin analysing their experiences during the course. From a research
347
Adnan Baki
perspective, the purpose was to derive conclusions from participants’ reflections about: o how they felt prepared to use the computers; o how they considered the course as being valuable or otherwise to the learning of teaching mathematics with computers; o what suggestions they made about improving this course for mathematics teachers who take this course in future. To understand how the student teachers were interpreting their experiences, and whether and how their feelings and ideas about teaching with computers were changing, they were asked to write their reflections on four occasions. Their first reflections were written at the beginning of the course. They wrote about what they were expecting from the course, and how they were perceiving the teaching of mathematics with computers. The second reflections were about computer-based mathematical activities introduced in the first term of the course. The third reflections were about computer-based mathematical activities introduced in the second term of the course. The last reflections were written at the end of the course. They provided an opportunity to evaluate the course in general. The students wrote about what they were learning and doing during the course, how they were relating them to mathematics learning and teaching, and what suggestions they had to make about the teacher training program. Procedures If computers are to be used in the school curriculum, then teachers need to be trained in computer use. In response to the need for teacher development in this field, a two term computer-based mathematics teaching course has been run since 1995 at the Faculty of Education at Karadeniz Technical University. The course was offered as a mandatory course in the last year of a 4-year undergraduate program culminating in a Bachelor degree with specialisation in mathematics education. The course objectives were: o to help student mathematics teachers in developing and implementing new instructional approaches; o to produce a useful computer-based mathematics teaching model for the education of mathematics teachers. Therefore, the central focus was not just the computer but also the learning of mathematics through computers. In order to provide mathematics teachers with such experience, WinLogo (a version of Logo for Windows), Coypu and Excel have been chosen as means of applying an alternative in practice. Why Logo, Coypu and Excel? They are user-friendly and have special features for mathematics. The rationale for using Logo emerged from an extensive literature review. There are convincing arguments made by Noss & Hoyles (1996), stating that Logo offers possibilities for mathematical 348
PREPARING STUDENT TEACHERS TO USE COMPUTERS IN CLASS
exploration and provides an environment in which the learner can construct mathematical models and ideas. A wide variety of graph packages is available. Coypu is one of the function and data graph plotting packages providing graphs of functions and polynomials at both Cartesian and polar coordinates. The user can design their own examples and explore graphs of their own choice. Excel is very widely used throughout the world of mathematics education, especially for numerical and iterative methods in mathematics. Excel allows the display of numerical data and text in tabular form on a grid of cells as an example of mathematical matrices. Excel is designed as a database package to record, classify and sort large amounts of data. It also includes graphical facilities that enable aspects of the tables to be displayed rapidly in graphical form. The course included: o the philosophy behind the use of educational technology in mathematics; o the introduction of Logo, Coypu and Excel at a technical level; o exploration of the link between computer-based activities and school mathematics; o reflection on Logo, Coypu and Excel activities and the development of projects. The curriculum of the course has been designed with the aim of providing a model for classroom practice. The author as the teacher of the course tried to make sense of what computers with Logo, Coypu and Excel could do to enhance mathematical learning, and modeled for the students the way he hoped they would use computer-based mathematical activities in their future classrooms. Computer-based mathematical activities aimed to complement and enrich mathematical learning and extend the students’ exploration of mathematical patterns and relationships that are difficult (or impossible) for many students to analyse and obtain through blackboard and pencil-andpaper activities. Several resources and books were used to design computerbased mathematical activities consistent with the objectives of the course (Arganbright, 1985; Harper, 1989; Lewis, 1990; Ernest, 1991; Tall, 1992; Pead & Phillips, 1995; Noss & Hoyles, 1996). The course activities involved and dealt with numbers, calculus, trigonometry, geometry and algebra. The pattern considered fruitful is to base the activity of student teachers on the work they are expected to organise in their future classroom so that they can acquire sufficient confidence in practical and theoretical aspects of the mathematics topics to guide their students in an efficient way. In the final week of the second term the students worked on their own projects. Students were motivated to develop their own projects by using the software introduced in the course (40% of the course grade in the second term was allocated to the projects).
349
Adnan Baki
Analysis Questionnaires and participants’ writings were the sources of data in this study. Quantitative data emerged from the questionnaires. The responses to the first part of the questionnaires and the first set of participants’ writings were used to divide the participants into two groups as computer literate and computer illiterate. This classification has been done according to the criterion used by Anderson (1983). This author proposed that a computerliterate person should have the following skills: o the ability to use computer terminology as it relates to hardware and software; o the ability to read and write simple computer programs; o the ability to use a variety of computer-applications software within a professional and educational context. The responses to the questions in the second part of the both questionnaires and the fourth set of participants’ writings were used to identify the differences between the two groups in terms of changes in their perceptions of their preparation to use computers in mathematics teaching. Statistical significance of differences (at a 95% confidence level) was tested using the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test of difference (Rabson, 1993). The large amount of qualitative data collected from participants’ writings were used to elaborate the findings emerging from quantitative data about the perceptions of the participants on preparation for teaching mathematics with computers. While interpreting the qualitative data, the author tried to identify some salient points and recurring themes in the reflections. Findings The four questions about computer literacy in the first part of the questionnaire were designed to test the participants’ experiences with computers. The results of the first part of the questionnaire are presented in Tables II and III. Question A1: What currently do you know about computers? Although the modal response is ‘much’, 81 students chose ‘very little’ or ‘nothing’. This indicates that computers were new to some of them (33%). On the other hand, of the 246 student teachers, 165 chose ‘very much’ or ‘much’. This indicates that majority of them (67%) felt that they knew enough about computers. Question A2: Have you used a computer before? Although the modal response is ‘several times’, the results of Question A2 were almost similar to the first question. Of the 246 student teachers, 33 (13%) had never used a
350
PREPARING STUDENT TEACHERS TO USE COMPUTERS IN CLASS
computer, 59 (24%) had used it at least once while 154 (63%) had used a computer several times. Question A3: What do you know about hardware? The participants might assume that hardware represents parts of computers like the monitor, case and keyboard without considering their interrelations and functions. The modal response to this question is ‘I know something about it’. The results of this question indicated that the participants’ previous knowledge about hardware seemed to be based on presumptions rather than real experiences. Question A4: Do you know what software is? As in Question A3, responses to this question seemed to be based on presumptions. While 114 (46 %) chose ‘computer programs’, 22 (9%) chose ‘diskettes’, 69 (28%) chose ‘monitor & keyboard’ as the correct answer, and 41 (17%) reported that they did not have any idea about software. The responses to the four questions as a whole and the statements about the computer use, software and hardware in their first writings highlighted that the student teachers appeared to have differing experiences of computers. According to the criterion used by Anderson (1983), 43% of the student teachers began the course as novices (computer illiterate), and only 57% appeared to be computer literate. Question A1
N
Question A2
N
Question A3
N
Very much
51
Many times
55
I know exactly what it is
22
Question A4
Much
114 Several times
99
I know something 112 about it
I know something about it
Very little
52
Just a little
59
I know little about it
80
I know little about it 69
Nothing
29
Never
33
I don’t know what hardware is
32
I don’t know what software is
Computer programs
N 114 22
41
Table II. Responses to the four questions in the pre-questionnaire. Question A1
N
Very much
Question A2
N
Question A3
N
Question A4
N
107 Many times
185
I know exactly what it is
134
Computer programs
207
Much
134 Several times
61
I know something 88 about it
I know something about it
23
Very little
5
Just a little
0
I know little about it
23
I know little about it 16
Nothing
0
Never
0
I don’t know what hardware is
1
I don’t know what software is
0
Table III. Responses to the four questions in the post-questionnaire.
351
Adnan Baki
After using the computer, writing small programs in Logo, using functions and their graphs and constructing mathematical models with Excel during the course, the majority of the student teachers appeared to have gained ideas about hardware and software. While there was no significant change in the computer-literate group (Mann-Whitney U test, Zobs=1.07 at .05), there was a significant change in the computer-illiterate group in terms of computer experiences as a result of the course (Mann-Whitney U test, Zobs=3.16 at .05). According to the criterion used by Anderson (1983), 86% of the student teachers completed the course in order to be computer literate. This does not mean that the course prepared almost all student teachers to teach mathematics with computers. In the following, the author elaborates this issue in the light of responses to the second part of the questionnaire. The results from the two questionnaires relating to the pre- and postexperiences with Logo, Coypu and Excel were used to identify the differences between these two groups in terms of changing perceptions of their preparation to teach mathematics with computers. Question B1: Do you feel that the computer will affect the quality of your life? In the pre-questionnaire, the modal response of the computer-literate group is ‘little’ and the modal response of the computer-illiterate group is ‘very much’ (Figure 1). The results of the pre-questionnaire related to Question B1 indicated that the computer-illiterate group felt that computers would improve the quality of their life to a greater extent (84%) than did the computer-literate group (41.4%).
80
percentage
70 60 50
computer-literate
40
computer-illiterate
30 20 10 0 very much
much
little
will make it worse
Figure 1. Responses to Question B1 in the pre-questionnaire.
Most (68%) of the computer-illiterate group felt that computer technology would dramatically change their life and improve it. The results indicated that at the beginning of the course the computer-illiterate group appeared to glorify the computer and see it as a panacea, solving every problem in education and life. Their writings at the beginning of the course also illustrated similar preconceptions about the role of computer technology. 352
PREPARING STUDENT TEACHERS TO USE COMPUTERS IN CLASS
Most of them in their first writings suggested that the computer is a contemporary need, and it should be used in all fields in order to catch up with developed countries. Positive statements made by the computerilliterate group clearly indicated that the computer was typically construed as a way of being ‘modern’, and was seen as important for the future of the teaching profession and ‘improving the quality of life’. In the postquestionnaire, the modal response of the computer-literate group is again ‘little’ and the modal response of the computer-illiterate group is also ‘little’ (Figure 2).
70
percentage
60 50 40
computer-literate
30
computer-illiterate
20 10 0 very much
much
little
will make it worse
Figure 2. Responses to Question B1 in the post-questionnaire.
In the computer-literate group, the modal response did not change as a result of the course. There was no significant change in both questionnaires (Mann-Whitney U test, Zobs=0.77 at .05). The computer-literate group seemed to think that computers would not affect their life too much, and believes that computers would not improve the quality of their lives as much as the computer-illiterate group believed in the pre-questionnaire. The modal response of the computer-illiterate group shifted from ‘very much’ (68%) to ‘little’ (60%). Towards the completion of the course the computer-illiterate group significantly changed their views (Mann-Whitney U test, Zobs=2.86 at .05), so that they matched the computer-literate group. This does not indicate a pessimistic change in the computer-illiterate group. This may be interpreted that as a result of their experiences with Logo, Coypu and Excel they reached proficiency at a level reasonable enough to be able to evaluate the potential of the computer in their professional life. Question B2: How quickly do you feel you learn to use computers? This question was asked to see how the participants felt they were capable of learning to use computers before and after the course. The percentages of
353
Adnan Baki
the responses to Question B2 in the pre-questionnaire are presented in Figure 3.
80
percentage
70 60 50
computer-literate
40
computer-illiterate
30 20 10 0 very quickly
quickly
slowly
nat at all
Figure 3. Responses to Question B2 in the pre-questionnaire.
percentage
100 80 60
computer-literate
40
computer-illiterate
20 0 very quickly
quickly
slowly
nat at all
Figure 4. Responses to Question B2 in the post-questionnaire.
The modal response of the computer-literate group is ‘very quickly’ (74.7%). The modal response of the computer-illiterate group is ‘slowly’ (66.8%). Additionally, 11% of the computer-illiterate group chose ‘not at all’. This highlights that the computer-illiterate group, as in Question B1, glorified the computer and felt that they were not capable of learning to use the computer. This shows something about the computer which seems to put fear into the hearts of student teachers when first confronted by it. Their first and second writings supported this. For these students the computer has the amazing power to make them feel stupid. This is true for some when they are trying to learn to use Excel functions or learn to program in Logo. In both instances, it is related to the necessity to get a machine to do something for them when they do not understand how the machine works or how it operates, but what its guiding principles are. One statement from the participants’ writings highlighted this: 354
PREPARING STUDENT TEACHERS TO USE COMPUTERS IN CLASS
… While I was learning to write Logo programs, I always complained that each time I sit down in front of the computer with working sheets. I feel confident until I run the first small program and see a simple error message, ‘I don’t know how to do k in function’, and suddenly feel as if this machine not only knows more than I do but is going to make me learn to do things …
The results from the pre- and post-questionnaires about Question B2 indicated that the computer-literate group felt prepared to learn computers very quickly or quickly. The range of their responses to this question did not change significantly in either questionnaire (Mann-Whitney U test, Zobs= -1.24 at .05). On the other hand, the computer-illiterate group went from responding ‘slowly’ to responding ‘quickly’ after completing the course. This indicates a positive attitude change towards learning to use computers (Mann-Whitney U test, Zobs=3.06 at .05). It is hoped that this change may increase interest in using computers as learning and teaching tools. This also leads to the question: should all student teachers learn how to use Excel and any other graph plotting package and learn how to program in Logo or another package in order to teach with computers in their future classrooms? Yes, to the extent that learning to use a particular software and to program will force student teachers to struggle with a software and a computer language, learn how to talk to the computer, and learn more about how the computer works and what it can and cannot do for learning and teaching mathematics. Question B3: How prepared do you feel to use Logo, Coypu and Excel in mathematics teaching? The percentages of the responses to Question B3 in the pre-questionnaire are presented in Figure 5. Although at the beginning of the course the modal response is ‘little’, only 26% of the computer-literate group felt prepared (very much + much) to use Logo, Coypu and Excel in mathematics teaching. On the other hand, the modal response of the computer-illiterate group is ‘not at all’. Thus, 94.7% of the computer-illiterate group did not feel prepared (little + not at all) to use the software in their teaching before the course. The results from the post-questionnaire about Question B3 are represented in Figure 6. The modal response of the computer-literate group is ‘much’. The modal response of the computer-illiterate group is ‘little’. In the post-questionnaire, 84% of the computer-literate group felt prepared (very much + much) to use the software (Logo and Excel) in their own teaching. Only 25% of the computer-illiterate group felt prepared (very much + much) to use the software (Logo and Excel) in their own teaching. In the computer-literate group, the modal response to this question before the course is ‘little’, whereas after the course the modal response is ‘much’ (Mann-Whitney U test, Zobs=2.94 at .05). On the other hand, the modal response of the computer-illiterate group to Question B3 is ‘not at all’ before
355
Adnan Baki
the course and the modal response is ‘little’ after the course (Mann-Whitney U test, Zobs=2.17 at .05). Although this clearly indicates a positive view about their computer experiences, this is not implying that the computer-illiterate group gained adequate experience of using computers in mathematics teaching. Nevertheless, these results illustrate that the computer-literate group appeared to gain more experience with Logo, Coypu and Excel than the computer-illiterate group. The participants’ writings also support these results in that the computer-literate group began to look at mathematics from computer-based activities. On the other hand, the computer-illiterate group seemed hesitant to use trial and error techniques while using Logo and Excel. They were inclined to ask for ready-made information from the instructor. Most of them had spent their time on the technical aspects of the keyboard and software introduced in the course and did not have time to link activities with mathematics. However, comparing their responses in both questionnaires, their preparedness ratio in the post-questionnaire was significantly higher than in the pre-questionnaire. The following qualitative analysis of the participants’ reflections may provide a global summary of variations in the participants’ conceptions about computer-based mathematics learning and their capabilities of teaching mathematics with computers. In the second and third writings, the participants who did not have enough background in software and had difficulties with the computer during the course made the following similar statements: o Computers can lead to disruption in the classroom. o What we saw here has no place in the mathematics classroom. o Excel functions wasted too much time to record data and to draw results. o Logo commands are too difficult for students to interpret. o Students need to spend a lot of time using keyboards. o Computers should be a separate curriculum subject.
70
percentage
60 50 40
computer-literate
30
computer-illiterate
20 10 0 very much
much
little
not at all
Figure 5. Responses to Question B3 in the pre-questionnaire.
356
PREPARING STUDENT TEACHERS TO USE COMPUTERS IN CLASS
60
percentages
50 40 computer-literate
30
computer-illiterate
20 10 0 very much
much
little
not at all
Figure 6. Responses to Question B3 in the post-questionnaire.
The above statements clearly indicate that students who began the course as novices struggled to understand the technical aspects of the programs and use the software introduced during the course. Then, they did not see any potential for using the computer in the mathematics class, and could not relate computer-based activities to their classroom practice. They appeared to believe that using Excel to record data during the class period would be a waste of students’ time. They thought that they would not find time to practice the same activities within the current mathematics curriculum, and suggested that students should use Logo, Coypu and Excel at home and that they can find time to learn a lot about them at home. However, some students in the computer-illiterate group made positive statements in their final writings contrasting with their second and third writings, as the following statements demonstrate. o Excel represents information nicely in tables and graphs so students can have a better understanding of it. o Solving maximum-minimum problems with Excel is really enjoyable. This shows that after having enough experience with Excel some students began to perceive it as a useful time-saving and problem-solving device. At the beginning of the course, most of the students in the computer-illiterate group viewed the computer as nothing more than an object to learn about in itself. However, their last writings showed that they gradually began to link Logo, Coypu and Excel activities with classroom practices based on the formal mathematics curriculum. For instance: o Logo, Coypu and Excel activities could enrich the teacher’s lecture. o The teacher could sustain students’ interest in mathematics by using computer-based mathematical activities. o Through these activities we learned more in less time. I will use the same way when I start to teach.
357
Adnan Baki
o These exploratory activities aroused my mathematical learning, they could arouse students’ interest in mathematics as well. These statements also illustrate that some participants who began the course as novices showed their satisfaction about computer-based learning towards the end of the course. The use of computer-based mathematical activities linked to classroom activities seemed to be very much appreciated by the participants. They seemed to be positive that they would be capable of doing the same things in their future teaching. Most of them showed their inclination to use computers in the same way even though they did not believe the course had prepared them to do so. The participants who began the course as computer-literate made more optimistic statements during and after the course than the computerilliterate group: o I liked Excel, that should be used by students for modeling and problem solving in secondary schools. o More often than not pencil-and-paper is less appropriate than using Logo, Coypu and Excel. o There is a mismatch between the current curriculum materials and computer-based activities introduced here. If the teacher is supposed to teach with the computer, the teacher would have to work too much to prepare her/his own materials and activities. o The computer can help the teacher in different ways. If the teacher is supposed to teach with computers, the teacher could solve complex problems and introduce new topics with graphics and simulations. o Mathematical investigation is important. If the computer is available in schools, the teacher should facilitate students’ learning through providing exploratory computer-based activities. Almost all the participants who made similar statements to the above indicated a desire to replace traditional methods with new strategies introduced in the course, but at the same time indicated difficulties and constraints which would apply when they became qualified teachers in the existing system. They became more aware of the institutional constraints on their teaching, and of the dilemmas they would encounter in the classroom. For instance, after having experience of exploratory Logo, Coypu and Excel activities, some of them began to anticipate changing their role in the classroom where a computer would be available, but cited some difficulties in implementing the same approach in the existing mathematics curriculum. Concerning the difficulty in preparing such activities, they indicated a gap between what they needed when they used new technology for mathematics teaching and what existing curriculum resources provided.
358
PREPARING STUDENT TEACHERS TO USE COMPUTERS IN CLASS
Recommendations and Conclusions The course provided student teachers with an understanding of the philosophy of mathematics education, as well as training in a computerbased environment. The relationship between computer-based mathematical activities and the needs of students in school mathematics was thoroughly discussed. From the findings, we can say that taking this kind of pre-service course did have an impact on how much students felt prepared to use computers for learning and teaching. The course served as a window into the participants’ perceptions of their experience both as learners and teachers in using the computer for learning and teaching mathematics. By focusing on their own learning during the course, teachers were better able to understand their future students’ learning experiences. On the basis of the findings, the following suggestions for mathematics teacher education are developed. Pre-service courses for preparation to use technology in mathematics teaching should provide student mathematics teachers with experience and knowledge of a wide range of instructional software for school mathematics. This implies that pre-service courses should be carried out in the context of the school rather than as teacher training programs isolated from schools. When pre-service courses in this field take into account how teachers learn and how they feel about their learning and preparation, they can form models of how pre-service teachers will use computers in their own classrooms. Many studies have demonstrated that teachers tend to teach as they have been taught (Ball, 1988). If the statement of ‘we teach as we are taught’ is true, then education faculties must consider this implication. Asking education faculties to do this requires professional development at university level. Designing and providing appropriate technology experiences means that the faculty itself must develop comfort with and an awareness of the technology that is currently being used in schools. More importantly, it means that education faculties must model the use of the educational software in their own teaching programs. Not all the students enrolled on the course gained equal experience of the computer-based activities. Student teachers who had enough experience of hardware and educational software began to link computer-based activities and school mathematics. However, student teachers who did not have enough experience of hardware and educational software always turned their attentions to the technical aspects of hardware and software throughout the course rather than their instructional applications in mathematics learning and teaching. They did not seem to be ready to use the computer in their teaching. They appeared to demand more time to learn how to run the software, and how to program. They did not have time to think about the link between a particular software and school mathematics. Overall the results related to this issue highlight that computer literacy is an important requisite for the ability to follow and utilise
359
Adnan Baki
computer-based activities properly with an understanding of the philosophy behind them. Student teachers recognised that a limitation for them was that the mathematics currently being taught in the Turkish curriculum and textbooks does not provide material suitable for computer use in classroom teaching. The chief obstacles from their perspective are bureaucracy and the national system of schooling. This indicates that student teachers will need follow-up supervision and support when they teach in schools. First-hand experience is essential but not sufficient to ensure that the implementation of an innovation will be successful. Çepni (1993) found that new teachers need at least 3 years of support during their induction period to make a substantial change in their teaching. Pressure to cover an existing curriculum, lack of institutional support, resistance from students and demands on teachers’ time may reduce the actual effect that the computer-based mathematics teaching course has. Thus, it is important to provide supervision and support after graduation until the student teacher has reached a sustainable level of use of the innovation. The current literature and the perceptions of student teachers described in this study suggest two possibilities and directions for further research: o Gooler (1989) reported that 50% of the faculty surveyed in the USA believed that their student teachers are being prepared to use IT during teacher education courses. However, we do not have reliable information about what teacher educators in Turkey believe about how prepared their students are to use educational technology. Do teacher educators believe their students are being prepared? This question deserves an investigation in Turkey. Teacher educators’ perceptions of their students’ level of preparedness would complement studies about student teachers’ perceptions of how prepared they are to use computers in classroom teaching. o A limitation of the present study was that student teachers’ practices and skills in using a particular software in teaching were only self-assessed. As a consequence the study does not necessarily represent their actual competence in using Logo, Coypu and Excel in classroom instruction. An investigation of the relationship between what student teachers say during the course and do during their actual teaching would be valuable. The course remains an active and ongoing catalyst for teacher reflection and professional considerations. The research process continues. The model created for the research and course structure is being used to study other software (such as Mathematica, Cabri and Derive) across the mathematics curriculum.
360
PREPARING STUDENT TEACHERS TO USE COMPUTERS IN CLASS
Acknowledgment This research was informed by doctoral studies at the University of London Institute of Education. Correspondence Dr Adnan Baki, Department of Instructional Technology, Faculty of Education, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey (
[email protected]). References Altun, E. H. (1996) Information Technology in Developing Nations: a study of lecturers’ attitudes and expertise with reference to Turkish education, Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 5, pp. 185-205. Anderson, C. A. (1983) Computer Literacy: changes for teacher education, Journal of Teacher Education, 34(5), pp. 6-11. Arganbright, D. (1985) Mathematical Applications of Electronic Spreadsheets. London: McGraw-Hill. Askar, P. & Akkoyunlu, B. (1994) Use of Information Technology in Schools and the Role of Principals, in M. Thomas, T. Sechwest & N. Estes (Eds) The Eleventh International Conference on Technology and Education, London, 27-30 March, pp. 1056-1058. Austin: Morgan Printing Company. Baki, A. (1994) Breaking with Tradition: a study of Turkish student teachers’ experiences within a Logo-based mathematical environment. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. London: Institute of Education, University of London. Baki, A. (1998) Technology Preparation for In-service Mathematics Teachers Through a Short Term In-service Course, in I. Vakalis & D. H. Hallett (Eds) The Proceedings of the International Conference on the Teaching of Mathematics, Samos, Greece, 3-6 July, pp. 32-35. New York: John Wiley. Baki, A. (2000) Learning to Teach Mathematics within a Computer-based Environment, Hacettepe Journal of Education,19, pp. 186-193. Ball, D. L. (1988) Research on Teacher Learning: studying how teachers’ knowledge changes, Action-in-Teacher Education, 10(2), pp. 17-23. Çepni, S. (1993) New Secondary Science Teachers’ Development in Turkey: implications for the academy of new teacher programme. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Southampton. Criswell, J. R. (1989) Rethinking Microcomputer Instruction as a Part of Teacher Education Reform, Educational Technology, 29(11), pp. 40-43. Ernest, P. (1991) What’s the Use of Logo, in P. Ernest (Ed.) Mathematics Teaching: the state of the art. London: Falmer Press. Ersoy, Y. (1998) Use of New Information Technologies in Pre-service Education of Mathematics Teachers in Turkey. in I. Vakalis & D. H. Hallett (Eds) The Proceedings of the International Conference on the Teaching of Mathematics, Samos, Greece, 3-6 July. New York: John Wiley. 361
Adnan Baki
Gooler, D. (1989) Preparing Teachers to Use Technologies: can universities meet the challenge?, Educational Technology, 29(3), pp. 18-21. Gressard, C. & Loyd, B. A. (1986) Validation Studies of a New Computer Attitude Scale, Association of Educational Data System Journal,19, pp. 295-301. Harper, D. (1989) Logo: theory and practice. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cloe Publishing Company. Hoyles, C. & Noss, R. (1991) Microworlds Project 1986-1989. London: Institute of Education, University of London. Ingram, J. M. (1992) Who’s Teaching the Teacher: education and the computer, Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 8(3), pp. 17-19. Jaworski, B. (1991) Mathematics Teaching: belief and practice, in P. Ernest (Ed.) Mathematics Teaching: the state of the art. London: Falmer Press. Lewis, P. G. (1990) Approaching Precalculus Mathematics Discretely: explorations in a computer environment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Noss, R. & Hoyles, C. (1996) Windows on Mathematical Meanings: learning cultures and computers. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Pead, D. & Phillips, R. (1995) Coypu: a versatile function and data plotter. Nottingham: Shell Centre for Mathematical Education, University of Nottingham. Rabson, C. (1993) Real World Research: a resource for social scientists and practitioner authors. Oxford: Blackwell. Tall, D. (1992) Computers in the Mathematics Curriculum. London: The Mathematical Association.
362
