K–8 Pre-service Teachers’ Evaluation of Existing Geometry Activities That Utilise a Technological Resource
Keywords:
mathematics teacher education research, pre-service teacher, technology, geometry, PICRAT modelAbstract
Prior research has highlighted the importance of integrating technology into mathematics education, though preservice teachers often do not feel prepared to integrate technology into their classroom upon degree completion. This qualitative, descriptive study sought to examine kindergarten through eighth-grade preservice teachers’ (N = 44) evaluation of existing geometry activities that utilise a technological resource. Specifically, the researchers examined the impact that the technological resource utilised in the activity would have on instruction, aspects of the activity that preservice teachers either liked or disliked, and preservice teachers’ rationale as to why they would choose to either use or not use the activity in their future K–8 mathematics classrooms. To guide the methodology of this study, the researchers utilised the Passive, Interactive, and Creative—Replacement, Amplification, and Transformation (PICRAT) model. Data were collected from responses to an open-ended prompt as part of a mathematics methods course and analysed with both a priori (i.e., PICRAT) and emergent coding. Findings from the a priori coding showed that the activities evaluated by preservice teachers most frequently utilised a technological resource (often a mathematical game) in a way that aligned with the interactive, amplification level of the PICRAT model. Emergent coding revealed that preservice teachers most frequently liked the content of the activity, disliked topics related to the pedagogical implications of implementing the activity and founded their rationale for future use on pedagogical considerations related to implementation. Implications of the findings are discussed as well as recommendations for future research.
References
Baccaglini-Frank, A. (2019). Dragging, instrumented abduction and evidence, in processes of conjecture generation in a dynamic geometry environment. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 51(5), 779–791. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01046-8
Bach, C. C., Bergqvist, E., & Jankvist, U. T. (2024). Students’ dynamic communication while transforming mathematical representations in a dynamic geometry environment. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 56(4), 543–557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-024-01575-x
Brezovszky, B., McMullen, J., Veermans, K., Hannula-Sormunen, M. M., Rodriguez-Aflecht, G., Pongsakdi, N., Laakkonen, E., & Lehtinen, E. (2019). Effects of a mathematics game-based learning environment on primary school students’ adaptive number knowledge. Computers & Education, 128(1), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.011
Bruner, J. S., & Kenney, H. J. (1965). Representation and mathematics learning. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 30(1), 50–59. https://doi.org/10.2307/1165708
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Crompton, H. (2015). Pre-service teachers’ developing technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) and beliefs on the use of technology in the K-12 mathematics classroom: A review of the literature. In C. Angeli & N. Valanides (Eds.), Technological pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 239–250). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-8080-9_12
Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching (2nd ed.). ASCD.
Flores, M. M., Hinton, V. M., & Meyer, J. M. (2020). Teaching fraction concepts using the concrete-representational-abstract sequence. Remedial and Special Education, 41(3), 165–175. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0741932518795477
Flores, M. M., Hinton, V. M., & Strozier, S. D. (2014). Teaching subtraction and multiplication with regrouping using the concrete-representational-abstract sequence and strategic instruction model. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29(2), 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12032
Flores, M. M., & Milton, J. H. (2020). Teaching the partial products algorithm using the concrete-representational-abstract sequence. Exceptionality, 28(2), 142–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2020.1772070
Foulger, T. S., Graziano, K. J., Schmidt-Crawford, D. A., & Slykhuis, D. A. (2017). Teacher educator technology competencies. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 25(4), 413–448.
GeoGebra Team German, & GeoGebra Translation Team German. (2022). Sort the objects according to their shape [Mathematical game]. GeoGebra. https://www.geogebra.org/m/wHnByPks#material/BYSURwXc
Graham, C., Culatta, R., Pratt, M., & West, R. (2004). Redesigning the teacher education technology course to emphasize integration. Computers in the Schools, 21(1–2), 127–148. https://doi.org/10.1300/J025v21n01_10
Hughes, J., Thomas, R., & Scharber, C. (2006). Assessing technology integration: The RAT—Replacement, Amplification, and Transformation—framework. In C. C. Crawford, R. Carlsen, K. McFerrin, J. Price, R. Weber, & D. A. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2006: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, Orlando, Florida (pp. 1616–1620). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
Kennewell, S., Tanner, H., Jones, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2008). Analysing the use of interactive technology to implement interactive teaching. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(1), 61–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00244.x
Kiger, D., Herro, D., & Prunty, D. (2012). Examining the influence of a mobile learning intervention on third grade math achievement. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(1), 61–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2012.10782597
Kimmons, R., Graham, C. R., & West, R. E. (2020). The PICRAT model for technology integration in teacher preparation. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 20(1), 176–198. https://citejournal.org/volume-20/issue-1-20/general/the-picrat-model-for-technology-integration-in-teacher-preparation/
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70. https://citejournal.org/volume-9/issue-1-09/general/what-is-technological-pedagogicalcontent-knowledge/
Kusumah, Y. S., Kustiawati, D., & Herman, T. (2020). The effect of GeoGebra in three-dimensional geometry learning on students’ mathematical communication ability. International Journal of Instruction, 13(2), 895–908. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13260a
Lee, C.-Y., & Chen, M.-J. (2015). Effects of worked examples using manipulatives on fifth graders’ learning performance and attitude toward mathematics. Educational Technology & Society, 18(1), 264–275. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/jeductechsoci.18.1.264
Leung, A., Baccaglini-Frank, A., & Mariotti, M. A. (2013). Discernment of invariants in dynamic geometry environments. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 84(3), 439–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-013-9492-4
McCullough, A. W., Hollebrands, K., Lee, H., Harrison, T., & Mutlu, A. (2018). Factors that influence secondary mathematics teachers’ integration of technology in mathematics lessons. Computers & Education, 123, 26–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.04.008
Meyerink, M., & Luo, F. (2025). K–8 pre-service teachers’ technology integration in mathematics: Perspectives and anticipated practices. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 8(SI), 195–227. https://doi.org/10.31756/jrsmte.4112SI
Milton, J. H., Flores, M. M., Moore, A. J., Taylor, J. J., & Burton, M. E. (2019). Using the concrete-representational-abstract sequence to teach conceptual understanding of basic multiplication and division. Learning Disability Quarterly, 42(1), 32–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948718790089
Moyer-Packenham, P. S., Salkind, G., & Bolyard, J. J. (2008). Virtual manipulatives used by K–8 teachers for mathematics instruction: Considering mathematical, cognitive, and pedagogical fidelity. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(3), 202–218. https://citejournal.org/volume-8/issue-3-08/mathematics/virtual-manipulatives-used-by-K-8-teachers-for-mathematics-instruction-considering-mathematical-cognitive-and-pedagogical-fidelity/
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. https://corestandards.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Math_Standards1.pdf
Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. In S. Papert & I. Harel (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 1–11). Ablex.
Piedra Moreno, D. P. (2024). Motivational and fun! Preservice teachers’ recontextualising of discourses on ICT integration in mathematics for their practicum assignments. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 26(2), Article 7. https://mted.merga.net.au/index.php/mted/article/view/1161
Pittalis, M., & Drijvers, P. (2023). Embodied instrumentation in a dynamic geometry environment: Eleven-year-old students’ dragging schemes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 113(2), 181–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-023-10222-3
Reimer, K., & Moyer, P. S. (2005). Third-graders learn about fractions using virtual manipulatives: A classroom study. The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 24(1), 5–25. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/18889/
Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X02239569
Sen, G. L., Tengah, K. A., Shahrill, M., & Leong, E. (2017). Teaching and learning of integers using hands-on versus virtual manipulatives. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Education, Kuala Lumpa (pp. 174–185). TIIKM. https://doi.org/10.17501/icedu.2017.3119
Suh, J., & Moyer, P. S. (2007). Developing students’ representational fluency using virtual and physical algebra balances. The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26(2), 155–173.
Teo, T. (2009). Modelling technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-service teachers. Computers & Education, 52(2), 302312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.08.006
Thomas, A., & Edson, A. J. (2019). A framework for teachers’ evaluation of digital instructional materials: Integrating mathematics teaching practices with technology use in K–8 classrooms. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 19(3), 351–372. https://citejournal.org/volume-19/issue-3-19/mathematics/a-framework-for-teachers-evaluation-of-digital-instructional-materials-integrating-mathematics-teaching-practices-with-technology-use-in-K-8-classrooms/
Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Sang, G., Voogt, J., Fisser, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2012). Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology in education: A synthesis of qualitative evidence. Computers & Education, 59(1), 134–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.009
Van de Walle, J. A., Karp, K. S., & Bay-Williams, J. M. (2018). Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally (10th ed.). Pearson.
van Hiele, P. M. (1984). The child’s thought and geometry. In D. Fuys, D. Geddes, & R. Tischler (Eds.), English translation of selected writings of Dina van Hiele-Geldof and Pierre M. van Hiele (pp. 243–252). ERIC/SMEAC. (original work published 1959)
Yuan, Y., Lee, C.-Y., & Wang, C.-H. (2010). A comparison study of polyominoes explorations in a physical and virtual manipulative environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(4), 307–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00352.x
