Professional Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/Attitudes-Of-Pre-Service-Elementary-Tea 👈

2. Copyright and Reprint Permission: Abstracting is permitted with credit to
the source. Libraries are permitted to photocopy for private use.
Instructors are permitted to photocopy, for private use, isolated articles
for non-commercial classroom use without fee. For other copies, reprint,
or republication permission, write to IIIS Copyright Manager, 14269
Lord Barclay Dr., Orlando, Fl. 32837, USA. All rights reserved.
Copyright 2007 © by the International Institute of Informatics and
Systemics.
The papers of this book comprise the proceedings of the conference
mentioned on the title and the cover page. They reflect the authors’
opinions and, with the purpose of timely disseminations, are published as
presented and without change. Their inclusion in these proceedings does
no necessarily constitute endorsement by the editors.
ISBN-10: 1-934272-23-X (Collection) ISBN-10: 1-934272-11-6 (Volume I)
ISBN-13: 978-1-934272-23-7 (Collection) ISBN-13: 978-1-934272-11-4 (Volume I)
COPYRIGHT

3. Attitudes Of Pre-Service Elementary Teachers Towards Graphing Calculator Technologies In
Learning And Teaching Science
Irina LYUBLINSKAYA
Department of Education, College of Staten Island
Staten Island, NY 10314, USA
Guoqiang (George) ZHOU
Faculty of Education, University of Windsor
Windsor, Ontario N9B 3P4, Canada
ABSTRACT
Proficiency of integrating educational technology into teaching
is now seen as an important qualification for elementary school
teachers. We integrated Texas Instruments graphing calculators
and Vernier data collection technology in our undergraduate
science methods classes for pre-service elementary school
teachers. The study purposes were set up to find out whether
pre-service teachers’ knowledge and comfort with the use of
graphing calculator technology was influenced by the
integration of this technology into the methods course and
whether pre-service teachers’ perspectives of using graphing
calculator technology for their own learning and as a teaching
tool evolved during the methods course? Data collected from
surveys and reflection journals show that pre-service teachers’
perspectives strongly depended on the intensity and length of
experience they had with the use of the technology. More
experience and practice provides pre-service teachers with a
better understanding of the benefits of technology for their
future students as well as for their own learning. However, their
confidence was somewhat independent to their perspectives.
They could perceive this technology very useful, but they were
not confident to use it
Keywords: teacher education, science, graphing calculator, data
collection, instructional technology.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AND ITS
RATIONALE
Over the last decade or so, the integration of various educational
technologies into teaching and learning has become an
important topic in education. Many government agencies have
set up relevant curriculum standards to direct the
implementation of educational technology. A number of non-
governmental organizations such as the Society for Information
Technology and Teacher Education have been founded to
promote the research and practice in the use of technology in
teacher education. Today’s teachers are therefore expected to
become proficient in integrating educational technology into
their teaching.
As a key component of a teacher education program, methods
courses play a very important role in preparing teacher
candidates to use technology. Thus TI – 84 Plus Silver
Graphing calculators, Vernier LabPro® and EasyLink® data
interfaces, and Vernier probes (Figure 1) were integrated into
two sessions of the science methods course for the elementary
school teachers as curriculum content and as a teaching tool.
a) b)
c)
Figure 1. Graphing
Calculator Based Data
Collection Technology:
a) Vernier pH probe
connected to the TI-84
SE calculator via
LabPro® interface; b)
Vernier Voltage probe
connected to the TI-84
SE calculator via
Vernier EasyLink®
interface; c) Vernier
EasyTemp® probe
connected to the TI-84
SE calculator.
FEASIBILITY AND LIKELY IMPACT OF THE
PROJECT ON STUDENT LEARNING
In the past decades graphing calculators have been widely used
in mathematics teaching. Past studies demonstrated that the use
of graphing calculators increased students’ computational and
procedural skills in mathematics learning [1, 2]. However, past
studies have provided a mixed picture regarding the influence of
graphing calculators on students’ deeper conceptual
understanding of mathematics [2-4]. Researchers argued that for
206

4. the cases that graphing calculators failed to improve students’
conceptual understanding of mathematics, the reason came from
the pedagogy of using calculators [5]. In these cases, the
calculators were often used as an add-on to traditional teaching
rather than in a more integrated way [5]. Thus, the need exists
for methods courses to address the pedagogy issues of using
calculators by providing teacher candidates a forum to examine
their pedagogical perspectives on using graphing calculators in
teaching, explore when and how to use calculators in classroom,
provide them with opportunities to practice teaching with
calculators [6 -11].
The development of data collection probes in the past decade
has brought graphing calculator technology into science
classrooms. With more than 50 types of probes available on the
market today, students can collect a variety of data from
temperature and voltage to respiration rate and EKG. Data
collected with different interfaces and probes are automatically
transferred to the graphing calculator for analysis. Thus this
technology can be used to create an inquiry-based learning
environment, where students are involved in collecting real time
data, generating hypotheses, analyzing data, and drawing
conclusions [12, 13]. These student-centered activities increase
students’ understanding of the concepts and methods of science
[14-16]. Science methods courses have the obligation to train
teacher candidates how to use calculator-based data collection
technology in their classroom teaching so that their future
school students will benefit from these technologies [17].
RESEARCH CONTEXT
The study was conducted in the science methods course that
was taught to undergraduate students preparing to teach in the
elementary schools. The purpose of integrating calculator based
technology into teaching methods courses was to model
strategies for integrating this technology into learning and
teaching, with the intention of changing pre-service teachers’
attitudes towards the use of technology in their future
classrooms. The following research questions guided the study:
whether pre-service teachers’ knowledge and comfort with the
use of graphing calculator technology and pre-service teachers’
perspectives of using graphing calculator technology were
influenced by the integration of this technology into the
methods course.
The group included two different sections of the science
methods course taught by two different professors. These two
sessions had different configurations and therefore involved
technology differently. The day session included two parts: five
weeks at the college for learning theories and ten weeks at
schools for teaching practice. The class met 100 minutes weekly
for the first five weeks. Two out of the five classes involved
using graphing calculators and data collection probes. The
evening session met 14 times during the semester for 3 hours
weekly. The calculator-based technologies were introduced to
the students throughout the semester.
We collected qualitative and quantitative data over one
semester. A pre-service teachers’ attitude survey was developed
to assess students’ perception and confidence of the use of
calculator technology. The survey was administered to all
students in both sessions at the beginning and the end of the
course. It consisted of three parts. The first part addressed pre-
service teachers’ confidence level with calculator technology,
the 2nd
part dealt with their attitudes towards using calculator
technology for their own learning and the 3rd
part dealt with
their attitudes towards using it as a teaching tool. Pre-service
teachers from both sessions were also asked to write two
reflections on the use of technology at the beginning and the
end of the course respectively. A reflection guide, which
consisted of a few open-ended questions, was provided for both
initial and exit reflections. The initial reflection guide focused
students on their initial knowledge, attitude, experience and
confidence with technology. The exit reflection guide directed
students to reflect on how the use of calculator technology in
the methods course influenced (or failed to influence) their
knowledge and confidence in using technology as well as their
perception of the use of technology in elementary science
classrooms.
PARTICIPANTS
The day session had 25 students. All students in the day session
were females. Approximately 91% were in their twenties and
9% in their thirties. They were all enrolled in the undergraduate
teacher education program. Approximately 29% hold an
associate degree, 8% had a baccalaureate degree, and 63% had
only a high school diploma. 71% of the students had never
taught before taking the course, while 8% reported one year
teaching experience and 21% had taught two, three or four
years. 62% did not have a graphing calculator at home, and 38%
did. The evening session had 13 students. All students in the
evening session were females. Approximately 77% were in their
twenties and 23% were over 40. They were all enrolled in the
undergraduate teacher education program. Approximately 62%
held an associate degree, 0% had a baccalaureate degree, and
38% had only a high school diploma. 70% of the students had
never taught before taking the course and 30% had taught for
two or more years. 46% did not have a graphing calculator at
home and 54% did.
Compared with the day session, the evening session students
were older, had more college education, and probably more
prior experience with graphing calculators (more calculator
ownership at home).
RESULTS
Since configurations and intensity of technology integration for
the day and evening sessions were different, data for each
session were analyzed separately and the results were
compared. In order to simplify descriptive data reporting and
reduce the load of data processing for the readers, in the
descriptive data tables, we collapsed the two scales in the
negative end to one negative scale and the two scales in the
positive end to one positive scale. For example, we combined
“strongly disagree” and “disagree” to disagree, “agree” and
“strongly agree” to “agree.” A similar operation applies to other
five scales as well.
Day Session
In the initial survey, approximately 25% of teacher candidates
did not feel confident to use graphing calculators for their own
learning, 42% felt confident, and 33% were undecided. At the
same time 26% did not feel confident to use graphing
calculators for teaching, 30% felt confident, and 44% were
undecided. In relation to the use of data collection probes, 8%
reported not being confident to use these for their own learning,
207

5. 54% reported confidence, and 38% were undecided. In using
data collection probes for teaching 13% reported lack of
confidence, 58% reported confidence, and 29% were undecided.
In the post survey, more teacher candidates reported confidence
with the use of calculator technology both for teaching and for
their own learning. Particularly, the percentage who felt not
confident with the use of calculator technology dropped by
more than half. However the t-test results did not reveal any
significant difference for teacher candidates’ confidence before
and after the class. While not significant, a substantial
confidence level increase in using graphing calculators for the
candidates’ own learning may be noted.
The analysis of perceived importance and interest of graphing
calculators and probes to pre-service teachers’ own learning and
productivity and to their future students is shown in Table 1.
(mean scores are calculated based on the Likert-like scale with 1
– strongly disagree, 2 – disagree, 3 – undecided, 4 – agree, and
5 – strongly agree). The participants’ responses about an interest
in using graphing calculators and probes were very similar to
their perceived importance of the technology itself.
Table 1: The Perceived Importance and Interest Of Graphing
Calculator Technology (Day Session)
Response
Items
Survey Mean St.Dev.
t p r
Pre 3.34 0.50
Calculators’
importance
to learning
Post 3.33 0.81 .03 .98 .01
Pre 3.28 0.76
Calculators’
importance
to teaching
Post 3.47 0.99 -.73 .47 .11
Pre 3.54 0.63
Probes’
importance
to learning
Post 3.74 0.86 -.90 .37 .14
Pre 3.48 0.69
Probes’
importance
to teaching
Post 3.86 0.90 -1.58 .09 .23
Pre 3.05 0.61
Calculators’
interest to
learning
Post 3.18 0.99 -.56 .58 .09
Pre 3.06 0.71
Calculators’
interest to
teaching
Post 3.27 1.05 -.77 .45 .13
Pre 3.28 0.58
Probes’
interest to
learning
Post 3.50 1.05 -.86 .40 .15
Pre 3.37 0.66
Probes’
interest to
teaching
Post 3.79 0.96 -1.70 .09 .28
T-test results did not reveal any significant difference between
the pre and post surveys. However, participants’ responses to
whether the use of probes was important and interesting to their
future students demonstrated a fair sized difference in the post
survey.
Evening Session
The same fraction of participants (50%) in the pre and post
surveys thought they were confident in using graphing
calculators for their own learning and future teaching. However,
the percentage of participants who felt they were not confident
in using graphing calculators increased after completion of the
course. In the initial survey, approximately 25% of participants
reported not being confident to use calculators for their own
learning, and the same percentage reported not feeling confident
to use calculators for their teaching. In the post survey, these
percentages went up to 40% and 30% respectively. However,
the percentage of participants who reported confidence with the
use of probes increased a great deal. Approximately 16% of
participants were confident to use probes for their learning and
25% for their teaching at the beginning of the course. These two
percentages both went up to 60% after the completing of the
course. However, T-test results did not reveal any significant
difference between pre and post surveys regarding participants’
confidence in the use of graphing calculators and probes.
The analysis of perceived importance and interest of calculators
and probes for the evening session is shown in Table 2.
Table 2: The Perceived Importance and Interest Of Graphing
Calculator Technology (Evening Session)
Response
Items Surv
ey
Mean St.Dev. t p r
Pre 3.21 0.79
Calculators’
importance
to learning
Post 3.96 1.12 -2.23 .04 .44
Pre 3.27 0.87
Calculators’
importance
to teaching
Post 3.80 1.25 -1.17 .25 .25
Pre 3.69 0.95
Probes’
importance
to learning
Post 4.10 0.86 -1.06 .30 .23
Pre 3.78 0.92
Probes’
importance
to teaching
Post 4.50 0.72 -2.01 .05 .41
Pre 3.20 0.51
Calculators’
interest to
learning
Post 3.96 0.84 -2.57 .02 .50
Pre 3.55 0.96
Calculators’
interest to
teaching
Post 4.08 0.74 -1.43 .17 .30
Pre 3.38 1.06
Probes’
interest to
learning
Post 3.92 0.87 -1.28 .21 .28
Pre 3.62 1.04
Probes’
interest to
teaching
Post 4.26 0.88 -1.52 .15 .33
Compared to the day session, at the beginning of the semester
more evening participants thought the use of graphing
calculators was important to them for their own learning, but
fewer felt that it was important for their future students. Both
these percentages, however, went up after the completion of the
course. The percentage of participants who thought calculators
were important for their own learning and productivity moved
from 27% in the beginning of the course to 80% at the end of
the course. Participants who thought calculators were important
for their future students went up from 36% to 70%. Probes were
perceived as important for their own learning and productivity
by 46% of participants in the pre survey and by 70% of them in
the post survey. For their future students, participants were
more likely to think probes were important. Approximately 46%
208

6. of participants in the pre survey perceived probes as important
to their future students, and this number went up to 90%.
Students’ responses to whether calculators and probes were
interesting to their own learning and productivity and to their
future students had a pattern somewhat similar to their
responses to the importance of these technologies. After the
course, more evening participants thought the use of calculators
and probes were interesting to both themselves and future
students. The percentage of participants who thought calculators
were interesting for their own learning and productivity moved
from 36% in the beginning of the course to 90% at the end of
the course. Participants who thought calculators were interesting
for their future students went up from 50% to 70%. Probes were
perceived as interesting for their own learning and productivity
by 46% of participants in the pre survey and by 70% of them in
the post survey. For their future students, participants were
more likely to think probes were important. Approximately 40%
of participants in the pre survey perceived probes as interesting
to their future students, and this number went up to 80%.
T-test results show that the differences between the pre and post
survey were significant regarding participants’ responses to the
importance and interest of calculators in their own learning and
regarding importance of probes for their future students with
medium sized effect (Table 2). The medium sized effect was
also observed in differences between the pre and post surveys
regarding interest for the use of graphing calculators and probes
for teaching, but this difference was not significant. The
perceived importance in use of graphing calculators for teaching
and importance and interest in use of probes for own learning
showed no significant difference with small sized effect.
DISCUSSION
While the prior differences in age, higher education experience,
and calculator ownership might contribute to the observed
differences in their confidence, perspective, and attitude toward
graphing calculator technology, the different configurations of
the two sessions might play a more important role. Because the
day session put a great emphasis on school teaching and had
only several classes at the college, the instructor therefore could
provide teacher candidates with only a limited exposure to
calculator-based technology. The course appeared to improve
pre-service teachers’ confidence in the use of calculators;
however, the improvement was not significant. The limited
exposure did not significantly influence pre-service teachers’
perspective and attitude toward calculator technology either.
Their perceived importance of and interest in calculators and
probes did not have a significant change by the end of the
course. It was interesting to notice, though, that pre-service
teachers tended to perceive calculators and probes as less
important and interesting to their own learning and productivity
by the end of the class. In contrast, they tended to perceive these
technologies as more important and interesting to their future
students. In other words, teacher candidates tended to view
calculator technology more as a teaching tool than a tool for
their own productivity. This result is consistent with the
emphasis of the curriculum, which was to teach pre-service
teachers how to use technology as a teaching tool rather than for
their own learning of new content knowledge.
Calculator technology was used more intensively throughout the
semester in the evening session. Teacher candidates’ confidence
with the use of probes was improved very much, although it was
not statistically significant. However, more participants felt
unconfident to use calculators in teaching and learning at the
end of the course. This might be because pre-service teachers
realized the complexity of using graphing calculators after being
intensively exposed to them. Since probes are connected to the
calculator and are monitored by calculator programs, many
students attributed all technical difficulties that they
experienced with the equipment to the use of calculators, not to
the probes.
A majority of the participants had never seen calculator based
data collection instruments before taking this class. After more
extensive experience with graphing calculators and data
collection devices, many teacher candidates realized that there
is much more depth and opportunity in calculator based
technology than they originally thought. These suggestions are
supported by students’ written reflections:
I never realized a calculator could do more than my
math homework. Calculators are great to use in
elementary classrooms especially for science.
I have never had the opportunity to utilize calculator-
based technology either in the classroom, teaching
students, or in my own learning experiences in school.
As a result of using this technology with CSI No
Dumping Soil Study I feel that this technology
provides students with a means to further their
understanding of concepts, engages student in
learning and provides valuable data/information to
analyze and share. This technology is essential in the
science classroom in the elementary school.
Compared with the day session, the evening session had a
higher percentage of participants who perceived calculator
technology as important and interesting to their own learning
and productivity and to their future students. The intensive
exposure to calculator technology in this session might again
provide an explanation. Participants had a variety of
opportunities to better see the correlation between their own
learning and use of technology. Some of them expressed the
importance of technology for their own learning.
By doing experiments in the class I now understand
… science concepts and will therefore be able to share
better my knowledge with students.
Some of the participants initially had strong reservations against
use of calculators in classrooms. The use of calculators in class
changed their perception.
I always thought that calculator-based technology was
good but if a student relied on a calculator too much
they would become lazy. Now I feel that calculator-
based technology should be used a lot with kids in the
classroom because I think it will help them understand
the topic better.
Overall, all pre-service teachers in the evening class felt that the
experience they had with technology would definitely affect the
way they plan to teach in the future:
209

7. I definitely have more technology skills after taking
this class… I would integrate a graphing calculator
into my classroom with assistance from a science
teacher.
I feel that I will be able to do more engaging lessons
with my students to help them learn more.
Fine and Fleener (1994) found that the mentions of pros and
cons of calculator use and the brief demonstration lesson plan
given in mathematics methods courses left pre-service teachers
with at best a superficial understanding of technology; however,
they appeared inadequately prepared to employ calculators in
classrooms of their own. The present study confirmed the
importance of extensive exposure in the use of technology.
Even in the evening session, some teacher candidates still did
not feel confident enough to use calculator technology in their
teaching after completing the course.
I agree that I have a bit more technology skills, but
not enough to be confident in implementing
technology in a class setting.
After taking this class, I think I’ve more technology
skills to use technology in teaching, but I’ll need more
time to practice with all the technology devices. It’s
because although we did many interesting activities
with technology, I didn’t have enough time to know &
practice more … graphing calculator & and the
devices we can connect to graphing calculators.
In the evening session, a significant improvement took place
between the pre and post surveys on participants’ perceptions of
calculators as important and interesting to their own learning
and productivity, and of probes as important to their future
students. However, there was no significant change in
participants’ perceived importance or interest of calculators to
their future students even though the pre and post surveys
difference is quite large. It seems that participants tended to
view calculators more as a tool for their own learning while
they viewed probes more as a teaching tool. This is consistent
with the emphasis in the curriculum on the use of data
collection probes in development of technology based science
activities in class.
CONCLUSION
This study leads us to conclusion that perspectives and attitudes
of pre-service teachers strongly depend on the intensity and
length of experience they have with use of graphing calculators
and calculator based data collection devices. More experience
and practice provides pre-service teachers with better
understanding of the benefits of this type of technology for their
future students as well as for their own learning. Before they
have intensive experience with graphing calculators, some
teacher candidates tend to underestimate the level of
sophistication required to develop teaching materials for the use
of technology. Their confidence level is high at the beginning
but with more exposure it can go down, when they realize that
they do need to learn more about technology and they have to
keep up with it.
Majority of participants in both sessions had prior knowledge of
graphing calculators and did not have any knowledge of data
collection devices. They had experience with graphing
calculators in their previous coursework and perceived it as an
important tool for their own learning. The probes were used to
illustrate science concepts, and since this was not a science
course, but methods course, probes were not perceived as tool
for learning, but only as tool for teaching. If teacher candidates
were exposed to these instruments in the science content
courses, the situation could have been different.
Our study found that participants’ confidence in the use of
technology is somewhat independent to their perspective. In
other words, people can perceive technology very useful, but
they are not confident to use technology. The integration of
calculator technology into methods course can change pre-
service teachers’ perspective on the use of technology in
teaching and learning, but it is not enough to improve their
confidence to use technology. The only way to build pre-service
teachers’ confidence level is to provide them with the
opportunities to use these technologies in general education and
content courses. If teacher candidates come to the methods
classes with content and technology skills, education courses
could better prepare them for the appropriate use of technology
in teaching different disciplines.
REFERENCES
[1] Harskamp, E. G., Suhre, C. J. M., & van Struen, A. (2000).
The graphics calculator and students' solution strategies.
Mathematics Education Research Journal, 12, 37 -52.
[2] Hong, Y., Toham, M., & Kiernan, C. (2000).
Supercalculators and university entrance calculus
examinations. Mathematics Education Research Journal,
12, 321 -326.
[3] Ruthven, K. (1990). The influence of graphic calculator use
on translation from graphic to symbolic forms. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 21, 431-450.
[4] Thompson, D. R., & Senk, S. L. (2001). The effects of
curriculum on achievement in second-year algebra: The
example of the University of Chicago School Mathematics
Project. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
32, 58-84.
[5] Kastberg, S. & Leatham, K. (2005). Research on graphing
calculators at the secondary level: Implications for
mathematics teacher education. Contemporary Issues in
Technology and Teacher Education, 5(1), 25-37.
[6] Doerr, H. M. & Zangor, R. (2000). Creating meaning for
and with the graphing calculator. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 41, 143-163.
[7] LaGrange, J.-B. (1999). Complex calculators in the
classroom: Theoretical and practical reflections on
teaching pre-calculus. International Journal of Computers
for Mathematical Learning, 4, 51 -81.
[8] Mitchelmore, M. & Cavanagh, M. (2000). Students'
difficulties in operating a graphics calculator. Mathematics
Education Research Journal, 12, 254-268.
[9] Ostler, E., & Grandgenett, N. (2001). Examining
Pedagogical Trends within a Graphing Calculator
Environment: An Analysis of Pre-service Teacher
Perceptions. In Proceedings of Society for Information
Technology and Teacher Education International
Conference 2001 (pp. 1385-1386). Norfolk, VA: AACE.
[10] Simmt, E. (1997). Graphing calculators in high school
mathematics. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and
Science Teaching, 16, 269-289.
210

8. [11] Simonson, L. M. & Dick, T. P. (1997). Teachers'
perceptions of the impact of graphing calculators in the
mathematics classroom. Journal of Computers in
Mathematics and Science Teaching, 16, 239-268.
[12] Lyublinskaya, I. (2003) Connecting Mathematics with
Science: Experiments for Precalculus. Emeryville, CA: Key
Curriculum Press.
[13] Lyublinskaya, (2003) Connecting Mathematics and Science:
Experiments for Calculus. Emeryville, CA: Key Curriculum
Press.
[14] Cortes-Figueroa, J. E. & Moore, D. A. (1999). Using CBL
technology and a graphing calculator to teach the kinetics
of consecutive first-order reactions. Journal of Chemical
Education, 76(5), 635-638.
[15] Niess, M. (2001). A Model for Integrating Technology in
Preservice Science and Mathematics Content-Specific
Teacher Preparation, School Science and Mathematics, 101
(2), 102-109.
[16] Stager, G. (2000). Portable probeware: Science education’s
next frontier. Curriculum Administrator, 36(3), 32-36.
[17] Stokes, D., Jenkins, C., Huhnke, L., Grey, G., & Manning,
C. (2000). Math and Science Curriculum Revision: A
Collaborative Approach to Improving Preservice Teachers'
Use of Technology Knowledge and Instructional Skills. In
Proceedings of World Conference on Educational
Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2000
(p. 1832). Norfolk, VA: AACE.
211