Stanyer Thesis

Online Teaching Tools and the Secondary Mathematics Classroom
Submitted by
Brandon Stanyer
Mathematics with Secondary Education
To
The Honors College
Oakland University
In partial fulfillment of the

requirement to graduate from
The Honors College
Mentor: Anica Bowe, Associate Professor

Teacher Development and Educational Studies
Oakland University
April 1, 2022
Abstract
The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic had a dramatic effect on education during the
2020-2021 school year. Many secondary mathematics teachers were forced to find ways to teach
their content remotely in the absence of in-person instruction. This research explores how
secondary mathematics teachers adapted to the many challenges of teaching remotely, and the
online teaching tools which they utilized during this time. Using interviews from teachers in
Oakland County, MI, information was collected on the online teaching tools used, the feedback
these teachers had, and the attitudes of teachers toward online teaching tools. This research
considers various frameworks for assessing technology-based tools. In addition, it incorporates
concepts from recent studies about the challenges teachers faced with remote learning and helps
us understand how to best support student learning in a remote setting. Interviews with
secondary mathematics teachers provided a large collection of potential technology-based
teaching tools, along with benefits and limitations of each. This, and other research studies, have
revealed a need for online teaching tools which effectively support engagement and participation
from students. For mathematics teachers, it is also important that these tools support students in
their development of mathematical concepts, as opposed to superficial understanding. As
education continues to increasingly utilize technology, it is imperative that mathematics teachers
understand which tools best support their learning goals.
2
Introduction
Technology-based learning has been a topic of interest for those involved in education
during the 2020-2021 COVID-19 pandemic. Learning through technology-based means has
gained much more attention with the onset of COVID-19. Due to risks with the transmission of
the COVID-19 virus, many schools transitioned to remote learning in the absence of traditional
classroom instruction. Remote learning has been defined by Dr. Kecia Ray (2020) and others as
the process of teachers and students connecting and learning in a remote setting. This is notably
different from the virtual learning that took place in schools prior. Remote learning was intended
to be a short-term solution to fighting the spread of the virus. However, many schools were
teaching remotely for more than an entire school year. This has brought into question the
effectiveness of remote learning and technology-based learning.
There are many approaches to assessing learning, especially when it comes to
technology-based methods. The effectiveness of both virtual learning and remote learning can be
evaluated using a variety of frameworks, most of which focus on the technology tools utilized
and how students are supported in their use. In the past, technology-based learning has been the
subject of much research because of the potential to improve educational experiences. Teachers
and researchers experimented with a large variety of technologies, with hopes to improve the
traditional educational experience. Many of these inquiries came long before the COVID-19
pandemic began. Some technologies provided few benefits to learners, whereas others have
greatly improved learning experiences and have become commonplace in many classrooms.
Revolutionary technologies such as graphing calculators and Microsoft Word have drastically
changed how students learn, and it is hard to imagine the classroom without them. It is in the best
interest of educators to utilize technologies that improve the learning experiences for students
3
and avoid those that do not. The time during the COVID-19 pandemic challenged many teachers
to find effective ways to teach remotely and experiment with different technologies.
Literature Review
Past Research on Remote Learning
The COVID-19 pandemic posed many challenges for teachers and students. Research is
now emerging around the effects on teachers and students. A study from the Urban Education
Institute reported that most of the teachers interviewed struggled with engagement and
participation from students during remote learning (Villarreal et al., 2020). Another study from
Michigan State University found that engagement and communication from students was the
most occurring challenge, mentioned by 58.3% of the teachers sampled (Boltz et al., 2020). Even
from the very little research we have from the past school year, a struggle to engage students
remotely is evident. Many teachers found engagement of students to be a challenge when
students were still present in the classroom (Boltz et al., 2020). Having to use technology to
facilitate engagement from students presented an entirely new challenge. Obtaining engagement
from students relies on factors such as communication with students, presentation of content, use
of scaffolds, and many other components. Teaching and learning remotely places constraints on
integral components of lesson planning and the way they are executed. The Urban Education
Institute also reported that teachers struggled to find effective technology platforms, lesson
materials, and other resources to use for remote learning (Villarreal et al., 2020). It was a
challenge for teachers to elicit engagement from students partly from a struggle to find lesson
components and platforms to facilitate those lessons. The research so far suggests that one of the
4
greatest challenges for remote learning is engaging students and effectively utilizing platforms to
do so. When considering online teaching tools, teachers must reflect on which tools most
effectively promote student engagement or can be modified to promote student engagement.
Barriers to Remote Learning
When approaching remote learning, teachers must also consider other variables which are
an obstacle to effective teaching. One variable that influences remote learning, especially due to
the unexpected nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, is teacher experience. Teaching remotely is
something that most teachers had little experience with prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. One
study found that as little as 5% of their surveyed teachers had experience teaching online in any
form (Villarreal et al., 2020). Another study noted that teacher experience with technology and
teaching online was one of the primary concerns for teachers during this time (Boltz et al., 2020).
The lack of experience with remote learning likely had an influence on outcomes such as student
engagement and keeping accountability from students. With the majority of teachers
inexperienced at teaching in an online format, it is evident why teachers struggled to find tools
and resources which effectively engaged students. Learning how to use new technologies has
long-been a barrier to teachers using new technology tools. With the onset of COVID-19, this
became especially apparent. Teachers spend much time of their time finding methods to
effectively teach a lesson, and once they find methods that work, they are less obliged to try new
methods.
Frameworks for Assessing Technology Usage
5
One model that provides clarity to this phenomenon is the Technology Acceptance Model
(TAM), which was originally developed by Fred Davis (1986). This model has seen many
adaptations. In its simplest form, the TAM assesses factors that influence the usage of a
particular technology. Most versions of this model include the external variables Perceived
Usefulness (PU) and Perceived Ease of Use (PEU), which contribute to a person’s attitude
toward that technology and their Actual Use (AU). This can be seen in fig. 1.
Figure 1: Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) Scientific Diagram
Technologies which are not perceived as easy to use are unlikely to be used unless the
perceived usefulness is quite high. In previous research, this model has been applied to the
adoption of technology systems and technology-based teaching tools by teachers (Sánchez-Prieto
2016). When considering the position teachers were left during remote learning, the underlying
conditions for this model drastically changed. Technologies such as Zoom and Google
Classroom became much more useful tools to teachers due to the challenges of teaching
remotely. Teachers found themselves looking for technologies which not only supported their
learning goals, but also could be used remotely. They were forced to choose not between a
6
technology and an in-person learning activity, but rather between multiple technologies that
supported student learning remotely.
This unprecedented time has drastically shifted the way research has approached learning
using technology. In the past, the use of technology has been researched in its ability to enhance
learning in its traditional form. Past research has noted the potential of learning using technology
to support active learning through situating the learning in proper context and personalizing the
learning toward the student (Crompton, 2013). Despite the many challenges with teaching
remotely, teaching using technology has the potential to support authentic learning in multiple
dimensions. There are many dimensions to consider when assessing any aspect of teaching, and
the teaching tools used are no exception. Some frameworks for assessing technology for learning
focus on just the tool itself, some focus on the attitudes of teachers or students, and others focus
on the ways a teacher implements the technology.
Additional Frameworks for Assessing Technology Usage
Frameworks that focus primarily on the perspective of the students and teachers often
assess the attitude of both groups. The attitude of both the teacher and the students toward a
particular technology can affect the learning outcomes. As mentioned previously, TAM provides
a framework to understanding how teachers choose effective technology. In this simple model,
technologies that are perceived as both useful and easy to use are the technologies which
teachers strive to use (Davis, 1986). Another framework is the Unified Theory of Acceptance
and Use of Technology (UTAUT), which incorporates many more variables which influence
student outcomes. There are variables linked with how the students perceive the technology,
such as Performance Expectancy (PE), the degree to which the student believes the technology
7
will contribute to their performance, and Effort Expectancy (EE), the degree of ease the student
perceives when using the technology. Both variables are strong predictors of the students’
behavioral intention for learning with the technology (Açıkgül & Şad, 2021). When assessing a
technology from this framework, technology which students perceive to improve performance
with relative ease are most effective. In contrast, technology which does not appear to benefit
performance, or is difficult to use, can cause a barrier to learning. Teachers must consider the
perception their students have when using a technology tool and choose technology tools which
will appear beneficial to students and easy to use.
The UTAUT model also includes other variables which are relevant for the context of
teaching and technology tools. Some other important variables to consider for this context are
Facilitating Conditions (FC), students’ perception of support available, and Hedonic Motivation
(HM), which is the pleasure derived from using the technology to learn (Açıkgül & Şad, 2021).
Both FC and HM can positively influence students’ behavioral intentions depending on the
situation the learner is in. A classroom environment which provides students with readily
accessible support and motivation for learning will have a positive influence on a student’s
intention to learn. Without sufficient FC and HM, student learning outcomes can be negatively
affected. For assessing a particular technology for teaching, it is important to consider the
environment in which the learning will take place. When considering remote learning during the
COVID-19 pandemic, the environment in which the students learned drastically changed.
Teachers and students had less interaction and communication (Villarreal et al., 2020), which
may have left students feeling like they had less support from their teachers with the learning
objectives. It is also likely that many students found learning in their home to be far less
motivating than in the classroom due to distractions and less intervention from the teacher.
8
Although teaching remotely introduces barriers to supporting students, teachers need
technologies which provide easy access to supporting resources and offer intrinsic motivation for
learning.
Assessing Technology in Relation to a Learning Goal
Not only do educators need to find effective technologies to use, but they also need to
implement them effectively. In her book Teaching First, Technology Second in Practice, Kolb
mentions that teachers need a framework for assessing technology tools and integrating them
into lessons (2020). When assessing technology tools for education, evaluation should be done
in the context of the specific lesson goals. There are technologies that can greatly support some
learning goals but fail to support others. In addition, some technology tools are only effective
with the proper adaptations or supporting resources. For example, the online graphing calculator
DESMOS can be an effective technology tool if the goal is to practice transformations with
equations, but not if the goal is to practice using tables to construct graphs. If the learning goal
with DESMOS is practicing transformations, the lesson also requires the proper resources, such
as instructions for using the program or set of equations to practice with. One framework for
assessing technology tools is the Triple E Framework, which assesses a technology’s ability to
enhance, engage, and extend learning goals (Kolb 2020).
How Teachers Adapted to Teaching Remotely During the 2020-2021 School Year
Despite the challenges associated with using new technologies, many teachers found
technology tools and strategies for teaching remotely that were effective. From the study by the
Urban Education Institute, 95% of the teachers surveyed felt they ultimately became effective
9
using technology to teach remotely. The research suggests that most teachers developed methods
for teaching effectively using technology. It can also be inferred that most teachers found
technology tools which facilitated effective learning while students were remote. My research
objectives were to explore how and why teachers adapted the way they did to teaching remotely.
Teachers were forced to adapt to teaching with vastly different tools than they may have used in
the past. The use of different technology-based tools has greatly improved learning experiences,
particularly within mathematics classrooms. Mathematics teachers had a very valuable
experience teaching remotely, and their experiences may serve to improve educational
experiences going forward. The technologies and practices utilized during remote learning will
continue to be present in classrooms in the future.
New Research
Background
To better understand how teachers adapted to the challenges of remote learning, I
interviewed teachers from Oakland County Michigan about their teaching practices during the
2020-2021 school year. At the time of my research, there had been little published about the
ways different teachers and school districts were approaching remote learning. There were many
opportunities to explore how teachers were facilitating learning remotely. Some research studies
focused on the needs of teachers and students during remote learning (Villarreal et al., 2020) and
others looked at the teaching methods being utilized (Boltz et al., 2021). My research focused
primarily on the technologies used by mathematics teachers. The target participants for this study
were secondary mathematics teachers who were teaching remotely during the 2020-2021 school
10
year. The interviews were designed to better understand how secondary mathematics teachers
adapted to teaching remotely.
The three primary research questions were:
1. Which online teaching tools were utilized to conduct learning remotely?
2. What feedback do teachers have about particular online teaching tools and why were
these tools used?
3. What were teachers’ attitudes toward particular online teaching tools?
These research goals seek to answer the driving question: what can educators learn from
their experience teaching remotely? The answers to these research questions serve to inform
educators and improve educational experiences in the future. By better understanding
technology-based teaching methods and their use, educators can improve learning for students,
even with a return to traditional classroom instruction.
Methodology
Participants
Participants in this research study were secondary mathematics teachers that taught
during the 2020-2021 school year. These teachers were recruited through connections between
Oakland University and partnering school districts in the Oakland County area. Email addresses
of potential participants were gathered from Oakland University fieldwork coordinators from a
database with partnering school districts and teachers. Many of these school districts and
11
teachers had partnerships with Oakland University to take on student teachers. This research is
IRB approved through Oakland University.
A total of 8 different teachers were contacted about participating in this research. Five of
these teachers responded, and a total of 4 were interviewed for this research study. Three of these
teachers were female and one was male. Each of the four teachers taught at least one
mathematics class in the secondary education setting. One of the teachers also acted as a
supporting teacher for students with special needs during this school year. Each of the
participants completed both an interview and follow-up survey. The interviews were transcribed
for use in this research.
Interview Protocol
Participants in this research were given a semi-structured interview over aspects of their
technology use during the 2020-2021 school year, along with a follow-up survey. Once
participants were contacted, an online interview was conducted. The participants were asked a
total of ten questions relating to various aspects of their teaching remotely. Some examples of
interview questions were:
● Why did you choose the particular online teaching tools that you used?
● What are some benefits to using video conferencing software: which includes
Zoom, Google Meet, and similar software?
A full collection of the interview questions is included with this research. The interview
script and follow-up survey can be found in Appendix A. The interview was broken up into two
sections. The first set of questions focused on any online technology tools the teacher used to
teach remotely. The second section focused on the tools specifically for teaching mathematics.
12
Each of the ten questions focused on one of the three research questions. Question 1 was
designed to elicit what technologies the teacher used. Questions 2 and 3 were designed to
understand which technologies were preferred and which were not. Questions 4 and 5 targeted
the teacher’s attitude toward each technology and helped to better understand the rationale for
their choice of technology. Questions 5 and 6 were used to gather feedback about video
conferencing software for remote learning. These two questions focused on just video
conferencing software because it was the one type of technology which most teachers used
during this time. Questions 7 and 8 were designed to better understand the benefits and
drawbacks of technologies specifically for teaching mathematics. The interview concluded with
the opportunity for the teacher to make any other comment about their technology use and
feedback from their school year.
Follow-Up Survey
The interviews were followed by a survey designed to assess attitudes toward particular
technologies. From the little information available during the planning stages of this research, it
was evident that there were drastically different approaches to teaching remotely, even within
just Oakland County, MI. The interview script and survey were intentionally left open-ended
with regard to which technologies teachers used. This allowed the opportunity to further examine
technologies and teaching methods which were not anticipated.
13
Analysis
This is a mixed methods study with qualitative data gathered from the interviews and
quantitative data gathered from the follow-up survey. The analysis of the interview transcripts
would best be described as conventional content analysis. Many of the questions were left open
ended due to the new developments around remote learning. The transcripts were all read
through from beginning to end before any analysis took place. After this, transcripts were
inspected for repeated themes, patterns between research participants, and clear differences
between participants. These components were then grouped by type and compiled within this
research.
The quantitative data from the follow-up survey was assessed using descriptive analysis.
The survey was designed based off previous research using the TAM framework. Participants
were asked to provide rankings for both a video conferencing software, such as Zoom or Google
Meet, and a technology tool of their choice. Each question in the survey was either an assessment
of Perceived Usefulness (PU) or Perceived Ease of Use (PEU). The values from each of the two
categories were averaged to provide a composite score for PU and PEU for each technology.
This data was then compiled into tables for the video conferencing software and other online
teaching tool. See Appendix A for the full survey. With this data, there is a better understanding
of teachers’ attitude toward technologies. Since each teacher provided ratings for a video
conferencing software, composite values from each participant were then compared to each
other.
14
Results and Discussion
Research Question 1: Online Teaching Tool Usage
The specific online teaching tools used by the teachers interviewed varied greatly. Each
teacher mentioned at least one online teaching tool unique to their teaching. A comprehensive
list of all the online teaching tools mentioned by the research participants is as follows:
1. Zoom 7. Edmentum 13. Notability
2. Google Meet 8. Schoology 14. *Unspecified
3. Khan Academy 9. IXL screen/video
4. Kuta Software 10. Whiteboard.fi recording tools
5. Nearpod 11. Formative
6. Edpuzzle 12. DESMOS
The wide range of online teaching tools used indicates a willingness for teachers to
experiment with different tools. This is likely due to the unique challenges that COVID-19
presented. The extensive list from just four mathematics teachers also reveals the challenge of
teaching remotely. Each teacher had a variety of different online teaching tools for specific needs
of the classroom. Each teacher had at least one online teaching tool for providing direct
instruction, one for administering practice, and one for maintaining accountability with students.
The challenges of remote teaching led to a wide range of online teaching tools utilized.
Even within these categories, the mathematics teachers interviewed had different
preferences. Some teachers preferred Zoom or Google Meet to provide direct instruction,
whereas others preferred to pre-record lessons or create notes. One of the most notable uses of
online technology tools, specifically for explaining and modeling content, was through Edpuzzle
15
and Nearpod. Both of these options allowed the teacher to present content through a video or
activity while also monitoring student progress. Both tools have features which allow the
instructor to place practice problems for the students to interact with during the lesson. The
teachers who used these online teaching tools mentioned how they wanted more interaction and
accountability from students, and tools like this allowed them to do that.
Research Question 2: Teacher Feedback on Online Teaching Tools
Video Conferencing Software Benefits: Each of the teachers interviewed used Zoom or
Google Meet regularly while teaching remotely. Although each teacher had their critiques for
using video conferencing software to teach, this type of online teaching tool provided unique
benefits for teaching remotely. Some of the most notable benefits mentioned by the teachers
were:
● providing face-to-face interaction with students
● Allowing students to participate or stay connected even if they are ill
● One-on-one interaction with students through breakout rooms
● The ability to work through examples together and have students ask questions
immediately
Zoom and Google Meet both allowed teachers and students to interact most similarly to
in-person while teaching remotely. This allowed more authentic conversations and interaction
with students. Teacher C mentioned “I like that Zoom teaching can give that one-on-one
interaction… I love how much individual time I can work with students.” Along with one-on-one
interaction, Zoom and Google Meet allowed teachers to connect with students regardless of the
16
circumstances. Teacher B mentioned that they recorded the zoom meetings which allowed those
who were sick, or unable to attend, the opportunity to keep up with what was happening in class.
Regarding teaching math, some of the teachers interviewed were able to keep a similar structure
to their traditional classroom through video conferencing software. For example, Teacher A
posed practice problems to the class and had students type responses in the chat, which is similar
to how she previously taught in person. This technology allowed the teacher and students to
work together and ask questions as they arose.
Video Conferencing Software Drawbacks: When asked about the drawbacks of using
video conferencing software to teach math, the teachers mentioned:
● Inability to check if students are engaged in the lesson
● Inability to pick up on cues such as head nods or puzzled expressions
● Students experiencing technological difficulties cannot participate
● Inability to see student work and assist student through a problem like in a traditional
classroom
● Students not attending or being distracted
Each of the teachers had at least one major critique of using video conferencing software to
teach math. Many of the drawbacks these teachers mentioned stemmed from an inability to
monitor students as they would in-person. Each teacher mentioned struggling to get participation
and keep students accountable for learning using these platforms. Students often had their
cameras off and were not engaged with the lesson. Teacher D mentioned “I don't know who
exactly has my full attention because they're not right in front of me.” The inability to engage
17
students fully and keep students accountable was a recurring concern from each of the teachers
interviewed.
Feedback on Other Online Teaching Tools: Each teacher mentioned having to find online
teaching tools that worked best for them. Some of these tools were required by the school
district, and others were discovered by teachers. Teacher D mentioned the need to adapt to the
circumstances of remote learning and sought out technologies that would help students learn
best. Although each teacher felt that students learn best in-person, they had a duty to find
effective technologies for teaching. Teacher B mentioned the need to learn and educate yourself
as a teacher by learning about different teaching tools. Each teacher had one or more online
teaching tool which were fundamental to their instruction remotely. The online teaching tools
emphasized most are discussed below.
Nearpod: Teacher A mentioned that Nearpod was an important part of their teaching
remotely. Nearpod allowed the teacher to create and share interactive lessons which the student
would go through on their own. This technology tool chunks material into smaller parts and has
students interact as they go through the lesson. It is a helpful software because it forces students
to interact and engage with the material they are learning. Nearpod challenges students to not be
passive listeners and actively work through problems. This teaching tool also allows teachers to
monitor where students are and view student work. Teacher A had mostly positive feedback on
this online teaching tool and said, “I would do more Nearpod if I had more time to create more
Nearpod lessons.”
Whiteboard.fi: Teacher B frequently utilized an online teaching tool called
Whiteboard.fi to teach remotely. This tool allows teachers to show practice problems and their
18
work through a virtual whiteboard. Students are also given their own virtual whiteboard to
follow along with, which the teacher can see. Teacher B utilized this tool because it allowed
them to keep students engaged and monitor student work. “[Whiteboard.fi] is a tool I use, to kind
of get students engaged… and I'm able to visually see what mistakes or what they're doing.” This
tool works well to allow teachers to monitor student progress and step in when necessary.
Khan Academy: Both Teacher B and Teacher D mentioned using Khan Academy to
facilitate student practice. The teachers mentioned that this tool works great for providing
additional material or practice for students as needed. There are also video lessons which can be
helpful if students did not understand a concept the first time. Teacher D also mentioned that this
is a useful tool for both remote and in-person teaching. This technology offers not only guided
practice, but also video lessons and example tutorials.
Edmentum: Teacher D mentioned that Edmentum was utilized by teachers in their
district. This technology allowed the production and direction of curriculum for classes in that
school district. The teachers were able to choose topics and lessons which they wanted to utilize
for their classes. This online teaching tool provided teachers with access to material and practice
to aid student learning. Although Teacher D mentioned this was an important tool for their own
teaching, not everyone can access this resource.
Research Question 3: Teacher Attitudes Toward Online Teaching Tools (Follow-Up
Survey)
The third research question focused on teachers’ attitudes toward the particular online
teaching tools they utilized. This section of the discussion considers data from the follow-up
19
survey, as well as comments from teachers during their interviews. To adequately assess
teachers’ attitudes toward these tools, this research considered two main components:
1. The perceived usefulness of the tool for facilitating learning of mathematics
2. The perceived ease of use of the tool
Conclusions drawn about these components are primarily from data in the follow-up survey.
However, they also took into account comments which the teachers made during the interviews.
The follow-up survey assessed teachers’ attitudes toward both a video conferencing software and
an online teaching tool of their choice. The survey elicited teacher attitude toward Perceived
Usefulness (PU) and Perceived Ease of Use (PEU) using a ranking system on various statements.
A ranking of 1 is the lowest ranking a teacher could give a tool of PU or PEU, and a ranking of 5
was the maximum ranking a teacher could give. The composite data for the participants is
provided below.
Composite Perceived Usefulness (PU):
Video Conferencing Software Other Online Teaching Tool
Teacher A 3.83 4.50
Teacher B 3.50 4.17
Teacher C 3.50 2.67
Teacher D 2.00 3.33
20
Composite Perceived Ease of Use (PEU):
Video Conferencing Software Other Online Teaching Tool
Teacher A 4.29 4.14
Teacher B 3.43 4.43
Teacher C 3.57 2.29
Teacher D 2.14 3.14
Trends in the Data: The data gathered from the research participants varies greatly
between the participants. Some provided very low rankings for both the video conferencing
software and the other online teaching tool, whereas others had quite high rankings. When
looking at both PU and PEU, teachers A, B, and D ranked the video conferencing software lower
than the other online teaching tool. However, Teacher C valued the PU and PEU of video
conferencing software higher. In general, there are very few similarities between responses of the
research participants.
When taking into consideration the comments during the interviews, some rationale for
the responses can be observed. With Teacher B, the composite data indicated that the teacher
found both online teaching tools to be useful and relatively easy to use. Along with this, Teacher
B made many comments about trying to make the most of remote learning and demonstrated a
general optimism toward teaching remotely. They made a comment that “It's my job and my
duty to make sure I find ways to reach my students” and “you've got to find ways to get them to
be successful.” It should be noted that Teacher B’s positive attitude toward teaching remotely
may be connected to their high ranking of the online teaching tools. Teacher D demonstrated the
inverse of this. Teacher D provided very low rankings for both online teaching tools in PU and
PEU. In addition, this teacher demonstrated a generally negative attitude toward teaching
21
remotely with comments such as “Students learn best in the classroom.” Based on information
from teacher D, there may be a connection between their negative perceptions about teaching
remotely and their attitude toward the particular online teaching tools.
A desire to learn about new technologies may be linked with a high perception of
usefulness and ease of use. However, more research is needed to verify. Overall, the results
varied widely on the teachers' attitudes toward technology tools. The teachers’ attitude toward
each online teaching tool may have less to do with the tool itself, and more to do with the
teachers’ attitude toward teaching remotely.
Conclusion
Each of the teachers interviewed used in-person teaching as their standard when talking
about online teaching tools. Although most online teaching tools fell short in comparison to in-
person teaching strategies, each teacher found technologies which made them effective at
teaching remotely. Often the biggest challenges to this were eliciting student engagement and
accurately monitoring student progress. The teachers who participated in this study all
highlighted particular tools and strategies which helped to combat these challenges. Each of the
teachers sought out and learned about different online teaching tools throughout the course of
their remote teaching. The teachers were seeking to improve their teaching and willing to try out
different technology tools which were new to them. Although teachers generally preferred
teaching in-person, the online technology tools they used opened doors to new methods of
teaching, and many of these technologies may still benefit educators with the transition back to
in-person learning.
22
References
Açıkgül, K., Şad, S.N. (2021). High school students’ acceptance and use of mobile technology in
learning mathematics. Educ Inf Technol 26, 4181–4201 https://doi-
org.huaryu.kl.oakland.edu/10.1007/s10639-021-10466-7
Bayaga, A., Mthethwa, M., Bossé, M., & Williams, D. (2019). Impacts of implementing
geogebra on eleventh grade student’s learning of Euclidean geometry. South African
Journal of Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.20853/33-6-2824
Boltz, Yadav, A., Dillman, B., & Robertson, C. (2021). Transitioning to remote learning:
Lessons from supporting K‐12 teachers through a MOOC. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 52(4), 1377–1393. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13075
Crompton, H. (2013). A historical overview of mobile learning: Toward learner-centered

education. Handbook of mobile learning, 3-14.
Davis, F.D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user
information systems: theory and results. Doctoral dissertation. MIT Sloan School of
Management, Cambridge, MA
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis.
Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
Kmetová, M. (2019). GeoGebra, a tool to improve students' visual imaging. Acta Didactica
Napocensia, 12(2), 225-237.
Koutromanos, G., Styliaras, G., & Christodoulou, S. (2014). Student and in-service teachers’
acceptance of spatial hypermedia in their teaching: The case of HyperSea. Education and
Information Technologies, 20(3), 559–578. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-013-9302-8
Montrieux, H., Vanderlinde, R., Schellens, T., & De Marez, L. (2015). Teaching and learning
with mobile technology: A qualitative explorative study about the introduction of tablet
devices in secondary education. PloS One, 10(12), e0144008–e0144008.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0144008
Ray, K. (2020). What is remote learning?. Technology & Learning.

https://www.techlearning.com/how-to/what-is-remote-learning
Sánchez-Prieto, J., Olmos-Migueláñez, S., & García-Peñalvo, F. (2016). Informal tools in formal
contexts: Development of a model to assess the acceptance of mobile technologies among
teachers. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 519–528.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.002
23
Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Tondeur, J. (2019). The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-
analytic structural equation modeling approach to explaining teachers’ adoption of digital
technology in education. Computers and Education, 128, 13–35.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.009
Soldano, C., Luz, Y., Arzarello, F., & Yerushalmy, M. (2018). Technology-based inquiry in
geometry: semantic games through the lens of variation. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 100(1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-018-9841-4
Vágová, R., & Çelik, H. (2020). The effect of modeling, collaborative and game-based learning
on the geometry success of third-grade students. Education and Information
Technologies., 25(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09983-3
Villarreal, M., Lee, H., Park, Y., Foy, N., Singleton, M., Serna-Wallender, E., Sullivan, C., &
Kim, J. (2020). Teaching & learning in the time of COVID-19: Research brief: Early
challenges and solutions from teachers. Urban Education Institute.
24
Appendix A - Figure 1: Interview Script / Questionnaire
Introduction
Thank you for your decision to take part in this study. Before we begin, it is necessary to provide context for
the following questions and provide clarification for the terminology used. The purpose of this research is
to better understand the teaching practices following COVID-19 restrictions. Emphasis is placed on the
usage of online teaching tools, which we have defined as any software used to conduct learning remotely.
This includes, but is not limited to, Zoom, GeoGebra, Online Games, and Interactive Textbooks.
Before we start the interview, do I have your permission to video record or audio record this interview
solely for transcription purposes? If you are uncomfortable with one of these options, please specify your
preference for recording. (If participant declines video or audio recording, add: “Do I have your permission
to take written notes of this interview?”)
Interview Questions
(Probing questions may be asked, and examples are included in parentheses following the questions)
1. What online teaching tools have you utilized in your classes, following COVID-19
restrictions? (Are there any others you have used which you did not mention?)
2. Which online teaching tools did you prefer to use?
3. Which online teaching tools did you NOT prefer to use?
4. Why did you choose the particular online teaching tools that you used? (Were other teachers
using them? was it required by the school? were you wanting to try something new?)
5. Did your attitude toward any of these online teaching tools change after COVID-19
Procedures were implemented? (Could you explain why your attitude changed?)
The following questions are specific to teaching mathematics, NOT other content areas. Please respond to
the following questions as they pertain specifically to mathematics instruction.
6. What are some benefits to using video conferencing software: which includes Zoom, Google
Meet, and similar software? (Do these software help for certain aspects of math instruction?)
7. What are some drawbacks to using video conferencing software? (Do these software limit
certain aspects of math instruction?)
8. What are some benefits to other online teaching tools you used during this school year? (How
are they different from video conferencing software?)
9. What are some drawbacks to other online teaching tools you used during this school year?
10. Do you have any other comments you wish to add?
This concludes the interview portion of this research. A short form will now be provided for you to
complete. Do you have any questions before we move on?
25
Figure 2: Follow-Up Survey
Usage of Online Teaching Tools by Secondary Teachers Following COVID-19 Outbreak
Consider your most commonly used online lecture software (Zoom, Google Meet, or other similar
software).
Rate on a 5-point scale (1=minimum; 5=maximum)

Item Ranking (1-5)
For teaching mathematics, this online tool…
1. is effective
2. is easy to use as a teacher
3. is easy to use as a student
4. improves my job performance
5. is flexible
6. is clear and understandable
7. makes the job easier
8. increases productivity
9. easy to become skillful at
10. is controllable
11. makes teaching easier
12. allows for teaching more quickly
13. is useful
Consider another online teaching tool you have used during this school year that is NOT an online lecture
software (NOT Zoom, Google Meet or other similar software). Please state the name of the online
teaching tool and complete the table: ______________________________________________________
Rate on a 5-point scale (1=minimum; 5=maximum)

Item Ranking (1-5)
For teaching mathematics, this online tool…
1. is effective
2. is easy to use as a teacher
3. is easy to use as a student
4. improves my job performance
5. is flexible
6. is clear and understandable
7. makes the job easier
8. increases productivity
9. easy to become skillful at
10. is controllable
11. makes teaching easier
12. allows for teaching more quickly
13. is useful
26

Stanyer Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stanyer Thesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stanyer Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Online Teaching Tools and the Secondary Mathematics Classroom

Mathematics with Secondary Education

In partial fulfillment of the

Mentor: Anica Bowe, Associate Professor

considers various frameworks for assessing technology-based tools. In addition, it incorporates

secondary mathematics teachers provided a large collection of potential technology-based

their development of mathematical concepts, as opposed to superficial understanding. As

education continues to increasingly utilize technology, it is imperative that mathematics teachers

understand which tools best support their learning goals.

effectiveness of remote learning and technology-based learning.

There are many approaches to assessing learning, especially when it comes to

Past Research on Remote Learning

remotely is evident. Many teachers found engagement of students to be a challenge when

effectively promote student engagement or can be modified to promote student engagement.

Barriers to Remote Learning

Frameworks for Assessing Technology Usage

Figure 1: Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) Scientific Diagram

adoption of technology systems and technology-based teaching tools by teachers (Sánchez-Prieto

supported student learning remotely.

on the ways a teacher implements the technology.

Additional Frameworks for Assessing Technology Usage

will appear beneficial to students and easy to use.

Although teaching remotely introduces barriers to supporting students, teachers need

Assessing Technology in Relation to a Learning Goal

enhance, engage, and extend learning goals (Kolb 2020).

particularly within mathematics classrooms. Mathematics teachers had a very valuable

continue to be present in classrooms in the future.

To better understand how teachers adapted to the challenges of remote learning, I

adapted to teaching remotely.

The three primary research questions were:

1. Which online teaching tools were utilized to conduct learning remotely?

these tools used?

3. What were teachers’ attitudes toward particular online teaching tools?

educators and improve educational experiences in the future. By better understanding

even with a return to traditional classroom instruction.

IRB approved through Oakland University.

for use in this research.

interview questions were:

Zoom, Google Meet, and similar software?

feedback from their school year.

technologies and teaching methods which were not anticipated.

Results and Discussion

Research Question 1: Online Teaching Tool Usage

1. Zoom 7. Edmentum 13. Notability

2. Google Meet 8. Schoology 14. *Unspecified

3. Khan Academy 9. IXL screen/video

4. Kuta Software 10. Whiteboard.fi recording tools

5. Nearpod 11. Formative

6. Edpuzzle 12. DESMOS

Research Question 2: Teacher Feedback on Online Teaching Tools

● providing face-to-face interaction with students

● Allowing students to participate or stay connected even if they are ill

● One-on-one interaction with students through breakout rooms

work together and ask questions as they arose.

video conferencing software to teach math, the teachers mentioned:

● Inability to check if students are engaged in the lesson

● Inability to pick up on cues such as head nods or puzzled expressions

● Students experiencing technological difficulties cannot participate