This article contributes to research on contextual influences on technology integration in urban mathematics classrooms through an investigation of five middle-grade teachers’ participation in a laptop program. Drawing on activity theory, findings illuminate teachers’ dilemmas and coping strategies in their efforts to integrate technology. Dilemmas of practice included (a) determining the role of technology, (b) meeting misaligned expectations, and (c) gaining knowledge and skills despite limited professional development. Coping strategies included (a) integrating multiple institutional goals, (b) breaking rules, and (c) redistributing instructional responsibilities across colleagues and students. Implications for administrative practice, teacher education, and future research are discussed.
BallA. F. (2009). Toward a theory of generative change in linguistically complex classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 46(1), 45-72.
2.
BallD. L. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics. Elementary School Journal, 93, 373-397.
3.
BauerJ.KentonJ. (2005). Toward technology integration in the schools: Why it isn’t happening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13, 519-546.
4.
BaylorA. L.RitchieD. (2002). What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and perceived student learning in technology-using classrooms?Computers & Education, 29, 395-414.
5.
BeckerH. J. (1991). How computers are used in United States schools: Basic data from the 1989 I.E.A. computers in education survey. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 7, 385-406.
BeckerH. J.AndersonR. E. (1998). Teaching, learning and computing survey. Retrieved from http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/
8.
BlantonW. E.MoormanG.TrathenW. (1998). Telecommunications and teacher education: A social constructivist review. Review of Research in Education, 23, 235-275.
9.
BransfordJ. D.BrownA. L.CockingR. R. (Ed.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
10.
ChazanD. (2000). Beyond formulas in mathematics and teaching: Dynamics of the high school algebra classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
11.
ClarkeJ. A. (2001). George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, 1770-1831. In PalmerJ. A. (Ed.), Fifty major thinkers on education: From Confucius to Dewey (pp. 84-88). London, UK: Routledge.
12.
CobbP.McClainK.LambergT.DeanC. (2003). Situating teachers’ instructional practices in the institutional setting of the school and district. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 13-24.
13.
CobbP.YackelE.WoodT. (1992). Interaction and learning in mathematics classroom situations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23(1), 99-122.
14.
CohenD. K. (1987). Educational technology, policy, and practice. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 153-170.
15.
CohenD. K.RaudenbushS. W.BallD. L. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 119-142.
16.
ColeM.EngeströmY. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In SalomonG. (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1-46). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
17.
CollinsJ. C. (2005). Good to great and the social sectors: Why business thinking is not the answer. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
18.
CubanL. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
19.
CulpK. M.HoneyM.MandinachE. (2003). A retrospective on twenty years of education technology policy. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology.
EngeströmY. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In EngeströmY.MiettinenR.PunamakiR.-L. (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19-38). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
22.
ErtmerP. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration?Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25-39.
23.
FishmanB.PinkardN.BruceC. (1998). Preparing schools for curricular reform: Planning for technology vs. technology planning. Paper presented at the International Conference on the Learning Sciences, Atlanta, GA.
24.
FranklinC. (2007). Factors that influence elementary teachers use of computers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15, 267-293.
25.
GayG.HembrookeH. (2004). Activity-centered design: An ecological approach to designing smart tools and usable systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
26.
GrahamA.ThomasM. (2000). Building a versatile understanding of algebraic variables with a graphic calculator. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 41, 265-282.
HewK. F.BrushT. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55, 223-252.
29.
HillH. C. (2007). Mathematical knowledge of middle school teachers: Implications for the No Child Left Behind policy initiative. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(2), 95-114.
30.
HillH. C.BallD. L. (2004). Learning mathematics for teaching: Results from California’s mathematics professional development institutes. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35, 330-351.
31.
HillH. C.LubienskiS. (2007). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching and school context: A study of California teachers. Educational Policy, 21, 747-768.
32.
InanF. A.LowtherD. L. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 classrooms: A path model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58, 137-154.
33.
JacksonL. A.ZhaoY.KolenicA.FitzgeraldH. E.HaroldR.Von EyeA. (2008). Race, gender, and information technology use: The new digital divide. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11, 437-442.
34.
JonassenD. H.HowlandJ.MooreJ.MarraR. M. (2003). Learning to solve problems with technology: A constructivist perspective (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
35.
KaptelininV. (2005). The object of activity: Making sense of the sense-maker. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 12(1), 4-18.
36.
KaputJ. (1992). Technology and mathematics education. In GrouwsD. (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 515-556). New York, NY: Macmillan.
37.
KeengweJ.AkyeampongA. (2010). Technology integration barriers in K-12 urban classrooms. In SiemensG.DodgeB. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2267-2271). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
38.
KerrK. A.PaneJ. F.BarneyH. (2003). Quaker Valley Digital School District (Tech. Rep. No. TR-107-EDU). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
39.
LaffeyJ. M.EspinosaL.MooreJ.LodreeA. (2003). Supporting learning and behavior of at-risk young children: Computers in urban education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35, 423-440.
40.
LampertM. (1985). How do teachers manage to teach? Perspectives on problems of practice. Harvard Educational Review, 55, 178-194.
41.
LampertM. (2001). Teaching problems and the problems of teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
42.
LeeC. D.BallA. F. (2005). All that glitters ain’t gold: CHAT as a design and analytical tool in literacy research. In BeachR.GreenJ.KamilM.ShanahanT. (Eds.), Multidisciplinary perspectives on literacy research (2nd ed., pp. 101-132). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
43.
Leont’evA. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
44.
MaciasR.IngleseT. (2010). Engaging urban online students through instructor social presence. In SiemensG.DodgeB. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 691-698). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
45.
MaciasR.YeagerE. (2009). Urban students moving beyond the digital divide. In SiemensG.FulfordC. (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (pp. 1641-1646). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
46.
MarshallC.RossmanG. B. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
47.
MarshallJ. C.HortonR. M.IgoB. L.SwitzerD. M. (2009). K-12 science and mathematics teachers’ beliefs about and use of inquiry in the classroom. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(3), 575-596.
48.
MartinD. (2000). Mathematics success and failure among African-American youth: The roles of sociohistorical context, community forces, school influence, and individual agency. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
49.
MatusovE. (2007). In search of “the appropriate” unit of analysis for sociocultural research. Culture & Psychology, 13, 307-333.
50.
McGrailE. (2005). Teachers, technology, and change: English teachers’ perspectives. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(1), 5-24.
51.
MinickN. (1997). The early history of the Vygotskian school: The relationship between mind and activity. In ColeM.EngestromY.VasquezO. (Eds.), Mind, culture, and activity: Seminal papers from the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition (pp. 117-127). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
52.
MishraP.KoehlerM. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108, 1017-1054.
53.
MurphyK. L.RichardsJ.LewisC.CarmanE. (2005). Strengthening educational technology in K-8 urban schools and in pre-service teacher education: A practitioner-faculty collaborative process. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(1), 125-139.
54.
NardiB. A. (1996). Some reflections on the application of activity theory. In NardiB. A. (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 235-246). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
55.
OwensE.WaxmanH. C. (1996). Differences among urban, suburban, and rural schools on technology access and use in eighth grade mathematics classrooms. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 24(1), 83-92.
56.
RadfordL.BardinoC.SabenaC. (2007). Perceiving the general: The multisemiotic dimension of students’ algebraic activity. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38, 507-530.
RuthvenK.HennessyS. (2002). A practitioner model of the use of computer-based tools and resources to support mathematics teaching and learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49, 47-88.
59.
SchofieldJ. W.DavidsonA. L. (2002). Bringing the internet to school: Lessons from an urban district. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
60.
SongerN. B.LeeH.KamR. (2002). Technology-rich inquiry science in urban classrooms: What are the barriers to inquiry pedagogy?Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(2), 128-150.
61.
SuttonR. E. (1991). Equity and computers in the schools: A decade of research. Review of Educational Research, 61, 475-503.
62.
U.S. Department of Education. (2008). National educational technology trends study: Local-level data summary. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service.
63.
WalshawM.AnthonyG. (2008). The teacher’s role in classroom discourse: A review of recent research into mathematics classrooms. Review of Educational Research, 78, 516-551.
64.
WenglinskyH. (2005). Using technology wisely: The keys to success in schools (LinnM. C., Ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
65.
WindschitlM. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131-175.
66.
WindschitlM.SahlK. (2002). Tracing teachers’ use of technology in a laptop computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 165-205.
67.
ZbiekR. M.HeidM. K.BlumeG. W.DickT. P. (2007). Research on technology in mathematics education: A perspective of constructs. In LesterF. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 1169-1208). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers on Mathematics.
68.
ZbiekR. M.HollebrandsK. (2008). A research-informed view of the process of incorporating mathematics technology into classroom practice by inservice and prospective teachers. In HeidM. K.BlumeG. W. (Eds.), Research on technology and the teaching and learning of mathematics (Vol. 1, pp. 287-344). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
