1. Forces Affecting University Mathematics
Professors' Use of Technology in Their
Geometry Classrooms
Aaron Brakoniecki
Mathematics Learning Research Group
Michigan State University

2. Itinerary
Background
Literature Review/
Framework
Methods
Results
Discussion

3. Background
College Mathematics & Technology

4. Narrowing my Focus
Good vs. Bad, Geometry, Technology, Question

5. Creating a Framework
Related Research
Teacher’s Use of Technology in K-12 Schools
(Becker, 2000), (Russell, Bebell, O'Dwyer, &
O'Connor, 2003), (Ravitz, Wong and Becker, 1999)
Teacher Beliefs (Thompson, 1992), (Ernest, 1998),
(Kuhs & Ball, 1986)
Beliefs about Technology in Mathematics Classrooms
(Dick, 2007), (Zbiek, Heid, Blume, & Dick, 2007)

6. Initial framework of forces affecting university mathematics professors’
decisions about using technology in their geometry classroom

7. Research Question
What is a framework that can help describe the
forces affecting college professors’ decisions to
use (or not use) technology in their classroom?

8. Methods
Interviews
Geometry professors
who had taught their
class more than once
Vary institution type
from within Michigan
No more than 8

9. Constant Comparison
(Glaser & Strauss, 1967)
1. Comparing and contrasting incidents to create
categories into which the data can fit
2. Integrating categories and their properties into
larger bins
3. Delimiting the theory to focus it
4. Writing the theory that has emerged out of the
data.

10. Interview Protocol
I. Asks professors about the course as a whole, structure
of individual lessons, and class preparation
II. Asks professors about any technology use in their
lessons, how they came to decide upon technology,
and thoughts on technology and geometry
III.Asks professors about training and support for
technology at their institutions,

11. Participants
Dr. Herb Williams – Small private liberal arts college. He has
previously taught an axiomatic geometry course.
Dr. Christine Lauer – Large public research university. She has
previously taught a course in Euclidean geometry.
Dr. Samantha Gooding – Private technical institute. She has
previously taught a course focusing on the intersection of
geometry and the arts.
Dr. Karl Quinn – Small, private liberal arts college. He has
previously taught a course axiomatic geometry course.
Dr. Ursula Nichols – Medium-sized, public research institution.
She has previously taught a course on axiomatic geometry.

12. Results
Internal Forces

13. Goals for the Course
Each professors’ personal goals for the course
Dr. Williams - students to walk away with an
appreciation of geometry and its importance in history,
and not necessarily facts. Change the disposition of his
students to one favorable towards geometry
Dr. Lauer - “more experiential than content driven”,
wanted students to have different experiences in
mathematics
Dr. Gooding - wanted her course to change her
students’ perspectives on life, and so they would see
geometry wherever they are.

14. Perceived Establishment of
Course Content
Two themes emerged, either solidifying course content,
or intentionally changing content between years
Dr. Quinn - “It’s been a long time since I’ve gone
about…”. He added that he had been teaching this
course since “water was invented”.
Dr. Lauer - tried to change the course content every
year, so that way, she wouldn’t have sat with an idea
as long

15. Beliefs About What
Technology can do
What was technology’s role within the classroom?
Dr. Williams - geometry is about unpacking and figuring out
what causes, whereas the software package Geometer’s
Sketchpad was a “little black box that won’t let you peer
inside”.
Dr. Lauer - technology produces an environment and then
the question is, what do you get out of that environment

16. Beliefs about Technology in
Geometry
Beliefs about using technology within the geometry
classroom
Dr. Nichols - technology’s use in geometry should,
“depend on the content; whether it let’s [students]
look at a problem authentically and does it help them
build their understanding
Dr. Quinn - didn’t believe there was any content
reason to be hesitant about using technology in
geometry.

17. Beliefs about Student
Interactions with Technology
Beliefs about how they wanted students to interact with
technology in their classroom
Dr. Williams noted that in his opinion, technology
should be used for discovery by the students, and
not for demonstrations to the students.
Dr. Gooding expressed a desire for students to
experiment more in mathematics as they do in their
arts classes. She described a frustration of students
going right to technology for answers without playing
around with ideas.

18. How Students will Learn in
this Course
Different learning methods to utilized in this course
Dr. Williams & Dr. Gooding expressed the desire that
students would learn by making discoveries
Dr. Lauer & Dr. Nichols expressed the desire that
students would learn by making connections and
constructing their knowledge

19. Professor’s Preparation to
Use Technology
All professors expressed confidence in their and their
colleagues ability to use technology, however, there
were some on using the technology pedagogically
Dr. Williams - didn’t believe it’s that hard to use
technology, although it might be slightly more
challenging to learn how to use it for teaching
Dr. Nichols - believed that teachers should
technology should be used in meaningful ways to
enhance the learning of a topic.

20. Findings
External Forces

21. Goals for the Course
Institution-level goals for the course. Course description
These goals ranged from proof writing (Dr. Williams,
Dr. Lauer, Dr. Quinn, and Dr. Nichols), to better
understanding of Euclidean and Non-Euclidean
geometries (all interviewees), to examining
mathematics in the arts and architecture (Dr.
Gooding and Dr. Quinn).

22. Population of the Course
Professors were conscience of the different populations
within their courses, and that they had considered
tailoring the content of their courses to fit the
populations enrolled in their courses

23. Position of Course within the
Curriculum
All these geometry courses were terminal courses, they
were not prerequisites for any other course in their
departments
All professors were aware of the different prerequisites
required for their courses and that seemed to have
effect on course content

24. Access to Technology
The physical location of technology and access to software
differed among classes.
Dr. Lauer and Dr. Gooding noted that they would have
students bring laptops to the classroom
Dr. Lauer, Dr. Quinn, and Dr. Nichols all described efforts to
utilize one of their institutions’ computer labs during their
course
Dr. Quinn also described a time his department purchased
a large number of textbooks bundled with software. Went
around to the different computer labs on campus and
installed the software by hand.

25. Department/Institution
Support for Technology
Resources for professors who wanted to use
technology to be successful
Dr. Williams - existed funds for travel for professional
development opportunities
Dr. Nichols’ - institution equipping rooms with
technology carts and built-in data projectors
Dr. Lauer - department and institution’s support in
providing laptop carts for classrooms, support with
setup and storage of technology, and acquiring
software licenses

26. Department/Institution
Philosophy About
Technology Use
Dr. Gooding - institution had formed a working group
with the goal of promoting active learning with
technology
Dr. Lauer - while her university had a position that was
favorable to technology, her department had a position
that was not
Dr. Nichols -classes offered by computing services for
faculty on topics such as podcasting, e-learning, and
developing your website

27. “Final” framework of forces affecting university mathematics professors’
decisions about using technology in their geometry classroom

28. Discussion
Framework Structure
External Forces - Course Level and Institution Level
Interactions Among Forces
Framework Content
No relation to their own experiences in geometry
Time was not discussed as affecting decisions
Complexifying College Instruction

29. Limitations
Only 5 professors interviewed, all of who used
technology for one of their geometry courses
One analyzer of the data
No discussion on the enactment of these forces

30. Acknoweldgements
Practicum Committee - Mike Steele, Raven
McCrory, Amanda Hawkins
Writing Group - Lorraine Males, Aaron Mosier,
Sam Otten

31. Thank You!
Questions, comments, thoughts?