Teachers’ use of digital textbooks in mathematics and science education

Helena Johansson; Anna-Karin Westman; Malin Norberg; Nina Eliasson

doi:10.31129/LUMAT.12.3.2455

Authors

Helena Johansson Mid Sweden University, Sweden https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5981-3722
Anna-Karin Westman Mid Sweden University, Sweden https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7961-1741
Malin Norberg Umeå University, Sweden https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3009-3159
Nina Eliasson Umeå University, Sweden https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6981-0162

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31129/LUMAT.12.3.2455

Keywords:

comparative study, Digital learning resource;, Lower secondary school, Mathematics and Science textbooks, Technological knowledge

Abstract

Digital textbooks are rapidly becoming a common feature in mathematics and science teaching. At the same time, there is limited research on teachers’ use of digital textbooks for teaching. Our study takes a comparative approach, contributing to the field’s understanding of the implementation of digital textbooks in mathematics and science education. Four lower secondary teachers’ use of digital textbooks was deductively analysed concerning various features in the textbooks, using data from classroom observations and interviews with teachers and students. Results revealed similarities between teachers regardless of subject, such as using functions to guide students in the digital textbook and recognising the advantages of using videos or animations. One conclusion is that these similarities could be regarded as generic for the use of digital textbooks and important regardless of the subject. A prominent difference concerned the use of digital textbooks as a means of content processing through writing. In the mathematics classrooms, paper and pencil were used, mostly due to the limited possibility of writing mathematics in digital textbooks. In the science classrooms paper and pencil were not used, as this subject is different and to a lesser extent based on being able to represent subject content through calculations, symbols, and figures. Another difference concerns teachers’ approach to planning and tracking students’ progress, where the science teachers focus on the group and the mathematics teachers on individuals. This implies the importance of including a focus on subject-specific aspects when designing and integrating digital resources in teaching.

References

Aharony, N. (2015). Factors affecting the adoption of e-books by information professionals. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 47(2), 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000614532120

Andrée, M. (2007). Den levda läroplanen [The Lived Curriculum] [Doctoral dissertation]. Stockholm university.

Brueck, J. S., & Lenhart, L. A. (2015). E‐Books and TPACK: What teachers need to know. The Reading Teacher, 68(5), 373–376. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1323

Cayton-Hodges, G. A., Feng, G., & Pan, X. (2015). Tablet-based math assessment: What can we learn from math apps? Educational Technology & Society, 18(2), 3–20.

Chiu, T. K. F., Ismailov, M., Zhou, X., Xia, Q., Au, C. K., & Chai, C. S. (2023). Using Self-Determination Theory to explain how community-based learning fosters student interest and identity in integrated STEM education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 21(S1), 109–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-023-10382-x

Dyrvold, A. (2022). Missed opportunities in digital teaching platforms: Under-use of interactive and dynamic elements. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 41(2), 135–161.

Dyrvold, A., & Bergvall, I. (2023). Static, dynamic and interactive elements in digital teaching materials in mathematics: How do they foster interaction, exploration and persistence? LUMAT: International Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.31129/LUMAT.11.3.1941

Education Committee & [Utbildningsutskottet]. (2016). Digitaliseringen i skolan: Dess påverkan på kvalitet, likvärdighet och resultat i utbildningen [Digitalisation in school: Its impact on quality, equality and results in education] (No. 2015/16:RFR18). https://data.riksdagen.se/fil/24B42258-6038-470F-80C6-F5CE149F401B

Embong, A. M., Noor, A. M., Hashim, H. M., Ali, R. M., & Shaari, Z. H. (2012). E-Books as textbooks in the classroom. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 1802–1809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.903

Fan, L., Zhu, Y., & Miao, Z. (2013). Textbook research in mathematics education: Development status and directions. ZDM, 45(5), 633–646. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0539-x

Friese, S. (2013). ATLAS ti 7 user guide and reference. Atlas ti Scientific Software Development GmbH.

Grönlund, Å., Wiklund, M., & Böö, R. (2018). No name, no game: Challenges to use of collaborative digital textbooks. Education and Information Technologies, 23(3), 1359–1375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9669-z

Harrison, T. R., & Lee, H. S. (2018). iPads in the mathematics classroom: developing criteria for selecting appropriate learning apps. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 6(2), 155–172. https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.408939

Hoyles, C. (2018). Transforming the mathematical practices of learners and teachers through digital technology. Research in Mathematics Education, 20(3), 209–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2018.1484799

Hutchison, A. (2012). Literacy teachers’ perceptions of professional development that increases integration of technology into literacy instruction. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 21(1), 37–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2012.659894

Jazby, D., Widjaja, W., Xu, L., & Van Driel, J. H. (2023). Noticing student thinking under pressure in primary mathematics and science lessons. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 21(2), 645–666. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-022-10263-9

Johansson, H., & Österholm, M. (2023). Algebra discourses in mathematics and physics textbooks: Comparing the use of algebraic symbols. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2023.2226154

Kaya, E., & Erduran, S. (2024). Comparison of physics, chemistry, and biology teachers’ perceptions of nature of science and domains of science. Science & Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-024-00576-2

Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.

Larkin, K., & Lowrie, T. (2023). Teaching approaches for STEM Integration in pre- and primary school: a systematic qualitative literature review. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 21(S1), 11–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-023-10362-1

Läromedelsförlagen. (2020). Sverige satsar minst pengar på läromedel i Norden. [Sweden invests the least amount of money in teaching materials in the Nordic countries]. https://www.laromedelsforetagen.se/pressrum/

Lucendo-Monedero, A. L., Ruiz-Rodríguez, F., & González-Relaño, R. (2019). Measuring the digital divide at regional level. A spatial analysis of the inequalities in digital development of households and individuals in Europe. Telematics and Informatics, 41, 197–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2019.05.002

Lunde, T. (2014). När läroplan och tradition möts: Om lärarfortbildning och undersökande aktiviteters syfte inom den laborativa NO-undervisningen i grundskolans senare del [When curriculum and tradition meet: On teacher professional development and the purpose of inquiry-based activities in the laboratory science education in lower secondary] [Licentiate dissertation]. Karlstad University.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x

Nielsen, F. V. (n.d.). Sammenlignende fagdidaktik: Genstandsfelt, perspektiver og dimensioner. [Comparative subject didactics: Subject field, perspectives and dimensions]. In Sammenlignende fagdidaktik [Comparative subject didactics] (7th ed., Vol. 2011, pp. 11–32).

Norberg, M. (2021). Exercise design in mathematics textbooks: The case of subtraction. Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education, 26(1), 5–30.

Norberg, M. (2023). Young students’ meaning-making when working with mathematics textbooks – A multimodal study focusing on the designed and the discovered. Research in Mathematics Education, 25(2), 194–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2022.2045624

Olsher, S., & Cooper, J. (2021). Expressing the voice of the textbook: Insights gained from tagging didactic metadata. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 19(8), 1635–1653. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10124-3

Pareto, L., & Willermark, S. (2019). TPACK In Situ: A Design-Based Approach Supporting Professional Development in Practice. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(5), 1186–1226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633118783180

Pepin, B. (2018). Enhancing Teacher Learning with Curriculum Resources. In L. Fan, L. Trouche, C. Qi, S. Rezat, & J. Visnovska (Eds.), Research on Mathematics Textbooks and Teachers’ Resources (pp. 359–374). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73253-4_17

Pepin, B., Choppin, J., Ruthven, K., & Sinclair, N. (2017). Digital curriculum resources in mathematics education: Foundations for change. ZDM, 49(5), 645–661. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0879-z

Reints, A. (2015). Keynote presentation: What works and why? Educational publishing between market and educational science. 15–34.

Saat, R. M., Piaw, C. Y., & Fadzil, H. M. (2023). Creating a grounded model of performance quality of scientist-teacher-student partnership (STSP) for STEM Education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 21(1), 325–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10236-4

Swedish Institute for Educational Research. (2017). Digitala lärresurser i matematikundervisningen: Delrapport skola [Digital learning resources in mathematics education: Interim report about schools] (No. 2017:02, 1/2; (Systematisköversikt). https://www.skolfi.se/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Fullständig-rapport-delrapport-skol.pdf

Swedish National Agency for Education. (2016). IT-användning och IT-kompetens i skolan (Rapport Dnr: 2015:00067). [IT-use and IT-competence in school (Report Dnr: 2015:00067)]. (No. Dnr: 2015:00067). https://www.skolverket.se/publikationer?id=3617

Swedish National Agency for Education. (2022). Läroplan för grundskolan samt för förskoleklassen och fritidshemmet. Swedish National Agency for Education.

UNESCO. (2023). Technology in education: A tool on whose terms? [Summary] (The Global Education Monitoring Report).

Utterberg Modén, M. (2021). Teaching with digital mathematics textbooks: Activity theoretical studies of data-driven technology in classroom practices [Dissertation]. Gothenburg University.

Vojíř, K., & Rusek, M. (2019). Science education textbook research trends: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Science Education, 41(11), 1496–1516. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1613584

Zoellner, B., & Cavanaugh, T. (2017). Enhancing preservice science teachers’ use of text through e-readers. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 17(4), 569–589.