Using Interactive Presentations to Promote Mathematical Discourse
The current study investigated whether: (1) using an interactive presentation (IP) platform could affect the amount of usage of the practices of makin.
- Pub. date: March 15, 2023
- Pages: 1-17
- 172 Downloads
- 361 Views
- 0 Citations
The current study investigated whether: (1) using an interactive presentation (IP) platform could affect the amount of usage of the practices of making orchestrating mathematical discourse- sequencing and connecting students' responses. (2) using an interactive presentation (IP) platform could affect the amount of narratives constructed by students. Fifty seventh-grade students participated in the study; those students were divided into control and experimental groups. Qualitative and quantitative analyses were performed based on voice recordings and field notes. The results revealed that the teacher using (IP) asked nearly three times more questions that connected students’ responses (i.e., questions that involved valuing students' ideas, exploring students' answers, incorporating students’ background knowledge, and encouraging student-to-student communication). We also saw that the students participated in the learning processes. The students in the experimental group presented three times as many narratives as those in the control group. We present several excerpts from the transcripts of the classroom discussions to illustrate our findings. Discussion of the implications and limitations of these results and make recommendations based on those results.
formative assessment interactive presentation mathematical discourse technology and teaching
Keywords: Formative assessment, Interactive presentation, Mathematical discourse, Technology and teaching.
0
References
Abdu, R., Olsher, S., & Yerushalmy, M. (2021). Pedagogical considerations for designing automated grouping systems: The case of the parabola. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 8, 99-124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-021-00095-7
Aldon, G., Cusi, A., Morselli, F., Panero, M., & Sabena, C. (2017). Formative assessment and technology: Reflections developed through the collaboration between teachers and researchers. In G. Aldon, F. Hitt, L. Bazzini, & U. Gellert (Eds.), Mathematics and technology (pp. 551-578). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51380-5_25
Altiparmak, K., & Özdoğan, E. (2010). A study on the teaching of the concept of negative numbers. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 41(1), 31-47. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207390903189179
Ball, D. L. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics. The elementary school journal, 93(4), 373-397. https://doi.org/10.1086/461730
Bamberg, M. (2020). Narrative analysis: An integrative approach- Small stories and narrative practices. In M. Järvinen & N. Mik-Meyer (Eds.), Qualitative analysis: Eight approaches for the social sciences (pp. 243-264). Sage Publications.. https://bit.ly/401IX2Q
Baya’a, N., Daher, W., & Mahagna, S. (2017). The effect of collaborative computerized learning using GeoGebra on the development of concept images of the angle among seventh graders. In G. Aldon & J. Trgalova (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching (ICTMT 13) (pp. 208-215). Ecole Normale Sup´erieure de Lyon.
Beauchamp, G., & Kennewell, S. (2010). Interactivity in the classroom and its impact on learning. Computers & Education, 54(3), 759–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.033
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 5-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5
Booth, J. L., & Siegler, R. S. (2006). Developmental and individual differences in pure numerical estimation. Developmental Psychology, 42(1), 189-201. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.41.6.189
Brown, J. R. (2010). Philosophy of mathematics: A contemporary introduction to the world of proofs and pictures. Routledge.
Burns, K., & Polman, J. (2006). The impact of ubiquitous computing in the internet age: How middle school teachers integrated wireless laptops in the initial stages of implementation. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(2), 363-385. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/5777/
Chapin, S., O’Connor, C., & Anderson, N. C. (2003). Classroom discussions: Using math talk to help students learn- Grades K-6. Math Solutions.
Charmaz, K., & Belgrave, L. L. (2007). Grounded theory. In The Blackwell encyclopedia of sociology (pp. 2023-2027). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405165518.wbeosg070
Cooper, J., Olsher, S., & Yerushalmy, M. (2020). Didactic metadata informing teachers’ selection of learning resources: Boundary crossing in professional development. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 23, 363-384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-019-09428-1
Davis, B. (1997). Listening for differences: An evolving conception of mathematics teaching. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(3), 355-376. https://doi.org/10.2307/749785
Drijvers, P. (2013). Digital technology in mathematics education: Why it works (or doesn't). In S. Cho (Eds.), Selected regular lectures from the 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education (pp 135–151). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17187-6_8
Drijvers, P., Doorman, M., Boon, P., Gisbergen, S. V., & Reed, H. (2009). Teachers using technology: Orchestrations and Profiles. In Proceedings of the 33rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. (pp. 481-488). Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
Haj-Yahya, A., & Olsher, S. (2022). Preservice teachers’ experiences with digital formative assessment in mathematics. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 53(7), 1751-1769. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2020.1842527
Hansen, A., Drews, D., Dudgeon, J., Lawton, F., & Surtees, L. (2020). Children′ s errors in mathematics. Sage.
Harries, D., & Tennant, G. (2012). Transition of pupils from Key Stage 2 to 3 deemed gifted and talented in mathematics: an initial study. Mathematics Teaching, 226, 9-12. https://bit.ly/3JCniZM
Hativa, N., & Cohen, D. (1995). Self learning of negative number concepts by lower division elementary students through solving computer-provided numerical problems. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 28, 401-431. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01274081
Hayes, B., & Stacey, K. (1990). Teaching negative numbers using integers tiles [Unpublished doctoral dissertation], University of Melbourne.
Hirtz, J. A. (2018). Does the interactive push-presentation system Nearpod effect student engagement in high school anatomy? [Doctoral dissertation, Liberty University]. Liberty University Scholars Crossing. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/doctoral/2422/
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
Jacobs, V. R., Lamb, L. L. C., & Philipp, R. A. (2010). Professional noticing of children's mathematical thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(2), 169–202. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.41.2.0169
Jelemenská, K., Čičák, P., & Dúcky, V. (2011). Interactive presentation towards students’ engagement. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 1645-1653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.407
Kersaint, G. (2015). Orchestrating mathematical discourse to enhance student learning. Curriculum Associates, LLC.
Martin, D. B. (2008). E (race) ing race from a national conversation on mathematics teaching and learning: The national mathematics advisory panel as white institutional space. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 5(2), 387-398. https://doi.org/10.54870/1551-3440.1117
Mason, J. (2001). Researching your own practice: The discipline of noticing. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203471876
McKay, L., & Ravenna, G. (2016). Nearpod and the impact on progress monitoring. California Council on Teacher Education, 27(1), 23-27. https://bit.ly/3JbfNaS
O’Connor, C., & Michaels, S. (2019). Supporting teachers in taking up productive talk moves: The long road to professional learning at scale. International Journal of Educational Research, 97, 166-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.11.003
Olsher, S., & Abu Raya, K. (2019). Teacher's attention to characteristics of Parabola sketches: differences between use of manual and automated analysis. In B. Barzel, R. Bebernik, L. Göbel, M. Pohl, H. Ruchniewicz, F. Schacht & D. Thurm (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching – ICTMT 14 (pp. 1-8). University of Duisburg. https://doi.org/10.17185/duepublico/70766
Olsher, S., Yerushalmy, M., & Chazan, D. (2016). How might the use of technology in formative assessment support changes in mathematics teaching? For the Learning of Mathematics, 36(3), 11–18. https://bit.ly/3lb9Anr
Papadakis, S., Kalogiannakis, M., & Zaranis, N. (2018). The effectiveness of computer and tablet assisted intervention in early childhood students’ understanding of numbers. An empirical study conducted in Greece. Education and Information Technologies, 23, 1849-1871. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9693-7
Popper, P., & Yerushalmy, M. (2021). Online example-based assessment as a resource for teaching about quadrilaterals. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 110, 83-100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-021-10109-1
Prather, R., & Alibali, M. W. (2011). Children’s acquisition of arithmetic principals: The role of experience. The journal of Cognition and Development, 12(3), 332-354. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2010.542214
Sadler, D. R. (1998). Formative assessment: revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050104
Sartori, R. (2006). The bell curve in psychological research and practice: Myth or reality? Quality and Quantity, 40, 407-418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-005-6104-0
Sfard, A. (2007). When the rules of discourse change, but nobody tells you: Making sense of mathematics learning from a commognitive standpoint. Journal for Learning Sciences, 16(4), 565–613. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400701525253
Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, development of discourses, and mathematizing. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511499944
Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, M. S., & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions: Five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and tell. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(4), 313-340. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986060802229675
Upton, T. A., & Cohen, M. A. (2009). An approach to corpus-based discourse analysis: The move analysis as example. Discourse Studies, 11(5), 585-605. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445609341006
Wagganer, E. L. (2015). Creating math talk communities. Teaching Children Mathematics, 22(4), 248-254. https://doi.org/10.5951/teacchilmath.22.4.0248
Wegerif, R. B. (2007). Dialogic education and technology: Expanding the space of learning. Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-71142-3
White, D. Y. (2003). Promoting productive mathematical classroom discourse with diverse students. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 22(1), 37-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(03)00003-8
Yerushalmy, M., & Olsher, S. (2020). Online assessment of students’ reasoning when solving example-eliciting tasks: Using conjunction and disjunction to increase the power of examples. ZDM Mathematics Education, 52, 1033-1049. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01134-0