Connecting a teacher dashboard to a student digital collaborative environment: supporting teacher enactment of problem-based mathematics curriculum
Tóm tắt
Teacher dashboards in mathematics classrooms tend to provide teachers with information on student performance that are often linked to classroom management systems, online course systems, or peer-tutoring software. Teacher dashboards also tend to emphasize features that support teachers using a “transition” or “direct instruction” model. In our approach, we iteratively designed, developed, tested, and refined a teacher dashboard that is linked to a student digital collaborative environment with an embedded problem-based mathematics curriculum. In this study, we investigate teacher dashboard features that support teacher enactment of problem-based mathematics curriculum embedded in a digital collaborative platform. We report on design principles that guided the development of three teacher dashboard features: (1) monitoring evidence of student thinking in real-time or after class, (2) accessing workspace for whole-class discussions of the problem, and (3) creating and sending “just-in-time” supports. The pedagogical advantages and challenges teachers face throughout the iterative development process are also discussed. Evidence from observational data and teacher interviews suggests that the organic synergism generated from the student and teacher digital platform offers several ways that teachers are provided with new and timely information from teacher dashboards that supports problem-based mathematics teaching.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Abdu, R., Schwarz, B., & Mavrikis, M. (2015). Whole-class scaffolding for learning to solve mathematics problems together in a computer-supported environment. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(7), 1163–1178.
Adler, J. (2000). Conceptualising resources as a theme for teacher education. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 3(3), 205–224.
Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: what makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.
Barab, S. (2014). Design-based research: a methodological toolkit for engineering change. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 151–170). Cambridge University Press.
Bertacchini, F., Bilotta, E., Caldarola, F., & Pantano, P. (2018). The role of computer simulations in learning analytic mechanics towards chaos theory: a course experimentation. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 50(1), 100–120.
Boaler, J. (1998). Open and closed mathematics: student experiences and understandings. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(1), 41–62.
Brown, M. (2009). The teacher-tool relationship. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 17–36). Routledge.
Burkhardt, H., & Schoenfeld, A. (2020). Not just “implementation:” the synergy of research and practice in an engineering research approach to educational design and development. ZDM Mathematics Education, 53, 991–1005. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01208-z
Cai, J., & Howson, G. (2013). Toward an international mathematics curriculum. In M. A. K. Clements, A. J. Bishop, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F. K. S. Leung (Eds.), Third international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 949–974). Springer.
Capraro, M., Capraro, R., & Cifarelli, V. (2007). What are students thinking as they solve open-ended mathematics problems? In D. K. Pugalee, A. Rogerson, & A. Schnick (Eds.), Proceedings of the ninth international conference of Mathematics Education in a Global Community (pp. 124–128). Charlotte, NC: The University of North Carolina.
Chapin, S., & O’Connor, C. (2007). Academically productive talk: supporting student learning in mathematics. In W. G. Martin, M. Strutchens, & P. Elliott (Eds.), The learning of mathematics (pp. 113–128). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Choppin, J., & Borys, Z. (2017). Trends in the design, development, and use of digital curriculum materials. ZDM Mathematics Education, 49, 663–674.
Choppin, J., Carson, C., Borys, Z., Cerosaletti, C., & Gillis, R. (2014). A typology for analyzing digital curricula in mathematics education. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology, 2(1), 11–25.
Choppin, J., Roth McDuffie, A., Drake, C., & Davis, J. (2015). Curriculum metaphors in U.S. middle school mathematics. In T. G. Bartell, K. Bieda, R. Putnam, K. Bradfield, & H. Dominguez (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 65–72). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
Chu, H. C., Chen, J. M., & Tsai, C. L. (2017). Effects of an online formative peer-tutoring approach on students’ learning behaviors, performance and cognitive load in mathematics. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(2), 203–219.
Clements, D. H. (2007). Curriculum research: toward a framework for “research-based curricula.” Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(1), 35–70.
Dani, A., & Nasser, R. (2016). Use of intelligent tutor in post-secondary mathematics education in the United Arab Emirates. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 15(4), 152–162.
Drijvers, P., Doorman, M., Boon, P., Reed, H., & Gravemeijer, K. (2010). The teacher and the tool: instrumental orchestrations in the technology-rich mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75(2), 213–234.
Edson, A. J., Phillips, E., Slanger-Grant, Y., & Stewart, J. (2019). The arc of learning framework: an ergonomic resource for design and enactment of problem-based curriculum. International Journal of Educational Research, 93(1), 118–135.
Faber, J., Luyten, H., & Visscher, A. (2017). The effects of a digital formative assessment tool on mathematics achievement on student motivation: results of a randomized experiment. Computers & Education, 106, 83–96.
Ferguson, R., Brasher, A., Clow, D., Cooper, A., Hillaire, G., Mittelmeijer, J., Rienties, B., & Ullmann, T. (2016). Research evidence on the use of learning analytics: implications for education policy. Joint Research Centre Science for Policy Report.
Fosnot, C. T., & Jacobs, W. (2010). Young mathematicians at work: constructing algebra. Heinemann.
Fraivillig, J. (2001). Strategies for advancing children’s mathematical thinking. Teaching Children Mathematics, 8(8), 454–459.
Gal, K., Livny, A., Prusak, N., Schwarz, B. B., Segal, A., & Swidan, O. (2018). Orchestrating the emergence of conceptual learning: a case study in a geometry class. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(2), 189–211.
Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’ learning. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 371–404). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Hufferd-Ackles, K., Fuson, K. C., & Sherin, M. G. (2004). Describing levels and components of a math-talk learning community. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(2), 81–116.
Jackson, K. J., Shahan, E. C., Gibbons, L. K., & Cobb, P. A. (2012). Launching complex tasks. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 18(1), 24–29.
Kickmeier-Rust, M. D., Hillemann, E.-C., & Albert, D. (2014). Gamification and smart feedback. International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 4(3), 35–46.
Kim, D., Yoon, M., Jo, I. H., & Branch, R. M. (2018). Learning analytics to support self-regulated learning in asynchronous online courses: a case study at a women’s university in South Korea. Computers and Education, 127, 233–251.
Lappan, G., Fey, J. T., Fitzgerald, W. M., Friel, S. N., & Phillips, E. D. (2004). Getting to know connected mathematics: an implementation guide. Pearson Prentice Hall.
Lappan, G., Phillips, E. D., Fey, J. T., & Friel, S. N. (2014). Connected Mathematics3. Boston: Pearson.
Leatham, K. R., Peterson, B. E., Stockero, S. L., & Van Zoest, L. R. (2015). Conceptualising mathematically significant pedagogical opportunities to build on student thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 46(1), 88–124.
Leshota, M., & Adler, J. (2018). Disaggregating a mathematics teacher’s pedagogical design capacity. In L. Fan, L. Trouche, C. Qi, S. Rezat, & J. Visnovska (Eds.), Research on mathematics textbooks and teachers’ resources (pp. 89–117). ICME-13 Monographs. Springer.
Michaels, S., O’Connor, C., & Resnick, L. (2008). Reasoned participation: accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(4), 283–297.
Miyazaki, M., Fujita, T., & Jones, K. (2015). Flow-chart proofs with open problems as scaffolds for learning about geometrical proof. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(7), 1211–1224.
Ramli, I. S. M., Maat, S. M., & Khalid, F. (2019). Learning analytics in mathematics: a systematic review. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 8(4), 436–449.
Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246.
Remillard, J. T., & Heck, D. J. (2014). Conceptualizing the curriculum enactment process in mathematics education. ZDM: an International Journal for Mathematics Education, 46(5), 705–718.
Rezat, S., Visnovska, J., Trouche, L., Qi, C., & Fan, L. (2018). Present research on mathematics textbooks and teachers’ resources in ICME-13: conclusion and perspectives. In L. Fan, L. Trouche, C. Qi, S. Rezat, & J. Visnovska (Eds.), Research on mathematics textbooks and teachers’ resources: advances and issues (pp. 343–358). Springer.
Roth McDuffie, A., Choppin, J., Drake, C., & Davis, J. (2018). Middle school mathematics teachers’ noticing of components in mathematics curriculum materials. International Journal of Educational Research, 92, 173–187.
Schukajlow, S., Kolter, J., & Blum, W. (2015). Scaffolding mathematical modelling with a solution plan. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(7), 1241–1254.
Silver, E. A., & Smith, M. (1996). Building discourse communities in mathematics classrooms: a worthwhile but challenging journey. In P. C. Elliott & M. J. Kenney (Eds.), Communication in mathematics: K-12 and beyond (pp. 20–28). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Smith, M. S., & Stein, M. K. (2011). Five practices for orchestrating productive mathematics discussion. Reston: NCTM.
Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: an analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 455–488.
Stein, M.K., Smith, M.S., Henningsen, M.A., & Silver, E.A. (2000). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development. New York: Teachers College Press.
Sztajn, P., Confrey, J., Wilson, P. H., & Edgington, C. (2012). Learning trajectory based instruction: toward a theory of teaching. Educational Researcher, 41(5), 147–156.
Verbert, K., Govaerts, S., Duval, E., Santos, J.L., Van Assche, F., Parra, G., et al. (2014). Learning dashboards: An overview and future research opportunities. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 18, 1499–1514.
Wirkala, C., & Kuhn, D. (2011). Problem-based learning in K-12 education: is it effective and how does it achieve its effects? American Educational Research Journal, 48(5), 1157–1186.
Wise, A., Yuting, Z., & Hausknecht, S. (2014). Learning analytics for online discussions: embedded and extracted approaches. Journal of Learning Analytics, 1(2), 48–71.
Xing, W., Wadholdm, R., Petakovic, E., & Goggins, S. (2015). Group learning assessment: developing a theory-informed analytics. Educational Technology and Society, 18(2), 110–128.