Advertisement

Technology, Knowledge and Learning

, Volume 17, Issue 1–2, pp 43–59 | Cite as

Effects of Feedback in an Online Algebra Intervention

  • Christian Bokhove
  • Paul Drijvers
Article
First Online:

Abstract

The design and arrangement of appropriate automatic feedback in digital learning environment is a widely recognized issue. In this article, we investigate the effect of feedback on the design and the results of a digital intervention for algebra. Three feedback principles guided the intervention: timing and fading, crises, and feedback variation. The intervention aims at improving algebraic expertise and is deployed in fifteen grade 12 mathematics classes in nine secondary schools. Results show that the use of feedback timing and fading, the creation of crises and feedback variation facilitates the acquisition of algebraic expertise, and that relevant feedback fosters algebra learning by decreasing the number of attempts needed for a task while improving the scores. We conclude there is potential in applying these design principles in an online algebra education design.

Keywords

Algebra Design Expertise Feedback Formative assessment ICT Skills 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Jan van Maanen for his supervision, and all schools, teachers and students who participated. This research was funded by the DUDOC Program, project UU4.

References

  1. Arcavi, A. (1994). Symbol Sense: Informal sense-making in formal mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14(3), 24–35.Google Scholar
  2. Arcavi, A. (2005). Developing and using symbol sense in mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 25(2), 42–47.Google Scholar
  3. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–149.Google Scholar
  4. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2004). The formative purpose: Assessment must first promote learning. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 103(2), 20–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bokhove, C. (2008, June). Use of ICT in formative scenarios for algebraic skills. Paper presented at the 4th conference of the International Society for Design and Development in Education, Egmond aan Zee, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  6. Bokhove, C. (2010). Implementing feedback in a digital tool for symbol sense. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 17(3), 121–126.Google Scholar
  7. Bokhove, C., & Drijvers, P. (2010a). Digital tools for algebra education: Criteria and evaluation. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 15(1), 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bokhove, C., & Drijvers, P. (2010b). Symbol sense behavior in digital activities. For the Learning of Mathematics, 30(3), 43–49.Google Scholar
  9. Bokhove, C., & Drijvers, P. (2012). Effects of a digital intervention on the development of algebraic expertise. Computers & Education, 58(1), 197–208. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clariana, R. B. (1990). A comparison of answer until correct feedback and knowledge of correct response feedback under two conditions of contextualization. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 17(4), 125–129.Google Scholar
  11. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.Google Scholar
  12. Drijvers, P., Goddijn, A., & Kindt, M. (2010). Algebra education: Exploring topics and themes. In P. Drijvers (Ed.), Secondary algebra education. Revisiting topics and themes and exploring the unknown (pp. 5–26). Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  13. Garson, D. (2011). Structural equation modeling. Retrieved from http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/standard.htm.
  14. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heeren, B., & Jeuring, J. (2010). Adapting mathematical domain reasoners. In Proceedings of MKM 2010, the 9 th International Conference on Mathematical Knowledge Management Vol. 6167. Lecture notes in computer science (pp. 315–330). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Jones, R. M., & Fleischman, E. S. (2001). Cascade explains and informs the utility of fading examples to problems. In J.D. Moore & K. Stenning (Eds.) Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 459–464). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 379–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kilpatrick, J. E., Swafford, J. E., & Findell, B. E. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  19. Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. Mason, B. J., & Bruning, R. (2001). Providing feedback in computer-based instruction: What the research tells us. Retrieved from http://dwb.unl.edu/Edit/MB/MasonBruning.html.
  21. Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Gopalakrishnan, M., & Casey, J. (1995). The effects of feedback and incentives on achievement in computer-based instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20(1), 32–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. National council of teachers of mathematics. (2008). The role of technology in the teaching and learning of mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.nctm.org/about/content.aspx?id=14233.
  23. Renkl, A., Atkinson, R. K., & Große, C. S. (2004). How fading worked solution steps works—a cognitive load perspective. Instructional Science, 32(1/2), 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2004). The math wars. Educational Policy, 18(1), 253–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sweller, J., & Cooper, G. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 2(1), 59–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tall, D. (1977). Cognitive conflict and the learning of mathematics. In Proceedings of the First Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Utrecht, Netherlands: PME. Retrieved from http://www.warwick.ac.uk/staff/David.Tall/pdfs/dot1977a-cog-confl-pme.pdf.
  27. Tessmer, M. (1993). Planning and conducting formative evaluations. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. US Department of Education. (2007). National mathematics advisory panel preliminary report. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/pre-report.pdf.
  29. Van Hiele, P. M. V. (1985). Structure and insight: A theory of mathematics education. Orlando: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  30. VanLehn, K., Jones, R. M., & Chi, M. T. H. (1992). A model of the self-explanation effect. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(1), 1–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vasilyeva, E., Puuronen, S., Pechenizkiy, M., & Rasanen, P. (2007). Feedback adaptation in web-based learning systems. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life-Long Learning, 17(4/5), 337–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Freudenthal Institute for Science and Mathematics EducationUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options