Advertisement

Technology, Knowledge and Learning

, Volume 19, Issue 1–2, pp 1–18 | Cite as

The Effect of Online Tasks for Algebra on Student Achievement in Grade 8

  • Paul Drijvers
  • Michiel Doorman
  • Paul Kirschner
  • Bert Hoogveld
  • Peter Boon
Article

Abstract

Online resources are widely used for educational purposes, such as the training of skills. For algebra education in particular, online resources are expected to contribute to skill mastery in an efficient and effective way. However, studies that underpin these claims through a randomized experiment are scarce. To experimentally investigate the effect of online tasks for algebra, sixteen teachers each taught two grade 8 algebra classes, one randomly assigned traditional teaching and the other using an online algebra environment. In total, 842 students took part in a pretest, two posttests, and a retention test. Results show that the experimental group scored slightly below the control group on these tests. The main factors involved are students’ pretest scores and the schools’ experience with ICT. Possible explanations include a spill-over effect and a more superficial type of learning than expected in the experimental condition. These results do not confirm the hypotheses on the effectiveness of using online resources for algebra.

Keywords

Algebra education Online tasks Secondary education 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science for supporting this study in the frame of the “Onderwijs Bewijs” program (project number ODB08008). We thank the teachers and students for their participation and Dr. Nijs Lagerweij for his statistical advice.

References

  1. Andrade-Aréchiga, M., López, G., & López-Morteo, G. (2012). Assessing effectiveness of learning units under the teaching unit model in an undergraduate mathematics course. Computers and Education, 59, 594–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arcavi, A. (1994). Symbol sense: Informal sense-making in formal mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14(3), 24–35.Google Scholar
  3. Artigue, M. (2002). Learning mathematics in a CAS environment: The genesis of a reflection about instrumentation and the dialectics between technical and conceptual work. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 7, 245–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beentjes, J. W. J., & Van der Voort, T. H. A. (1993). Television viewing versus reading: Mental effort, retention, and inferential learning. Communication Education, 42, 91–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bokhove, C., & Drijvers, P. (2010). Digital tools for algebra education: Criteria and evaluation. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 15(1), 45–62. Google Scholar
  6. Bokhove, C., & Drijvers, P. (2012a). Effects of feedback in an online algebra intervention. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 17(1/2), 43–59.Google Scholar
  7. Bokhove, C., & Drijvers, P. (2012b). Effects of a digital intervention on the development of algebraic expertise. Computers & Education, 58(1), 197–208.Google Scholar
  8. Boon, P. (2009). A designer speaks: Designing educational software for 3D geometry. Educational Designer, 1(2). http://www.educationaldesigner.org/ed/volume1/issue2/article7/ 8 Feb 2013.
  9. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bueno-Ravel, L., & Gueudet, G. (2009). Online resources in mathematics: Teachers’ geneses and didactical techniques. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 14(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Campuzano, L., Dynarski, M., Agodini, R., & Rall, K. (Eds.). (2009). Effectiveness of reading and mathematics software products: Findings from two student cohorts: Executive summary (NCEE 2009–4042). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  12. Cheung, A., & Slavin, R.E. (2011). The effectiveness of education technology for enhancing reading achievement: A meta-analysis. http://www.bestevidence.org/reading/tech/tech.html. 8 Feb 2013.
  13. Creemers, B. P. M., Kyriakides, L., & Sammons, P. (2010). Methodological advances in educational effectiveness research. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. cTWO (2007). Rijk aan betekenis. Visie op vernieuwd wiskundeonderwijs. Rich of meaning. Vision of renewed mathematics education. Utrecht, the Netherlands: cTWO.Google Scholar
  15. Doorman, M., Drijvers, P., Gravemeijer, K., Boon, P., & Reed, H. (2012). Tool use and the development of the function concept: From repeated calculations to functional thinking. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(6), 1243–1267.Google Scholar
  16. 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.Google Scholar
  17. Drijvers, P., Tacoma, S., Besamusca, A., Doorman, M., & Boon, P. (2013). Digital resources inviting mathematics teachers’ professional development: The case of the DPICT project. ZDM, The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(7), 987–1001.Google Scholar
  18. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Freudenthal, H. (1991). Revisiting mathematics education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  20. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kirk, R. E. (1995). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioural sciences (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  22. Kulik, C.-L. C., Schwalb, B. J., & Kulik, J. A. (1982). Programmed instruction in secondary education: A meta-analysis of evaluation findings. Journal of Educational Research, 75(3), 133–138.Google Scholar
  23. Li, Q., & Ma, X. (2010). A meta-analysis of the effects of computer technology on school students’ mathematics learning. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 215–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nadolski, R. J., Kirschner, P. A., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2005). Optimising the number of steps in learning tasks for complex skills. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 223–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2008). The role of technology in the teaching and learning of mathematics. http://www.nctm.org/about/content.aspx?id=14233. 8 Feb 2013.
  26. Plomp, T., & Nieveen, N. (2014) (Eds.). Educational design research: Illustrative cases. Enschede: SLO, Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development. http://international.slo.nl/publications/edr/. 2 Jan 2014.
  27. Rakes, C. R., Valentine, J. C., McGatha, M. B., & Ronau, R. N. (2010). Methods of instructional improvement in algebra: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 372–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Reed, H., Drijvers, P., & Kirschner, P. (2010). Effects of attitudes and behaviours on learning mathematics with computer tools. Computers and Education, 55(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Salomon, G. (1984). The differential investment of mental effort in learning as a function of perceptions and attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 647–658.Google Scholar
  30. Skemp, R. R. (1976). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Mathematics Teaching, 77, 1–7.Google Scholar
  31. Stacey, K., Chick, H., & Kendal, M. (Eds.). (2004). The future of the teaching and learning of algebra: The 12th ICMI study. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  32. Tempelaar, D. (2007). Onderwijzen of bijspijkeren? Teach or remediate? Nieuw Archief voor Wiskunde, 8(1), 55–59.Google Scholar
  33. Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2007). Ten steps to complex learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  34. Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2012). Ten steps to complex learning (2nd ed.). New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  35. Watson, A. (2009). Paper 6: Algebraic reasoning. In T. Nunes, P. Bryant, & A. Watson (Eds.), Key understandings in mathematics learning. London: Nuffield Foundation.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Drijvers
    • 1
  • Michiel Doorman
    • 1
  • Paul Kirschner
    • 2
  • Bert Hoogveld
    • 2
  • Peter Boon
    • 1
  1. 1.Freudenthal Institute for Science and Mathematics EducationUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.CELSTECOpen University of the NetherlandsHeerlenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations