Advertisement

Technology, Knowledge and Learning

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 277–283 | Cite as

Screencasts: Formative Assessment for Mathematical Thinking

  • Melissa Soto
  • Rebecca Ambrose
assessment
First Online:

Abstract

Increased attention to reasoning and justification in mathematics classrooms requires the use of more authentic assessment methods. Particularly important are tools that allow teachers and students opportunities to engage in formative assessment practices such as gathering data, interpreting understanding, and revising thinking or instruction. Screencast applications on mobile devices enable teachers to collect multiple modes of communications, which students use to generate mathematical explanations. As students’ explanations are recorded in the moment and contain verbalizations, written notations, and virtual gestures, teachers are able to gain insights into students’ understanding in greater depth than any one mode individually. Additionally, misconceptions and mistakes, which are often lost in written work, are documented and can be identified to specifically target interventions. In this report, a student-generated screencast example will highlight how this technology can be used as a formative assessment tool. Also discussed are potential limitations when using the technology in classrooms and possible solutions.

Keywords

Screencasts Formative assessment Mathematical explanations Mobile devices 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Bingimlas, K. A. (2009). Barriers to the successful integration of ICT in teaching and learning environments: A review of the literature. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 5(3), 235–245.Google Scholar
  2. Crespo, S. (2000). Seeing more than right and wrong answers: Prospective teachers’ interpretations of students’ mathematical work. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 3, 155–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Culén, A. L., & Gasparini, A. (2011). iPad: A new classroom technology? A report from two pilot studies. INFuture Proceedings, 199–208.Google Scholar
  4. Educause Learning Initiative. (2006). 7 things you should know about… Screencasting. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI7012.pdf.
  5. Galligan, L. & Hobohm, C. (2013). Students using digital technologies to produce screencasts that support learning in mathematics. In Proceeding of the 36th annual conference of the mathematics education research group of Australasia: Mathematics education: yesterday, today and tomorrow. Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  6. Ginsburg, H. P. (2009). The challenge of formative assessment in mathematics education: Children’s minds, teachers’ minds. Human Development, 52, 109–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hamilton, L., Halverson, R., Jackson, S. S., Mandinach, E., Supovitz, J. A., & Wayman, J. C. (2009). Using student achievement data to support instructional decision making. IES practice guide. NCEE 2009-4067. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.Google Scholar
  8. Ifenthaler, D., & Schweinbenz, V. (2013). The acceptance of Tablet-PCs in classroom instruction: The teachers’ perspectives. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 525–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jewitt, C., & Kress, G. (Eds.). (2003). Multimodal literacy. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  10. Krebs, A. S. (2005). Analyzing student work as a professional development activity. School Science and Mathematics, 105(8), 402–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Little, J. W., Gearhart, M., Curry, M., & Kafka, J. (2003). Looking at student work for teacher learning, teacher community, and school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 85, 185–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McDougall, D., & Karadag, Z. (2008). Tracking students’ mathematical thinking online: Frame analysis method. In Proceedings of the 11th international congress on mathematical education. Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico.Google Scholar
  14. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to action: Ensuring mathematical success for all. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  15. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: Authors.Google Scholar
  16. Richards, R. (2012). Screencasting: Exploring a middle school math teacher’s beliefs and practices through the use of multimedia technology. International Journal of Instructional Media, 39(1), 55–67.Google Scholar
  17. Siemens, G., & Long, P. (2011). Penetrating the fog: Analytics in learning and education. EDUCAUSE Review, 46(5), 30.Google Scholar
  18. Soto, M. (2015). Elementary students' mathematical explanations and attention to audience with screencasts. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 47(4), 242–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Soto, M. M., & Ambrose, R. (2014). Making students' mathematical explanations accessible to teachers through the use of digital recorders and iPads. Learning, Media and Technology. doi: 10.1080/17439884.2014.93186 Google Scholar
  20. Yee, K., & Hargis, J. (2010). Screencasts. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 11(1), 9–12.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Teacher EducationSan Diego State UniversitySan DiegoUSA
  2. 2.School of EducationUniversity of California, DavisDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options