An evaluation of interactive tabletops in elementary mathematics education
- 2k Downloads
This research examined the effect that a relatively new Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) device, specifically an interactive tabletop, has on elementary students’ attitudes toward collaborative technologies, mathematical achievement, and the gender gap in mathematics. Prior research has shown many positive effects of CSCL technologies on mathematics education, such as increased math performance and an increased interest in math. Further, previous research has shown inconsistent results regarding gender differences in mathematics and has not examined the effect that CSCL technology has on the gender gap. Therefore, the effects of interactive tabletops on math performance, attitudes, and gender differences were examined. This study was conducted using a sample of 53 elementary students. The technology was brought to the classroom twice each week for an entire academic semester. To obtain a more accurate understanding of the influence of the CSCL technology, both self-report data and performance data were collected. Specifically, changes in students’ attitudes and reactions and changes in cognitive learning were measured. The results show that students learn and react favorably towards interactive tabletops. Implications for future research are discussed.
KeywordsComputer Supported Collaborative Learning Mathematics Elementary students Gender differences Interactive tabletops
This material is based on research sponsored by Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) under agreement number FA8750-09-1-0208. The U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Governmental purposes notwithstanding any copyright notation thereon. The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies or endorsements, either expressed or implied, of DARPA or the U.S. Government. The authors would like to thank Joseph Mazzola, Courtney Nelson, Kelsey Parker, Lauren Robertson, and Mathias Simmons for their helpful comments and suggestions. The authors would also like to thank Annalise Brady and Liang Kong for their contributions in designing the educational game and providing technical support.
- Beltran, D. O., Das, K. K., & Fairlie, R. W. (2008). Are computers good for children? The effects of home computers on educational outcomes. Centre for Economic Policy Research, Research School of Economics, Australian National University.Google Scholar
- Chan, C. K. K., & Van Aalst, J. (2004). Learning, assessment and collaboration in computer-supported environments. In J. W. Strijbos, P. A. Kirschner, & R. L. Martens (Eds.), What we know about CSCL: And implementing it in higher education (pp. 87–112). USA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organization design. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 6, pp. 191–233). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc.Google Scholar
- Diekman, A. B., Brown, E. R., Johnston, A. M., & Clark, E. K. (2010). Seeking congruity between goals and roles: A new look at why women opt out of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers. [Research Support, U.S. Gov’t, Non-P.H.S.]. Psychological Science, 21(8), 1051–1057. doi: 10.1177/0956797610377342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Evans, M. A., Feenstra, E., Ryon, E., & McNeill, D. (2011). A multimodal approach to coding discourse: Collaboration, distributed cognition, and geometric reasoning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(2), 253–278. doi: 10.1007/s11412-011-9113-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Francescato, D., Porcelli, R., Mebane, M., Cuddetta, M., Klobas, J., & Renzi, P. (2006). Evaluation of the efficacy of collaborative learning in face-to-face and computer-supported university contexts. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(2), 163–176. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2005.03.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Groff, J., & Mouza, C. (2008). A framework for addressing challenges to classroom technology use. AACE Journal, 16(1), 21–46.Google Scholar
- Groves, S. (n.d.). District Benchmark Assessment Program. Retrieved from http://www.ba.k12.ok.us/vnews/display.v/ART/4e5544c381557?in_archive=1.
- Gweon, G., Rosé, C. P., Albright, E., & Cui, Y. (2006). Help providers and help receivers in a computer supported collaborative learning environment. Paper presented at the Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Banff, Alberta, Canada.Google Scholar
- Knowledge Adventure. (2010). Math Blaster. Torrance, CA: Knowledge Holdings, Incorporated.Google Scholar
- Kock, N., Garza, V., & Rangel, M. (2009). Media naturalness reduction and compensatory channel expression: A study of online and face-to-face sections of the same course. Paper presented at the International Conference on Information Resources Management.Google Scholar
- Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
- McGraw, R., Lubienski, S. T., & Strutchens, M. E. (2006). A closer look at gender in NAEP mathematics achievement and affect data: Intersections with achievement, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(2), 129–150.Google Scholar
- Miller, D., Glover, D., & Averis, D. (2004). Motivation: The contribution of interactive whiteboards to teaching and learning in mathematics. Retrieved from http://rcsdk8.edlioschool.com/pdf/technology.../iwb/IWB_MOtivation.pdf.
- Mohammed, A. A., & Kanpolat, Y. E. (2010). Effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction on enhancing the classification skill in second-graders at risk for learning disabilities. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 8(3), 1115–1130.Google Scholar
- Richtel, M. (2011). In classroom of future, stagnant scores. The New York Times. Google Scholar
- Rick, J., Marshall, P., & Yuill, N. (2011). Beyond one-size-fits-all: How interactive tabletops support collaborative learning. Paper presented at the 5th International Symposium on Intelligent Distributed Computing, Delft, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
- Rinn, A. N., McQueen, K. S., Clark, G. L., & Rumsey, J. L. (2008). Gender differences in gifted adolescents’ math/verbal self-concepts and math/verbal achievement: Implications for the STEM fields. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 32(1), 34–53.Google Scholar
- Robinson, J. P., & Lubienski, S. T. (2011). The development of gender achievement gaps in mathematics and reading during elementary and middle school: Examining direct cognitive assessments and teacher ratings. American Educational Research Journal, 48(2), 268–302. doi: 10.3102/0002831210372249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rosselli, M., Ardila, A., Matute, E., & Inozemtseva, O. (2009). Gender differences and cognitive correlates of mathematical skills in school-aged children. Child Neuropsychology: A Journal on Normal and Abnormal Development in Childhood and Adolescence, 15(3), 216–231. doi: 10.1080/09297040802195205.Google Scholar
- Scafidi, T., & Bui, K. (2010). Gender similarities in math performance from middle school through high school. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 37(3), 252–255.Google Scholar
- Segal, A. (2012). Do gestural interfaces promote thinking? Embodied interaction: Congruent gestures and direct touch promote performance in math. Dissertation Abstracts International, 72(7-B), 4340–4478.Google Scholar
- Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning. In R. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of: The learning sciences (pp. 409–425). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Swan, K. (2004). Learning online: A review of current research on issues of interface, teaching presence and learner characteristics. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education, into the mainstream (pp. 63–79). Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education.Google Scholar
- Watt, H. M. G. (2008). What motivates females and males to pursue sex-stereotyped careers? In H. M. G. Watt & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Gender and occupational outcomes: Longitudinal assessments of individual, social, and cultural influences (pp. 87–113). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wolfram, S. (2012). Mathematica for primary and secondary education: Wolfram Research, Incorporated. Retrieved from http://www.wolfram.com/solutions/precollege/.