Advertisement

Mathematics Education Research Journal

, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 329–348 | Cite as

Using an evaluative tool to develop effective mathscasts

  • Linda Galligan
  • Carola Hobohm
  • Katherine Peake
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

This study is situated in a course designed for both on-campus and online pre-service and in-service teachers, where student-created mathscasts provide a way for university lecturers to assess students’ quality of teaching, and understanding of mathematics. Teachers and pre-service teachers, in a university course with 90% online enrolment, were asked to create mathscasts to explain mathematics concepts at middle school level. This paper describes the process of developing and refining a tool for the creation and evaluation of quality student-produced mathscasts. The study then investigates the usefulness of the tool within the context of pedagogy and mathematical understanding. Despite an abundance of mathscasts already available on the web, there is merit in creating mathscasts, not only as a tool for teaching, but also as a means of learning by doing. The premise for creating student-produced mathscasts was to capture the creators’ mathematical understanding and pedagogical approach to teaching a mathematical concept, which were then peer-assessed and graded. The analysis included surveys, practice mathscasts with peer- and self-reviews, and students’ final assessed mathscasts. The results indicate that the use of the evaluative tool resulted in an improvement in quality of student-created mathscasts and critiques thereof. The paper concludes with a discussion on future directions of student-produced mathscasts.

Keywords

Screencasts Understanding mathematics Tablet technology Pre-service teachers Mathematics 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Anderson, R., Anderson, R., Hoyer, C., Prince, C., Su, J., Videon, F., et al. (2005). A study of diagrammatic ink in lecture. Computers & Graphics, 29(4), 480–489. doi: 10.1016/j.cag.2005.05.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chick, H. L., Baker, M., Pham, T., & Cheng, H. (2006). Aspects of teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for decimals. In J. Novotna, H. Moraova, M. Kratka, & N. Stehlikova (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 297–304). Prague: PME.Google Scholar
  3. Churches, A. (2010). Bloom’s digital taxonomy. wiki: http://edorigami.wikispaces.com/Bloom%27s+Digital+Taxonomy.
  4. Copeland, M., Dunn, P., Galligan, L., Oates, G., & Trenholm, S. (2016). Tertiary mathematics education. In K. Makar, S. Dole, J. Visnovska, M. Goos, A. Bennison, & K. Fry (Eds.), Research in Mathematics Education in Australasia 2012-2015 (pp. 187-211). Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2015). Research trends in the use of mobile learning in mathematics. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 7(4), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Galligan, L., & Hobohm, C. (2013). Students Using Digital Technologies to Produce Screencasts That Support Learning in Mathematics. In V. Steinle, L. Ball, & C. Bardini (Eds.), Mathematics education: yesterday, today and tomorrow. Proceedings of the 36th annual conference of the mathematics education research Group of Australasia (pp. 322–329). Melbourne: MERGA.Google Scholar
  7. Galligan, L., Loch, B., McDonald, C., & Hobohm, C. (2015). Conceptualising, Implementing and evaluating the use of digital technologies to enhance mathematical understanding: Reflections on an innovation-develpment cycle In J. Lock, P. Redmond, & P. Danaher (Eds.), Educational developments, practices and effectiveness: global perspectives and contexts (pp. 137–160). [Basingstoke]: Palgrave Macmillian.Google Scholar
  8. Geiger, V., Calder, N., Tan, H., Loong, E., Miller, J., & Larkin, K. (2016). Transformations of teaching and learning through digital technology. In K. Makar, S. Dole, J. Visnovska, M. Goos, A. Bennison, & K. Fry (Eds.), Research in Mathematics Education in Australasia 2012-2015 (pp. 255-280). Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Glaser, B. G. (2008). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems 12(1), 436-445.Google Scholar
  10. Handal, B., Handal, P., & Herrington, A.J. (2006). Evaluating online mathematics resources: a practical approach for teachers. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom 11(2), 8-14Google Scholar
  11. Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: a synthesis of meta-analyses relating to achievement. London New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Heilesen, S. B. (2010). What is the academic efficacy of podcasting? Computers & Education, 55(3), (1063–1068).Google Scholar
  13. Ingvarson, L., Reid, K., Buckley, S., Kleinhenz, E., Masters, G. N., & Rowley, G. (2014). Best practice teacher education programs and Australia’s own programs. Canberra: Department of Education.Google Scholar
  14. Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001). Adding It Up: Helping Children Learn Mathematics Mathematics Learning Study Committee, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Washington DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kosheleva, O., Medina-Rusch, A., & Ioudina, V. (2007). Pre-service teacher training in mathematics using tablet PC technology. Informatics in Education-An International Journal, 6(2), 321–334.Google Scholar
  16. Loch, B., & McLoughlin, C. (2011). An instructional design model for screencasting: Engaging students in self-regulated learning. In G. Williams, N. Brown, M. Pittard, & B. Cleland (Eds.), Changing Demands, Changing Directions. Proceedings ASCILITE Hobart 2011 (pp. 816–821).Google Scholar
  17. Logan, M., Bailey, N., Franke, K., & Sanson, G. (2009). Patterns of tablet PC use across multiple learning domains: a comparison program. In D. Berque, L. Konkle, & R. Reed (Eds.), The impact of tablet PCs and pen-based technology on education: new horizons (pp. 83–92). La Fayette: Purdue University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  19. Mason, J., & Spence, M. (1999). Beyond mere knowledge of mathematics: the importance of knowing-to act in the moment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 28, 135–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mathison, H., & Kosiak, J. (2011). Using podcasts to examine elementary pre-service teachers’ MCK. Paper presented at the Fifteenth Annual AMTE Conference Irvine, California.Google Scholar
  21. McMullen, S., Oates, G., & Thomas, M. (2015). An integrated technology course at university: orchistration and mediation. In K. Beswick, T. Muir, & J. Wells (Eds.), Proceedings of the 39th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 3, pp. 249–256). Hobart: PME.Google Scholar
  22. Pena, R., Jr (2011). The impact of podcasts, screencasts, and vodcasts on student achievement in the science classroom. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database. (UMI No. 3483006).Google Scholar
  23. Reason, P., & Riley, S. (2008). Co-operative inquiry: an action research practice. In J. A. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  24. Shafer, K. G. (2010). The proof is in the screencast. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 10(4), 383–410.Google Scholar
  25. Skemp, R. (1976). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Mathematics Teaching, 77, 20–26.Google Scholar
  26. Soto, M. (2014). Documenting Students’ Mathematical Thinking through Explanations and Screencasts. Ph.D., University of California, Davis, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  27. Soto, M., & Ambrose, R. (2016). Screencasts: formative assessment for mathematical thinking. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 21(2), 277–283. doi: 10.1007/s10758-015-9272-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sugar, W., Brown, A., & Luterbach, K. (2010). Examining the anatomy of a screencast: uncovering common elements and instructional strategies. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(3), 1-20.Google Scholar
  29. Vasinda, S., & McLeod, J. (2012). Digitally capturing student thinking for self-assessment: mathcasts as a window on student thinking during mathematical problem solving. In I. Chen & D. McPheeters (Eds.), Cases on Educational technology integration in urban schools (pp. 127–144). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Watson, A., De Geest, E., & Prestage, S. (2003). Deep progress in mathematics: the improving attainment in mathematics project. Oxford: University of Oxford Dept. of Educational Studies.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Inc. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Linda Galligan
    • 1
  • Carola Hobohm
    • 2
  • Katherine Peake
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Southern Queensland (Toowoomba)ToowoombaAustralia
  2. 2.University of the Sunshine Coast (Sippy Downs)Sippy DownsAustralia

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options