Advertisement

Game Design as an Interactive Learning Environment for Fostering Students' and Teachers' Mathematical Inquiry

  • Y.B. Kafai
  • M.L. Franke
  • C.C. Ching
  • J.C. Shih
Article

Abstract

Many learning environments, computer-based or not, have been developed for either students or teachers alone to engage them in mathematical inquiry. While some headway has been made in both directions, few efforts have concentrated on creating learning environments that bring both teachers and students together in their teaching and learning. In the following paper, we propose game design as such a learning environment for students and teachers to build on and challenge their existing understandings of mathematics, engage in relevant and meaningful learning contexts, and develop connections among their mathematical ideas and their real world contexts. To examine the potential of this approach, we conducted and analyzed two studies: Study I focused on a team of four elementary school students designing games to teach fractions to younger students, Study II focused on teams of pre-service teachers engaged in the same task. We analyzed the various games designed by the different teams to understand how teachers and students conceptualize the task of creating virtual game learning environment for others, in which ways they integrate their understanding of fractions and develop notions about students' thinking in fractions, and how conceptual design tools can provide a common platform to develop meaningful fraction contexts. In our analysis, we found that most teachers and students, when left to their own devices, create instructional games to teach fractions that incorporate little of their knowledge. We found that when we provided teachers and students with conceptual design tools such as game screens and design directives that facilitated an integration of content and game context, the games as well as teachers' and students' thinking increased in their sophistication. In the discussion, we elaborate on how the design activities helped to integrate rarely used informal knowledge of students and teachers, how the conceptual design tools improved the instructional design process, and how students and teachers benefit in their mathematical inquiry from each others' perspectives. In the outlook, we discuss features for computational design learning environments.

Keywords

Preservice Teacher Instructional Design Design Tool Fair Sharing Game Design 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Baker, S. (1994). The development of children's fraction thinking in a first grade classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google Scholar
  2. Ball, D. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics. The Elementary School Journal 93(2): 373-397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baylor, A. (1997). The effects of designing instruction for text upon learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina.Google Scholar
  4. Behr, M., Harel, G., Post, T. and Lesh, R. (1993). Rational numbers: Toward a semantic analysis - emphasis on the operator construct. In T. P. Carpenter, E. Fennema and T. Romberg (Eds), Rational Numbers: An Integration of Research (pp. 13-48). Hillside, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Block, J. H. and King, N. R. (Eds) (1987). School Play. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
  6. Bride, J. W. and Lamb, C. E. (1991). Using commercial games to design teacher-made games for the mathematics classroom. Arithmetic Teacher 38: 14-22.Google Scholar
  7. Bright, G. W., Harvey, J. G. and Wheeler, M. M. (1985). Learning and mathematics games. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Monograph, Vol. 1. Reston, Va.: NCTM.Google Scholar
  8. Brophy, J. E. (1991). Conclusion to advances in research on teaching, Vol. II: Teachers' knowledge of subject matter as it relates to their teaching practice. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in Research on Teaching: Teachers' Subject Matter Knowledge and Classroom Instruction, Vol. II.(pp. 349-364). Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, A. L. and Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles and systems. In L. Schauble and R. Glaser (Eds), Innovations in Learning: New Environments for Education (pp. 289-325). Mahaw, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  10. Bruner, J., Jolly, A. and Sylva, K. (Eds) (1976). Play: Its Role in Development and Evolution. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  11. Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E. and Franke, M. L. (1996). Cognitively guided instruction: A knowledge base for reform in primary mathematics instructions. Elementary School Journal 97(1): 1-20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cobb, P., Wood, T., Yackel, E., Nicholls, J., Wheatley, G., Trigatti, B. and Perlwitz, M. (1991). Assessment of a problem-centered second-grade mathematics project. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 22: 3-29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cobb, P., Yackel, T. and Wood, T. (1992). Interaction and learning in mathematics classroom situations. Educational Studies in Mathematics 23: 99-122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Confrey, J. (1996). Strengthening early algebra through a splitting approach in elementary education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational research Association, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  15. Dugdale, S. (1981). Green globs: A microcomputer application for graphing of equations. CERL Report E-21, University of Illinois, Urbana.Google Scholar
  16. Edwards, L. (1991). Children's Learning in a Computer Microworld for Transformation Geometry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 22(2): 122-137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fennell, F., Houser, L. L., McPartland, D. and Parker, S. (1984, February). Ideas. Arithmetic Teacher 31: 27-33.Google Scholar
  18. Fennema, E. and Franke, M. L. (1992). Teachers' knowledge and its impact. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 147- 164). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  19. Fennema, E., Franke, M. L., Carpenter, T. P. and Carey, D. A. (1993). Using children's knowledge in instruction. American Educational Research Journal 30: 555-583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fennema, E., Carpenter, T., Franke, M., Levi, L., Jacobs, V. and Empson, S. (1996). A longitudinal study of learning to use children's thinking in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 27(4): 403-434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fischer, G. and Lemke, A. C. (1987/88). Construction kits and design environments. Human-Computer Interaction 3: 179-222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Franke, M. L., Kafai, Y. B. and Shih, J. (1997, April). Pre-service Teachers' Conceptions of Learning through Making Games. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Ill.Google Scholar
  23. Franke, M. L., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Ansell, E. and Behrend, J. (in press). Understanding teachers' self-sustaining, generative change in the context of professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education.Google Scholar
  24. Grouws, D. (Ed.) (1992). Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  25. Harel, I. (1991). Children Designers. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
  26. Harel, G. and Confrey, J. (1994). The Development of Multiplicative Reasoning. Albany, NY: SUNY.Google Scholar
  27. Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. O., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Human, P., Murray, H., Olivier, A. and Wearne, D. (1996). Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: The case of mathematics. Educational Researcher 25(4): 12-21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hiebert, J. and Behr, M. (1988). Number Concepts and Operations in the Middle Grades. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. Kafai, Y. B. (1995). Minds in Play: Computer Game Design as a Context for Learning. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  30. Kerslake, D. (1986). Children's Understanding of Mathematics: 11-16.Windsor, England: NFER-Nelson.Google Scholar
  31. Kieren, T. (1976). On the mathematical cognitive and instructional foundations of rational numbers. In R. Lesh (Ed.), Number and Measurement. Columbus, OH: ERIC/SMEAC.Google Scholar
  32. Kieren, T. (1988). Personal knowledge of rational numbers: Its intuitive and formal development. In J. Hiebert and M. Behr (Eds), Number Concepts and Operations in theMiddle Grades. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  33. Kieren, T. (1993). Rational numbers and fractional numbers: From quotient fields to recursive understanding. In T. P. Carpenter, E. Fennema and T. Romberg (Eds), Rational Numbers: An Integration of Research (pp. 49-84). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  34. Lampert, M. (1989).When the problem is not the question and the solution not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal 27(1): 2963.Google Scholar
  35. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics, and Culture in Everyday Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Lave, J. (1996). Teaching as learning in practice. Mind, Culture and Activity 3(3): 149-164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Leinhardt, G. and Smith, D. A. (1985). Expertise in mathematics instruction: Subject matter knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology 3: 247-2741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lehrer, R. and Franke, M. L. (1992). Applying personal construct psychology to the study of teachers' knowledge of fractions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 23(3): 223-241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Loef, M. (1991). Understanding teachers; Knowledge about building instruction on children's mathematical thinking: Application of a personal construct approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google Scholar
  40. Mack, N. (1990). Learning fractions with understanding: Building on informal knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 21: 16-32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Malone, T. W. and Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. In R. E. Snow and M. J. Farr (Eds), Aptitude, Learning and Instruction. Volume 3: Conative and Affective Process Analyses (pp. 223-253). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  42. Munby, H. (1982). The place of teachers; beliefs in research on teaching thinking and decision making, and an alternative methodology. Instructional Science 11: 201-225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Piaget, J. (1951). Play, Dreams, and Imitation in Childhood. New York: W. Norton.Google Scholar
  44. Pope, M. and Keen, T. (1981). Personal Construct Psychology in Education. London: Academic.Google Scholar
  45. Post, T. R. (1981). Fractions: Results and implications from national assessment. Arithmetic Teacher 28(9): 26-31.Google Scholar
  46. Priester, S. (1984, March). SUM 9.9: A game for decimals. Arithmetic Teacher 31: 46-47.Google Scholar
  47. Provenzo, E. F. (1991). Video Kids: Making Sense of Nintendo. Cambridge,Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Resnick, L. (1987). Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher 16(12): 13-20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Saxe, G. B. and Bermudez, T. (1996). Emergent mathematical environments in children's games. In P. Nesher, L. D. Steffe, P. Cobb, B. Goldin and B. Greer (Eds), Theories of Mathematical Learning (pp. 51-68). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  50. Schifter, D. and Fosnot, C. T. (1993). Reconstructing Mathematics Education: Stories of Teachers Meeting the Challenge of Reform.New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  51. Solas, J. (1992). Investigating teacher and student thinking about the process of teaching and learning using autobiography and repertory grid. Review of Educational Research 62(2): 205-225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Streefland, L. (1991). Fractions in Realistic Mathematics Education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  53. Streefland, L. (1993). Fractions: A realistic approach. In T. P. Carpenter, E. Fennema and T. A. Romberg (Eds), Rational Numbers: An Integration of Research. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  54. Sutton-Smith, B. (1986). Toys as Culture. New York: Gardener Press.Google Scholar
  55. Wood, T., Cobb, P. and Yackel, E. (1991). Change in teaching mathematics: A case study. American Educational Research Journal 28(3): 587-616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Y.B. Kafai
    • 1
  • M.L. Franke
    • 1
  • C.C. Ching
    • 1
  • J.C. Shih
    • 1
  1. 1.UCLAGraduate School of Education & Information StudiesLos AngelesU.S.A

Personalised recommendations