Advertisement

Connectivity and Virtual Networks for Learning

  • Celia Hoyles
  • Ivan Kalas
  • Luc Trouche
  • Laurent Hivon
  • Richard Noss
  • Uri Wilensky
Chapter
Part of the New ICMI Study Series book series (NISS, volume 13)

Abstract

We present papers that indicate the potential and challenge of connectivity within or between mathematics classroms.

Keywords

Collaboration Virtual networks 

References

  1. Abrahamson, D., & Wilensky, U. (2002). Statistics as situated probability: The design and implementation of S.A.M.P.L.E.R.Google Scholar
  2. Blikstein, P., & Wilensky, U. (2005). Less is more: Agent-based simulation as a powerful learning tool in materials science. Proceedings of the 4th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2005), Utrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  3. Centola, D., Wilensky, U., & McKenzie, E. (2000). A hands-on modeling approach to evolution: Learning about the evolution of cooperation and altruism through multi-agent modeling - The EACH Project. Proceedings of the fourth Annual International Conference of the Learning Sciences(ICLS) , Ann Arbor, MI, June 14–17, 2000.Google Scholar
  4. Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & McClain, K. (Eds.) (2002). Symbolizing and Communicating in Mathematics Classrooms: Perspectives on Discourse Tools and Instructional Design (pp. 361–383). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  5. Drijvers, P., & Trouche, L. (2008). ‘From artifacts to instruments: A theoretical framework behind the orchestra metaphor’. In G. W. Blume & M. K. Heid (Eds.), Research on Technology and the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics: Vol. 2. Cases and Perspectives, (pp. 363–392). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar
  6. Gueudet, G., & Trouche, L. (to appear). ‘Towards New Documentation Systems for Mathematics Teachers?’. Educational Studies in Mathematics.Google Scholar
  7. Guin, D., & Trouche, L. (2005). ‘Distance training, a key mode to support teachers in the integration of ICT? Towards collaborative conception of living pedagogical resources’. In M. Bosch (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth Conference of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education, CERME 4 , Sant Feliu de Guíxols, Spain.Google Scholar
  8. Guin, D., Ruthven, K., & Trouche, L. (Eds.) (2004). The Didactical Challenge of Symbolic Calculators: Turning a Computational Device into a Mathematical Instrument. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Hegedus, S., & Penuel, W. (2008). Studying new forms of participation and classroom identity in mathematics classrooms with integrated communication and representational infrastructures. Special Issue of Educational Studies in Mathematics: Democratizing Access to Mathematics through Technology - Issues of design and Implementation, 68(2), 171–184.Google Scholar
  10. Hivon, L., Péan, M., & Trouche, L. (2008). ‘D’un réseau de calculatrices à la construction collaborative du savoir dans la classe. Repères-IREM, 72, 79–102.Google Scholar
  11. Hoyles, C., Noss, R., & Adamson, R. (2002). Rethinking the microworld idea. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 27(1&2), 29–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hoyles, C., Noss, R., & Kent, P. (2004). ‘On the integration of digital technologies into mathematics classrooms’. International Journal for Computers in Mathematical Learning, 9(3), 309–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jones, I., & Pratt, D. (2006). Connecting the equals sign. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 11(3), 301–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kalas, I., & Winczer, M. (2006). Building interfaces for on-line collaborative learning. Education and Information Technologies, 11(3/4), 371–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lehotska, D. (2006). Visual fractions in teacher training. In Imagining the Future for ICT and Education: Abstracts and Proceedings from the WG 3.1 & 3.5 Joint Conference . Norway: Alesund University College.Google Scholar
  16. Lehotska, D., & Kalas, I. (2005). LVF - Interface for Dynamic Fractions. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching, Vol. 1 , (pp. 108–116). Bristol: University of Bristol.Google Scholar
  17. Levy, S., Novak, M., & Wilensky, U. (in press). Students' Learning with the Connected Chemistry (CC1) Curriculum: Navigating the Complexities of the Particulate World. Journal of Science Education and Technology.Google Scholar
  18. Moreno-Armella, L., Hegedus, S., & Kaput, J. (2008). Static to dynamic mathematics: Historical and representational perspectives. Special Issue of Educational Studies in Mathematics: Democratizing Access to Mathematics through Technology - Issues of design and Implementation, 68(2), 99–111.Google Scholar
  19. Noss, R. (2008). Expressing generality: A computational approach. Proceedings of the Asian Technology Conference in Mathematics.Google Scholar
  20. Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (1996). Windows on Mathematical Meanings. Learning Cultures and Computers. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Noss, R., Hoyles, C., Gurtner, J-L., Adamson, R., & Lowe, S. (2002). Face-to-face and online collaboration: appreciating rules and adding complexity. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Lifelong Learning, 12(5/6), 521–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pearce, D., Geraniou, E., Mavrikis, M. & Gutierrez, S. (2008a). “Issues in the Design of an Environment to Support the Learning of Mathematical Generalisation” (accepted). European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (EC-TEL’08). Maastricht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  23. Pearce, D., Mavrikis, M., Geraniou, E., Gutiérrez, S., & Kahn, K. (2008b). An Environment for Expressing Mathematical Generalisation using Pattern Construction and Analysis, Workshop for HCI for Technology Enhanced Learning, at HCI2008 Culture, Creativity, Interaction.Google Scholar
  24. Penner, D. E. (2000). Explaining systems: Investigating middle school students' understanding of emergent phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 784–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rabardel, P. (1995). People and technology, a cognitive approach to contemporary instruments, available at http://ergoserv.psy.univ-paris8.fr/Google Scholar
  26. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge Building: Theory, Pedagogy and Technology. In Sawyer, K. (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, (pp. 97–118). Cambridge, U.K.: C.U.PGoogle Scholar
  27. Sengupta, P., & Wilensky, U. (2005). N.I.E.L.S: An Emergent Multi-Agent Based Modeling Environment for learning Physics. In Agent-Based Systems for Human Learning, workshop of 4th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2005) . Utrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  28. Stieff, M., & Wilensky, U. (2003). Connected Chemistry - Incorporating interactive simulations into the chemistry classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(3), 285–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Trouche, L. (2004). ‘Managing Complexity of Human/Machine Interactions in Computerized Learning Environments: Guiding Student's Command Process Through Instrumental Orchestrations’. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9, 281–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Turcsanyi-Szabo, M., & Kalas, I. (2005). Collaboration - a tool for learning. Proceedings of 10th European Logo Conference EuroLogo 2005 Warsaw, (pp. 54–65).Google Scholar
  31. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice. Learning, Meaning, Identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Wilensky, U. (1999). NetLogo [Computer Software]. Evanston, IL: Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University, http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo.Google Scholar
  33. Wilensky, U., & Reisman, K. (2006). Thinking like a wolf, a sheep or a firefly: Learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories. Cognition and Instruction, 24(2), 171–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wilensky, U., & Resnick, M. (1999). Thinking in levels: A dynamic systems approach to making sense of the world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wilensky, U., & Stroup, W. (1999a). HubNet. Evanston, IL: Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
  36. Wilensky, U., & Stroup, W. (1999b). Learning through participatory simulations: Network-based design for systems learning in classrooms. Proceedings of the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Conference (CSCL ‘99) , Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  37. Wilensky, U., Novak, M., & Rand, W. (2006). BEAGLE Evolution Curriculum. Evanston, IL: Center for Connected Learning and Computer Based Modeling, Northwestern University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Celia Hoyles
    • 1
  • Ivan Kalas
    • 2
  • Luc Trouche
    • 3
  • Laurent Hivon
    • 4
  • Richard Noss
    • 1
  • Uri Wilensky
    • 5
  1. 1.London Knowledge Lab, Institute of EducationUniversity of LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Comenius UniversityBratislavaSlovakia
  3. 3.INRP: National Institute for Pedagogical Research and LEPS, University of LyonLyon CedexFrance
  4. 4.IREM: Institute for Research on Mathematics TeachingOrléansFrance
  5. 5.Northwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA

Personalised recommendations