Advertisement

Using One-to-One Mobile Technology to Support Student Discourse

  • Shannon Larsen
  • Kelly McCormick
  • Josephine Louie
  • Pamela Buffington
Chapter
First Online:
Part of the ICME-13 Monographs book series (ICME13Mo)

Abstract

Education researchers, administrators, and classroom teachers in Auburn, Maine, USA are using a design-based, iterative research approach to examine how screencasting apps can support student discourse in K–2 mathematics classrooms equipped with one-to-one mobile technology (iPads). Preliminary data analysis shows that in addition to enhancing mathematical communication, the purposeful use of screencasting apps supports more equitable opportunities for student participation in mathematics discourse, facilitates effective talk moves such as wait time, involves students in self and peer assessment, and engages students in productive struggle. Early findings also suggest that when teachers utilize this approach in their classroom, their beliefs about student capabilities may increase and their teaching practices may change.

Keywords

Screencasting Mathematical discourse Formative assessment Productive struggle Research-practice partnership 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Supported by the National Science Foundation (grant DRL-1238253). Opinions expressed in this manuscript are those of the contributors and not necessarily those of the Foundation.

References

  1. Attard, C. (2013). Introducing iPads into primary mathematics pedagogies: An exploration of two teachers’ experiences. In V. Steinle, L. Ball, & C. Bardini, (Eds.), Mathematics Education: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow—36th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 58–65).Google Scholar
  2. Attard, C., & Curry, C. (2012). Exploring the use of iPads to engage young students with mathematics. In J. Dindyal, L. P. Cheng, & S. F. Ng (Eds.), Mathematics Education. Expanding Horizons. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 75–82).Google Scholar
  3. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappa, 80(October), 139–144, 146–148.Google Scholar
  4. Blair, K. P. (2013). Learning in critter corral: Evaluating three kinds of feedback in a preschool math app. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 372–375). ACM. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2485814.
  5. Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2004). Learning trajectories in mathematics education. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(2), 81–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI). (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics (CCSSM). Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. http://www.corestandards.org/Math/.
  7. Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dorph, G. Z., & Holtz, B. W. (2000). Professional development for teachers: Why doesn’t the model change? Journal of Jewish Education, 66(1–2), 67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. E. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Google Scholar
  10. Fontana, D., & Fernandes, M. (1994). Improvements in mathematics performance as a consequence of self-assessment in Portuguese primary school pupils. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 407–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fosnot, C. T., & Dolk, M. (2001). Young mathematicians at work: Constructing number sense, addition, and subtraction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  12. Ginsburg, H. P., Jamalian, A., & Creighan, S. (2013). Cognitive guidelines for the design and evaluation of early mathematics software: The example of MathemAntics. In L. D. English & J. T. Mulligan (Eds.), Reconceptualizing early mathematics learning (pp. 83–120). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-94-007-6440-8_6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goodwin, K., & Highfield, K. (2013). A framework for examining technologies and early mathematics learning. In L. D. English & J. T. Mulligan (Eds.), Reconceptualizing early mathematics learning. Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media.Google Scholar
  14. Hall, L. (2015, December 2). I gave my students iPads—Then I wished I could take them back. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-gave-my-students-ipads–then-wished-i-could-take-them-back/2015/12/02/a1bc8272-818f-11e5-a7ca-6ab6ec20f839_story.html.
  15. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.  https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hwang, G., Hung, C., & Chen, N. (2014). Improving learning achievements, motivations and problem-solving skills through a peer assessment-based game development approach. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62, 129–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S., & Hewson, P. W. (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  18. Moschkovich, J. N. (2012). How equity concerns lead to attention to mathematical discourse. In B. Herbel-Eisenmann, J. Choppin, D. Wagner, & D. Pimm (Eds.), Equity in discourse for mathematics education (pp. 89–105). Netherlands, Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  20. Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Haugan Cheng, B., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational Researcher, 40(7), 331–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sedig, K., & Liang, H. N. (2006). Interactivity of visual mathematical representations: Factors affecting learning and cognitive processes. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17(2), 179–212.Google Scholar
  22. Showers, B., & Joyce, B. (1996). The evolution of peer coaching. Educational Leadership, 53(6), 12–16.Google Scholar
  23. Small, M. (2012). Good questions: Great ways to differentiate math instruction (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  24. 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
  25. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2014.931867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Soto, M., & Hargis, J. (2014). Students explain everything using iPads. Learning and Leading with Technology, 32–33.Google Scholar
  27. Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M. A., & Silver, E. A. (2000). Implementing standards based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  28. Warshaur, H. K. (2015). Strategies to support productive struggle. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 20(March), 390–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wiliam, D. (2000). Formative assessment in mathematics: Part 3: The learner’s role. Equals: Mathematics and Special Educational Needs, 6(Spring), 19–22.Google Scholar
  30. Yelland, N., & Kilderry, A. (2010). Becoming numerate with information and communications technologies in the twenty-first century. International Journal of Early Years Education, 18(2), 91–106.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2010.494426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shannon Larsen
    • 1
  • Kelly McCormick
    • 2
  • Josephine Louie
    • 3
  • Pamela Buffington
    • 3
  1. 1.University of Maine at FarmingtonFarmingtonUSA
  2. 2.University of Southern MainePortlandUSA
  3. 3.Education Development CenterWalthamUSA

Personalised recommendations