The Complexity of Integrating Technology Enhanced Learning in Special Math Education – A Case Study

  • Ann Nilsson
  • Lena Pareto
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6383)

Abstract

We present a study of integrating an educational game in special math education, to explore challenges faced during the process. The game promotes an unconventional approach supporting students having math difficulties, through visual representations, learn-by-exploration and learn-by-teaching models. Our conclusion is that integration in special education is more challenging than in the main stream counterpart, due to social vulnerability of the students, learning/teaching challenges in content, motivation and attitude, a non-typical learning situation, and the challenge of matching learning peers.

Keywords

technology enhanced learning educational game mathematics integration special education 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Adler, B.: Dyscalculia & Mathematics. Nationella Utbildningsförlaget, Sweden (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bandura, A.: Self-efficacy: the Exercise of Control. W.H. Freeman, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Biswas, G., Katzlberger, T., Bransford, J., Schwartz, D.: TAG-V: Extending Intelligent Learning Environments with Teachable Agents to Enhance Learning. In: Moore, J.D., Redfield, C.L., Johnson, W.L. (eds.) AI in Education, pp. 389–397. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Garnett, K.: Math Learning Disabilities. Division for Learning Disabilities. J. CEC (1998), http://www.ldonline.org/article/5896
  5. 5.
    Gersten, R., Chard, D.: Number Sense: Rethinking Arithmetic Instruction for Students with Mathematical Disabilities. J. Special Education 44, 18–28 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jonassen, D., Ionas, I.: Designing Effective Supports for Causal Reasoning. Educational Technology Research and Development 56(3), 287–308 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ke, F.: Alternative Goal Structures for Computer Game-Based Learning. Int. J. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 3, 429–445 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., Clark, R.E.: Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: an Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist 41(2), 75–86 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lock, R.H.: Adapting Mathematics Instruction in the General Education Classroom for Students with Mathematics Disabilities. LD Forum: Council for Learning Disabilities (1996), http://www.ldonline.org/article/5928
  10. 10.
    Mayer, R.E.: Should there Be a Three-Strikes Rule Against Pure Discovery Learning? The Case for Guided Methods of Instruction. Educational Psychologist 59, 14–19 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Miller, S.P., Mercer, C.D.: Educational Aspects of Mathematics Disabilities. J. Learning Disabilities 30(1), 47–56 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moreno, R., Mayer, R.E.: Role of Guidance, Reflection and Interactivity in an Agent-Based Multimedia Game. J. Educational Psychology 97(1), 117–128 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nussbaum, D.A., Dweck, C.S.: Defensiveness Versus Remediation: Self-Theories and Modes of Self-Esteem Maintenance. Soc. Psychology Bull. 34(5), 599–612 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pareto, L.: Graphical Arithmetic for Learners with Dyscalculia. In: 7th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. ACM, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pareto, L.: Teachable Agents that Learn by Observing Game Playing Behavior. In: Craig, S.D., Dicheva, D. (eds.) Workshop on Intelligent Educational Games at 14th AIED International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, pp. 31–40 (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pareto, L., Schwartz, D.L., Svensson, L.: Learning by Guiding a Teachable Agent to Play an Educational Game. In: 14th AIED International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, pp. 662–664. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pourdavood, R., Carignan, N., Martin, B.K., Sanders, M.: Cultural, Social Interaction and Mathematics Learning. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics 1 (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schwartz, D.L., Chase, C., Wagster, J., Okita, S., Roscoe, R., Chin, D., Biswas, G.: Interactive Metacognition: Monitoring and Regulating a Teachable Agent. In: Hacker, D.J., Dunlosky, J., Graesser, A.C. (eds.) Handbook of Metacognition in Education (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schwartz, D.L., Martin, T.: Inventing to Prepare for Learning: the Hidden Efficiency of Original Student Production in Statistics Instruction. Cogn. and Instr. 22, 129–184 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sjöberg, G.: If Not Dyscalculia-What Is It then? A Multimethod Study of Students being in Mathproblems seen from a Longitudinal Perspective. Dissertation, Umeå Univ. (2006), http://umu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:144488
  21. 21.
    Vincent, J.: MicroWorlds and the Integrated Brain. In: 7th World Conference on Computers in Education: Australian topics, vol. 8, pp. 131–137 (2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vogel, J.F., Vogel, D.S., Cannon-Bowers, J., Bowers, C.A., Muse, K., Wright, M.: Computer Gaming and Interactive Simulations for Learning: A Meta-Analysis. J. Educational Computing Research 34(3), 229–243 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ann Nilsson
    • 1
  • Lena Pareto
    • 1
  1. 1.Media production DepartmentUniversity WestSweden

Personalised recommendations