Patterns of Collaboration: Towards Learning Mathematics in the Era of the Semantic Web

  • Keith Jones
  • Eirini Geraniou
  • Thanassis Tiropanis
Chapter

Abstract

With current digital technologies there are a number of networked computer-based tools that provide ways for users, be they learners or teachers, to collaborate in tackling visual representations of mathematics, both algebraic and geometric. For learners, there are various ways of collaborating that can occur while the learners are tackling mathematical problems. In this chapter we use selected outcomes from recent innovative research on this aspect of learning and teaching mathematics with digital technologies to review the patterns of collaboration that can occur in terms of teacher and learner experience. Given that such patterns of collaboration are via current digital technologies, this chapter goes on to offer a view on the likely impact on the cyberlearning of mathematics of progress towards the next generation of Web technologies that seeks to make use of ideas related to the web of data and the semantic web. Such impact is likely to be in terms of enhancing the learning applications of digital technologies, improving ways of administrating the educational programmes that they support, and potentially enabling teachers to maintain involvement in technological development and use over the longer-term.

Keywords

Argumentation Algebra Collaborative learning Semantic web Web 3.0 

References

  1. Anderson, P. (2007, February). What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education. JISC Technology and Standards Watch. Available online at: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/techwatch/tsw0701b.pdf. Last Accessed 23 Aug 2011.
  2. Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., & Lassila, O. (2001). The semantic web. Scientific American, 284(4), 34–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Biggs, J. B. (1985). The role of meta-learning in study process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 55, 185–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bittencourt, I. I., Isotani, S., Costa, E., & Mizoguchi, R. (2008). Research directions on semantic web and education. Journal Scientia: Interdisciplinary Studies in Computer Science, 19(1), 59–66.Google Scholar
  5. Bizer, C. (2009). The emerging web of linked data. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 24(5), 87–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cobb, P., Boufi, A., McClain, K., & Whitenack, J. (1997). Reflective discourse and collective reflection. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(3), 258–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (1995). Producing equal-status interaction in the heterogeneous classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 32(1), 99–120.Google Scholar
  8. Cuoco, A. E., Goldenberg, E. P., & Mark, J. (1996). Habits of mind: An organizing principle for mathematics curriculum. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15(4), 375–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Devedzic, V. (2006). Semantic web and education. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. DiNucci, D. (1999). Fragmented future: Web development faces a process of mitosis, mutation, and natural selection. Print, 53(4), 32–35.Google Scholar
  11. diSessa, A. A. (2000). Changing minds: Computers, learning, and literacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dragon, T., McLaren, B. M., Mavrikis, M., & Geraniou, E. (2011). Scaffolding collaborative learning opportunities: Integrating microworld use and argumentation. In: A. Paramythis, L. Lau, S. Demetriadis, M. Tzagarakis, & S. Kleanthous (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Workshop on Adaptive Support for Team Collaboration (ASTC-2011), held in conjunction with the International Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation, and Personalization (UMAP2011) (pp. 27–35). CEUR Workshop Proceedings. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-743/
  13. EU Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency. (2011). Key data on learning and innovation through ICT at school in Europe 2011. Brussels, Belgium: EU Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency.Google Scholar
  14. Geraniou, E., Mavrikis, M., Kahn, K., Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (2009). Developing a microworld to support mathematical generalisation. In Proceedings of the 33rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 49–56), Thessalonik, Greece.Google Scholar
  15. Geraniou, G., Mavrikis, M., Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (2011). Students’ justification strategies on equivalence of quasi-algebraic expressions. In Proceedings of the 35th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 393--400), Ankara, Turkey.Google Scholar
  16. Grosseck, G. (2009). To use or not to use web 2.0 in higher education? Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 478–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gutierrez-Santos, S., Geraniou, E., Pearce-Lazard, D., & Poulovassilis, A. (2012). The design of teacher assistance tools in an exploratory learning environment for algebraic generalisation. IEEE Transactions in Learning Technologies. http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/TLT.2012.19
  18. Gutierrez-Santos, S., Mavrikis, M., & Magoulas, G. (2010). Layered development and evaluation for intelligent support in exploratory environments: The case of microworlds. In Proceedings of Intelligent Tutoring Systems Conference (ITS 2010) (Vol. 6094, pp. 105–114). Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer: Pittsburgh, USA.Google Scholar
  19. Healy, L., & Kynigos, C. (2010). Charting the microworld territory over time: Design and construction in mathematics education. ZDM: The International Journal of Mathematics Education, 42(1), 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hendler, J. (2009). Web 3.0 emerging. Computer, 42(1), 111–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hoyles, C. (1993). Microworlds/schoolworlds: The transformation of an innovation. In C. Keitel, & K. Ruthven (Eds.), Learning from computers: Mathematics education and technology (pp. 1–17). NATO ASI Series. Series F, Computer and Systems Sciences (121). Berlin, Germany/New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Jones, K. (2011). The value of learning geometry with ICT: Lessons from innovative educational research. In A. Oldknow & C. Knights (Eds.), Mathematics education with digital technology (pp. 39–45). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  23. Laningham, S. (Ed.). (2006). Tim Berners-Lee. Podcast, developerWorks Interviews, 22nd August, IBM website. Available online at: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/podcast/dwi/cm-int082206txt.html. Last Accessed 23 Aug 2011.
  24. Lavicza, Z., Hohenwarter, M., Jones, K., Lu, A., & Dawes, M. (2010). Establishing a professional development network around dynamic mathematics software in England. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 17(4), 177–182.Google Scholar
  25. Law, N., Pelgrum, W. J., & Plomp, T. (Eds.). (2008). Pedagogy and ICT use in schools around the world: Findings from the IEA SITES 2006 Study. Hong Kong/Dordrecht, the Netherlands: CERC/Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Leonard, J. (2001). How group composition influenced the achievement of sixth-grade mathematics students. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 3(2–3), 175–200.Google Scholar
  27. Linchevski, L., & Kutscher, B. (1998). Tell me with whom you’re learning, and I’ll tell you how much you’ve learned: Mixed-ability versus same-ability grouping in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(5), 533–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., Scheuer, O., & McLaren, B. M. (2009). Towards a flexible intelligent tutoring system for argumentation. In I. Adeo, N. Chen, Kinshuk, D. Sampson, & L. Zaitseva (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2009) (pp. 647–648). Los Alamitos, CA.Google Scholar
  29. Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., Spence, J. C., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B., & d’Apollonia, S. (1996). Within-class grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 423–458.Google Scholar
  30. Maddux, C. D., & Johnson, D. L. (2011a). Technology in education: The concept of cultural momentum. Computers in the Schools, 28(1), 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Maddux, C. D., & Johnson, D. L. (2011b). Future trends in information technology in education. Computers in the Schools, 28(2), 87–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Maudsley, D. B. (1979). A theory of meta-learning and principles of facilitation: An organismic perspective. University of Toronto, 1979 (40, 8, 4354-4355-A).Google Scholar
  33. Mavrikis, M., Noss, R., Hoyles, C., & Geraniou, E. (2012). Sowing the seeds of algebraic generalisation: Designing epistemic affordances for an intelligent microworld. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00469.x.
  34. McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. W. (2007). Social software and participatory learning: Pedagogical choices with technology affordances in the Web 2.0 era. In ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007. Available online at: http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/mcloughlin.pdf. Last Accessed 23 Aug 2011.
  35. Noss, R., Poulovassilis, A., Geraniou, E., Gutierrez-Santos, S., Hoyles, C., Kahn, K., et al. (2012). The design of a system to support exploratory learning of algebraic generalisation. Computers and Education, 59(1), 63–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Papert, S. (1980). Computer-based microworlds as incubators for powerful ideas. In R. Taylor (Ed.), The computer in the school: Tutor, tool, tutee (pp. 203–210). New York: Teacher’s College Press.Google Scholar
  37. Pearce-Lazard, D., Poulovassilis, A., & Geraniou, E. (2010). The design of teacher assistance tools in an exploratory learning environment for mathematics generalisation. In: Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (EC-TEL) (Lecture notes in computer science, Vol. 6383, pp. 260–275). Barcelona, Spain: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Rollett, H., Lux, M., Strohmaler, M., Dosinger, G., & Tochtermann, K. (2007). The Web 2.0 way of learning with technologies. International Journal of Learning Technology, 3(1), 87--107.Google Scholar
  39. Scheuer, O., McLaren, B. M., Loll, F., & Pinkwart, N. (2009). An analysis and feedback infrastructure for argumentation learning systems. In V. Dimitrova, R. Mizoguchi, B. du Boulay, & A. Graesser (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED-09) (pp. 629–631). IOS Press: Brighton, UK.Google Scholar
  40. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense-making in mathematics. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook for research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334–370). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  41. Shadbolt, N., O’Hara, K., Salvadores, M., & Alani, H. (2011). eGovernment. In J. Domingue, D. Fensel, & J. A. Hendler (Eds.), Handbook of semantic web technologies (pp. 839–900). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  42. Shaffer, D. W. (2007). How computer games help children learn. New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  43. Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  44. Stahl, G., Zhou, N., Cakir, M. P., & Sarmiento-Klapper, J. W. (2011). Seeing what we mean: Co-experiencing a shared virtual world. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL 2011) (pp. 534–541). Hong Kong, China.Google Scholar
  45. Thompson, P. (1987). Mathematical microworlds and intelligent computer-assisted instruction. In Artificial intelligence and instruction: Applications and methods (pp. 83–109). Boston: Addison-Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
  46. Tiropanis, T., Davis, H., Millard, D., & Weal, M. (2009a). Semantic technologies for learning and teaching in the Web 2.0 era: A survey. In WebSci'09: society on-line, Athens, Greece, 18–20 March 2009. Available online at: http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18429/. Last Accessed 23 Aug 2011.
  47. Tiropanis, T., Davis, H., Millard, D., & Weal, M. (2009b). Semantic technologies for learning and teaching in the Web 2.0 era. Intelligent Systems, IEEE, 24(6), 49–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Warren, E., & Cooper, T. (2008). The effect of different representations on Year 3 to 5 students’ ability to generalise. ZDM: The International Journal of Mathematics Education, 40(1), 23–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Keith Jones
    • 1
  • Eirini Geraniou
    • 2
  • Thanassis Tiropanis
    • 3
  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK
  2. 2.Institute of EducationUniversity of LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.ECS Web and Internet Science GroupUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations