Skip to main content

From New Technological Infrastructures to Curricular Activity Systems: Advanced Designs for Teaching and Learning

Abstract

We suggest an “advanced design” for teaching and learning should offer a plan for bridging the gap between new technological affordances and what most teachers need and can use. We draw attention to three different foci of design: (a) design of representational and communicative infrastructure (b) design of curricular activity systems, and (c) design of new classroom practices and routines. Two different SimCalc projects are presented to illustrate these design foci; both concern the use of technology to democratize access to conceptually demanding mathematics among adolescents. We particularly emphasize curricular activity systems because we are finding that attention to this focus of design has been critically important in our ability to measure learning outcomes at the scale of hundreds of teachers.

Keywords

  • Mathematics
  • Technology
  • Activities
  • Representation
  • Curriculum design
  • Networks
  • Scaling up

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-88279-6_9
  • Chapter length: 30 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-0-387-88279-6
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Fig. 9.1
Fig. 9.2
Fig. 9.3
Fig. 9.4
Fig. 9.5

References

  • Abu-Hilal, M. (2000). A structural model for predicting mathematics achievement: Its relation with anxiety and self-concept in mathematics. Psychological Reports, 86, 835-847.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms, goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, D. L. & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is - or might be - the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform. Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6-8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, D., Roskam, A., Morris, A., Hiebert, J., Suzuka, K., Lewis, J., et al. (2009). Improving mathematics teaching and teacher education through “specification”. Paper presented at the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Research Precession, Washington DC, April, 21, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barab, S. & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1-14.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 403-436.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, P., Hoadley, C. M., & Linn, M. C. (2004). Design-based research in education. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 73-85). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boaler, J. (2002). Experiencing school mathematics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cazden, C. B. & Beck, S. W. (2003). Classroom discourse. In A. C. Graesser, M. A. Gernsbacher & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), Handbook of discourse processes (pp. 165-197). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & McClain, K. (eds). (2002). Communicating and symbolizing in mathematics: Perspectives on discourse, tools, and instructional design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1999). Instruction, capacity, and improvement (No. CPRE Research Report No. RR-043). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S., & Ball, D. L. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 1-24.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, A. (1999). Negotiating social differences: Youth’s assessments of educators’ strategies. Urban Education, 34, 338-369.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, A. & Phelan, P. (1999). Students’ multiple worlds: An anthropological approach to understanding students’ engagement with school. In T. C. Urdan (Ed.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Role of context (Vol. 2, pp. 233-283). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dede, C. (2004). If design-based research is the answer, what is the question? A commentary on Collins, Joseph, and Bielaczyc; diSessa and Cobb; and Fishman, Marx, Blumenthal, Krajcik, and Soloway in the JLS special issue on design-based research. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 105-114.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A. & Cobb, P. (2004). Ontological innovation and the role of theory in design experiments. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 77-103.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Edelson, D. C. (2002). What we learn when we engage in design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105-121.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Fishman, B. (2006). It’s not about the technology [Electronic Version]. Teachers College Record. Retrieved July 6, 2006 from http://www.tcrecord.org.

  • Geary, D.C., Berch, D.B., Boykin, A.W., Embretson, S., Reyna, V., Siegler, R., et al. (2008). Report of the task group on learning processes. Retrived July 17, 2008 from http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/report/learning-processes.pdf.

  • Goldenberg, P. (1995). Multiple representations: A vehicle for understanding understandings. In D. N. Perkins, J. L. Schwartz, M. M. West & M. S. Wiske (Eds.), Software goes to school (pp. 155-171). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halverson, R., Shaffer, D., Squire, K., & Steinkuehler, C. (2006). Theorizing games in/and education. Bloomington, IN: Paper presented at the seventh International Conference on Learning Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harter, S. (1992). The relationship between perceived competence, affect, and motivational orientation within the classroom: Process and patterns of change. In A. Boggiano & T. Pittman (Eds.), Achievement and motivation: A social-developmental perspective (pp. 77-114). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegedus, S., Dalton, S., Moniz, R., & Roschelle, J. (2007). SimCalc classroom connectivity project 2: Understanding classroom interactions among diverse, connected classroom technologies (No. 1:1). North Dartmouth, MA: University of Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegedus, S., & Kaput, J. J. (2002). Exploring the phenomenon of classroom connectivity. Paper presented at the 24th Conference for the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Athens, GA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegedus, S. J. & Kaput, J. (2003). The effect of a SimCalc connected classroom on students’ algebraic thinking. Honolulu, HI: Paper presented at the Psychology in Mathematics Education conference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegedus, S. J. & Kaput, J. J. (2004). An introduction to the profound potential of connected algebra activities: Issues of representation, engagement and pedagogy. Bergen, Norway: Paper presented at the Eighth Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegedus, S., Moreno, L., & Dalton, S. (2007). Technology that mediates and participation in mathematical cognition. Paper presented at the 5th Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME), Larnaca, Cyprus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegedus, S. J. & Penuel, W. R. (2008). Studying new forms of participation and identity in mathematics classrooms with integrated communication and representational infrastructures. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 68(2), 171-183.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, D. (1995). Discourse, learning, and teaching. Review of Research in Education, 21(1), 49-95.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hiebert, J. & Grouws, D. A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’ learning. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 371-404). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Pub Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. K., Crosnoe, R., & Elder, G., Jr. (2001). Students’ attachment and academic engagement: The role of race and ethnicity. Sociology of Education, 74, 318-340.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kaput, J. (1992). Technology and mathematics education. In D. Grouws (Ed.), A handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 515-556). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaput, J. (1994). Democratizing access to calculus: New routes using old roots. In A. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Mathematical thinking and problem solving (pp. 77-155). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaput, J., & Hegedus, S. J. (2002). Exploiting classroom connectivity by aggregating student constructions to create new learning opportunities. Paper presented at the 26th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Norwich, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaput, J. & Hegedus, S. (2007). Technology becoming infrastructural in mathematics education. In R. Lesh, E. Hamilton & J. Kaput (Eds.), Foundations for the Future in Mathematics Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaput, J., Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (2002). Developing new notations for a learnable mathematics in the computational era. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 51-75). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaput, J. & Roschelle, J. (1998). The mathematics of change and variation from a millennial perspective: New content, new context. In C. Hoyles, C. Morgan & G. Woodhouse (Eds.), Rethinking the mathematics curriculum. London, UK: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaput, J. & Schorr, R. (2008). Changing representational infrastructures changes most everything: The case of SimCalc, Algebra, and Calculus. In K. Heid & G. W. Blume (Eds.), Research on the impact of technology on the teaching and learning of mathematics: Volume 2, cases and perspectives (pp. 211-253). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaput, J. J. & Thompson, P. W. (1994). Technology in mathematics education research: The first 25 years in the JRME. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(6), 676-684.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meece, J. (1991). The classroom context and student’s motivational goals. In M. Maehr & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 7, pp. 261-285). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, M. (1993). Situational interest: Its multifaceted structure in the secondary school mathematics classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 424-436.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, R. & Goldin, L. (1990). Children’s reluctance to seek help with school work. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 92-100.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (2004). Will going digital improve or transform education? [Electronic Version]. New futures for learning in the digital age. Retrieved July 30, 2008 from http://fundamentalchange.carolstrohecker.info/documents/ImproveOrTransform.pdf.

  • Phelan, P., Davidson, A., & Yu, H. (1998). Adolescents’ worlds: Negotiating family, peers, and school. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1970). The child’s conception of movement and speed. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J. & Jackiw, N. (2000). Technology design as educational research: Interweaving imagination, inquiry & impact. In A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Research design in mathematics & science education (pp. 777-797). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J. & Kaput, J. (1996). SimCalc MathWorlds for the mathematics of change. Communications of the ACM, 39(8), 97-99.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J., Kaput, J., & Stroup, W. (2000). SimCalc: Accelerating student engagement with the mathematics of change. In M. J. Jacobsen & R. B. Kozma (Eds.), Learning the sciences of the 21st century: Research, design, and implementing advanced technology learning environments (pp. 47-75). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J., Penuel, W. R., & Abrahamson, L. (2004). The networked classroom. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J., Tatar, D., Shechtman, N., Hegedus, S., Hopkins, B., Knudsen, J., et al. (2008). Extending the SimCalc approach to grade 8 mathematics (SimCalc Technical Report 02). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J., Tatar, D., Shechtman, N., Hegedus, S., Hopkins, B., Knudsen, J., et al. (2007). Can a technology-enhanced curriculum improve student learning of important mathematics? (SimCalc Technical Report 01). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J., Tatar, D., Shechtman, N., & Knudsen, J. (2008). The role of scaling up research in designing for and evaluating robustness. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 68(2), 149-170.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, A. & Pintrich, P. (1997). “Should I ask for help?” The role of motivation and attitudes in adolescents’ help seeking in math class. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 329-341.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, E. & Belmont, M. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 571-581.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Stroup, W. M., Ares, N. M., & Hurford, A. C. (2005). A Dialectic analysis of generativity: Issues of network-supported design in mathematics and science. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 7(3), 181-206.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Stroup, W. M., Kaput, J., Ares, N., Wilensky, U., Hegedus, S. J., Roschelle, J., et al. (2002). The nature and future of classroom connectivity: The dialectics of mathematics in the social space. Paper presented at the Psychology and Mathematics Education North America conference, Athens, GA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tatar, D., Roschelle, J., Knudsen, J., Shechtman, N., Kaput, J., & Hopkins, B. (2008). Scaling up innovative technology-based mathematics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(2), 248-286.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Treisman, U. & Fullilove, R. (1990). Mathematics achievement among African-American undergraduates at the University of California, Berkeley: An evaluation of the mathematics workshop program. Journal of Negro Education, 59(3), 463-478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J., Thorpe, P., & Meyer, D. (1998). Students’ reports of motivation and negative affect: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 758-771.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Vahey, P., Roschelle, J., & Tatar, D. (2007). Using handheld technology to move between private and public interactions in the classroom. In M. van ‘t Hooft & K. Swan (Eds.), Ubiquitous computing in education: Invisible technology, visible impact. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Corinne Singleton for her work on an earlier draft of this chapter. This material is based in part upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Numbers 0437861 and 033710. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeremy Roschelle .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Roschelle, J., Knudsen, J., Hegedus, S. (2010). From New Technological Infrastructures to Curricular Activity Systems: Advanced Designs for Teaching and Learning. In: Jacobson, M., Reimann, P. (eds) Designs for Learning Environments of the Future. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-88279-6_9

Download citation