Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Learner-controlled scaffolding linked to open-ended problems in a digital learning environment

  • Original Article
  • Published:
ZDM Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This exploratory study reports on how students activated learner-controlled scaffolding and navigated through sequences of connected problems in a digital learning environment. A design experiment was completed to (re)design, iteratively develop, test, and evaluate a digital version of an instructional unit focusing on binomial distributions and their applications for statistical inference. The developed materials are organized around open-ended problems linked to learner-controlled scaffolding. This study reports on a retrospective analysis of classroom observations, digital artifacts of student work, and interviews and surveys that document: (a) the ways students activated learner-controlled scaffolding linked to open-ended problems in the digital environment and (b) the observed student problem-solving pathways of activated scaffolding across connected sequences of problems related to binomial distributions and their applications for statistical inference. The results suggest that when students have the opportunity to control the level of access and challenge during problem solving using a digital medium, new opportunities are possible for the sequence of problems through which students can progress.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

(Adapted from Hirsch et al. 2015, and photos used with permission from McGraw-Hill, 2015)

Fig. 2

(Adapted from Hirsch et al. 2015, and photos used with permission from McGraw-Hill, 2015)

Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdu, R., Schwarz, B., & Mavrikis, M. (2015). Whole-class scaffolding for learning to solve mathematics problems together in a computer-supported environment. ZDM, 47(7), 1163–1178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, A., Smit, J., & Wegerif, R. (2015). Scaffolding and dialogic teaching in mathematics education: Introduction and review. ZDM, 47(7), 1047–1065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, D. L. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics. Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 373–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barab, S. (2014). Design-based research: A methodological toolkit for engineering change. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed.) (pp. 151–170). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, C. V., & Pepe, S. J. (2012). Scaffolding students’ opportunities to learn mathematics through social interactions. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 24(4), 423–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boaler, J. (1998). Open and closed mathematics: Student experiences and understandings. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(1), 41–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boaler, J., & Staples, M. (2008). Creating mathematical futures through an equitable teaching approach: The case of railside school. Teachers College Record, 110(3), 608–645.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapin, S., & O’Connor, C. (2007). Academically productive talk: Supporting student learning in mathematics. In W. G. Martin, M. Strutchens & P. Elliott (Eds.), The learning of mathematics (pp. 113–128). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, W., Rovegno, I., Cone, S. L., & Cone, T. P. (2012). An accomplished teacher’s use of scaffolding during a second-grade unit on designing games. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 83(2), 221–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choppin, J. (2011). Learned adaptations: Teachers’ understanding and use of curriculum resources. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14(5), 331–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choppin, J., Carson, C., Borys, Z., Cerosaletti, C., & Gillis, R. (2014). A typology for analyzing digital curricula in mathematics education. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology, 2(1), 11–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2004). Learning trajectories in mathematics education. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(2), 81–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, P., Gravemeijer, K., Yackel, E., McClain, K., & Whitenack, J. (1997). Mathematizing and symbolizing: The emergence of chains of signification in one first-grade classroom. In IN D. Kirshner & J. Whitson (Eds.), Situated cognition: Social, semiotic, and psychological perspectives (pp. 151–233). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19(5), 2–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O’Shea (Eds.), New directions in educational technology (pp. 15–22). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A. (1999). The changing infrastructure of education research. In E. C. Lagemann & L. S. Shulman (Eds.), Issues in education research: Problems and possibilities (pp. 289–298). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coxford, A. F., Fey, J. T., Hirsch, C. R., Schoen, H. L., Hart, E. W., Keller, B. A., et al. (2003). Contemporary mathematics in context: A unified approach, courses 1–4. Columbus: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J., Choppin, J., Roth McDuffie, A., & Drake, C. (2013). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics: Middle school teachers’ perceptions. Retrieved March 15, 2014, from http://www.warner.rochester.edu/files/warnercenter/docs/commoncoremathreport.pdf.

  • Dyer, M., & Moynihan, C. (2000). Open-ended questions in elementary mathematics: Instruction and assessment. Larchmont: Eye on Education.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edson, A. J. (2014). A study on the iterative development and efficacy of a deeply digital instructional unit on binomial distributions and statistical inference. Kalamazoo: Western Michigan University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edson, A. J. (2016). A design experiment of a deeply digital instructional unit and its impact in high school classrooms. In M. Bates & Z. Usiskin (Eds.), Digital curricula in school mathematics (pp. 177–193). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edson, A. J., & Thomas, A. (2016). Transforming preserviced mathematics teacher knowledge for and with the enacted curriculum: The case of digital instructional materials. In M. L. Niess, S. Driskell & K. Hollenbrands (Eds.), Handbook of research on transforming mathematics teacher education in the digital age (pp. 215–240). Hershey: IGI Global.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explanining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fey, J. (2009). Considering the future of K-12 STEM curricula and instructional materials: Stimulating and supporting new developments. The Center for the Study of Mathematics Curriculum Workshop Series on STEM Curriculum and Instructional Design. Retrieved March 15, 2014 from http://mathcurriculumcenter.org/conferences/stem/index.php.

  • Heaton, R. M. (2000). Teaching mathematics to the new standards: Relearning the dance. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiebert, J., & Wearne, D. (1993). Instructional tasks, classroom discourse, and students’ learning in second grade arithmetic. American Educational Research Journal, 30(2), 393–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, C. R. (Ed.). (2007). Perspectives on the design and development of school mathematics curriculum. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, C. R., Fey, J. T., Hart, E. W., Schoen, H. L., Watkins, A. E., Ritsema, B. E., et al. (2008). Core-plus mathematics, courses 1–4, 2nd edition. Columbus: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, C. R., Hart, E., Watkins, A., Fey, J., Ritsema, B., Walker, R., et al (2015). Transition to college mathematics and statistics. Columbus: McGraw-Hill School Solutions.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holton, D., & Clarke, D. (2006). Scaffolding and metacognition. International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science and Technology, 37(2), 127–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hufferd-Ackles, K., Fuson, K. C., & Sherin, M. G. (2004). Describing levels and components of a math-talk learning community. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(2), 81–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaworski, B. (1994). Investigating mathematics teaching: A constructivist inquiry. London: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, M. (2010). Productive failure in mathematical problem solving. Instructional Science, 38(6), 523–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, B. (2014). TCMS-tools. Kalamazoo: The Transition to College Mathematics and Statistics Project, Western Michigan University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lampert, M. (1990a). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27(1), 29–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lampert, M. (1990b). Connecting inventions with conventions. In L. P. Steffe & T. Wood (Eds.), Transforming children’s mathematics education (pp. 253–265). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A sociocultural approach. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaels, S., O’Connor, C., & Resnick, L. (2008). Reasoned participation: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(4), 283–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miyazaki, M., Fujita, T., & Jones, K. (2015). Flow-chart proofs with open problems as scaffolds for learning about geometrical proof. ZDM, 47(7), 1211–1224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (1996). Windows on mathematical meanings learning cultures and computers. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pea, R. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puntambekar, S., & Hubscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M., & Frick, T. W. (1999). Formative research: A methodology for creating and improving design theories. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2, pp. 633–651). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Remillard, J. T., Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A., & Lloyd, G. M. (Eds.). (2009). Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reys, B. J. (Ed.). (2006). The intended mathematics curriculum as represented in state-level curriculum standards: Consensus or confusion? Charlotte: Information Age.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richey, R. C., Klein, J., & Nelson, W. (2004). Developmental research: Studies of instructional design and development. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2nd edn., pp. 1099–1130). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (2002). Making mathematics work for all children: Issues of standards, testing, and equity. Educational Researcher, 31(1), 13–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schukajlow, S., Kolter, J., & Blum, W. (2015). Scaffolding mathematical modelling with a solution plan. ZDM, 47(7), 1241–1254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senk, S. L., & Thompson, D. R. (Eds.). (2003). Standards-based school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn? Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherin, M. G. (2002a). A balancing act: Developing a discourse community in a mathematics classroom. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 5(3), 205–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherin, M. G. (2002b). When teaching becomes learning. Cognition and Instruction, 20(2), 119–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherin, M. G., & Drake, C. (2009). Curriculum strategy framework: Investigating patterns in teachers’ use of a reform-based elementary mathematics curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41(4), 467–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silver, E. A. (1994). On mathematical problem posing. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14(1), 19–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silver, E. A., & Smith, M. (1996). Building discourse communities in mathematics classrooms: A worthwhile but challenging journey. In P. C. Elliott & M. J. Kenney (Eds.), Communication in mathematics: K-12 and beyond (pp. 20–28). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smit, J., van Eerde, H. A. A., & Bakker, A. (2013). A conceptualisation of whole-class scaffolding. British Educational Research Journal, 39(5), 817–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 455–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein, M. K., & Lane, S. (1996). Instructional tasks and the development of student capacity to think and reason: An analysis of the relationship between teaching and learning in a reform mathematics project. Educational Research and Evaluation, 2(1), 50–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M., & Silver, E. A. (2000). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, M. K., Remillard, J., & Smith, M. S. (2007). How curriculum influences student learning. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 319–370). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stender, S., & Kaiser, G. (2015). Scaffolding in complex modelling situations. ZDM, 47(7), 1255–1267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (2004). Improving mathematics teaching. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 12–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, C. A. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 344–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sztajn, P., Confrey, J., Wilson, P. H., & Edgington, C. (2012). Learning trajectory based instruction: Toward a theory of teaching. Educational Researcher, 41(5), 147–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tarr, J. E., Reys, R. E., Reys, B. J., Chávez, O., Shih, J., & Osterlind, S. J. (2008). The impact of middle-grades mathematics curricula and the classroom learning environment on student achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(3), 247–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Design-Based Research Collective (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tropper, N., Leiss, D., & Hänze, M. (2015). Teachers’ temporary support and worked-out examples as elements of scaffolding in mathematical modeling. ZDM, 47(7), 1225–1240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Usdan, J., & Gottheimer, J. (2012). FCC Chairman: Digital textbooks to all students in five years. Retrieved March 15, 2014, from http://www.fcc.gov/blog/fcc-chairman-digital-textbooks-all-students-five-years.

  • Usiskin, Z., & Willmore, E. (Eds.). (2008). Mathematics curriculum in Pacific Rim countries: China, Japan, Korea, and Singapore. Charlotte: Information Age.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yee, F. P. (2000). Open-ended problems for higher-order thinking in mathematics. Teaching and Learning, 20(2), 49–57.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Transition to College Mathematics and Statistics project with funding from the National Science Foundation Grant DRL-1020312. All opinions and analysis expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the position or policies of the Foundation. The research and its interpretation reported in this article are based on the author’s doctoral dissertation completed at Western Michigan University under the direction of Christian R. Hirsch and Steven W. Ziebarth. A previous version of this article was presented at the American Educational Research Association 2016 Annual Meeting. The author gratefully acknowledges the work of Ann Watkins, California State University–Northridge, in developing the print version of the Binomial Distributions and Statistical Inference unit and that of James Laser, Western Michigan University, in coding the initial shell for the digital prototype.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Michigan State University, 619 Red Cedar Rd, C-723 Wells Hall, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA

    Alden Jack Edson

Authors
  1. Alden Jack Edson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alden Jack Edson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Edson, A.J. Learner-controlled scaffolding linked to open-ended problems in a digital learning environment. ZDM Mathematics Education 49, 735–753 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0873-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0873-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation