Abstract
Online learning environments are being used for teaching and learning of mathematics at university level. Exploiting the potential of digital technology, these Internet-based environments administer computer-generated homework, assistance and feedback for students. This article presents a case-study of a small group of ִundergraduate engineering students’ learning activity in mathematics in an online environment. The study focuses on students’ interactions with the online environment to make sense of the affordances of this environment. Utilizing multiple sources of data aid in analyzing the intentional and the operational aspects of students’ interactions with several resources in this environment. With regard to both of these aspects, the affordances are thus viewed as features of the environment which support students’ engagement with the mathematical tasks. The analyses show that the students incorporated several online resources for solving the tasks posed in the automated system. Students met requirements of final answers in the automated system through varying sequences of mathematical operations for the posed tasks. The conditions of the automated system as well as the rules of the collective activity system played a role in students’ interactions with the mathematical tasks.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alpers, B. A., Demlova, M., Fant, C.-H., Gustafsson, T., Lawson, D., Mustoe, L., et al. (2013). A framework for mathematics curricula in engineering education: A report of the mathematics working group. Brussels, Belgium: SEFI.
Anastasakis, M., Robinson, C. L., & Lerman, S. (2017). Links between students’ goals and their choice of educational resources in undergraduate mathematics†. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications, 36(2), 67–80.
Anderson, J. (1999). Being mathematically educated in the 21st century: What should it mean? In C. Hoyles, C. Morgan, & G. Woodhouse (Eds.), Rethinking the mathematics curriculum (pp. 8–21). London: The Falmer Press.
Bærentsen, K. B., & Trettvik, J. (2002). An activity theory approach to affordance. In S. Bødker, O. Bertelsen, & K. Kuutti (Eds.), Proceedings of the second Nordic conference on Human-Computer Interaction (Aarhus, Denmark - October 19–23, 2002) (pp. 51–60). New York: ACM.
Borba, M. C. (2007). Humans-with-media: A performance collective in the classroom. In G. Gadanidis & C. Hoogland (Eds.), Proceedings of the fields institute digital mathematical performance symposium (pp. 15–21). Toronto: Fields Institute.
Borba, M. C., Askar, P., Engelbrecht, J., Gadanidis, G., Llinares, S., & Aguilar, M. S. (2016). Blended learning, e-learning and mobile learning in mathematics education. ZDM Mathematics Education, 48(5), 589–610.
Buchem, I., Attwell, G., & Torres, R. (2011). Understanding personal learning environments: Literature review and synthesis through the activity theory lens. In Paper presented at the PLE Conference 2011. Southampton: UK.
Callahan, J. T. (2016). Assessing online homework in first-semester calculus. PRIMUS, 26(6), 545–556.
Cazes, C., Gueudet, G., Hersant, M., & Vandebrouck, F. (2006). Using e-exercise bases in mathematics: Case studies at university. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 11(3), 327–350.
Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Croft, A., & Davison, R. (2015). Mathematics for engineers (4th ed.). Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Orienta-Konsultit: Helsinki.
Engeström, Y. (1990). When is a tool? Multiple meanings of artifacts in activity. In Y. Engeström (Ed.), Learning, working and imagining: Twelve studies in activity theory (pp. 171–195). Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19–38). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y. (2014). Learning by expanding: An activity theoretical approach to developmental research (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gadanidis, G., & Geiger, V. (2010). A social perspective on technology-enhanced mathematical learning: From collaboration to performance. ZDM Mathematics Education, 42(1), 91–104.
Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting and knowing (pp. 67–82). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Greeno, J. G. (1994). Gibson's affordances. Psychological Review, 101, 336–342.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1982). Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic inquiry. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 30(4), 233–252.
Gueudet, G. (2006). Learning mathematics in class with online resources. In C. Hoyles, J.-b. Lagrange, L.H. Son, & N. Sinclair (Eds.), Proceedings of the seventeenth study conference of the International Commission on Mathematical Instruction (pp. 205-212). Hanoi: Hanoi Institute of Technology and Didirem Université Paris 7.
Gueudet, G., & Pepin, B. (2016). Students' work in mathematics and resources mediation at university. In E. Nardi, C. Winsløw, & T. Hausberger (Eds.), Proceedings of the first conference of international network for didactic research in university mathematics (INDRUM) (pp. 444–453). Montpellier, France: University of Montpellier and INDRUM.
Gueudet, G., & Pepin, B. (2018). Didactic contract at the beginning of university: A focus on resources and their use. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 4(1), 56–73.
Jaworski, B., & Potari, D. (2009). Bridging the macro-and micro-divide: Using an activity theory model to capture sociocultural complexity in mathematics teaching and its development. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72(2), 219–236.
Jonsdottir, A. H., Bjornsdottir, A., & Stefansson, G. (2017). Difference in learning among students doing pen-and-paper homework compared to web-based homework in an introductory statistics course. Journal of Statistics Education, 25(1), 12–20.
Kodippili, A., & Senaratne, D. (2008). Is computer-generated interactive mathematics homework more effective than traditional instructor-graded homework? British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 928–932.
Krupa, E. E., Webel, C., & McManus, J. (2015). Undergraduate students’ knowledge of algebra: Evaluating the impact of computer-based and traditional learning environments. PRIMUS, 25(1), 13–30.
Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 17–44). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Leont'ev, A. N. (1974). The problem of activity in psychology. Soviet Psychology, 13(2), 4–33.
Leont'ev, A. N. (1978). The problem of activity and psychology. In Activity, consciousness, and personality (pp. 45–74). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Leont'ev, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in soviet psychology (pp. 37–71). Armonk: M. E. Sharpe.
Nardi, B. A. (1996). Studying context: A comparison of activity theory, situated action models and distributed cognition. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Potocka, K. (2010). An entirely-online developmental mathematics course: Creation and outcomes. PRIMUS, 20(6), 498–516.
Rønning, F. (2017). Influence of computer-aided assessment on ways of working with mathematics. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications, 36(2), 94–107.
Rosa, M., & Lerman, S. (2011). Researching online mathematics education: Opening a space for virtual learner identities. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 78(1), 69–90.
Roth, W. (2012). Cultural-historical activity theory: Vygotsky's forgotten and suppressed legacy and its implication for mathematics education. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 24(1), 87–104.
Van der Wal, N. J., Bakker, A., & Drijvers, P. (2017). Which techno-mathematical literacies are essential for future engineers? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(1), 87–104.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Webel, C., Krupa, E. E., & McManus, J. (2017). The math emporium: Effective for whom, and for what? International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 3(2), 355–380.
Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Acknowledgements
I acknowledge the support from University of Agder and MatRIC, centre for research, innovation, and coordination of mathematics teaching in Norway. I would like to thank Frode Rønning and Martin Carlsen for their helpful comments on the earlier versions of this article. I would also like to thank the mathematics lecturer and the participants for their cooperation in this research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kanwal, S. Exploring Affordances of an Online Environment: A Case-Study of Electronics Engineering Undergraduate Students’ Activity in Mathematics. Int. J. Res. Undergrad. Math. Ed. 6, 42–64 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-019-00100-w
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-019-00100-w