Learning Mathematics by Talking and Reflecting in Face-to-Face Small Group Settings using Computers

Author(s):

Rune HerheimRune Krumsvik

Conference:

ECER 2009

Network:

16. ICT in Education and Training

Format:

Paper

Session Information

16 SES 03 B, ICT in Mathematics and Science Education

Paper Session

Time:

2009-09-28

14:00-15:30

Room:

NIG, HS 3C

Chair:

Johan van Braak

Contribution

The objective of the research presented in this paper is to be able to understand better how pupils communicate when they use computers to learn mathematics. The unit of analysis is two pupils who cooperate in a dyad and share one computer. A key issue is to gain knowledge on connections between the quality of pupils’ communication and the quality of their learning. The main research question is: what characterises the communication when pupil dyads use a computer in order to learn mathematics? This communication involves both pupil-pupil talk and pupil(s)-teacher talk. Sub questions focus on conditions for this communication, communication patterns, and the roles of pupils and teachers from a communicative perspective. The emphasis on communication makes it possible to identify factors that promote/restrain pupils’ learning when computers are used in education. The research questions are descriptive-analytic. There are also different levels within the questions; one has to be able to describe the communication prior to saying something about communication patterns. Communication patterns and -roles are also partly attached. However, reflection on roles must be, at least partly, based on knowledge about communication patterns. The theoretical perspective is based on a dialogic (Bachtin & Holquist, 1981; Linell, 1998; Rommetveit, 1992), distributed, and situated (Lave & Wenger, 1991) view on learning. Pupils’ learning is viewed as interplay between social interaction and pupils’ own construction. A Danish project identified several key aspects assumed conducive for pupils learning through dialogue: advocating, thinking aloud, reformulating, challenging, and evaluating (Alrø & Skovsmose, 2002). A corresponding theory derived from two UK projects, SLANT and TRAC (e.g. Mercer & Wegerif, 1998; Wegerif, 2007), developed in a collaborative learning context using ICT, emphasizes the concept explorative talk. The Danish and the UK studies both underline pupils’ ownership with regards to not merely the activity but the learning goals and to the dialogue it self, to assess other pupils’ point of views, and to “engage critically but constructively with each other’s ideas” (Mercer & Wegerif, 1998, p. 85). From the literature within this field, four key aspects can be singled out: (1) The establishing of a common ground (e.g. Stahl, 2005), (2) pupils’, teachers’, and computers' communicative roles (e.g. Monaghan, 2005; Nussbaum et al., In Press; Wegerif, 2004), (3) how to talk (e.g. Alrø & Skovsmose, 2002; Barnes & Todd, 1978; Mercer, 1994; Wegerif, 1996; Wegerif, 2007), and (4) software design and task structure (e.g. Fisher, 1992).

Method

This paper reports on a project which strives to blend “empirical educational research with the theory-driven design of learning environments” (Design-Based Research Collective, 2003, p. 5). The methodological term is Design-based research, and is rooted in the work of (Brown, 1992) and (Collins, 1992). The aim is to improve the quality of education by systematic iterative analysis, design, development, and implementation (Wang & Hannafin, 2005). By collaboration among pupils, teachers, and the researcher, one searches to generate knowledge which is context sensitive and informative to other teachers and researchers. The pupils’ work is video recorded, and these recordings are subsequently discussed and analysed collaboratively by the researcher and the pupils and teachers who are involved in the current recording. The choices made with respect to method reflect the methodological foundation, with a special emphasis on context sensitiveness, co-researching, and to better understand the interplay between theory, designed environments, and practice.

Expected Outcomes

Expected outcomes whit regard to the characteristics of pupils talk when they work in pairs and share one computer might be that the pupils communicate a lot in such an environment or it might be that there is little amount of talk. One expectation is to identify conditions that influence the quality of pupils’ communication and learning. In depth analysis may clarify different types of talk and exemplify what these look like in mathematics learning. Another outcome would be to be able to say something about when pupils express knowledge and what triggers this verbalization. Does the use of computers influence how pupils talk and learn? A finding from this study might be that this educational context brings along new communicative roles and new communication patterns. An overarching aim is to discover possibilities and to illuminate what could be done in order to improve pupils’ communication and learning.

References

Alrø, H., & Skovsmose, O. (2002). Dialogue and Learning in Mathematics Education. Intention, Reflection, Critique (Vol. 29). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Bachtin, M., & Holquist, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: four essays. Austin: University of Texas Press. Barnes, D., & Todd, F. (1978). Communication and Learning in Small Groups. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design Experiments: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges in Creating Complex Interventions in Classroom Settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141 - 178. Collins, A. (1992). Towards a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O'Shea (Eds.), New directions in educational technology (pp. 15-22). Berlin: Springer. Design-Based Research Collective, T. (2003). Design-Based Research: An Emerging Paradigm for Educational Inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8. Fisher, E. (1992). Characteristics of children's talk at the computer and its relationship to the computer software. Language and Education, 7(2), 187-215. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Linell, P. (1998). Approaching Dialogue: Talk, interaction and context in diaogical perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Mercer, N. (1994). The quality of talk in children's joint activity at the computer. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 10(1), 24-32. Mercer, N., & Wegerif, R. (1998). Is exploratory talk’ productive talk? In K. Littleton & P. light (Eds.), Learning with computers: Analysing Productive Interactions. London: Routledge. Monaghan, F. (2005). 'Don't think in your head, think aloud': ICT and exploratory talk in the primary school mathematics classroom. Research in Mathematics Education, 7(1), 83 - 100. Nussbaum, M., Alvarez, C., McFarlane, A., Gomez, F., Claro, S., & Radovic, D. (In Press). Technology as small group face-to-face Collaborative Scaffolding. Computers & Education, In Press, Corrected Proof. Rommetveit, R. (1992). Outlines of a Dialogically based Social-Cognitive Approach to Human Cognition and Communication. In A. Wold (Ed.), The Dialogical Alternative: Towards a Theory of language and Mind (pp. 19-45). Oslo: Scandinavian Press. Stahl, G. (2005). Group cognition in computer-assisted collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2), 79-90. Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5-23. Wegerif, R. (1996). Using computers to help coach exploratory talk across the curriculum. Computers & Education, 26(1-3), 51-60. Wegerif, R. (2004). The role of educational software as a support for teaching and learning conversations. Computers & Education, 43(1-2), 179-191. Wegerif, R. (2007). Dialogic education and technology: expanding the space of learning. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Author Information

Rune Herheim

University of Bergen

Dept. of Education and Health Promotion

Bergen

158

Rune Krumsvik

University of Bergen, Norway

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER.

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.