Top

Journal of Computers in Education

Published in:

02-11-2021

The impact of collaborative problem posing and solving with ubiquitous-decimal app in authentic contexts on math learning

Authors: Ika Qutsiati Utami, Wu-Yuin Hwang

Published in: Journal of Computers in Education | Issue 3/2022

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

The research focuses on integrating collaborative problem posing and solving (CPPS) activity into mathematics learning practice with authentic contextual support. We designed a ubiquitous learning application called “U-Decimal” to facilitate CPPS activity supporting decimal learning. The application facilitated the CPPS activity in three ways: designing questions in an authentic context, answering questions designed by students and teachers, and peer assessment. The study aimed to investigate the effect of student’s learning behaviors in CPPS activity supported by U-Decimal on their decimal learning achievement. In total, 54 fourth graders from two different classes were engaged in the experiment. The experimental group completed CPPS activity using U-Decimal installed on tablet PCs, whereas the control group followed traditional CPPS activity with a paper-based approach. The results highlighted three main findings. First, the experimental students scored significantly higher on the post-test than the control students. Second, this study found the contributing functional aspects (i.e., picture-taking function, multimedia-text and voice explanation, and peer assessment) and behavioral factors that predict learning achievement (i.e., quality of multiple-choice question design, quality of comment, and explaining answer using multimedia-text and voice explanation). Most importantly, our findings showed that U-Decimal is useful in supporting decimal learning achievement.

previous article Learners’ preferences versus instructors’ beliefs in technology-enabled learning environments in Pacific Island countries: are we listening to the learners?

next article Three decades of game-based learning in science and mathematics education: an integrated bibliometric analysis and systematic review

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Available only for authorised users

Aharony, N. (2014). Mobile libraries: Librarians’ and students’ perspectives. College & Research Libraries, 75(2), 202–217. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl12-415CrossRef

Bray, A., & Tangney, B. (2017). Technology usage in mathematics education research: A systematic review of recent trends. Computers & Education, 114, 255–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.07.004CrossRef

Cai, J., & Hwang, S. (2002). Generalized and generative thinking in the U.S. And Chinese students’ mathematical problem solving and problem posing. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21, 401–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(02)00142-6CrossRef

Cai, J., Hwang, S., Jiang, C., & Silber, S. (2015). Problem-posing research in mathematics education: Some answered and unanswered questions. In E. A. Silver (Ed.), Mathematical problem posing (pp. 3–34). Springer.CrossRef

Cai, J., & Jiang, C. (2017). An analysis of problem-posing tasks in Chinese and US elementary mathematics textbooks. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15, 1521–1540. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9758-2CrossRef

Cai, J., Moyer, J. C., Wang, N., Hwang, S., Nie, B., & Garber, T. (2013). Mathematical problem posing as a measure of curricular effect on students’ learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83, 57–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9429-3CrossRef

Căprioară, D. (2015). Problem solving-purpose and means of learning mathematics in school. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, 1859–1864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.332CrossRef

Carbonneau, K. J., Wong, R. M., & Borysenko, N. (2020). The influence of perceptually rich manipulatives and collaboration on mathematic problem-solving and perseverance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101846CrossRef

Chang, K. E., Wu, L. J., Weng, S. E., & Sung, Y. T. (2012). Embedding game-based problem-solving phase into problem-posing system for mathematics learning. Computers & Education, 58(2), 775–786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.002CrossRef

Christou, C., Mousoulides, N., Pittalis, M., Pitta-Pantazi, D., & Sriraman, B. (2005). An empirical taxonomy of problem posing processes. ZDM – the International Journal on Mathematics Education, 37(3), 149–158.CrossRef

Conway, P. F., & Sloane, F. C. (2005). International trends in post-primary mathematics education. Dublin: National Council for Curriculum and Assessment.

Crespo, S. (2003). Learning to pose mathematical problems: Exploring changes in preservice teachers’ practices. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52, 243–270. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024364304664CrossRef

Crespo, S., & Harper, F. K. (2019). Learning to pose collaborative mathematics problems with secondary prospective teachers. International Journal of Education Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.05.003CrossRef

Crespo, S., & Sinclair, N. (2008). What makes a problem mathematically interesting? Inviting prospective teachers to pose better problems. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(5), 395–415.CrossRef

Davis, F. D. (1898). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008CrossRef

DeBellis, V. A., & Goldin, G. A. (2006). Affect and meta-affect in mathematical problem solving: A representational perspective. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63(2), 131–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-9026-4CrossRef

Denny, P., Hamer, J., Luxton-Reilly, A., & Purchase, H. (2008). PeerWise: Students sharing their multiple choice questions. In Proceeding of the fourth international workshop on computing education research (pp. 51–58), Sydney, Australia. https://doi.org/10.1145/1404520.1404526.

Dickerson, V. M. (1999). The impact of problem-posing instruction on the mathematical problem-solving achievement of seventh graders (Doctoral dissertation, Emory University).

English, L. D. (2020). Teaching and learning through mathematical problem posing: Commentary. International Journal of Educational Research, 102, 101451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.06.014CrossRef

Ernest, P. (1997). Popularization: Myths, massmedia and modernism. In A. J. Bishop, K. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & C. Laborde (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics education. Springer.

Fellenz, M. R. (2004). Using assessment to support higher level learning: The multiple-choice item development assignment. Assessment & Education in Higher Education, 29(6), 703–719. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293042000227245CrossRef

Foster, C. (2013). Mathematical études: Embedding opportunities for developing procedural fluency within rich mathematical contexts. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 44(5), 765–774. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2013.770089CrossRef

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111CrossRef

Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Struyven, K. (2010). Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 304–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.007CrossRef

Goodell, J. (2006). Using critical incident reflections: A self-study as a mathematics teacher educator. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9(3), 221–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-006-9001-0CrossRef

Hadamard, J. W. (1945). Essay on the psychology of invention in the mathematical field. Princeton University Press.

Hitt, F. (2002). Representations and mathematical visualization: PME-NA Working Group (1998–2002). Cinvestav-IPN.

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42, 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263368CrossRef

Hoogland, K., Pepin, B., Bakker, A., de Koning, J., & Gravemeijer, K. (2016). Representing contextual mathematical problems in descriptive or depictive form: Design of an instrument and validation of its uses. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 50, 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.06.005CrossRef

Hoyles, C. (2016). Engaging with mathematics in the digital age. Cuadernos de Investigacion y Formacion en Educacion Matematica 15: Trabajos de la XIV CIAEM (pp. 225–236). Universidad di Costa Rica.

Hughes, C., & Acedo, C. (2014). Guiding principles for learning in the twenty-first Century. International Bureau of Education UNESCO.

Hwang, G. J., Chu, H. C., Lin, Y. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2011). A knowledge acquisition approach to developing Mindtools for organizing and sharing differentiating knowledge in a ubiquitous learning environment. Computers & Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.12.013CrossRef

Hwang, G. J., Hung, C. M., & Chen, N. S. (2014). Improving learning achievements, motivations and problem-solving skills through a peer assessment-based game development approach. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(2), 129–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-013-9320-7CrossRef

Hwang, W. Y., Shadiev, R., Tseng, C. W., & Huang, Y. M. (2015). Exploring effects of multi-touch tabletop on collaborative fraction learning and the relationship of learning behavior and interaction with learning achievement. Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 459–473.

Hwang, W. Y., Su, J. H., Huang, Y. M., & Dong, J. J. (2009). A study of multi-representation of geometry problem solving with virtual manipulatives and whiteboard system. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 229–247.

Hwang, W. Y., Utami, I. Q., & Chen, H. (2018, July). An Evaluation Study of Learning Behaviors and Achievements with Ubiquitous Fraction (u-Fraction) for Elementary School Student. In 2018 IEEE 18th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT) (pp. 350–354). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2018.00087.

Hwang, W. Y., Utami, I. Q., Purba, S. W. D., & Chen, H. S. (2019). Effect of ubiquitous fraction app on mathematics learning achievements and learning behaviors of Taiwanese students in authentic contexts. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 13(3), 530–539. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2019.2930045CrossRef

Jeong, H. (2011). An investigation of user perceptions and behavioral intentions towards the e-library. Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services, 35(2–3), 45–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcats.2011.03.018CrossRef

Kartoglu, U., Vesper, J., Teräs, H., & Reeves, T. (2017). Experiential and authentic learning approaches in vaccine management. Vaccine, 35(17), 2243–2251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.11.104CrossRef

Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02905780CrossRef

Kilpatrick, J. (1987). Problem formulating: Where do good problems come from? In A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp. 123–147). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during in-struction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, pro- blem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1CrossRef

Koichu, B., & Kontorovich, I. (2013). Dissecting success stories on mathematical problem posing: A case of the Billiard Task. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83, 71–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9431-9CrossRef

Kotsopoulos, D., & Cordy, M. (2009). Investigating imagination as a cognitive space for learning mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70, 259–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-008-9154-0CrossRef

Kroll, L. R. (2005). Constructivism in teacher education: Rethinking how we teach teacher. In L. Kroll, R. Cossey, D. M. Donahue, T. Galguera, V. LaBoskey, A. Richert, & P. Tucher (Eds.), Teaching as principled practice: Managing complexity for social justice (pp. 57–80). Sage Publications.CrossRef

Leikin, R. (2005). Qualities of professional dialog: Connecting graduate research on teaching and the undergraduate teachers’ program. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 36(2–3), 237–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207390412331316960CrossRef

Limin, C. H. E. N., Van Dooren, W., & Verschaffel, L. (2013). The relationship between students’ problem posing and problem-solving abilities and beliefs: A small-scale study with Chinese elementary school children. Frontiers of Education in China, 8(1), 147–161. https://doi.org/10.3868/110-002-013-0010-5CrossRef

Lortie-Forgues, H., Tian, J., & Siegler, R. S. (2015). Why are learning fraction and decimal arithmetic so difficult? Developmental Review, 38, 201–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2015.07.008CrossRef

Maaß, K., & Artigue, M. (2013). Implementation of inquiry-based learning in day-to-day teaching: A synthesis. ZDM Mathematics Education, 45(6), 779–795.CrossRef

Mestre, J. P. (2002). Probing adults’ conceptual understanding and transfer of learning via problem posing. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 23(1), 9–50.CrossRef

Olive, J., Makar, K., Hoyos, V., Kor, L. K., Kosheleva, O., & Sträßer, R. (2009). Mathematical knowledge and practices resulting from access to digital technologies. In C. Hoyles & J. B. Lagrange (Eds.), Mathematics education and technology-rethinking the Terrain. New ICMI study series. (Vol. 13). Springer.

Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463–466. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1183944CrossRef

Palm, T. (2008). Impact of authenticity on sense making in word problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67, 37–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-007-9083-3CrossRef

Palm, T. (2009). Theory of authentic task situations. In L. Verschaffel, B. Greer, W. V. Dooren, & S. Mukhopadhyay (Eds.), Words and worlds—Modelling verbal descriptions of situations (pp. 3–20). Sense.

Pande, M., & Bharathi, S. V. (2020). Theoretical foundations of design thinking—A constructivism learning approach to design thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 36, 100637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100637CrossRef

Rafique, H., Anwer, F., Shamim, A., & Minaei-bidgoli, B. (2018). Factors affecting acceptance of mobile library Applications: Structural equation model. Libri - International Journal of Libraries and Information Services, 68(2), 99–112. https://doi.org/10.1515/libri-2017-0041CrossRef

Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35(5), 31–38. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44428296

Schoenfeld, A. (2004). The math wars. Educational Policy: an Interdisciplinary Journal of Policy and Practice, 18(1), 253–286.CrossRef

Shadiev, R., Hwang, W.-Y., Huang, Y.-M., & Liu, T.-Y. (2015). The impact of supported and annotated mobile learning on achievement and cognitive load. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 53–69.

Singer, F. M., Ellerton, N., & Cai, J. (2013). Problem-posing research in mathematics education: New questions and directions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-013-9478-2CrossRef

Singer, F. M., Ellerton, N., & Cai, J. (Eds.). (2015). Mathematical problem posing: From research to effective practice. Springer.

Singer, M., Ellerton, N., Silver, E. A., Cai, J., Pelczer, I., Imaoka, M., et al. (2009). Problem posing in mathematics learning: Establishing a theoretical base for research. In M. Tzekaki, M. Kaldrimidou, & C. Sakonidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33th conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (p. 229). Thessaloniki, Greece: PME.

ter Vrugte, J., de Jong, T., Vandercruysse, S., Wouters, P., van Oostendorp, H., & Elen, J. (2015). How competition and heterogeneous collaboration interact in prevocational game-based mathematics education. Computers & Education, 89, 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.08.010CrossRef

Thompson, A. G., Philipp, R. A., Thompson, P. W., & Boyd, B. A. (1994). Calculational and conceptual orientations in teaching mathematics. In A. Coxford (Ed.), 1994 yearbook of the NCTM (pp. 79–92). NCTM.

Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. M. (2009). The success or failure of constructivist instruction: An introduction. In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 3–10). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.CrossRef

Van Leeuwen, A., & Janssen, J. (2019). A systematic review of teacher guidance during collaborative learning in primary and secondary education. Educational Research Review, 27, 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.02.001CrossRef

Verschaffel, L., Greer, B., Vandooren, W., & Mukhopadhyay, S. (2009). Words and worlds—Modelling verbal descriptions of situations. Sense.CrossRef

Yoon, H. (2016). User acceptance of mobile library applications in academic libraries: An application of the technology acceptance model. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 42(6), 687–693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2016.08.003CrossRef

Yu, F. Y. (2011). Multiple peer-assessment modes to augment online student question-generation processes. Computers & Education, 56(6), 484–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.025CrossRef

Yu, F. Y., & Liu, Y. H. (2009). Creating a psychologically safe online space for a student-generated questions learning activity via different identity revelation modes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(6), 1109–1123. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00905.xCrossRef

Yu, F. Y., Liu, Y. H., & Chan, T. W. (2005). AWeb-based learning system for question-posing and peer assessment: Pedagogical design and preliminary evaluation. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 42, 337–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290500062557CrossRef

Zha, X., Zhang, J., & Yan, Y. (2015). Comparing digital libraries in the web and mobile contexts from the perspective of the digital divide. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 47(4), 330–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000614532677CrossRef

Zhao, Y., Deng, S., & Zhou, R. (2015). Understanding mobile library apps continuance usage in China: A theoretical framework and empirical study. Libri - International Journal of Libraries and Information Services, 65(3), 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1515/libri-2014-0148CrossRef

Title: The impact of collaborative problem posing and solving with ubiquitous-decimal app in authentic contexts on math learning
Authors: Ika Qutsiati Utami
Wu-Yuin Hwang
Publication date: 02-11-2021
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Journal of Computers in Education / Issue 3/2022
Print ISSN: 2197-9987
Electronic ISSN: 2197-9995
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-021-00209-5

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Other articles of this Issue 3/2022

A proposed computational thinking teacher development framework for K-12 guided by the TPACK model

Primary science curriculum student acceptance of blended learning: structural equation modeling and visual analytics

How well do the students understand the course contents? Assessing comprehension through course videos

Language-related episodes and feedback in synchronous voiced-based and asynchronous text-based computer-mediated communications

Affective domain studies of K-12 computing education: a systematic review from a perspective on affective objectives

Three decades of game-based learning in science and mathematics education: an integrated bibliometric analysis and systematic review

Premium Partner