Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Scaffolding group explanation and feedback with handheld technology: impact on students’ mathematics learning

  • Research
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Based on strong research literatures, we conjectured that social processing of feedback by cooperating in a small group setting—with social incentives to ask questions, give explanations and discuss disagreements—would increase learning. We compared group and individual feedback, using two technologies: (1) Technology-mediated, Peer-Assisted Learning (TechPALS), which uses wireless handheld technology to structure feedback in small groups as they solve fractions problems and (2) a popular desktop product, which provides feedback to individual students as they solve fractions problems individually. Three elementary schools participated in a randomized controlled experiment conducted in the 2007–2008 school year. Students in the TechPALS condition learned more than did the control group students, with effect sizes ranging from d = 0.14 to d = 0.44. Analysis of observational data confirmed that students in the TechPALS condition participated socially in questioning, explaining, and discussing disagreements, whereas students in the individual condition did not. We conclude that an integration of technology, cooperative activity designs and broader educational practices can lead to impact on students’ mathematics learning.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33, 131–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C.-L. C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. (1991). The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 213–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beason, L. (1993). Feedback and revision in writing across the curriculum classes. Research in the Teaching of English, 72(4), 395–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., & Harrison, C. (2001). Feecback in questioning and marking: The science teacher’s role in formative assessment. School Science Review, 82(301), 55–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24, 61–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bustos, H., & Nussbaum, M. (2009). An experimental study of the inclusion of technology in higher education. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 17(1), 100–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, R. (1987). Task-involving and ego-involving properties of evaluation: Effects of different feedback conditions on motivational perceptions, interest, and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 474–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, T. C., Fenemma, E., & Romberg, T. (Eds.). (1993). Rational numbers: An integration of research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18(3), 439–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clariana, R. B., & Koul, R. (2005). Multiple-try feedback and higher-order learning outcomes. International Journal of Instructional Media, 32(3), 239–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clariana, R. B., & Lee, D. (2001). The effects of recognition and recall study tasks with feedback in a computer-based vocabulary lesson. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(3), 23–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Confrey, J. (2008). A synthesis of the research on rational number reasoning. Paper presented at the International Congress of Mathematics Instruction XI.

  • Cortez, C., Nussbaum, M., Rodriguez, P., Lopez, X., & Rosas, R. (2005). Teacher training with face to face computer supported collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 171–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cramer, K., & Henry, A. (2002). Using manipulative models to build number sense for addition and fractions. In B. Litwiller (Ed.), Making sense of fractions, ratios, and proportions (pp. 41–48). Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dihoff, R. E., Brosvic, G. M., Epstein, M. L., & Cook, M. J. (2004). Provision of feedback during preparation for academic testing: Learning is enhanced by immediate but not delayed feedback. Psychological Record, 54(2), 207–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dynarski, M., Agodini, R., Heaviside, S., Novak, T., Carey, N., Campuzano, L., et al. (2007). Effectiveness of reading and mathematics software products: Findings from the first student cohort. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, M. L., & Brosvic, G. M. (2002). Students prefer the immediate feedback assessment technique. Psychological Reports, 90(3), 1136–1138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fantuzzo, J. W., King, J. A., & Heller, L. R. (1992). Effects of reciprocal peer tutoring on mathematics and school adjustment: A component analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 331–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foot, H. C., Shute, R. H., Morgan, M. J., & Barron, A. M. (1990). Theoretical issues in peer tutoring. In M. J. Shute & R. H. Shute (Eds.), Children helping children (pp. 65–92). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Phillips, N. B., Karns, K., & Dutka, S. (1997). Enhancing students’ helping behavior during peer-mediated instruction with conceptual mathematical explanations. The Elementary School Journal, 97, 223–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galloway, J. (2007, June 19). When three is not a crowd. The Guardian, from http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2007/jun/19/elearning.technology9. Accessed 10 October 2009.

  • Gersten, R., Ferrini-Mundy, J., Benbow, C., Clements, D. H., Loveless, T., Williams, V., et al. (2008). Report of the task group on instructional practices. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15(1), 1–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. (2007). Looking in classrooms. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haertel, E. (1986). Choosing and using classroom tests: Teachers’ perspectives on assessment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.

  • Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hiebert, J., & Behr, M. (1988). Number concepts and operations in the middle grades. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., Garnier, H., Givvin, K. B., Hollingsworth, H., Jacobs, J., et al. (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.

    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). Greenwich: Information Age.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1987). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Holubec, E. (1998). Advanced cooperative learning (3rd ed.). Edina, Minnesota: Interaction book Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kieren, T. E. (1976). On the mathematical, cognitive, and instructional foundations of rational numbers. In R. Lesh (Ed.), Number and measurement: Papers from a research workshop (pp. 101–144). Columbus, OH: ERIC/SMEAC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kluger, A. N., & deNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. (2006). Collaboration scripts—A conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 18(2), 159–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, D. C., Reiser, B. J., Ranney, M., & Trafton, J. G. (1992). Effective tutoring techniques: A comparison of human tutors and intelligent tutoring systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(3), 277–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). The nation’s report card: Mathematics 2000 (No. NCES 2001–571). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

  • Nussbaum, M., Alvarez, C., McFarlane, A., Gomez, F., Claro, S., & Radovic, D. (2009). Technology as small group face-to-face Collaborative Scaffolding. Computers & Education, 52(1), 147–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rafanan, K., Roschelle, J., Bhanot, R., Gorges, T., & Penuel, W. (2008). Measuring mathematics discourse in technology-supported collaborative activities. Paper presented at the International Conference of the Learning Sciences 2008.

  • Roschelle, J., Rafanan, K., Estrella, G., Nussbaum, M., & Claro, S. (2009). From handheld tool to effective classroom module: Embedding CSCL in a broader design framework. Paper presented at the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, Rhodes, Greece.

  • Saxe, G. B., Gearhart, M., & Nasir, N. I. S. (2001). Enhancing students’ understanding of mathematics: A study of three contrasting approaches to professional support. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 4, 55–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and inference in learning from multiple representation. Learning and Instruction, 13, 141–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 43–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. P., III. (2002). The development of students’ knowledge of fractions and ratios. In Making sense of fractions, ratios, and proportions. 2002 yearbook (pp. 3–17). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

  • SRI International. (2004). Evaluation of the effectiveness of educational technology interventions (EETI) classroom observation protocol. SRI International.

  • Stein, M. K. (2008). Teaching and learning mathematics: How instruction can foster the knowing and understanding of number. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Subject-specific instructional methods and activities (pp. 111–144). Bingly, UK: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stigler, J. W., Gonzales, P., Kawanaka, T., Knoll, S., & Serrano, A. (1999). The TIMSS videotape classroom study: Methods and findings from an exploratory research project on eighth-grade mathematics instruction in Germany, Japan, and the United States. Education Statistics Quarterly, 1(2), 109–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1997). Understanding and improving classroom mathematics instruction: An overview of the TIMSS video study. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(1), 14–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • The National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008a). Fact sheet. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/report/final-factsheet.html. Accessed 10 October 2009.

  • The National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008b). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorndike, E. L. (1913). Educational psychology. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wearne, D., & Kouba, V. L. (2000). Rational numbers. In E. A. Silver & P. A. Kenney (Eds.), Results from the seventh mathematics assessment of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (pp. 163–191). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(5), 366–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Ophanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. Dallas TX: National Staff Development Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 33(1), 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zurita, G., & Nussbaum, M. (2004). MCSCL: Mobile computer supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 42(3), 289–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zurita, G., & Nussbaum, M. (2007). A conceptual framework based on Activity Theory for mobile CSCL. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 211–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the U.S. Department of Education. We are grateful to the teachers, students, and school leaders who participated in this project. We also thank Hewlett-Packard for providing vital support, through its Global Philanthropy program, with a generous donation of over 100 iPAQ Pocket PCs. Eduinnova’s work to support the TechPALS project was supported by grants (CONICYT-FONDEF D04T2036 and FONDECYT 1080100) from the Chilean government.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. SRI International, Menlo Park, CA, USA

    Jeremy Roschelle, Ken Rafanan, Ruchi Bhanot, Gucci Estrella & Bill Penuel

  2. Pontificia Universidad Católica, Santiago, Chile

    Miguel Nussbaum & Susana Claro

Authors
  1. Jeremy Roschelle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ken Rafanan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ruchi Bhanot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gucci Estrella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bill Penuel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Miguel Nussbaum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Susana Claro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeremy Roschelle.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Roschelle, J., Rafanan, K., Bhanot, R. et al. Scaffolding group explanation and feedback with handheld technology: impact on students’ mathematics learning. Education Tech Research Dev 58, 399–419 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-009-9142-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-009-9142-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation