Abstract

There has been much attention given to the use of technology in education; mostly concentrating on physical artifacts of technology to facilitate teaching delivery but little mentioning technology as a cultural resource to organize the learning environment promoting social interaction among students and between teacher and students. This paper thus attempts to derive a model of pedagogy in an IT environment taking social interaction in classroom learning into account and reports a process of validating the model through two observation studies and two questionnaire-based surveys.  The first observation study took place in a lecture theatre where a teacher led a class discussion toward developing statistical concepts and showed that all students were attentive and participative.  In the second observation study, the students in a computing laboratory were divided into small groups to solve statistical problems collaboratively.  The first survey was conducted during the term time to interview students through which they reported their personal perceptions of and attitudes toward the educational use of technology. A questionnaire in the second survey was sent to the students via e-mail after the term time. In the questionnaire, they were asked to compare the experience of working in an IT environment between the classrooms using and not using a model of pedagogy in an IT environment. The students in the surveys reported that teacher facilitation of group learning in the statistics module with technology were different from other statistics modules they took in the same academic year because they appreciated group discussion that promoted social interaction and fostered working relationships, thus leading to construction of knowledge. These four studies show consistent results and evidence in supporting a successful implementation of the model into a statistics classroom practice.  More importantly, the observation studies give a detailed account of peer collaboration, mutual assistance, and productive interaction in a process of discussion and the teacher sensitivity to adjust the means of scaffolding assistance that substantiate the survey findings. 

Keywords

References

• Bozkurt, G., & Ruthven, K. (2017). Classroom-based professional expertise: a mathematics teacher’s practice with technology. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 94(3), 309-328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-016-9732-5
• Clark-Wilson, A., & Hoyles, C. (2019). A research-informed web-based professional development toolkit to support technology-enhanced mathematics teaching at scale. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 102(3), 343-359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-018-9836-1
• Drijvers, P., Doorman, M., Boon, P., Reed, H., & Gravemeijer, K. (2010). The teacher and the tool: Instrumental orchestrations in the technology-rich mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75(2), 213-234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-010-9254-5
• Geiger, V. (2014). The role of social aspects of teaching and learning in transforming mathematical activities: tools, tasks, individuals and learning communities. In S. Rezat, M. Hattermann, & A. Peter-Koop (Eds.), Transformation-A fundamental idea of mathematics education (pp. 203-222). Springer.
• Goos, M. (2004). Learning mathematics in a classroom community of inquiry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(4), 258-291. https://doi.org/10.2307/30034810
• Goos, M. (2009). A sociocultural framework for understanding technology integration in secondary school mathematics. In M. Tzekaki, H. Kaldrimidou & H. Sakonidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, (pp.113-120). Psychology of Mathematics Education.
• Goos, M. (2014). Technology integration in secondary mathematics: The development of teachers’ professional identities. In A. Clark-Wilson, O. Robutti, & N. Sinclair (Eds.), The mathematics teacher in the digital era (pp. 139-162). Springer.
• Ince-Muslu, B., & Erduran, A. (2021). A suggestion of a framework: Conceptualization of the factors that affect technology integration in mathematics education. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 16(1), em0617. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/9292
• Li, K. W. (2014). Cognitive models for developing students’ graphical understanding of residual plots. In Proceedings of the 3^rd International Conference on Education and Management Innovation, (pp. 38-42). IACSIT Press.
• Li, K. W. (2015). Analysis of discourse practices in statistical computing laboratory. In S. Gerland (Ed.), Proceedings of the Second 21^st Century Academic Forum Conference: Teaching, Learning, and Research in the “Just Google It” Age, (pp. 249-263). Harvard University.
• Li, K. W. (2016). A model of teaching statistical computing. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 6(2), 143-147.
• Li, K. W. & Goos, M. (2018a). An analysis of patterns of classroom talk within an IT environment. In M.A. Sorto, A. White & L. Guyot (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10^th International Conference on Teaching Statistics (pp. 1-6). The International Statistical Institute.
• Li, K. W. & Goos, M. (2018b). Promoting statistical thinking using classroom discourse. Proceedings of 2018 International Conference on Bilingual Learning and Teaching (pp. 32-39). Open University of Hong Kong.
• Li, K. W. & Goos, M. (2020). Structural models of statistics learning within an IT environment. In W.K.W. Ma, K-W, Tong & W.B.A. Tso (Eds.), Learning environment and design – Current and future impacts, (pp. 67-89). Springer.
• Liu, A. K-F (2019). Interconnected learning management: An action research study on using Google Cloud services to innovate online experience [Paper presentation]. International Conference on Open and Innovative Education, Open University of Hong Kong.
• Louis, R.C. (2012). A case study exploring technology integration and incorporation of 21^st century skills in elementary classroom [Unpublished Doctoral dissertation]. Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts.
• Manouchehri, A. (2004). Using interactive algebra to support a discourse community. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 23(1), 37-62.
• Mercer, N. (2000). Words and mind: How do we use language to think together? Routledge.
• Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., Sams, C., & Fernandez, M. (2007). Computers, literacy and thinking together. In A. Adams, & S. Brindley (Eds.), Teaching secondary English with ICT (pp. 1-17). Open University Press.
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.005
• Roy, S., Inglis, M., & Alcock, L. (2017). Multimedia resources designed to support learning from written proofs: an eye-movement study. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 96(2), 249-266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-017-9754-7
• Ruthven, K. (2014). Frameworks for analyzing the expertise that underpins successful integration of digital technologies into everyday teaching practice. In A. Clark-Wilson, O. Robutti, & N. Sinclair (Eds.), The Mathematics Teacher in the Digital Era (pp. 373-393). Springer.
• Sadler, P.M., Sonnert, G., Coyle, H.P., Cook-Smith, N., & Miller, J.L. (2013). The influence of teachers’ knowledge on student learning in middle school physical science classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 50(5), 1020-1049. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831213477680
• Schindler, M., & Lilienthal, A. J. (2019). Domain-specific interpretation of eye tracking data: Towards a refined use of the eye-mind hypothesis for the field of geometry. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 101(1), 123-139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-019-9878-z
• Schwarz, B.B., & Asterhan, C.S.C. (2010). Argumentation and reasoning. In K. Littleton, C. Wood, & J.K. Staarman (Eds.), International Handbook of Psychology in Education (pp. 137-176). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
• Soldano, C., Luz, Y., Arzarello, F., & Yerushalmy, M. (2019). Technology-based inquiry geometry: Semantic games through the lens of variation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 101(1), 7-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-018-9841-4
• Tan, J., Ng, P., Phang, C.H., Bao, J., & Kwan, M. (2020). E-exams: Assessing the next generation [Paper presentation]. International Conference on Open and Innovative Education 2020, Open University of Hong Kong.
• Tharp, R.G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. Cambridge University Press.
• Valsiner, J. (1997). Culture and the development of children’s action: a theory of human development (2^nd ed.). Wiley.
• Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Harvard University Press.
• Wegerif, R. (2015). Teaching and teaching thinking: Why a dialogic approach is needed for the twenty-first century. In R. Wegerif, R. L. Li, & J.C. Kaufma (Eds.) The Routledge international handbook of research on teaching thinking (pp. 427-440). Routledge.
• Wegerif, R., & Mansour, N. (2010). A dialogic approach to technology-enhanced education for the global knowledge society. In M. Khine, & I. Saleh (Eds.), New Science of Learning (pp. 325-339). Springer.

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.