magazinelogo

The Educational Review, USA

ISSN Print: 2575-7938 Downloads: 445217 Total View: 4792390
Frequency: monthly ISSN Online: 2575-7946 CODEN: TERUBB
Email: edu@hillpublisher.com
Article Open Access http://dx.doi.org/10.26855/er.2018.06.003

Empowering Communication through Advanced Student Response Systems: Perspectives of Pre-service Mathematics Teachers

Tharanga Mahesh Kumara Wijetunge1,*, Dennis St. John2

1Division of Math & Science, Lyon College, Batesville, USA

2Department of Mathematics, Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant, USA

*Corresponding author: Tharanga Mahesh Kumara Wijetunge

Published: June 15,2018

Abstract

Calculators were introduced in the mid-eighties, and since then we have used them for more than quarter of a century in our mathematics classrooms. Many studies have been conducted, especially to understand the effects of calculators on students’ mathematical learning and understanding. Literature examining their use in precollege and college levels suggests that calculators can provide more opportunities for students in solving mathematical problems and that their use does not hinder the development of mathematical skills (Ellington, 2003; Reznichenko, 2007). Over time, calculator technology has been enhanced and new features have been added at a rapid rate. A review of the literature suggests that these new technologies can also positively affect students’ mathematical learning. One in particular that may have the potential to positively affect students’ learning is the TI-Nspire CAS Navigator system. This system allows students to connect their calculators to an instructor-monitored wireless network, which enables students to use their calculators as a Constructed Student Response System. This instructor-monitored environment can provide new learning and teaching experiences to both students and teachers. Access to calculators and their new technologies in classrooms is also on the rise. Therefore, this study was designed to understand the pre-service teachers’ perspective on the use of the TI-Nspire CAS Navigator system. It will investigate how the pre-service teachers describe the role of the system in terms of their engagement, communication, and learning. 

References

Adams, T. L. (1997). Addressing Students’ Difficulties with the Concept of Function: Applying Graphing Calculators and a Model of Coceptual Change. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 19(2), 43-57.

Arnold, S. (2004). Mathematics Education for the Third Millennium: Visions of a Future for Handheld Classroom Technology. In I. Putt, R. Faragher, & McLean, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australia (pp. 16-28). Sydney, Australia: MERGA. Bachman, L., & Bachman, C. (2011). A Study of Classroom Response System Clickers: Increasing Student Engagement and Performance in a Large Undergraduate Lecture Class on Architectural Research. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 22(1), 5-21.

Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Weiss, I. R., Malzahn, K. A., Campbell, K. M., & Weis, A. M. (2013). Report of the 2012 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education. Horizon Research, Inc. Retrieved July 27, 2017 from http://www.horizon-research.com/2012nssme/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/2012-NSSME-Full-Report-updated-11-13-13.pdf

Bartsch, R. A., & Murphy, W. (2011). Examining the Effects of an Electronic Classroom Response System on Student Engagement and Perfomance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(1), 25-33.

Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S. K. (2006). Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theories and Methods (5th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.

Borman, G. D., Hawes, G. M., Overman, L.T., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive School Reform and Achievement: A Meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73(2), 125-230.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. National Academies Press, Washington DC.

Brown, J. D. (1972). An Evaluation of the Spitz Student Response System in Teaching a Course in Logical and Mathematical Concepts. The Journal of Experimental Education, 40(3), 12-20. Burnstein, R. A., & Lederman, L. M. (2003). Comparison of Different Commercial Wireless Keypad Systems. The Physics Teacher, 41(5), 272-275.

Clark-Wilson, A. (2009). Connecting Mathematics in the Connected Classroom: TI-Nspire™ Navigator™. Unpublished Manuscript, The Mathematics Centre of University of Chichester, UK. Retrieved from http://www.chiuni.ac.uk/teachered/ docments/Clark-Wilson2009TI-NavigatorReport.pdf.

Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (1996). Constructivist, Emergent, and Sociocultural Perspectives in the Context of Developmental Research. Educa-tional Psychologist, 31(3/4), 175-190.

DiCicco‐Bloom, B. & Crabtree, B. F. (2006). The Qualitative Research Interview. Medical Education, 40(4), 314-321.

Dickman, C. B. (1993). Gender Differences and Instructional Discrimination in the Classroom. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 2(1), 35-42.

d'Inverno, R., Davis, H., & White, S. (2003). Using a Personal Response System for Promoting Student Interaction. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications, 22(4), 163-169.

Dion, G. & Harvey, A. (2001). A Survey of Calculator Usage in High Schools. School Science and Mathematics, 101(8), 427-38.

Douglas, J. D. (1985). Creative Interviewing (Vol. 29). Sage Publications, Inc.

Dufresne, R. J., Gerace, W. J., Leonard, W. J., Mestre, J. P., & Wenk, L. (1996). Classtalk: A Classroom Communication System for Active Learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 7(2), 3-47.

Duncan, D. (2006). Clickers: A New Teaching Aid with Exceptional Promise. Astronomy Education Review, 5(1), 70-88.

Ellington, A. J. (2003). A Meta-analysis of the Effects of Calculators on Students’ Achievement and Attitude Levels in Precollege Mathematics Classes. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 433-463.

Farber, N. (2006). Conducting Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide for School Counselors. Professional School Counseling, 9(4), 367-375.

Fies, C., & Marshall, J. (2006). Classroom Response Systems: A Review of the Literature. Journal of Science Education and Technolo-gy, 15(1), 101-109.

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.

Graham, C. R., Tripp, T. R., Seawright, L., & Joeckel, G. (2007). Empowering or Compelling Reluctant Participators Using Audience Re-sponse Systems. Active Learning in Higher Education, 8(3), 233-258.

Hake, R. (1998). Interactive-Engagement vs. Traditional Methods: A Six Thousand-Student Survey of Mechanics Test Data for Introductory Physics Courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64–74. Hegedus, S. J., & Kaput, J. (2003). The Effect of a SimCalc Connected Classroom on Students’ Algebraic Thinking. International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 3, 47-54.

Herman, M., Meagher, M., Abrahamson, L., & Owen, D. (2013). Student Perceptions on Use of a Classroom Communication System in Mathematics Classes. The International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 20(2), 45-68.

Hoekstra, A. (2008). Vibrant Student Voices: Exploring Effects of the Use of Clickers in Large College Courses. Learning, Media & Tech-nology, 33(4), 329-341.

Judson, E. & Sawada, D. (2002). Learning from Past and Present: Electronic Response Systems in College Lecture Halls. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 21(2), 167-181. Kay, R. H., & LeSage, A. (2009). Examining the Benefits and Challenges of Using Audience Response Systems: A Review of the Literature. Computers & Education, 53(3), 819-827.

King, D B. & Joshi, S. (2008). Gender Differences in the Use and Effectiveness of Personal Response Devices. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(6), 544-552.

Koenig, K. (2010). Building Acceptance for Pedagogical Reform through Wide-Scale Implementation of Clickers. Journal of College Sci-ence Teaching, 39(3), 46-50.

Lauten, A. D., Graham, K., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (1994). Student Understanding of Basic Calculus Concepts: Interaction with the Graphics Calculator. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 13(2), 225-37.

Lucas, A. (2009). Using Peer Instruction and I-clickers to Enhance Student Participation in Calculus. PRIMUS, 19(3), 219-231.

Mayer, R E., Stull, A., DeLeeuw, K., Almeroth, K. Bimber, B., Chun, D., Bulger, M., Campbell, J., Knight, A., & Zhang, H. (2009). Clickers in College Classrooms: Fostering Learning with Questioning Methods in Large Lecture Classes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1), 51-57.

Mistretta, R. M. (2005). Integrating Technology into the Mathematics Classroom: The Role of Teacher Preparation Programs. The Mathe-matics Educator, 15(1), 18-24.

Morgan, R. K. (2008). Exploring the Pedagogical Effectiveness of Clickers. Insight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching, 3, 31-36.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

Neuman, W. L. (2013). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Pearson Education.

Palmer, V. M. (1928). Field Studies in Sociology: A Student’s Manual. American Journal of Sociology, 34(6), 1197-1198.

Pamuk, C. & Peker, D. (2009). Turkish Pre-service Science and Mathematics Teachers’ Computer Related Self-efficacies, Attitudes, and the Relationship between These Variables. Computers & Education, 53(2), 454-461.

Pelton, L. F., & Pelton, T. (2006). Selected and Constructed Response Systems in Mathematics. In D. A. Banks (Ed.), Audience Response Systems in Higher Education (pp. 175-186). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.

Perez, K. E., Strauss, E. A., Downey, N., Galbraith, A., Jeanne, R., & Cooper, S. (2010). Does Displaying the Class Results Affect Student Discussion during Peer Instruction? CBE Life Sciences Education, 9(2), 133-140.

Piaget, J. (1953). The Origins of Intelligence in Children. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Pratton, J. & Hales, L. W. (1986). The Effects of Active Participation on Student Learning. The Journal of Educational Research, 79(4), 210-215.

Premadasa, K., Wijetunge, T., & Bhatia, K. (2016). Using Cellphones as Virtual Clickers in a Mathematics Classroom. Electronic Journal of Mathematics & Technology, 10(3).

Preszler, R. W., Dawe, A., Shuster, C. B., & Shuster, M. (2007). Assessment of the Effects of Student Response Systems on Student Learn-ing and Attitudes over a Broad Range of Biology Courses. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 29-41.

Quesada, A R. & Maxwell, M. E. (1994). The Effects of Using Graphing Calculators to Enhance College Students. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27(2), 205-15.

Reay, N. W., Bao, L. L. P., Warnakulasooriya, R., & Baugh, G. (2005). Toward the Effective Use of Voting Machines in Physics Lectures. American Journal of Physics, 73, 554.

Reynolds, K. C., & Nunn, C. E. (1997). Engaging Classrooms: Student Participation and the Instructional Factors that Shape It. In Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Albuquerque, NM.

Reznichenko, N. (2007). Learning with Graphing Calculator (GC): GC as a Cognitive Tool. Online Submission.

Roschelle, J., Penuel, W. R., & Abrahamson, L. (2004). The Networked Classroom. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 50-54.

Shirley, M. L., Irving, K. E., Sanalan, V. A., Pape, S. J., & Owens, D. T. (2009). Implementation of Connected Classroom Technology in Mathematics and Science Classrooms. Paper Presented at the Association of Science Teacher Educators Annual Conference, Hartford, CT.

Shirley, M. L., Irving, K. E., Sanalan, V. A., Pape, S. J., & Owens, D. T. (2011). The Practicality of Implementing Connected Classroom Technology in Secondary Mathematics and Science Classrooms. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(2), 459-481.

Sinclair, M., Wideman, H., & Owston, R. (2008). TI-Navigator Study Interim Report. Retrieved fromhttp://ti-researchlibrary.com/Lists/TI%20Education%20Technology%20%20Research%20Library/Attachments/80/York%20U%20Navigator%20study%20intrim%20report%20-%20Sinclair%2008.pdf

Sprague, E. W., & Dahl, D. W. (2010). Learning to Click. An Evaluation of the Personal Response System, Clicker Technology in Introductory Marketing Courses. Journal of Marketing Education, 32(1), 93-103.

Trees, A. R., & Jackson, M. H. (2007). The Learning Environment in Clicker Classrooms: Student Processes of Learning and Involvement in Large University—Level Courses Using Student Response Systems. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(1), 21-40.

Tremblay, E. (2010). Educating the Mobile Generation—Using Personal Cell Phones as Audience Response Systems in Post-secondary Science Teaching. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 29(2), 217-227.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Zullo, H., Cline, K., Parker, M., Buckmire, R., George, J., Gurski, K., & Spindler, R. (2011). Student Surveys: What Do They Think. MAA Notes: Teaching Mathematics with Classroom Voting.

How to cite this paper

Empowering Communication through Advanced Student Response Systems: Perspectives of Pre-service Mathematics Teachers

How to cite this paper: Tharanga Mahesh Kumara Wijetunge, Dennis St. John. (2018). Empowering Communication through Advanced Student Response Systems: Perspectives of Pre-service Mathematics Teachers. The Educational Review, USA, 2(6), 339-351.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.26855/er.2018.06.003