You are here:

The Effects of Technology-Mediated Dialogic Learning in Elementary Mathematics Instruction

, Michigan State University, United States

JCMST Volume 37, Number 3, ISSN 0731-9258 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA


The use of technology in elementary mathematics instruction tends to be low-level, despite its affordance of supporting the development of students’ high-level reasoning ability. This study builds upon a sociocultural view of learning and was designed to determine what effect a technology-mediated dialogic learning intervention has on third-grade students’ mathematical problem-solving ability as well as the quality of their mathematical talk. Using a pretest-posttest quasi-experimental design, the treatment condition used the VoiceThread iPad app to mediate small group discussion of word problem solving solution strategies, while students in the control condition participated in traditional teacher-directed mathematics instruction. Students in the treatment condition performed as well as the control condition on the posttest, but had significantly better quality mathematical discussions in response to the intervention.


Working, C. (2018). The Effects of Technology-Mediated Dialogic Learning in Elementary Mathematics Instruction. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 37(3), 265-286. Waynesville, NC USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 22, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map


  1. Acosta-Tello, E. (2010). Making Mathematics Word Problems Reliable Measures of Student Mathematics Abilities. Journal of Mathematics Education, 3(1), 15–26.
  2. Anderson, R. C., Chinn, C., Chang, J., Waggoner, M., & Wi, H. (1997). The logical integrity of children’s arguments. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 135–167.
  3. Ayala, R. J. (2009). The theory and practice of item response theory. The theory and practice of item response theory. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
  4. Barber, W., King, S., & Buchanan, S. (2015). Problem based learning and authentic assessment in digital pedagogy: Embracing the role of collaborative communities. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 13(2), 59–67. Https://doi.
  5. Org/
  6. Dobson, E., & Littleton, K. (2015). Digital technologies and the mediation of undergraduate students’ collaborative music compositional practices. Learning, Media and Technology, (August 2015), 1–21. Http://
  7. 080/17439884.2015.1047850
  8. Dudley, P. (2013). Teacher learning in lesson study: What interaction-level discourse analysis revealed about how teachers utilised imagination, tacit knowledge of teaching and fresh evidence of pupils learning, to develop practice knowledge and so enhance their pupils’ lea. Teaching and Teacher Education, 34, 107–121.
  9. Falloon, G., & Khoo, E. (2014). Exploring young students’ talk in iPad-supported collaborative learning environments. Computers and Education, 77(June 2015), 13–28.
  10. Fiore, S. M., & Wiltshire, T. J. (2016). Technology as teammate: Examining the role of external cognition in support of team cognitive processes. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(OCT), 1–17. , S. R., Seethaler, P. M., Capizzi, A. M., & Fletcher, J. M. (2006). The cognitive correlates of third-grade skill in arithmetic, algorithmic computation, and arithmetic word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 29-43. Doi:10.1037/00220663.98.1.29
  11. Gowda, S., Rowe, J., Baker, R. S. J. D., Chi, M., & Koedinger, K. R. (2011). Improving models of slipping, guessing, and moment-by-moment learning with estimates of skill difficulty. In M. Pechenizkiy, T. Calders, C. Cona-
  12. Jeong, H., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2016). Seven affordances of computer-supported collaborative learning: How to support collaborative learning? How
  13. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2008). Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning: The teacher’s role. In R. Gillies, A. Ashman, & J. Terwel (Eds.), The teacher’s role in implementing cooperative learning in the classroom (Vol. 7, pp. 9-37). New York, NY: Springer.
  14. Kotsopoulos, D. (2010). An analysis of talking aloud during peer collaborations in mathematics. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8, 1049–1070.
  15. Kutnick, P., Ota, C., & Berdondini, L. (2008). Improving the effects of group working in classrooms with young school-aged children: Facilitating attainment, interaction and classroom activity. Learning and Instruction, 18(1), 83–95.
  16. Lan, Y.-J., Sung, Y.-T., & Chang, K.-E. (2009). Let us read together: Development and evaluation of a computer-assisted reciprocal early English
  17. Org/
  18. Lin, H., & Kelsey, K. D. (2009). Building a networked environment in wikis: The evolving phases of collaborative learning in a wikibook project. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 40, 145–169.
  19. Ludvigsen, S. R., & Mørch, A. (2010). Computer-supported collaborative learning: Basic concepts, multiple perspectives, and emerging trends. The International Encyclopedia of Education, 3rd Edition, 290–296. Http://doi.
  20. Org/
  21. Mameli, C., Mazzoni, E., & Molinari, L. (2015). Patterns of discursive interactions in primary classrooms: an application of social network analysis. Research Papers in Education, (August), 1–21.
  22. 22.2015.1027727
  23. Mercer, N. (2004). Sociocultural discourse analysis: Analysing classroom talk as a social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 137–168.
  24. Mercer, N., & Sams, C. (2006). Teaching Children How to Use Language to Solve Maths Problems. Language and Education, 20(6), 507–528. Http://
  26. Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (1999). Children’s talk and the development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 95–111.
  27. Meyer, D. K., & Turner, J. C. (2010). Using Instructional Discourse Analysis to Study the Scaffolding of Student Self-Regulation Using Instructional Discourse Analysis to Study the Scaffolding of Student
  28. Meyers, R. A., & Seibold, D. R. (2012). Coding Group Interaction. In A. Hollingshead & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Research methods for studying groups and
  29. O’Donnell, A. M. (2006). The Role of Peers and Group Learning. In P.
  30. Org/
  31. Oortwijn, M. B., Boekaerts, M., & Vedder, P. (2008). The effect of stimulating immigrant and national pupils’ helping behaviour during cooperative learning in classrooms on their maths-related talk. Educational Studies, 34, 333– 342.
  32. Pantaleo, S. (2007). Interthinking: Young children using language to think collectively during interactive read-alouds. Early Childhood Education Journal, 34, 439–447.
  33. Pifarré, M., & Kleine Staarman, J. (2011). Wiki-supported collaborative learning in primary education: How a dialogic space is created for thinking together. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6, 187–205.
  34. Polly, D. (2014). Elementary school teachers’ use of technology during mathematics teaching. Computers in the Schools, 31(4), 271–292. Http://
  35. Polly, D. (2016). Exploring the relationship between the use of technology with enacted tasks and questions in elementary school mathematics. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 23(3), 111–118.
  36. Resta, P., & Laferrière, T. (2007). Technology in support of collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 65–83.
  37. Roschelle, J., Rafanan, K., Bhanot, R., Estrella, G., Penuel, B., Nussbaum, M., & Claro, S. (2009). Scaffolding group explanation and feedback with handheld technology: Impact on students’ mathematics learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(4), 399–419. Http://doi.
  38. Org/
  39. Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories: An educational perspective (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
  40. Schwarz, B. B., de Groot, R., Mavrikis, M., & Dragon, T. (2015). Learning to learn together with CSCL tools. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(3), 239–271.
  41. Tsuei, M. (2012). Using synchronous peer tutoring system to promote elementary students’ learning in mathematics. Computers & Education, 58(4), 1171–1182.
  42. Vogel, F., Wecker, C., Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (2017). Socio-cognitive scaffolding with computer-supported collaboration scripts: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 29(3), 477–511.
  43. Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (1999). From social interaction to individual reasoning: an empirical investigation of a possible socio-cultural model of cognitive development. Learning and Instruction, 9(6), 493–516. Http://
  45. Wersch, J. (1994). The primacy of mediated action in sociocultural studies. Mind, Culture and Activity, 1(4), 202–208.
  46. Woo, D. J. (2016). Structural barriers and organizational mechanisms for training and deploying ICT champions in a school. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(4), 839–855.
  47. Yackel, E., Cobb, P., & Wood, T. (1991). Small-group interactions as a source of learning opportunities in second-grade mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 390–408.
  48. Yardley, L. (2008). Demonstrating validity in qualitative psychology. In J. A. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (second edition, pp. 235-251). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
  49. Zhang, M., Trussell, R. P., Gallegos, B., & Asam, R. R. (2015). Using math apps for improving student learning: An exploratory study in an inclusive fourth grade classroom. TechTrends, 59(2), 32–39.
  50. Zheng, B., Warschauer, M., Lin, C.-H., & Chang, C. (2016). Learning in one-to-one laptop environments: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, (1986), 1–33. Http://doi.
  51. Org/
  52. Zurita, G., & Nussbaum, M. (2007). A conceptual framework based on Activity Theory for mobile CSCL. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 211–235.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact