You are here:

The Role of Human-Technology Scaffolding in Changing the Dynamics of the Classroom
PROCEEDINGS

, , , , University of Cincinnati, United States

EdMedia + Innovate Learning, in Honolulu, HI, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-73-0 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC

Full Text

Abstract

In developing Math Pursuits, we have designed a learning environment that helps learners connect mathematics to the world around them. The ultimate goal of this research is to design and assess a learning environment that incorporates distributed scaffolding which enables both human and technological supports. Pilot testing was conducted over two years with two fifth-grade classrooms from a large Midwestern school. Through an iterative research cycle, we have identified challenges presented by this goal and have made modifications to the original learning environment. Through an initial qualitative analysis of videotaped classroom sessions, we have noted a dramatic change in classroom dynamics, from a very quiet classroom with limited teacher-student interaction to a more interactive classroom where the teacher can quickly scan the room to provide the support needed by the students.

Citation

Grincewicz, A., Mannheimer Zydney, J., Diehl, L. & Jones, P. (2009). The Role of Human-Technology Scaffolding in Changing the Dynamics of the Classroom. In G. Siemens & C. Fulford (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2009--World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 1294-1302). Honolulu, HI, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 2, 2021 from .

© 2009 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Ackerman, P.T. & Dykman, R.A. (1995). Reading-disabled students with and without comorbid arithmetic disability. Developmental Neuropsychology, 11, 351-371.
  2. Atkinson, R.K., Derry, S.J., Renkl, A., & Wortham, D. (2000). Learning from examples: Instructional principles from worked example research. Review of Educational Research, 70 (2), 181-214.
  3. Atkinson, R.K. & Renkl, A. (2007). Interactive example-based learning environments: Using interactive elements to encourage effective processing of worked examples. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 375-386.
  4. Badian, N. (1983). Dyscalculia and nonverbal disorders of learning. In H. Myklebust (Ed.), Progress in Learning Disabilities (pp. 235-264). New York: Stratton.
  5. Brown, A.L., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K., Gordon, A., & Campione, J. (1993). Distributed expertise in the classroom. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. (pp. 188-225). New York: Cambridge University Press
  6. Cardova, D.I. & Lepper, M.R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 715-730.
  7. Cawley, J.F., Parmar, R.S., Yan, W., & Miller, J.H. (1998). Arithmetic computation performance of students with learning disabilities: Implications for curriculum. Learning Disabilities Research& Practice, 13, 68-74.
  8. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992). The Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instruction design. Educational Technology Research& Development, 40(1), 65-80.
  9. Corbalan, G., Kester, L., and van Merrienboer, J.J.G. (2006). Towards a personalized task selection model with shared instructional control. Instructional Science, 34, 399-422.
  10. Csikzentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow. The psychology of engagement with everyday life. New York: Basic Books.
  11. Geary, D.C. & Hoard, M.K. (2001). Numerical and arithmetical deficits in learning-disabled children: relation to dyscalculia and dyslexia. Aphasiology, 15, 635-647.
  12. Grobe, C.S. & Renkl, A. (2006). Effects of multiple solution methods in mathematics learning. Learning and Instruction, 16(2), 122-138.
  13. Hickey, D.T., Moore, A.L., & Pellegrino, J.W. (2001). The motivational and academic consequences of two innovative mathematics environments: Do curricular innovations and reforms make a difference? American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 611, 652.
  14. Hickey, D.T., Kruger, A.C., Fredrick, L.D., Schafer, N.J. And Zuiker, S.J. (2009) ‘Design-based alignment of incentives, discourse, understanding, and achievement: The GenScope assessment project’, Manuscript submitted for publication. Note: Availability will be provided upon acceptance of manuscript.
  15. Hickey, D.T. And Zuiker, S.J. (2005) ‘Engaged participation: A sociocultural model of motivation with implications for educational assessment’, Educational Assessment, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 277-305.
  16. Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38, 23-31.
  17. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., Tuovinen, J., & Sweller, J. (2001). When problem solving is superior to studying worked examples. Journal of Educational Pschology, 93, 579-588.
  18. Kopcha, T.J. And Sullivan, H. (2008). Learner preferences and prior knowledge in learner-controlled computerbased instruction. Education Technology Research& Development, 56, 265-286.
  19. Perie, M., Grigg, W., & Dion, G. (2005). The Nation's Report Card: Mathematics 2005 (NCES 2006-453). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Puntambekar, Sadhana & Kolodner, Janet L. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 185-217.
  20. Renkl, A. (2002). Worked-out examples: instructional explanations support learning by self-explanations. Learning and Instruction, 12, 529-556.
  21. Rose, D.H. & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  22. Salomon, G. (Ed.) (1993). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  23. Sharma, P., & Hannafin, M. (2007). Scaffolding in technology-enhanced learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 15(1), 27-46.
  24. Sulzer-Azaroff, B., & Mayer, G.R. (1977). Applying behavior analysis procedures with children and youth. New York: Holt, Rinehart& Winston.
  25. Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of Distributed scaffolding. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 305-335.
  26. U.S. Department of Education (2002). Twenty-fourth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author. Vygotsky, L.S. (1935/1978). Interaction between learning and development. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society (pp. 79-91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read

Related Collections