2007
DOI: 10.1007/s10649-006-9051-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reconstruction of a Collaborative Mathematical Learning Process

Abstract: The study focused on the interaction between two secondary school students while they were working on computerized mathematical investigation tasks related to probability theory. The aim was to establish how such interaction helped the students to learn from one another, and how it may have hindered their learning process. The assumption was that interaction is beneficial for students if they can perform certain key activities, namely showing, explaining, justifying, and reconstructing their work. Both student… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
13
0
2

Year Published

2009
2009
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
2
13
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The one teacher who did do so insisted (in a wholeclass discussion) on further explanation of the misunderstanding, instead of reconstruction by "the right answer." The phenomenon whereby students adopt an (other) answer from a peer without explaining it was observed by others, for instance when students consider their peers as experts (Amit and Fried 2005;Pijls et al 2007a). A further observation by Ding et al (2007) was that two of the six teachers intensively stimulated the students to explain their work to each other, but that the majority mainly focussed on individual student questions (even during group work) and hence missed opportunities for encouraging peers to perform key activities.…”
Section: Daily Practice In Mathematics Educationmentioning
confidence: 82%
“…The one teacher who did do so insisted (in a wholeclass discussion) on further explanation of the misunderstanding, instead of reconstruction by "the right answer." The phenomenon whereby students adopt an (other) answer from a peer without explaining it was observed by others, for instance when students consider their peers as experts (Amit and Fried 2005;Pijls et al 2007a). A further observation by Ding et al (2007) was that two of the six teachers intensively stimulated the students to explain their work to each other, but that the majority mainly focussed on individual student questions (even during group work) and hence missed opportunities for encouraging peers to perform key activities.…”
Section: Daily Practice In Mathematics Educationmentioning
confidence: 82%
“…One explanation put forward by Clarke et al (2017) is the presence of a threshold effect; suggesting that practicing desired behaviors beyond a certain point is largely redundant. However, an alternative explanation relates to the observation that students learn mathematics through opportunities to construct their understanding in a social context, such as through peer-to-peer interactions (Kieran, 2001;Pijls, Dekker, & Van Hout-Wolters, 2007;Zakaria, Chin, & Daud, 2010).…”
Section: The Social-cognitive Rationale: Principlementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some potential causes for such difficulties might be due to the instructional problems and the student centered problems. The instructional problems might be because of: i) the common teacher centered classroom environments (Bulut, 2001;Gürbüz, 2006), ii) the lack of appropriate instructional materials or the abstractness of prepared materials (Gürbüz, 2006;Pijls, Dekker & Van Hout-Wolters, 2007), iii) the teaching language (i.e. students are taught in a second language in place of their mother-tongue) (Kazıma, 2006), and iv) teachers' lack of sufficient pedagogical content knowledge in teaching probability (Bulut, 2001;Fast, 1997).…”
Section: Issues In the Teaching Of The Probabilitymentioning
confidence: 99%