Abstract
The framing theory guiding the work described here is that mathematics learning is facilitated through long-term student engagement in collaborative projects, integration of sustained emphasis on content knowledge, deep engagement of student interests, and support for student experience and progress, and commitment to learning through interactive microworlds that foster modeling and collaboration. We describe two case studies of software design/implementation, one an animation environment, and the other a game and game-design microworld. We describe each case in some detail, and compare the projects’ affordances, constraints, and design lessons, and persisting challenges.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In fact the Lunar Lander was designed to form part of materials within the BBC Jam initiative.
- 2.
Three levels of the software are planned, if funding permits. The first is described herein; the second adds 3D perspective and lighting and the third adds in acoustics and sound.
References
Ainley, J., Pratt, D., & Hansen, A. (2006). Connecting engagement and focus in pedagogic task design. British Educational Research Journal, 32(1), 23–38.
Clements, D. H. (2004). Geometric and spatial thinking in early childhood education. In D. H. Clements, J. Sarama & A.-M. DiBiase (Eds.), Engaging young children in mathematics: standards for early childhood mathematics education (pp. 267–298). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2004). Learning trajectories in mathematics education. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(2), 81–89.
Confrey, J. (1990). What constructivism implies for teaching. In C. Maher, R. Davis & N. Noddings (Eds.), Constructivist views on the teaching and learning of mathematics (4th ed., pp. 107–124). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Confrey, J. (2006). The evolution of design studies as methodology. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 135–152). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Confrey, J., & Maloney, A. (1999). Interactive diagrams. Ithaca, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Confrey, J., & Maloney, A. (2006). Graphs ‘n glyphs: Unpublished software.
Confrey, J., & Maloney, A. (2007a). Research-design interactions in building function probe software. In M. K. Heid (Ed.), Research on technology and the teaching and learning of mathematics. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing Inc.
Confrey, J., & Maloney, A. (2007b). A theory of mathematical modelling in technological settings. In W. Blum, P. L. Galbraith, H.-W. Henn & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education: The 14th ICMI study. New York: Springer.
Confrey, J., Castro-Filho, J., Maloney, A., & Wilhelm, J. (1999). Interactive diagrams to address key student conceptions in mathematics. Science Education and Technology, 231–236.
Gravemeijer, K., Lehrer, R., van Oers, B., & Verschaffel, L. (Eds.). (2004). Symbolizing, modeling and tool use in mathematics education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Hall, R. C. (1999). Case studies of math at work: exploring design-oriented mathematical practices in school and work. Final Report to the National Science Foundation.
Harel, I. (1988). Software design for learning: children’s constructions of meanings for fractions and logo programming. MIT Media Laboratory, Cambridge, MA.
Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1991). Constructionism. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Hoyles, C. (1993). Microworlds/schoolworlds: the transformation of an innovation. In C. Keitel & K. Ruthven (Eds.), Learning from computers: mathematics education and technology. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Hoyles, C., Sutherland, R., & Noss, R. (1991). Evaluating a computer-based microworld: what to pupils learn and why. Paper presented at the 15th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Assisi.
Hoyles, C., Noss, R., Adamson, R., Lower, S., & Gurtner, J.-L. (2002). Face-to-face and online collaboration: appreciating rules and adding complexity. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Lifelong Learning, 12(5/6), 521–539.
Jolly, E. J., Campbell, P. B., & Perlman, L. (2004). Engagement, capacity and continuity: a trilogy for student success. GE Foundation.
Kafai, Y. B. (1995). Computer game design as a context for children’s learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kahn, K., Sendova, E., Sacristán, A. I., & Noss, R. (2005). Making infinity concrete by programming never-ending processes. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Technology and Mathematics Teaching, Bristol, UK.
Kalas, I. (2007). Gauges: dynamic tools for exploratory learning. Paper presented at the Logo 07, Slovakia.
Krause, E. F. (1975). Taxicab geometry. Philippines: Addison-Wesley.
Latour, B. (1990). Drawing things together. In M. Lynch & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (2002). Legitimate peripheral participation in communities of practice. In M. R. Lea & K. Nicoll (Eds.), Distributed learning: social and cultural approaches to practice (pp. 56–63). London: Routledge/Falmer.
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2000). Modeling in mathematics and science. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 101–159). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 371–388). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lehrer, R., Strom, D., & Confrey, J. (2002). Grounding metaphors and inscriptional resonance: children’s emerging understanding of mathematical similarity. Cognition and Instruction, 20(3), 359–398.
Miller, C. S., Lehman, J. F., & Koedinger, K. R. (1999). Goals and learning in microworlds. Cognitive Science, 23(3), 305–336.
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2004). Mathematics grade-level expectations. Retrieved 10 November, 2006, from http://dese.mo.gov/divimprove/curriculum/GLE/Math%20GLE%20FINAL%20-%20ALL%20SECTIONS.DOC.
Mor, Y., & Noss, R. (2008). Programming as mathematical narrative. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life-Long Learning, 18(2), 214–233.
Mor, Y., Noss, R., Hoyles, C., Kahn, K., & Simpson, G. (2006). Designing to see and share structure in number sequences. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 13(2), 65–78.
Murnane, R. J., & Levy, F. (1998). Standards, information, and the demand for student achievement. Federal Reserve Bank of New York Economic Policy Review, 4(1), 117–124.
Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (1996). Windows on mathematical meanings: learning cultures and computers. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (2006). Exploring mathematics through construction and collaboration. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 389–405). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Noss, R., Bakker, A., Hoyles, C., & Kent, P. (2007). Situating graphs as workplace knowledge. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 65(3), 367–384.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: children, computers and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.
Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism. Stamford, CT: Ablex Publishing.
Papert, S. (1996). An exploration in the space of mathematics educations. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 1(1), 95–123.
Rosas, R., Nussbaum, M., Cumsillea, P., Marianov, V., Correaa, M., Floresa, P., et al (2003). Beyond Nintendo: design and assessment of educational video games for first and second grade students. Computers & Education, 40, 71–94.
Roschelle, J., Kaput, J. J., & Stroup, W. (2000). Simcalc: accelerating student engagement with the mathematics of change. In M. J. Jacobsen & R. B. Kozma (Eds.), Innovations in science and mathematics education: advanced designs for technologies of learning (pp. 47–75). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Simon, M. A. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Research in Mathematics Education, 26, 114–145.
Simpson, G., Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (2005). Designing a programming-based approach for modelling scientific phenomena. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 143–158.
Simpson, G., Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (2007). Exploring the mathematics of motion through construction and collaboration. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 1–23.
Weir, S. (1987). Cultivating minds: a Logo casebook. New York: Harper and Row.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Confrey, J. et al. (2009). Designing Software for Mathematical Engagement through Modeling. In: Hoyles, C., Lagrange, JB. (eds) Mathematics Education and Technology-Rethinking the Terrain. New ICMI Study Series, vol 13. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0146-0_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0146-0_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-0145-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-0146-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)