Communication and learning at computers: an overview

Authors

Rune Herheim

Abstract

The article highlights key findings from a research literature overview within the field of learning and communication, for face-to-face small group settings in which pupils use a computer. The overview surveys articles with a general learning approach and articles from the field of mathematics education. The purpose of the overview is to locate the most significant literature of the field and qualitatively summarize these articles by identifying the issues that are their focus. In addition, the article presents some of the sceptical arguments presented in the literature, and finally some important issues for future work are singled out.

References

Ainley, J., Nardi, E. & Pratt, D. (2000). The construction of meanings for trend in active graphing. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 5 (2), 85-114. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009854103737

Alrø, H. & Skovsmose, O. (2002). Dialogue and learning in mathematics education. Intention, reflection, critique (Vol. 29). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Alseth, B., Breiteig, T. & Brekke, G. (2003). Endringer og utvikling ved R!" som bakgrunn for videre planlegging og justering: matematikkfaget som kasus. Notodden: Telemarksforsking.

Anderson, A., McAteer, E., Tolmie, A. & Demissie, A. (1999). The effect of software type on the quality of talk. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 15 (1), 28-40. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2729.1999.151073.x

Artigue, M. (2000). Instrumentation issues and the integration of computer technologies into secondary mathematics teaching. In H.-G. Weigand et al. (Eds.), Selected papers from the annual conference on didactics of mathematics, Potsdam. Available 23 June, 2010 from http://webdoc.gwdg.de/ebook/e/ gdm/2000/

Bakhtin, M. & Holquist, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: four essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Barnes, D. & Todd, F. (1978). Communication and learning in small groups. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Baron, G.-L. & Bruillard, E. (2007). ICT, educational technology and educational instruments. Will what has worked work again elsewhere in the future? Education and Information Technologies, 12 (2), 71-81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-007-9033-9

Beauchamp, G. & Kennewell, S. (2008). The influence of ICT on the interactivity of teaching. Education and Information Technologies, 13 (4), 305-315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-008-9071-y

BECTA. (2004). Research report: ImpaCT#: the impact of information and communications technology on pupil learning and attainment, summary only. Coventry: Becta ICT Research.

BECTA. (2005). Tablet PCs in schools. A review of literature and selected projects. Coventry: Becta ICT Research.

BECTA. (2007). The impact of ICT in schools - a landscape review. Coventry: Becta Research.

Blomhøj, M. & Valero, P. (2009). The role of overview papers in mathematics education research. Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education, 14 (2), 1-3.

Clark, H. & Brennan, S. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. Resnick, J. Levine & S. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially-shared cognition (pp. 127- 149). Washington: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10096-006

Condie, R. & Munro, B. (2007). The impact of ICT in schools - a landscape review. Coventry: Becta.

Cox, M. & Abbott, C. (2004). ICT and attainment: a review of the research literature. Coventry and London: Becta, DfES.

Cox, M. & Marshall, G. (2007). Effects of ICT: Do we know what we should know? Education and Information Technologies, 12 (2), 59-70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-007-9032-x

Cox, M. & Webb, M. (2004). ICT and pedagogy: a review of the research literature. Coventry and London: Becta, DfES.

Crook, C. (1994). Computers and the collaborative experience of learning. London: Routledge.

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: computers in the classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674030107

Dawes, L., Mercer, N. & Wegerif, R. (2000). Extending talking and reasoning skills using ICT. In M. Leask (Ed.), Teaching and learning with ICT in the primary school (pp. 39-64). London: Routledge/Falmer.

Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: the risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL? (pp.61-91). Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.

Fisher, E. (1993). Characteristics of children's talk at the computer and its relationship to the computer software. Language and Education, 7 (2), 97-114. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500789309541351

Fuglestad, A. B. (2009). ICT for Inquiry in mathematics: a developmental research approach. The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 28 (2), 191-202.

Gadamer, H.-G. (2004). Truth and method. London: Continuum.

Galton, M., Hargreaves, L., Comber, C., Wall, D. & Pell, T. (1999). Changes in patterns of teacher interaction in primary classrooms: 1976-96. British Educational Research Journal, 25 (1), 23-37. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192990250103

Goos, M., Galbraith, P., Renshaw, P. & Geiger, V. (2003). Perspectives on technology mediated learning in secondary school mathematics classrooms. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 22 (1), 73-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(03)00005-1

Habermas, J. (1991). The theory of communicative action (Vol. 2). Cambridge: Polity Press.

Harré, R. & Gillett, G. (1994). The discursive mind. Thousand Oaks: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452243788

Haugsbakk, G. & Nordkvelle, Y. (2007). The rhetoric of ICT and the new language of learning: a cricitcal analysis of the use of ICT in the curricular field. European Educational Research Journal, 6 (1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2007.6.1.1

Healy, L., Pozzi, S. & Hoyles, C. (1995). Making sense of groups, computers, and mathematics. Cognition and Instruction, 13 (4), 505-523. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1304_3

Hennessy, S., Ruthven, K. & Brindley, S. (2005). Teacher perspectives on integrating ICT into subject teaching: commitment, constraints, caution, and change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37 (2), 155-192. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027032000276961

Hoyles, C. & Noss, R. (2003). What can digital technologies take from and bring to research in mathematics education? In A. Bishop (Ed.), Second international handbook of research in mathematics education (pp. 323-350). Dordrecht: Kluwer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0273-8_11

Jones, K. (2000). Providing a foundation for deductive reasoning: students' interpretations when using dynamic geometry software and their evolving mathematical explanations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44 (1), 55-85. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012789201736

Kieran, C. (2001). The mathematical discourse of 13-year-old partnered problem solving and its relation to the mathematics that emerges. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 46 (1), 187-228. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014040725558

Koschmann, T. (1996a). CSCL: theory and practice of an emerging paradigm. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Koschmann, T. (1996b). Paradigm shifts and intructional technology. An introduction. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 1-23). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lagrange, J. B., Artigue, M., Laborde, C. & Trouche, L. (2001). A meta study on IC technologies in education. Towards a multidimensional framework to tackle their integration into the teaching of mathematics. In M. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.), Proceedings of the #$th conference of the international group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 111-125). Utrecht University.

Lantz-Andersson, A. (2009). The power of natural frameworks: technology and the question of agency in CSCL settings. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4 (1), 93-107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-008-9058-0

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355

Lavy, I. (2006). A case study of different types of arguments emerging from explorations in an interactive computerized environment. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 25 (2), 153-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2006.02.006

Lavy, I. & Leron, U. (2004). The emergence of mathematical collaboration in an interactive computer environment. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9 (1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:IJCO.0000038244.16252.45

Linell, P. (1998). Approaching dialogue: talk, interaction and context in diaogical perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.3

Loveless, A. (2003). The role of ICT. London: Continuum.

Løvlie, L. (2006). Technocultural education. Seminar.net - International journal of media, technology and lifelong learning, 2 (1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.7577/seminar.2527

Mavrou, K., Lewis, A. & Douglas, G. (in press). Researching computer-based collaborative learning in inclusive classrooms in Cyprus: the role of the computer in pupils' interaction. British Journal of Educational Technology.

Mellin-Olsen, S. (1991). Hvordan tenker lærere om matematikk. Bergen: Høgskolen i Bergen.

Mercer, N. (1994). The quality of talk in children's joint activity at the computer. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 10 (1), 24-32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.1994.tb00279.x

Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108 (6), 1017-1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x

Monaghan, F. (2005). 'Don't think in your head, think aloud': ICT and exploratory talk in the primary school mathematics classroom. Research in Mathematics Education, 7 (1), 83-100. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794800008520147

Newton, P., Driver, R. & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290570

Nussbaum, M., Alvarez, C., McFarlane, A., Gomez, F., Claro, S. et al. (2009). Technology as small group face-to-face collaborative scaffolding. Computers & Education, 52 (1), 147-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.005

Panselinas, G. & Komis, V. (in press). Using educational software to support collective thinking and test hypotheses in the computer science curriculum. Education and Information Technologies.

Papert, S. (1981). Mindstorms. Brighton: Harvester. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-0348-5357-6

Persson, P.-E. (2009). Handheld calculators as tools for students' learning of algebra. Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education 14 (2), 49-77.

Pijls, M., Dekker, R. & Hout-Wolters, B. (2007). Reconstruction of a collaborative mathematical learning process. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 65 (3), 309-329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-9051-3

Ravenscroft, A., Wegerif, R. & Hartley, R. (2007). Reclaiming thinking: dialectic, dialogic and learning in the digital age. BJEP Monograph Series II, 5. Learning through Digital Technologies, 39-57. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709907X203670

Resta, P. & Laferrière, T. (2007). Technology in support of collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 19 (1), 65-83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9042-7

Richards, C. (2005). The design of effective ICT-supported learning activities: exemplary models, changing requirements, and new possibilities. Language Learning & Technology, 9 (1), 60-79.

Richards, C. (2006). Towards an integrated framework for designing effective ICT-supported learning environments: the challenge to better link technology and pedagogy. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 15 (2), 239- 255. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759390600769771

Rojas-Drummond, S. M., Albarrán, C. D. & Littleton, K. S. (2008). Collaboration, creativity and the co-construction of oral and written texts. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3 (3), 177-191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2008.09.008

Rommetveit, R. (1974). On message structure: a framework for the study of language and communication. London: John Wiley & Sons. Ltd.

Rommetveit, R. (1992). Outlines of a dialogically based social-cognitive approach to human cognition and communication. In A. Wold (Ed.), The dialogical alternative: towards a theory of language and mind (pp. 19-45). Oslo: Scandinavian Press.

Ruthven, K. & Hennessy, S. (2002). A practitioner model of the use of computer-based tools and resources to support mathematics teaching and learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49 (1), 47-88. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016052130572

Ruthven, K., Hennessy, S. & Deaney, R. (2008). Constructions of dynamic geometry: a study of the interpretative flexibility of educational software in classroom practice. Computers & Education, 51 (1), 297-317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.05.013

Samuelsson, J. (2006). ICT as a change agent of mathematics teaching in Swedish secondary school. Education and Information Technologies, 11 (1), 71-81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-005-5713-5

Samuelsson, J. (2007). How students interact when working with mathematics in an ICT context. Seminar.net - International journal of media, technology and lifelong learning, 3 (2), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.7577/seminar.2506

Sfard, A. & Kieran, C. (2001). Cognition as communication: rethinking learning-by-talking through multi-faceted analysis of students' mathematical interactions. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 8 (1), 42-76. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327884MCA0801_04

Silverman, B. G. (1995). Computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL). Computers & Education, 25 (3), 81-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-1315(95)00059-3

Sinclair, J. M. & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. London: Oxford University Press.

Sinclair, M. P. (2005). Peer interactions in a computer lab: reflections on results of a case study involving web-based dynamic geometry sketches. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 24 (1), 89-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2004.12.003

Skjervheim, H. (1996). Participant and spectator. In H. Skjervheim (Ed.), Selected essays. In honour of Hans Skjervheim's "%th birthday (pp. 127-141). Department of Philosophy, University of Bergen.

Stahl, G. (2005). Group cognition in computer-assisted collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21 (2), 79-90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00115.x

Stahl, G., Koschmann, T. & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: an historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409-426). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816833.025

Staarman, J. K., Krol, K. & Meijden, H. van der (2005). Peer interaction in three collaborative learning environments. The Journal of Classroom Interaction, 40 (1), 29-39.

Säljö, R. (1998). Learning as the use of tools. A sociocultural perspective on the human-technology link. In P. Light (Ed.), Learning with computers: analysing productive interactions (pp. 144-161). Florence: Routledge.

Sørensen, B., Danielsen, O. & Nielsen, J. (2007). Children's informal learning in the context of schools of the knowledge society. Education and Information Technologies, 12 (1), 17-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-006-9019-z

Teasley, S. D. & Roschelle, J. (1993). Constructing a joint problem space: the computer as a tool for sharing knowledge. In S. P. Lajoie & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 229-258). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Warschauer, M. (2007). The paradoxical future of digital learning. Learning Inquiry, 1 (1), 41-49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11519-007-0001-5

Wegerif, R. (1996a). Collaborative learning and directive software. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 12 (1), 22-32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.1996.tb00034.x

Wegerif, R. (1996b). Using computers to help coach exploratory talk across the curriculum. Computers & Education, 26 (1-3), 51-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-1315(95)00090-9

Wegerif, R. (2004). The role of educational software as a support for teaching and learning conversations. Computers & Education, 43 (1-2), 179-191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2003.12.012

Wegerif, R. (2005). Reason and creativity in classrooms dialogues. Language and Education, 19 (3), 223-237. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780508668676

Wegerif, R. (2007). Dialogic education and technology: expanding the space of learning. New York: Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-71142-3

Wegerif, R. (2008). Dialogic or dialectic? The significance of ontological assumptions in research on educational dialogue. British Educational Research Journal, 34 (3), 347-361. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920701532228

Wegerif, R., Littleton, K. & Jones, A. (2003). Stand-alone computers supporting learning dialogues in primary classrooms. International Journal of Educational Research, 39 (8), 851-860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2004.11.007

Wegerif, R., Mercer, N. & Dawes, L. (1998). Software design to support discussion in the primary curriculum. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 14 (3), 199-211. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2729.1998.143057.x

Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.

Wyndhamn, J. (2002). Att lära med och av ett datorprogram. En explorativ studie. In R. Säljö & J. Linderoth (Eds.), Utm@aningar och e-frestelser: IT och skolans lärkulturer (pp. 97-118). Stockholm: Prisma.

Wyndhamn, J. & Säljö, R. (2009). Meaning-making and the appropriation of geometric reasoning: computer mediated support for understanding the relationship between area and perimeter of parallelograms. In R. J. Krumsvik (Ed.), Learning in the network society and the digitized school (pp. 21-40). New York: Nova Science Publishers.

Åberg-Bengtsson, L. (2006). "Then you can take half ... almost" - elementary students learning bar graphs and pie charts in a computer-based context. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 25 (2), 116-135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2006.02.007

Downloads

Published

2024-11-19

How to Cite

Herheim, R. (2024). Communication and learning at computers: an overview. NOMAD Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education, 15(2), 69–94. Retrieved from https://tidsskrift.dk/NOMAD/article/view/148244