Interactive Learning in Mathematics Education: Review of Recent Literature
Article
Murat Kahveci, Yesim Imamoglu, Bogazici University, Turkey
JCMST Volume 26, Number 2, ISSN 07319258 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA
Abstract
This review investigates the use of certain types of interaction in mathematics education. These types include interaction between students, interaction between teacher and students, and interaction between students and leaning technology. Studenttechnology interactions are explained by computer programs that use problemsolving strategies and multiple representations. Interaction between teacher and students are explained in two categories, classroom interaction and small group interaction. Teachers need to consider many factors in order to establish a classroom environment to enhance the mathematical understanding of their students. In small cooperative groups, factors that effect interaction are as follows: group composition, type of interaction, effect of teacher, interdependence of students and nature of the task. We provide some teaching implications of the findings as follows: students should be encouraged to use multiple representations to develop problem solving strategies; students' motivation to learn should be mastery goal oriented, teachers should try to create contexts for mathematical argumentation; teachers should encourage student participation in classroom discussions; students should be expected to provide mathematical reasoning rather than producing the right answer; and design of tasks should be suitable to promote skills such as mathematical reasoning and metacognition.
Citation
Kahveci, M. & Imamoglu, Y. (2007). Interactive Learning in Mathematics Education: Review of Recent Literature. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26(2), 137153. Waynesville, NC USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved October 17, 2019 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/22834/.
© 2007 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)
Keywords
References
View References & Citations Map Adiguzel, T., & Akpinar, Y. (2004). Improving school children’s mathematical word problemsolving skills through computerbased multiple representations. 27th Annual Conference of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Chicago, IL. Retrieved January 13, 2007, from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal?_ Nfpb=true&_pageLabel=RecordDetails&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_ 0=ED485024&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_accno&objectId=0900 000b80249cbe.
 Akpinar, Y., & Hartley, J.R. (1996). Designing interactive learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 12(1), 3346.
 Bork, A. (1982). Interactive learning. In R. Taylor (Ed.), The computer in the school. New York: Teachers College Press.
 Chang, K.E., Sung, Y.T., & Lin, S.F. (2006). Computerassisted learning for mathematical problem solving. Computers& Education, 46(2), 140151.
 Cohen, E.G. (1994). Restructuring the classroomconditions for productive smallgroups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 135.
 Davidson, N., & Kroll, D.L. (1991). An overview of research on cooperative learning related to mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(5), 362365.
 Eklund, J. (1995). Cognitive models for structuring hypermedia and implications for learning from the worldwide web. Proceedings of First Australian WorldWide Web Conference, (pp. 111116), Ballina, NSW, Australia.
 Jonassen, D.H. (1988). Instructional designs for microcomputer courseware. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
 Kazemi, E., & Stipek, D. (2001). Promoting conceptual thinking in four upperelementary mathematics classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 102(1), 152 Kahveci and Imamoglu
 Kirsh, D. (1997). Interactivity and multimedia interfaces. Instructional Science, 25(2), 7996.
 Kramarski, B. (2004). Making sense of graphs: Does metacognitive instruction make a difference on students’ mathematical conceptions and alternative conceptions? Learning and Instruction, 14(6), 593619.
 Kramarski, B., & Mevarech, Z.R. (2003). Enhancing mathematical reasoning in the classroom: The effects of cooperative learning and metacognitive training. American Educational Research Journal, 40(1), 281310.
 Lesh, R., & Doerr, H.M. (2003). Beyond constructivism. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
 Mevarech, Z.R. (1999). Effects of metacognitive training embedded in cooperative settings on mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Research, 92(4), 195205.
 Mevarech, Z.R., & Kramarski, B. (2003). The effects of metacognitive training versus workedout examples on students’ mathematical reasoning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 449471.
 Pinar, W.F., Reynolds, W.M., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P.M. (2000). Understanding curriculum. New York: Peter Lang.
 Polya, G. (1945). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
 Sanchez, J.C., Encinas, L.H., Fernandez, R.L., & Sanchez, M.R. (2002). Designing hypermedia tools for solving problems in mathematics. Computers& Education, 38(4), 303317.
 Turner, J.C., & Patrick, H. (2004). Motivational inﬂ uences on student participation in classroom learning activities. Teachers College Record, 106(9), 17591785.
 Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
 Wagner, E.D. (1989). Interaction: An attribute of good instruction or a characteristic of instructional technology? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National University Continuing Education Association, Salt Lake City, UT.
 Wagner, E.D. (1994). In support of a functional deﬁ nition of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 629.
 Wagner, E.D. (1997). Interactivity: From agents to outcomes. In T.E. Cyrs (Ed.), New directions for teaching and learning (Vol. 71). San Francisco: JosseyBass.
 Webb, N.M. (1991). Taskrelated verbal interaction and mathematics learning in smallgroups. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(5), 366389.
 Webb, N.M., Baxter, G.P., & Thompson, L. (1997). Teachers’ grouping practices in ﬁ fthgrade science classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 98(2), 91113.
 Webb, N.M., Ender, P., & Lewis, S. (1986). Problemsolving strategies and group processes in small groups learning computer programming. American Interactive Learning in Mathematics Education 153
 Webb, N.M., Nemer, K.M., & Ing, M. (2006). Smallgroup reﬂ ections: Parallels between teacher discourse and student behavior in peerdirected groups. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 63119.
 Webb, N.M., Troper, J.D., & Fall, R. (1995). Constructive activity and learning in collaborative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 406423.
 Wood, T. (1999). Creating a context for argument in mathematics class. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(2), 171191.
 Yackel, E., Cobb, P., & Wood, T. (1991). Smallgroup interactions as a source of learning opportunities in 2ndgrade mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(5), 390408.
 Zawojeski, J.S., Lesh, R., & English, L. (2003). A models and modeling perspective on the role of small group learning activities. In R. Lesh & H.M. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism (pp. 337358). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.
Suggest Corrections to ReferencesCited By
View References & Citations Map
The Effects of Response Modes and Cues on Language learning, Cognitive Load and SelfEfficacy Beliefs in WebBased Learning
ChingHuei Chen, National Changhua University of Education, Taiwan; Kun Huang, Mississippi State University, United States
Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia Vol. 23, No. 2 (April 2014) pp. 117–134

Using a Learning Management Software to Investigate Teaching Mathematics to Diverse Learners
Marcia Burrell & Faith Maina, SUNY Oswego, United States
Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2009 (Mar 02, 2009) pp. 1777–1782
These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.