You are here:

Counting to 20: The Affordances and Constraints of Face-to-Face and Online Versions of an Elementary Mathematics Methods Problem-Solving Activity
PROCEEDINGS

, East Carolina University, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in San Diego, CA, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-78-5 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

This paper examines the role that different learning environments play in the implementation of a single problem-solving activity in an elementary mathematics methods course. This course is taught both online and face-to-face. The activity, done in the first class period or first module of the course, was initially used in a face-to-face class and then adapted later for use in an online class. While the task was originally designed for the face-to-face course, it is not the case that it is fully useful there and less useful in the online version. Rather, each context privileges different ideas about teaching and learning mathematics. Possibilities to address the challenges of each environment are considered with emphasis on task structure and the role of the instructor.

Citation

Stein, C. (2010). Counting to 20: The Affordances and Constraints of Face-to-Face and Online Versions of an Elementary Mathematics Methods Problem-Solving Activity. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2010--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 3523-3528). San Diego, CA, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved February 26, 2021 from .

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Ball, D.L. (1988). Unlearning to teach mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 8(1), 40-48.
  2. Clay, E. & Silverman, J. (2009). Reclaiming lost opportunities: The role of the teacher in online asynchronous collaboration in mathematics teacher education. In I. Gibson et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology& Teacher Education International Conference 2009 (pp. 519-526). Chesapeake,
  3. Khine, M.S., Yeap, L.L., & Lok, A.T.C. (2003). The quality of message ideas, thinking and interaction in an asynchronous CMC environment. Education Media International, 40(4), 41-46.
  4. McCrory, R., Putnam, R. & Jansen, A. (2008). Interaction in Online Courses for Teacher Education: Subject Matter and Pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(2), 155-180. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
  5. Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.
  6. Sawyer, R.K. (2004). Creative teaching: Collaborative discussion as disciplined improvisation. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 12-20.
  7. Schwier, R.A. & Balbar, S. (2002). The interplay of content and community in synchronous and asynchronous communication: Virtual communication in a graduate seminar. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 28(2), 21-30.
  8. Stahl, G. (2006). Sustaining group cognition in a math chat environment. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(2), 85-113.

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