Static, dynamic and interactive elements in digital teaching materials in mathematics: How do they foster interaction, exploration and persistence?

Anneli Dyrvold; Ida Bergvall

doi:10.31129/LUMAT.11.3.1941

Authors

Anneli Dyrvold Department of Education, Uppsala University, Sweden
Ida Bergvall Department of Education, Uppsala University, Sweden https://orcid.org/0009-0007-7988-9445

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31129/LUMAT.11.3.1941

Keywords:

feedback, dynamic, attention, film, eye-tracking

Abstract

Contemporary comprehensive mathematics teaching material covering whole courses has developed substantially from the early versions that roughly were ‘books as pdf’ with some complementary online material. In teaching materials that are offered in online web portals (digital teaching platforms) a variety of dynamic and interactive elements can be utilised, offering new ways to engage with mathematics. Despite this recent development, the variety of affordances of the digital environment are utilised to a surprisingly small extent. The pros and cons with digital teaching materials in mathematics are debated, and publishers advertise with arguments about algorithms that lay out an ideal learning path and about joyful content. Critical for students’ learning while working with teaching materials is however that they find it meaningful to use the materials, a persistence in the interaction with the materials, and furthermore that the willingness to explore mathematics remains. In this study students’ interaction with digital teaching material with various kinds of dynamic and interactive elements supplementing the static parts in the presentation of new content is explored. Differences in students’ attention to mathematical facts, essential in the problem solving, is captured using an eye-tracker. Analyses of differences in attentive behaviour depending on the kind of digital element that are used for presentation reveal that the type of digital element that students attend the least to is static elements. Differences in what is offered to and what is demanded from a reader when mathematical facts are presented using various digital elements is discussed and potential implications from the results are suggested.

References

Abuloum, A., Farah, A., Kaskaloglu, E., & Yaakub, A. (2019). College students’ usage of and preferences for print and electronic textbooks. International Journal of emerging technologies in learning, 14(7), 80–97. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v14i07.9871 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v14i07.9871

Alagic, M. (2013). Teacher candidates’ perceptions of mathematical, cognitive and pedagogical fidelity of the “fill & pour” virtual manipulative. Proceedings of the 35th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. University of Illinois at Chicago.

Arroyo, I., Burleson, W., Tai, M., Muldner, K., & Woolf, B. P. (2013). Gender differences in the use and benefit of advanced learning technologies for mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 957–969. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032748 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032748

Baccaglini-Frank, A. (2021). To tell a story, you need a protagonist: How dynamic interactive mediators can fulfill this role and foster explorative participation to mathematical discourse. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 106(2), 291–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-020-10009-w DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-020-10009-w

Bergvall, I., & Dyrvold, A. (2021). A model for analysing digital mathematics teaching material from a social semiotic perspective. Designs for Learning, 13(1), 1–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.16993/dfl.167 DOI: https://doi.org/10.16993/dfl.167

Beserra, V., Nussbaum, M., & Oteo, M. (2019). On-task and off-task behavior in the classroom: A study on mathematics learning with educational video games. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 56(8), 1361–1383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117744346 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117744346

Boaler, J. (2015). Mathematical Mindsets: Unleashing Students’ Potential Through Creative Math, Inspiring Messages and Innovative Teaching. Jossey-Bass.

Bojko, A. (2013). Eye tracking the user experience. A practical guide to research. Rosenfeld Media, LLC.

Bokhove, C. and Drijvers, P. (2012) Effects of a digital intervention on the development of algebraic expertise, Computers & Education, 58(1), 197–208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/i.comDedu.201 1.08.010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.010

Bray, A., & Tangney, B. (2017). Technology usage in mathematics education research–A systematic review of recent trends. Computers & Education, 114, 255–273. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.07.004

Brnic, M., & Greefrath, G. (2022). Distance learning versus face-to-face classroom learning: student achievement in conditional probability when using a digital textbook with integrated digital tools. Twelfth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME12), Feb 2022, Bozen-Bolzano, Italy. hal-03748202

Çeziktürk, O. (2020). Understanding functional dependency on dynamic geometry systems (DGS): Napoleon and von aubel theorems on geogebra. International technology and education journal, 4(1), 15–21.

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155

Demir, M. (2018). Effects of virtual manipulatives with different approaches on students’ knowledge of slope. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 29(1), 25–50.

Dugué, L., Merriam, E.P., Heeger, D.J., Carrasco, M. (2020). Differential impact of endogenous and exogenous attention on activity in human visual cortex. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 21274–21274. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-78172-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-78172-x

Dyrvold, A. (2022). Missed opportunities in digital teaching platforms: under-use of interactive and dynamic elements. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 41(2), 135–161.

Dyrvold, A., & Bergvall, I. (2022). The role of dynamic elements in digital teaching platforms: an investigation of students’ reading behaviour. Proceedings of the Twelfth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education. Presented at the 12th Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education, online, 2-6 February 2022. Retrieved from http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-474571

Dyrvold, A., & Bergvall, I. (2023). Digital teaching platforms the use of dynamic functions to express mathematical content. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2023.2196555 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2023.2196555

Dyrvold., A., & Bergvall, I. (2023). Computer-based assessment in mathematics – issues about validity. LUMAT: International Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education, 11(3), 49–76. https://doi.org/10.31129/LUMAT.11.3.1877 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31129/LUMAT.11.3.1877

European Commission (2021). Blended learning for high quality and inclusive primary and secondary education: handbook, Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/237842

Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5 ed.). SAGE.

Glasnovic Gracin, D., & Krišto, A. (2022). Differences in the requirements of digital and printed mathematics textbooks: Focus on geometry chapters. CEPS Journal, 12(2), 95–117. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.1285 DOI: https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.1285

Gould, P. (2011). Electronic mathematics textbooks: Old wine in new skins? In Proceedings of the 5th APEC-Tsukuba conference, Japan.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Arnold.

Halliday, M.A.K., & Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. (2013). Halliday's Introduction to Functional Grammar (4th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203431269 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203431269

Heeren, B., & Jeuring, J. (2019). Automated feedback for mathematical learning environments. In ICTMT International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching. DOI: 10.17185/duepublico/48820

Hessels, R. S., Kemner, C., van den Boomen, C., & Hooge, I. T. C. (2016). The area-of-interest problem in eyetracking research: A noise-robust solution for face and sparse stimuli. Behavior Research Methods, 48(4), 1694–1712. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0676-y DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0676-y

Hoffman, J. E. (1998). Visual attention and eye movements. In H. Pashler (Ed.), Attention, (pp. 119–154). University College London Press.

Huang, Y., Huang, S., & Wu, T. (2014). Embedding diagnostic mechanisms in a digital game for learning mathematics. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(2), 187–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-013-9315-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-013-9315-4

Junco, R., & Clem, C. (2015). Predicting course outcomes with digital textbook usage data. The Internet and Higher Education, 27, 54–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.06.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.06.001

Kanwar, P., & Mesa, V. (2022). Mapping student real-time viewing of dynamic textbooks to their utilization schemes of questioning devices. In Twelfth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME12).

Laughlin Davis, L., Morrison, K., Zhou-Yile Schnieders, J., & Marsh, B. (2021). Developing Authentic Digital Math Assessments. Journal of Applied Testing Technology, 22(1), 1–11.

Mamolo, L. A. (2019). Development of digital interactive math comics (DIMaC) for senior high school students in general mathematics. Cogent Education, 6(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1689639

Mato-Vázquez, D., Castro-Rodríguez, M., Pereiro-González, C. (2018). Análisis de materiales didácticos digitales para guiar y/o apoyar el proceso de enseñanza-aprendizaje de las matemáticas. @tic revista d’innovació educativa, (20). 72–79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7203/attic.20.12117

McAlpin, E., Shilane, D., & Kalaycioglu, S. (2019). Dynamic versus static presentation formats, do they impact performance differently? Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 38(1), 49–76.

Moyer-Packenham, P. S., & Westenskow, A. (2013). Effects of virtual manipulatives on student achievement and mathematics learning. International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments, 4(3), 35–50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/jvple.2013070103

Nurmi, S., & Jaakkola, T. (2006). effectiveness of learning objects in various instructional settings. Learning, Media & Technology, 31(3), 233–247. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17439880600893283

O’Halloran, K. L., Beezer, R. A., & Farmer, D. W. (2018). A new generation of mathematics textbook research and development. Zdm, 50(5), 863–879. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0959-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0959-8

Pashler, H. E. (1999). The Psychology of Attention. MIT Press.

Pinkernell, G., Gulden, L., & Kalz, M. (2020). Automated feedback at task level: error analysis or worked out examples –which type is more effective? Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching – ICTMT 14. https://doi.org/10.17185/duepublico/70767

Pohl, M., & Schacht, F. (2017). Digital mathematics textbooks: Analyzing structure of student uses. In G. Aldon & J. Trgalová (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching – ICTMT 13.

Poon, K. K., & Wong, K. L. (2017). Pre-constructed dynamic geometry materials in the classroom--how do they facilitate the learning of “similar triangles”? International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 48(5), 735–755. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2016.1264636

Rai, Y., & Callet, P. L. (2018). Chapter 3 - Visual attention, visual salience, and perceived interest in multimedia applications. In Academic Press Library in Signal Processing, Volume 6 (pp. 113–161). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811889-4.00003-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811889-4.00003-8

Reinhold, F., Hoch, S., Werner, B., Richter-Gebert, J., & Reiss, K. (2020). Learning fractions with and without educational technology: What matters for high-achieving and low-achieving students?. Learning and Instruction, 65, 101264. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101264

Rezat, S. (2021). How automated feedback from a digital mathematics textbook affects primary students’ conceptual development: two case studies. Zdm, 53(6), 1433–1445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01263-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01263-0

Rezat, S., Fan, L., & Pepin, B. (2021a). Mathematics textbooks and curriculum resources as instruments for change. Zdm, 53(6), 1189–1206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01309-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01309-3

Rezat, S., Schacht, F., & Häsel-Weide, U. (2021b). Challenges of making sense of tasks and automated feedback in digital mathematics textbooks. In Mathematics Education in the Digital Age (pp. 168–184). Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003137580-11

Rodríguez‐Aflecht, G., Jaakkola, T., Pongsakdi, N., Hannula‐Sormunen, M., Brezovszky, B., & Lehtinen, E. (2018). The development of situational interest during a digital mathematics game. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(3), 259–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12239 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12239

Ruthven, K. (2018). Instructional activity and student interaction with digital resources. In L. Fan, L. Trouche, C. Qi, S. Rezat, & J. Visnovska (Eds,). Research on mathematics textbooks and teachers' resources: Advances and issues. (pp. 261-276). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73253-4_12 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73253-4_12

Shin, M., Park, J., Grimes, R., & Bryant, D. P. (2021). Effects of using virtual manipulatives for students with disabilities: Three-level multilevel modeling for single-case data. Exceptional Children, 87(4), 418–437. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029211007150

Stevenson, C. E. (2017). Role of working memory and strategy-use in feedback effects on children’s progression in analogy solving: An explanatory item response theory account. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 27(3), 393–418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-016-0129-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-016-0129-5

Tobii Pro AB (2014). Tobii Pro Lab [Computer software]. Tobii Pro AB.

Vahey, P., Kim, H.-J., Jackiw, N., Sela, H., & Knudsen, J. (2020). From the static to the dynamic: teachers’ varying use of digital technology to support conceptual learning in a curricular activity system. Zdm, 52(7), 1275–1290. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01182-6

Van der Kleij, F., Feskens, R., & Eggen, T. (2015). Effects of feedback in a computer-based learning environment on students' learning outcomes: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85(4), 475–511. Retrieved December 9, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/24753021 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314564881

Van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Introducing social semiotics. Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203647028