The effects of whole-class interactive instruction with Single Display Groupware for Triangles

Whole-class interactive instruction is an instructional approach in which all of the students in a class create knowledge together in an interactive way, mediated by the teacher. The current mixed-method study compared the effects of a specific implementation of whole-class interactive instruction, Single Display Groupware (SDG), with traditional classical instruction of geometry, for 69 third-grade students. In SDG students work in groups that share one area on a large display screen in front of the class. Each individual student in a group has a mouse and together the students in each group need to perform assignments by using "silent collaboration". In the current study, the assignment for the students was to identify and create different kinds of triangles. Outcomes of interest were learning gains (quantitative) and effectiveness of "silent collaboration" (qualitative). Learning gains were significantly higher for students in the SDG condition than for students following traditional instruction. An analysis of emerging activity patterns showed that students found natural ways to silently collaborate. We compared the effects of Single Display Groupware with traditional instruction.The students in each group need to perform assignments using silent collaboration.We made an analysis of emerging activity patterns on the screen.Students found natural ways to collaborate silently.Learning gains were higher for students in the SDG condition.

[1]  Miguel Nussbaum,et al.  Computer supported collaborative learning using wirelessly interconnected handheld computers , 2004, Comput. Educ..

[2]  Kevin Crowston,et al.  What is coordination theory and how can it help design cooperative work systems? , 1990, CSCW '90.

[3]  Daniela Caballero,et al.  Collaboration within large groups in the classroom , 2011, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[4]  P. Dillenbourg.  What do you mean by collaborative learning , 1999 .

[5]  Andriy Pavlovych,et al.  Effect of screen configuration and interaction devices in shared display groupware , 2008, HCC '08.

[6]  Miguel Nussbaum,et al.  One Mouse per Child: interpersonal computer for individual arithmetic practice , 2012, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[7]  Kamuran Tarim,et al.  The effects of cooperative learning on preschoolers’ mathematics problem-solving ability , 2009 .

[8]  R. Slavin.  Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. , 1996 .

[9]  Bert P. M. Creemers,et al.  World Class Schools: International Perspectives on School Effectiveness , 2002 .

[10]  Jochen Rick,et al.  Collaborative games: Lessons learned from board games , 2006 .

[11]  Regan L. Mandryk,et al.  Exploring display factors that influence co-located collaboration: angle, size, number, and user arrangement , 2005 .

[12]  Meredith Ringel Morris,et al.  Exploring the effects of group size and table size on interactions with tabletop shared-display groupware , 2004, CSCW.

[13]  David Reynolds,et al.  School Effectiveness and Teacher Effectiveness in Mathematics: Some Preliminary Findings from the Evaluation of the Mathematics Enhancement Programme (Primary) , 2000 .

[14]  Johanna Pöysä,et al.  Conditions of ICT-based design for learning communities , 2003 .

[15]  W. Hamilton,et al.  The Evolution of Cooperation , 1984 .

[16]  Miguel Nussbaum,et al.  Multiple Mice based collaborative one-to-one learning , 2009, Comput. Educ..

[17]  D. Muijs,et al.  Effective Teaching: Evidence and Practice , 2001 .

[18]  S. Greenberg,et al.  The Importance of Awareness for Team Cognition in Distributed Collaboration , 2001 .

[19]  Kori Inkpen Quinn,et al.  This is fun! we're all best friends and we're all playing: supporting children's synchronous collaboration , 1999, CSCL.

[20]  Juan Pablo Hourcade,et al.  Comparing multi-touch tabletops and multi-mouse single-display groupware setups , 2010 .

[21]  Jonathan Histon,et al.  Avoiding interference: how people use spatial separation and partitioning in SDG workspaces , 2004, CSCW.

[22]  Allison Druin,et al.  When two hands are better than one: enhancing collaboration using single display groupware , 1998, CHI Conference Summary.

[23]  Regan L. Mandryk,et al.  Understanding children's collaborative interactions in shared environments , 2003, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[24]  Chen-Chung Liu,et al.  Do handheld devices facilitate face-to-face collaboration? Handheld devices with large shared display groupware to facilitate group interactions , 2007, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[25]  Carl Gutwin,et al.  Task analysis for groupware usability evaluation: Modeling shared-workspace tasks with the mechanics of collaboration , 2003, TCHI.

[26]  Sue Jennings,et al.  Towards Whole-class Interactive Teaching. , 1999 .

[27]  Kurtis Heimerl,et al.  Metamouse: improving multi-user sharing of existing educational applications , 2010, ICTD 2010.

[28]  Jeroen Janssen,et al.  Visualization of participation: Does it contribute to successful computer-supported collaborative learning? , 2007, Comput. Educ..

[29]  David W. Johnson,et al.  Making cooperative learning work , 1999 .

[30]  David Reynolds,et al.  Worlds apart? : a review of international surveys of educational achievement involving England , 1996 .

[31]  R. Mayer.  Rote Versus Meaningful Learning , 2002 .

[32]  Kori Inkpen Quinn,et al.  Mischief: supporting remote teaching in developing regions , 2008, CHI.