# Connecting levels of activity with classroom network technology

## Abstract

Classroom activity traditionally takes one of three forms, variously oriented toward the levels of individual students, small groups, or the whole class. CSCL systems, however, may enable novel ways to facilitate instruction within or sequence activity across these different levels. Drawing on theoretical accounts of learning at and across different scales of social interaction, this paper examines episodes of classroom activity featuring two learning environment designs that leverage networked digital devices to support face-to-face collaboration. Analysis of these episodes focused on two questions: When did activity shift between small and whole-group levels, and what mechanisms enabled or supported those shifts? Findings suggest that classroom activity in these environments was sometimes characterized by frequent, rapid shifts between levels, as well as instances that suggested hybrid forms of small-group and whole-class interaction. These shifts between and overlaps across levels were enabled and sustained through mechanisms including teacher orchestration, mediating roles played by virtual mathematical objects, learners’ appropriation of shared artifacts and resources, and emergent properties of these complex interactions among classroom participants.

## Keywords

Mathematics Classroom networks Sociocultural theory Classroom orchestration## Notes

### Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DRL-0747536. Jeremy Roschelle and several anonymous reviewers provided insightful feedback on earlier drafts.

## References

- Abrahamson, D., Trninic, D., Gutiérrez, J. F., Huth, J., & Lee, R. G. (2011). Hooks and shifts: A dialectical study of mediated discovery.
*Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 16*(1), 55–85.Google Scholar - Ares, N., Stroup, W. M., & Schademan, A. R. (2009). The power of mediating artifacts in group-level development of mathematical discourses.
*Cognition and Instruction, 27*(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Ball, D. (2000). Working on the inside: Using one’s own practice as a site for studying teaching and learning. In A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.),
*Handbook of research Design in Mathematics and Science Education*(pp. 365–402). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar - Brady, C., White, T., Davis, S., & Hegedus, S. (2013). SimCalc and the networked classroom. In S. Hegedus & J. Roschelle (Eds.),
*The SimCalc vision and contributions: Democratizing access to important mathematics*(pp. 99–121). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Carlsen, M. (2010). Appropriating geometric series as a cultural tool: A study of student collaborative learning.
*Educational Studies in Mathematics, 74*(2), 95–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Chen, W., Looi, C. K., & Tan, S. (2010). What do students do in a F2F CSCL classroom? The optimization of multiple communications modes.
*Computers & Education, 55*(3), 1159–1170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Clark-Wilson, A. (2010). Emergent pedagogies and the changing role of the teacher in the TI-Nspire navigator-networked mathematics classroom.
*ZDM, 42*(7), 747–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Cole, M. (1996).
*Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline*. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar - Colella, V. (2000). Participatory simulations: Building collaborative understanding through immersive dynamic modeling.
*The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9*(4), 471–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Cobb, P. (1999). Individual and collective mathematical development: The case of statistical data analysis.
*Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 1*(1), 5–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (1996). Constructivist, emergent, and sociocultural perspectives in the context of developmental research.
*Educational Psychologist, 31*(3–4), 175–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Cress, U., & Kimmerle, J. (2008). A systemic and cognitive view on collaborative knowledge building with wikis.
*International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3*(2), 105.Google Scholar - Damsa, C. I., & Jornet, A. (2016). Revisiting learning in higher education—Framing notions redefined through an ecological perspective.
*Frontline Learning Research, 4*(4), 39–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Davis, B., & Simmt, E. (2003). Understanding learning systems: Mathematics education and complexity science.
*Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34*(2), 137–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Derry, S. J., Pea, R. D., Barron, B., Engle, R. A., Erickson, F., Goldman, R., et al. (2010). Conducting video research in the learning sciences: Guidance on selection, analysis, technology, and ethics.
*The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19*(1), 3–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Dillenbourg, P. (2012). Design for classroom orchestration.
*Computers & Education, 69*, 485–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Dillenbourg, P. (2015).
*Orchestration graphs: Modeling scalable education*. Lausanne: EPFL Press.Google Scholar - Drijvers, P., Doorman, M., Boon, P., Reed, H., & Gravemeijer, K. (2010). The teacher and the tool: Instrumental orchestrations in the technology-rich mathematics classroom.
*Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75*(2), 213–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Enyedy, N. (2005). Inventing mapping: Creating cultural forms to solve collective problems.
*Cognition and Instruction, 23*(4), 427–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Furberg, A., Kluge, A., & Ludvigsen, S. (2013). Student sensemaking with science diagrams in a computer-based setting.
*International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8*(1), 41–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Guin, D., & Trouche, L. (1998). The complex process of converting tools into mathematical instruments: The case of calculators.
*International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 3*(3), 195–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Hegedus, S., & Kaput, J. (2004). An introduction to the profound potential of connected algebra activities: Issues of representation, engagement and pedagogy.
*Proceedings of the 28th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of mathematics education, 3*, 129–136.Google Scholar - Hegedus, S. J., & Moreno-Armella, L. (2009). Intersecting representation and communication infrastructures.
*ZDM Mathematics Education, 41*, 399–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Hegedus, S., & Penuel, W. (2008). Studying new forms of participation and identity in mathematics classrooms with integrated communication and representational infrastructures.
*Educational Studies in Mathematics, 68*, 171–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Higgins, S. E., Mercier, E., Burd, E., & Hatch, A. (2011). Multi-touch tables and the relationship with collaborative classroom pedagogies: A synthetic review.
*International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6*(4), 515–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Hunsu, N. J., Adesope, O., & Bayly, D. J. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of audience response systems (clicker-based technologies) on cognition and affect.
*Computers & Education, 94*, 102–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Johnson, S. B. (2001).
*Emergence. The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities and Software*. The Penguin: Allen lane.Google Scholar - Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice.
*The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4*(1), 39–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Kaput, J. (2000). Implications of the shift from isolated, expensive technology to connected, inexpensive, diverse and ubiquitous technologies. In M. O. J. Thomas (Ed.),
*Proceedings of the TIME 2000: An international conference on Technology in Mathematics Education*(pp. 1–24). Auckland: The University of Auckland and the Auckland University of Technology.Google Scholar - Kieran, C. (1992). The learning and teaching of school algebra. In D. Grouws (Ed.),
*Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning*(pp. 390–419). New York: McMillan & National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar - Klopfer, E., Yoon, S., & Perry, J. (2005). Using palm technology in participatory simulations of complex systems: A new take on ubiquitous and accessible mobile computing.
*Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14*(3), 285–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Koschmann, T. D. (Ed.). (1996). CSCL, theory and practice of an emerging paradigm. Routledge.Google Scholar
- Lai, K., & White, T. (2014). How groups cooperate in a networked geometry learning environment.
*Instructional Science, 42*(4), 615–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991).
*Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, M. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning, and teaching.
*Review of Educational Research, 60*(1), 1–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Levy, S. T., & Wilensky, U. (2008). Inventing a “mid level” to make ends meet: Reasoning between the levels of complexity.
*Cognition and Instruction, 26*(1), 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Linchevski, L., & Herscovics, N. (1996). Crossing the cognitive gap between arithmetic and algebra: Operating on the unknown in the context of equations.
*Educational Studies in Mathematics, 30*(1), 39–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Ludvigsen, S., & Arnseth, H. C. (2017). Computer-supported collaborative learning. In E. Duval, M. Sharples, & R. Sutherland (Eds.),
*Technology enhanced learning*(pp. 47–58). Chicago: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Mariotti, M. A. (2000). Introduction to proof: The mediation of a dynamic software environment.
*Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44*(1), 25–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Mehan, H. (1979).
*Learning lessons*. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Moschkovich, J. N. (2004). Appropriating mathematical practices: A case study of learning to use and explore functions through interaction with a tutor.
*Educational Studies in Mathematics, 55*(1–3), 49–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Radford, L. (2000). Signs and meanings in students' emergent algebraic thinking: A semiotic analysis.
*Educational Studies in Mathematics, 42*(3), 237–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Radford, L. (2013). Three key concepts of the theory of objectification: Knowledge, knowing, and learning.
*Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 2*(1), 7–44.Google Scholar - Rogoff, B. (1990).
*Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar - Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In J. V. Wertsch, P. del Rio, & A. Alvarez (Eds.),
*Sociocultural studies of mind*(pp. 139–164). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Roschelle, J., Dimitriadis, Y., & Hoppe, U. (2013). Classroom orchestration: Synthesis.
*Computers & Education, 69*, 523–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Roschelle, J., & Pea, R. (2002). A walk on the WILD side: How wireless hand-helds may change CSCL. In G. Stahl (Ed.),
*Proceedings of the CSCL (Computer Supported Collaborative Learning) 2002*. Boulder, CO, January, 7–11 2002. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar - Roschelle, J., Penuel, W. R., & Abrahamson, L. A. (2004). The networked classroom.
*Educational Leadership, 61*(5), 50–54.Google Scholar - Roschelle, J., Tatar, D., Chaudhury, S. R., Dimitriadis, Y., Patton, C., & DiGiano, C. (2007). Ink, improvisation, and interactive engagement: Learning with tablets.
*IEEE Computer, 40*(9), 42–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Säljö, R. (2010). Digital tools and challenges to institutional traditions of learning: Technologies, social memory and the performative nature of learning.
*Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26*(1), 53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Sawyer, R. K. (2005).
*Social emergence: Societies as complex systems*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Saxe, G. B. (2002). Children's developing mathematics in collective practices: A framework for analysis.
*Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11*(2–3), 275–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the Organization of Repair in conversation.
*Language, 53*(2), 361–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Schoenfeld, Smith, & Arcavi. (1993). Learning: The microgenetic analysis of one student’s evolving understanding of a complex subject matter domain. In R. Glaser (Ed.),
*Advances in instructional psychology*(Vol. 4, pp. 55–175). Earlbaum: Hillsdale.Google Scholar - Schwarz, B. B., De Groot, R., Mavrikis, M., & Dragon, T. (2015). Learning to learn together with CSCL tools.
*International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10*(3), 239–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge (acting with technology).Google Scholar
- Stahl, G. (2009).
*Studying virtual math teams*. New York: Springer. Computer-supported collaborative learning series #11.Google Scholar - Stahl, G. (2012). Traversing planes of learning.
*International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7*(4), 467–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Stahl, G. (2013). Learning across levels.
*International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8*(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms.
*American Educational Research Journal, 33*(2), 455–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Stroup, W., Ares, N., & Hurford, A. (2005). A dialectic analysis of generativity: Issues of network-supported design in mathematics and science.
*Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 7*(3), 181–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Stroup, W., Ares, N., Hurford, A. & Lesh, R. (2007). Diversity-by-design: The what, why, and how of generativity in next-generation classroom networks. In R. Lesh, E. Hamilton, & J. Kaput (Eds.),
*Foundations for the Future in Mathematics Education*(pp. 367–394). Routledge.Google Scholar - Sutherland, S. M., & White, T. F. (2016). Constraint-referenced analytics of algebra learning.
*Journal of Learning Analytics, 3*(3), 143–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Szewkis, E., Nussbaum, M., Rosen, T., Abalos, J., Denardin, F., Caballero, D., et al. (2011). Collaboration within large groups in the classroom.
*International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6*(4), 561–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Vygotsky, L. S. (1978).
*Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes*. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar - Wertsch, J. (1985).
*Vygotsky and the social formation of mind*. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar - White, T. (2006). Code talk: Student discourse and participation with networked handhelds.
*International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1*(3), 359–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - White, T., & Pea, R. (2011). Distributed by design: On the promises and pitfalls of collaborative learning with multiple representations.
*Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20*(3), 489–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - White, T., Sutherland, S., & Lai, K. (2010). Constructing Collective Algebraic Objects in a Classroom Network. In P. Brosnan, D. B. Erchick, & L. Flevares (Eds.),
*Proceedings of the Thirty Second Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education*(pp. 1523–1530). Columbus: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar - White, T., Wallace, M., & Lai, K. (2012). Graphing in groups: Learning about lines in a collaborative classroom network environment.
*Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 14*(2), 149–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Wilensky, U., & Stroup, W. (1999a). Learning through participatory simulations: Network-based design for systems learning in classrooms. In C. Hoadley & J. Roschelle (Eds.),
*Proceedings of the conference on computer-supported collaborative learning*(pp. 667–676). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar - Wilensky, U. & Stroup, W. (1999b). HubNet. http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/hubnet.html. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling. Evanston: Northwestern University.
- Wilensky, U. 1999. NetLogo. http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling. Evanston: Northwestern University.
- Zurita, G., & Nussbaum, M. (2004). Computer supported collaborative learning using wirelessly interconnected handheld computers.
*Computers & Education, 42*, 289–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar