Abstract
Mathematics education is changing from a procedure-oriented approach to one in which concepts and their relations take a central place. Inquiry environments offer students the opportunity to investigate a domain and to focus on conceptual aspects. In this chapter, we describe a learning arrangement that has a set of guided simulations in mathematics as its core. These guided simulations were linked to a (standard) book; in addition, classroom conversations and subject-matter overviews supported the learning process. Learning took place over 12 school weeks during which a considerable part of the domain concentrating on functions was covered. The learning material, especially the simulation environment, was iteratively developed as part of a design experiment. The final version was evaluated against a standard classroom situation. A total of 11 schools, 20 classes, and 418 students participated. Results show that the traditional classroom condition outperformed the inquiry class on procedural items with a correction for pretest scores included. The inquiry condition acquired better scores on conceptual (insight) items but these differences did not reach significance. Overall, girls performed better in the traditional classroom setting, whereas boys seemed to profit from an inquiry setting. It also appeared that the implementation of the inquiry (computer-based) learning arrangement was hampered by many organizational and practical problems. Recommendations for improvement are provided.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
This application was developed before the tsunami of December 2004 took place.
- 2.
In order to run a regression analysis, one of the optional models has to be chosen. The different options are: enter, stepwise, remove, backward, and forward. The enter model is also called forced entry model. All variables specified are entered into the model in a single step. This model is generally used (when there are no specific expectations).
- 3.
One-sided tests are performed for specified predictions (e.g., the control condition performs better on procedural items). All other tests are two-sided.
References
Atkinson, R. K. (2005). Multimedia learning of mathematics. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 393-408). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Balacheff, N. & Sutherland, R. (1994). Epistemological domain of validity of microworlds - The case of Logo and Cabri-Geometre. Lessons from Learning, 46, 137-150.
Bottino, R. M., Artigue, M., & Noss, R. (2009). Building European collaboration in technology enhanced learning in mathematics. In N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. de Jong, S. Barnes, & A. Lazonder (Eds.), Technology enhanced learning - Principles and products (pp. 73-89). Berlin: Springer Verlag.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (eds). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.
Bruner, J. (1973). Going beyond the information given. New York: Norton.
Bruner, J., Goodnow, J., & Austin, A. (1956). A study of thinking. New York: Wiley.
Chen, P. & Zimmerman, B. (2007). A cross-national comparison study on the accuracy of self-efficacy beliefs of middle-school mathematics students. Journal of Experimental Education, 75, 221-244.
Chin, C. & Brown, D. E. (2000). Learning in science: A comparison of deep and surface approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 109-138.
Cobb, P. & McClain, K. (2006). Guiding inquiry-based math learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 171-186). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992). The Jasper series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program, description, and assessment data. Educational Psychologist, 27, 291-315.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997). The Jasper project; Lessons in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
de Jong, T. (2006a). Computer simulations - Technological advances in inquiry learning. Science, 312, 532-533.
de Jong, T. (2006b). Scaffolds for computer simulation based scientific discovery learning. In J. Elen & R. E. Clark (Eds.), Dealing with complexity in learning environments (pp. 107-128). London: Elsevier Science Publishers.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: MacMillan.
Eysink, T. H. S., de Jong, T., Berthold, K., Kollöffel, B., Opfermann, M., & Wouters, P. (2009). Learner performance in multimedia learning arrangements: an analysis across instructional approaches, 46, 1107-1149.
Falcade, R., Laborde, C., & Mariotti, M. (2007). Approaching functions: Cabri tools as instruments of semiotic mediation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66, 317-333.
Frenzel, A. C., Pekrun, R., & Goetz, T. (2007). Girls and mathematics - A “hopeless” issue? A control-value approach to gender differences in emotions towards mathematics. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22, 497-514.
Freudenthal, H. (1991). Revisiting mathematics education: China lectures. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Gennaro, E. & Lawrenz, F. (1992). The effectiveness of take-home science kits at the elementary level. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 985-994.
Grabinger, R. S. (1996). Rich environments for active learning. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 665-692). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Gravemeijer, K., van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., van Donselaar, G., Ruesink, N., Streefland, L., Vermeulen, W., et al. (1993). Methoden in het reken-wiskundeonderwijs, een rijke context voor vergelijkend onderzoek (No. SVO-6010). Utrecht: Freudenthal-instituut.
Horton, P. B., McConney, A. A., Gallo, M., Woods, A. L., Senn, G. J., & Hamelin, D. (1993). An investigation of the effectiveness of concept mapping as an instructional tool. Science Education, 77, 95-111.
Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology: Research & Development, 39, 5-14.
Kuhn, M., Hoppe, U., Lingnau, A., & Wichmann, A. (2006). Computational modelling and simulation fostering new approaches in learning probability. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 43, 183-194.
Laborde, C. (2002). Integration of technology in the design of geometry tasks with Cabri-Geometry. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6, 283-317.
Linn, M. C., Lee, H.-S., Tinker, R., Husic, F., & Chiu, J. L. (2006). Teaching and assessing knowledge integration in science. Science, 313, 1049-1050.
Mayer, R. E. (2002). Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory Into Practice, 41, 226-232.
Meece, J. L., Glienke, B. B., & Burg, S. (2006). Gender and motivation. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 351-373.
Noss, R. & Hoyles, C. (2006). Exploring mathematics through construction and collaboration. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 389-409). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Novak, J. D. (1998). Learning, creating and using knowledge: Concept map TM as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Mahwah (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Pea, R. D. (1987). Cognitive technologies for mathematics education. In A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp. 89-122). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rasmussen, C. & Kwon, O. N. (2007). An inquiry-oriented approach to undergraduate mathematics. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 26, 189-194.
Roschelle, J. & Kaput, J. (1996). SimCalc MathWorlds for the mathematics of change: Composable components for calculus learning. Communications of the ACM, 39, 97-99.
Roschelle, J., & Knudsen, J. (this volume). From new technological infrastructures to curricular activity systems: advanced designs for teaching and learning. New York: Springer
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2006). Mathematics teaching and learning. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 479-510). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. New York: Academic Press.
Staples, M. (2007). Supporting whole-class collaborative inquiry in a secondary mathematics classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 25, 161-217.
Timmermans, R. E., Van Lieshout, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2007). Gender-related effects of contemporary math instruction for low performers on problem-solving behavior. Learning and Instruction, 17, 42-54.
Underwood, J. S., Hoadley, C., Lee, H. S., Hollebrands, K., DiGano, C., & Renninger, K. A. (2005). IDEA: identifying design principles in educational applets. Etr&D-Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 99-112.
Vahey, P., Enyedy, N., & Gifford, B. (2000). Learning probability through the use of a collaborative, inquiry-based simulation environment. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 11, 51-84.
van Joolingen, W. R. & de Jong, T. (2003). SimQuest: Authoring educational simulations. In T. Murray, S. Blessing & S. Ainsworth (Eds.), Authoring tools for advanced technology educational software: Toward cost-effective production of adaptive, interactive, and intelligent educational software (pp. 1-31). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
van Streun, A. (1989). Heuristisch wiskunde-onderwijs: Verslag van een onderwijsexperiment. Groningen.
von Glaserfeld, E. (1987). Learning as a constructive activity. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems in the representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 3-17). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) for funding this study (Project Number 411-01-063). We also thank Henri Ruizenaar, a mathematics teacher, who contributed extensively to the development of the research materials.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
de Jong, T., Hendrikse, P., van der Meij, H. (2010). Learning Mathematics Through Inquiry: A Large-Scale Evaluation. In: Jacobson, M., Reimann, P. (eds) Designs for Learning Environments of the Future. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-88279-6_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-88279-6_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-88278-9
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-88279-6
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)