This article describes a detailed, hypothetical, but quite plausible account of how one child, Maya, made use of math learning software on a touch screen device (Tubby).
Focus of Study
The author discusses the kind of research that is possible and necessary to understand children's learning in the digital age, and how that research can contribute to the development of even more effective educational software, and can also largely eliminate the need for high-stakes testing and standard achievement tests.
Research Design
Research of this type will require use of complex statistical techniques as well as qualitative methods, such as case studies. The tablet can provide detailed descriptions of children's engagement in the various activities. Tubby can also be used for summative research that provides a valuable portrait of the child's learning over the course of the year.
Conclusion
Computers can, in principle, engage children in meaningful learning and at the same time provide educators with the tools for understanding, improving, evaluating, and assessing children's learning.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BakerR. S. J. d., & YacefK. (2009). The state of educational data mining in 2009: A review and future visions. Journal of Educational Data Mining, 1(1), 3—17.
2.
Clarke-MiduraJ., & DedeC. (2010). Assessment, technology, and change. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 309—328.
3.
ClementsD. H. (1999). The effective use of computers with young children. In CopleyJ. V. (Ed.), Mathematics in the early years (pp. 119—128). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
4.
ClementsD. H., & SaramaJ. (2014). Learning and teaching early math: The learning trajectories approach. New York, NY: Routledge.
5.
DarwinC. (1872/1955). The expression of emotion in man and animals. New York, NY: Philosophical Library.
6.
DeweyJ. (1902/1976). The child and the curriculum. In BoydstonJ. A. (Ed.), John Dewey: The middle works, 1899–1924. (Vol. 2: 1902–1903, pp. 273—291). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
7.
DuncanG. J., DowsettC. J., ClaessensA., MagnusonK., HustonA. C., KlebanovP., … JapelC (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43(6), 1428—1446.
8.
GinsburgH. P., JamalianA., & CreighanS. (2013). Cognitive guidelines for the design and evaluation of early mathematics software: The example of MathemAntics. In EnglishL. D., & MulliganJ. T. (Eds.), Reconceptualizing early mathematics learning (pp. 83—120). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
9.
GinsburgH. P., LabrecqueR., CarpenterK., & PagarD. (2015). New possibilities for early mathematics education: Cognitive guidelines for designing high-quality software to promote young children's meaningful mathematics learning. In KadoshR. C., & DowkerA. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of mathematical cognition (pp. 1055—1078). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
10.
GinsburgH. P., & OpperS. (1988). Piaget's theory of intellectual development (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
11.
Goldin-MeadowS., CookS. W., & MitchellZ. A. (2009). Gesturing gives children new ideas about math. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 20, 267—272.
12.
GoodwinK., & HighfieldK. (2013). A framework for examining technologies and early mathematics learning. In EnglishL. D., & MulliganJ. T. (Eds.), Reconceptualizing Early Mathematics Learning (pp. 205—226). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
13.
HawkinsD. (1974). The informed vision. New York, NY: Agathon Press.
14.
HeritageM. (2010). Formative assessment: Making it happen in the classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
15.
HollebrandsK. F. (2007). The role of a dynamic software program for geometry in the strategies high school mathematics students employ. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(2), 164—192.
16.
KuhnD. (1995). Microgenetic study of change: What has it told us?Psychological Science, 6(3), 133—139.
17.
LawlerR. W. (1985). Computer experience and cognitive development: A child's learning in a computer culture. New York, NY: Halsted Press.
18.
LuriaA. R. (1968). The mind of a mnemonist (SolotaroffL., Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19.
MessickS. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons' responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50(9), 741—749.
20.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Washington, DC: Author.
21.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the national mathematics advisory panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
22.
PapertS. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books.
23.
PiagetJ. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children (CookM., Trans.). New York, NY: International Universities Press.
24.
PiagetJ. (1973). To understand is to invent: The future of education (RobertsG. A. A., Trans.). New York, NY: Grossman.
25.
PiagetJ. (1976). The child's conception of the world (TomlinsonJ., & TomlinsonA., Trans.). Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams.
26.
RodrigoM. M. T., & BakerR. S. J. d. (2011). Comparing the incidence and persistence of learners' affect during interactions with different educational software packages. In CalvoR. A., & D'MelloS. K. (Eds.), New perspectives on affect and learning technologies (pp. 183—200). New York, NY: Springer.
27.
SacksO. W. (1995). An anthropologist on Mars: Seven paradoxical tales. New York, NY: Knopf.
28.
SaramaJ., & ClementsD. H. (2009). Early childhood mathematics education research: Learning trajectories for young children. New York, NY: Routledge.
29.
SieglerR. S., & CrowleyK. (1991). The microgenetic method: A direct means for studying cognitive development. American Psychologist, 46(6), 606—620.
30.
SternC., & SternM. (1971). Children discover arithmetic: An introduction to structural arithmetic. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
31.
Van den Heuvel-PanhuizenM., & van den BoogaardS. (2008). Picture books as an impetus for kindergartners' mathematical thinking. Mathematical Thinking and Learning: An International Journal, 10(4), 341—373.
32.
VygotskyL. S. (1986). Thought and language (KozulinA., Trans.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
33.
WeirS., RussellS. J., & ValenteJ. A. (1982, September). Logo: An approach to educating disabled children. Byte, 7(9), 342—360.
34.
WilsonA. J., RevkinS. K., CohenD., CohenL., & DehaeneS. (2006). An open trial assessment of “The Number Race,” an adaptive computer game for remediation of dyscalculia. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 2(20). doi:10.1186/1744-9081-2-20
35.
ZurO., & GelmanR. (2004). Young children can add and subtract by predicting and checking. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19(1), 121—137.
