This study was conducted to investigate the quality and nature of the students' interactions during asynchronous online problem solving in two sections of College Algebra taught by the author. In a shared-work section, students worked independently for an initial phase and had access to classmates' work during a follow-up phase. Students in the other section worked on the same assignments in designated small groups. The student work was used to develop a general coding scheme for asynchronous interaction and a refined coding scheme to determine whether a student used classmates' work, the level of individual contribution, and the relative correctness of the solutions. In both sections, the students tended to work independently, using classmates' work to compare answers or get assistance, but the small-groups section displayed a higher level of participation and interaction, including traditional forms of interaction such as asking questions and responding to group members.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Mathematical Association of Two-Year Colleges. (2006). Beyond crossroads: Implementing mathematics standards in the first two years of college.Memphis, TN: Author.
2.
ArtztA. F., & Armour-ThomasE. (1992). Development of a cognitive-metacognitive framework for protocol analysis of mathematical problem solving in small groups. Cognition and Instruction, 9(2), 137–175.
3.
BanchoffT. (2005, May). Interactive geometry and multivariable calculus on the Internet. Proceedings of KAIST International Symposium on Enhancing University Mathematics Teaching, Daejeon, Korea. [Online]. Available: http://mathnet.kaist.ac.kr/real/2005/8/banchoff.pdf
4.
BlitzerR. (2007). College algebra: An early functions approach.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
5.
BullenM. (1998). A case study of participation and critical thinking in a university-level course delivered by computer conferencing. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(1), 51A. (UMI No. AAT NQ25024)
6.
CooperT. E. (2008). Student interactions during asynchronous problem solving in college algebra using a communication tensor. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens.
7.
EdelsonD. C.PeaR. D., & GomezL. (1996). Constructivism in the collaboratory. In WilsonB. G. (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 151–164). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
8.
GarofaloL. R., & LesterF. K.Jr. (1985). Metacognition, cognitive monitoring and mathematical performance. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16(3), 163–175.
9.
GuzdialM.LodoviceP.RealfM.MorleyT., & CarrollK. (2002, October). When collaboration doesn't work. Paper presented at the 5th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Seattle.
10.
HodgeE.BosséM. J.FaulconerJ., & FewellM. (2006). Mimicking proximity: The role of distance education in forming communities of learning. International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, 3(12). [Online]. Available: http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Dec_06/article01.htm
11.
KosiakJ. J. (2004). Using asynchronous discussions to facilitate collaborative problem solving in college algebra. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(5), 2442B. (UMI No. AAT 3134399).
McPhersonM.NunesM. B., & HarrisL. (2002). It is an inertia thing, no-one uses it, so no-one uses it: The failure of a virtual social space (VSS) intended to create a learning community. Paper presented at the Winds of Change in the Sea of Learning: Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, Auckland, New Zealand.
14.
MyersJ. (2002). A content analysis of computer-mediated collaborative mathematical problem solving. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(05), 1756A. (UMI No. AAT 3054205).
15.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics.Reston, VA: Author.
16.
O'DafferP.CharlesR.CooneyT.DosseyJ., & SchielackJ. (2005). Mathematics for elementary school teachers (3rd ed.). Boston: Addison-Wesley.
17.
PalloffR., & PrattK. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.
18.
RielM., & LevinJ. (1990). Building electronic communities: Success and failure in computer networking. Instructional Science, 19, 145–169.
19.
SchoenfeldA. (1985). Mathematical problem solving.Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
20.
SpringerL.StanneM. E., & DonovanS. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta- analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69, 21–51.
21.
StaceyK., & GoodingA. (1998). Communication and learning in small-group discussions. In SteinbringH.Bartolini BussiM., & SierpinskaA. (Eds.), Language and communication in the mathematics classroom (pp. 191–206). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
