A Case Study on Online Mathematics Teaching with Pen-based Technology: Experiences of Two Instructors

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to explore instructors’ perspectives on the effect of using pen-based technology in the online mathematics courses and understand instructors’ experiences in online mathematics teaching with pen-based technology. In this study, two instructors who taught online mathematics courses in fourteen weeks used digital pen as a pen-based technology. The data were obtained from semi-structured interviews and observation of online mathematics course records. The findings indicated that the use of digital pen in the online mathematics course was fairly beneficial in pedagogical and interaction aspects and it was necessary to use digital pen in online mathematics courses for displaying steps of problem solving process synchronously. It was concluded from the study that digital pen technology plays a positive role in the enhancement of interaction between the elements of an online learning environment by providing real-time feedback to students and permitting to digitize mathematical concepts. The observation findings also supported the statements of the instructors. The findings of the study have further provided some insight into how to use digital pen by an instructor in online mathematics course efficiently.

Keywords

• Online mathematics course, Digital pen, Digital ink technology, Interaction in online learning, Teaching with digital ink

Kaynakça

1. Adnan, M. & Boz, B. (2015). Faculty members’ perspectives on teaching mathematics online: Does prior online learning experience count? Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 6(1), 21-38.
2. Alvarez, C. Brown, C., & Nussbaum, M. (2011). Comparative study of netbooks and tablet PCs for fostering face-to-face collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 834-844.
3. Alvarez, C., Salavati, S., Nussbaum, M., & Milrad, M. (2013). Collboard: Fostering new media literacies in the classroom through collaborative problem solving supported by digital pens and interactive whiteboards. Computers & Education, 63, 368-379.
4. Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2), 9-14.
5. Artemeva, N. & Fox, J. (2011). The writing’s on the board: The global and the local in teaching undergraduate mathematics through chalk talk. Written Communication, 28, 345-379. doi:10.1177/0741088311419630
6. Baki, A. (2006). Kuramdan uygulamaya matematik eğitimi (3rd ed.). Trabzon: Derya.
7. Beaudoin, M. (2002). Learning or lurking? Tracking the ‘invisible’ online student. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(2), 147-155.
8. Beldarrain, Y. (2006). Distance Education Trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student interaction and collaboration. Distance Education, 27(2), 139-153.

9. Berge, Z. (2002). Active, interactive and reflective e-learning. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2), 181-190.
10. Bernhardt, W., Kress, M., Lewental, M., & Miller, P. (2004, June). Digital ink for online teaching. Association of Small Computer Users in Education (ASCUE). Retrieved on 26 November 2014 from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED490096.pdf
11. Collis, B., De Boer, W., & Slotman, K. (2001). Feedback for web-based assignments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, 3, 306-313.
12. Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of qualitative research, 1-29. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13. Dzakira, H. & Idrus, R. M. (2003). Teacher-learner interactions in distance education: A case of two Malaysian universities. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 4(3), 1-13.
14. Erdemir, N., Bakirci, H., & Eyduran, E. (2009). Öğretmen adaylarının eğitimde teknolojiyi kullanabilme özgüvenlerinin tespiti. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 6(3), 99-108.
15. Galligan, L., Loch, B., McDonald, C., & Taylor, J. A. (2010).The use of tablet and related technologies in math teaching. Australian Senior Mathematics Journal, 24(1), 38-51.
16. Glass, J. & Sue, V. (2008). Student preferences, satisfaction, and perceived learning in an online mathematics class. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 4(3), 325-338.
17. Heddens, J. W. & Speer, R.W. (1997).Today’s mathematics (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill an Imprint of Prentice-Hall.
18. Hofacker, E. & Ernie, K. (2009). Using digital ink and podcasts to teach mathematics. In Proceedings from 21st Annual International Conference on Technology in Collegiate Mathematics. New Orleans, LA.
19. Hrastinski, S., Edman, A., Andersson, F., Kawnine, T., & Soames, C. a., (2014) Informal math coaching by instant messaging: Two case studies of how university students coach K-12 students, Interactive Learning Environments, 22(1), 84-96.
20. Jin, S. H. (2005). Analyzing student-student and student-instructor interaction through multiple communication tools in web-based learning. International Journal of Instructional Media, 32(1), 59.
21. Johnson, R. & Christensen, L. (2004).Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed approaches (2nd ed). Boston, MA: Allyn &Bacon.
22. Jung, I., Choi, S., Lim, C., & Leem, J. (2002). Effects of different types of interaction on learning achievement, satisfaction and participation in web-based instruction. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39(2), 153-62.
23. Karal, H., Kokoc, M., Colak, C., & Yalcin, Y. (2013). Using pen-based technology in online mathematics course: An evaluation study. European Journal of Open, Distance and e- Learning, 16(2), 152.
24. Liao, L. (2006). A flow theory perspective on learner motivation and behavior in distance education. Distance Education, 27(1), 45-62.
25. Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
26. Maclaren, P. (2014). The new chalkboard: the role of digital pen technologies in tertiary mathematics teaching. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications, 33(1), 16-26.
27. Marzilli, C., Delello, J., Marmion, S., McWhorter, R., Roberts, P., & Marzilli, T. S. (2014). Faculty attitudes towards integrating technology and innovation. International Journal on Integrating Technology in Education, 3(1), 1-20.
28. McMillan, J. H. (2000). Educational research: Fundamentals for the consumer (4th ed.). New York: Longman.
29. McMillan, J. H. & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry (7th ed.). London: Pearson.
30. Mehlhorn, S., Parrott S., Mehlhorn, J., Burcham, T., Roberts, J., & Smartt, P. (2011, February).Using digital learning objects to improve student problem solving skills. Paper presented at the meeting of the Southern Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Corpus Christi, Texas. Retrieved on 26 November 2014 from http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/98763/2/LivescribeSAEAPaperFINAL.pdf
31. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, M. A. (1994).Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.
32. Moore, S. (1997). The role of the teacher in distance education: The teacher perspective. Paper presented at the Sixth Annual International Conference for Community & Technical College Chairs, Deans, and Other Organizational Leaders. Reno, Nevada.
33. Moreno-Ger, P., Burgos, D., Martínez-Ortiz, I., Sierra, J.L., & Fernández-Manjón, B. (2008). Educational game design for online education. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(6), 2530-2540.
34. Morewood, A. L., Ankrum, J. W., & Bean, R. M. (2010).Teachers' perceptions of the influence of professional development on their knowledge of content, pedagogy, and curriculum. College Reading Association Yearbook, 31, 201-219.
35. Morse, J. M. (1991). Strategies for sampling. In J. Morse (Ed.), Qualitative nursing research: A contemporary dialogue (pp. 127-145). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
36. Nehme, Z. (2008). The social arena of the online synchronous environment. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 238-243.
37. Newby, T. J., Stepich, D. A., Lehman, J. D., & Russell, J. D. (2006). Educational technology for teaching and learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill/Prentice Hall.
38. Offir, B., Lev, Y., & Bezalel, R. (2008). Surface and deep learning processes in distance education: Synchronous versus asynchronous systems. Computers & Education, 51(3), 1172-1183.
39. Oviatt, S., Arthur, A., Brock, Y., & Cohen, J. (2007, July). Expressive pen-based interfaces for math education. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 573-582). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
40. Patton, M. (2002).Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41. Reins, K. (2007). Digital tablet pcs as new technologies of writing and learning: A survey of perceptions of digital ink technology. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 7(3), 158-177.
42. Roblyer, M. D. (2006). Integrating educational technology into teaching (4th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
43. Schunk, D. H. (2008). Learning theories: An educational perspective (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
44. Shaqour, A. Z. H. (2005). A model for integrating new technologies into pre-service teacher training programs Ajman University (A case study).The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 4(2), 1, 3-6.
45. Siozos, P., Palaigeorgiou, G., Triantafyllakos, G., & Despotakis, T. (2009). Computer based testing using "digital ink": Participatory design of a tablet PC based assessment application for secondary education. Computers & Education, 52(4), 811-819.
46. Sowell, E. J. (2001). Educational research: An integrative introduction. Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
47. Temizoz, Y. & Ozgun-Koca, S. A. (2008).The instructional methods that mathematics teachers use and their perceptions on the discovery approach. Education and Science, 33(149), 89-103.
48. Thurmond, V. & Wambach, K. (2004). Understanding interactions in distance education: A review of the literature. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 1(1), 9-26
49. Tutty, J. & White, B. (2006).Tablet classroom interactions. Australian Computer Science Communications, 28(5), 229-235.
50. Varadarajan, A., Pately, N., Maxim, B., & Grosky, W.I. (2008).Analyzing the efficacy of using digital ink devices in a learning environment. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 40(2), 211-239.
51. Wang, H., Gould, L., & Fulton, D. (2007). Bridge the virtual gap: Using new technology to enhance interaction in distance learning. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 4(3), 67-70.
52. Watson, S. (2010). Increasing online interaction in a distance education MBA: Exploring students' attitudes towards change. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), 63-84.
53. Wellington, J. (2000). Educational research, contemporary issues and practical approaches. London: Continuum.
54. Yildirim, A. & Simsek, H. (2008). Nitel arastirma yontemleri (7th ed.). Ankara: Seckin.
55. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
56. Correspondence: Hasan Karal, Associate Professor, Department of Computer Education and
57. Instructional Technologies, Fatih Faculty of Education, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey