Abstract
Online resources are widely used for educational purposes, such as the training of skills. For algebra education in particular, online resources are expected to contribute to skill mastery in an efficient and effective way. However, studies that underpin these claims through a randomized experiment are scarce. To experimentally investigate the effect of online tasks for algebra, sixteen teachers each taught two grade 8 algebra classes, one randomly assigned traditional teaching and the other using an online algebra environment. In total, 842 students took part in a pretest, two posttests, and a retention test. Results show that the experimental group scored slightly below the control group on these tests. The main factors involved are students’ pretest scores and the schools’ experience with ICT. Possible explanations include a spill-over effect and a more superficial type of learning than expected in the experimental condition. These results do not confirm the hypotheses on the effectiveness of using online resources for algebra.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Andrade-Aréchiga, M., López, G., & López-Morteo, G. (2012). Assessing effectiveness of learning units under the teaching unit model in an undergraduate mathematics course. Computers and Education, 59, 594–606.
Arcavi, A. (1994). Symbol sense: Informal sense-making in formal mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 14(3), 24–35.
Artigue, M. (2002). Learning mathematics in a CAS environment: The genesis of a reflection about instrumentation and the dialectics between technical and conceptual work. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 7, 245–274.
Beentjes, J. W. J., & Van der Voort, T. H. A. (1993). Television viewing versus reading: Mental effort, retention, and inferential learning. Communication Education, 42, 91–205.
Bokhove, C., & Drijvers, P. (2010). Digital tools for algebra education: Criteria and evaluation. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 15(1), 45–62.
Bokhove, C., & Drijvers, P. (2012a). Effects of feedback in an online algebra intervention. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 17(1/2), 43–59.
Bokhove, C., & Drijvers, P. (2012b). Effects of a digital intervention on the development of algebraic expertise. Computers & Education, 58(1), 197–208.
Boon, P. (2009). A designer speaks: Designing educational software for 3D geometry. Educational Designer, 1(2). http://www.educationaldesigner.org/ed/volume1/issue2/article7/ 8 Feb 2013.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Bueno-Ravel, L., & Gueudet, G. (2009). Online resources in mathematics: Teachers’ geneses and didactical techniques. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 14(1), 1–20.
Campuzano, L., Dynarski, M., Agodini, R., & Rall, K. (Eds.). (2009). Effectiveness of reading and mathematics software products: Findings from two student cohorts: Executive summary (NCEE 2009–4042). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Cheung, A., & Slavin, R.E. (2011). The effectiveness of education technology for enhancing reading achievement: A meta-analysis. http://www.bestevidence.org/reading/tech/tech.html. 8 Feb 2013.
Creemers, B. P. M., Kyriakides, L., & Sammons, P. (2010). Methodological advances in educational effectiveness research. London/New York: Routledge.
cTWO (2007). Rijk aan betekenis. Visie op vernieuwd wiskundeonderwijs. Rich of meaning. Vision of renewed mathematics education. Utrecht, the Netherlands: cTWO.
Doorman, M., Drijvers, P., Gravemeijer, K., Boon, P., & Reed, H. (2012). Tool use and the development of the function concept: From repeated calculations to functional thinking. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(6), 1243–1267.
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.
Drijvers, P., Tacoma, S., Besamusca, A., Doorman, M., & Boon, P. (2013). Digital resources inviting mathematics teachers’ professional development: The case of the DPICT project. ZDM, The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(7), 987–1001.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
Freudenthal, H. (1991). Revisiting mathematics education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.
Kirk, R. E. (1995). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioural sciences (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Kulik, C.-L. C., Schwalb, B. J., & Kulik, J. A. (1982). Programmed instruction in secondary education: A meta-analysis of evaluation findings. Journal of Educational Research, 75(3), 133–138.
Li, Q., & Ma, X. (2010). A meta-analysis of the effects of computer technology on school students’ mathematics learning. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 215–243.
Nadolski, R. J., Kirschner, P. A., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2005). Optimising the number of steps in learning tasks for complex skills. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 223–237.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2008). The role of technology in the teaching and learning of mathematics. http://www.nctm.org/about/content.aspx?id=14233. 8 Feb 2013.
Plomp, T., & Nieveen, N. (2014) (Eds.). Educational design research: Illustrative cases. Enschede: SLO, Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development. http://international.slo.nl/publications/edr/. 2 Jan 2014.
Rakes, C. R., Valentine, J. C., McGatha, M. B., & Ronau, R. N. (2010). Methods of instructional improvement in algebra: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 372–400.
Reed, H., Drijvers, P., & Kirschner, P. (2010). Effects of attitudes and behaviours on learning mathematics with computer tools. Computers and Education, 55(1), 1–15.
Salomon, G. (1984). The differential investment of mental effort in learning as a function of perceptions and attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 647–658.
Skemp, R. R. (1976). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Mathematics Teaching, 77, 1–7.
Stacey, K., Chick, H., & Kendal, M. (Eds.). (2004). The future of the teaching and learning of algebra: The 12th ICMI study. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
Tempelaar, D. (2007). Onderwijzen of bijspijkeren? Teach or remediate? Nieuw Archief voor Wiskunde, 8(1), 55–59.
Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2007). Ten steps to complex learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2012). Ten steps to complex learning (2nd ed.). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Watson, A. (2009). Paper 6: Algebraic reasoning. In T. Nunes, P. Bryant, & A. Watson (Eds.), Key understandings in mathematics learning. London: Nuffield Foundation.
Acknowledgments
We thank the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science for supporting this study in the frame of the “Onderwijs Bewijs” program (project number ODB08008). We thank the teachers and students for their participation and Dr. Nijs Lagerweij for his statistical advice.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Drijvers, P., Doorman, M., Kirschner, P. et al. The Effect of Online Tasks for Algebra on Student Achievement in Grade 8. Tech Know Learn 19, 1–18 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-014-9217-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-014-9217-5