国立情報学研究所で電子化したコンテンツを使用している。

国立情報学研究所で電子化したコンテンツを使用している。

国立情報学研究所で電子化したコンテンツを使用している。

Denna fallstudie belyser gymnasieelevers arbete i små grupper med ett problem kopplat till derivata och syftar till att belysa faktorer som gynnar eller hindrar individernas deltagande i och utveckling av den matematiska kommunikationen i klassrummet. Studien har sin teoretiska förankring i Anna Sfards kommognitiva ramverk, där lärande i matematik ses som deltagande i en matematisk diskurs. Under mer än ett årtionde har larmrapporter om svenska elevers bristande kunskaper i matematik avlöst varandra. Forskningsrapporter pekar på olika faktorer bakom denna sjunkande kunskapsutveckling. Den rådande undervisningskulturen, där eleverna i hög grad arbetar individuellt med uppgifter ur läroboken, ses som en förklaring till de försämrade resultaten, och att undervisningen inte ger eleverna möjlighet att utveckla samtliga föreskrivna förmågor i ämnet. För att uppnå detta betonar både forskningsfältet och den nya läroplanen från 2011 vikten av att eleverna kommunicerar i matematik. I detta perspektiv finns ett behov av att belysa skillnader i elevernas deltagande i kommunikationen om matematik, inte minst i samband med lärande i smågrupper, och hur detta antas påverka elevernas förutsättningar till lärande. Studiens fokus är riktat mot deltagarnas olika bidrag till gruppens matematiska diskurs, det vill säga då eleverna kommunicerar om matematiska objekt eller processer, och hur dessa påverkar elevernas förutsättningar och deltagande i kommunikationen. Fokus är också riktat mot den kommunikation som handlar om deltagarna i gruppen, vad eleverna gör och hur de värderar varandras sätt att delta i den matematiska diskursen i klassrummet. Denna kommunikation, benämns i ramverket för subjektifiering och antas vara sammankopplad med individens lärande i matematik. Datainsamlingsmetoder som använts är intervjuer, audio- och videoinspelningar och användning av audiovisuella pennor för att sammanföra verbal och skriftlig kommunikation. Diskursen ses som den naturliga analysenheten. I analysens första steg studerades den matematiska diskursen avseende skillnader i innehållet i deltagarnas yttranden. I ett andra analyssteg fokuserades på interaktionsflödet i gruppen för att förstå mer av skillnader i varje elevs deltagande och bidrag till kommunikation. Studiens resultat visar på stora skillnader avseende deltagande och innehåll i elevernas kommunikation, både på grupp- och individnivå. Elevernas utveckling av den matematiska diskursen gynnas av användningen av flera olika mediatorer för att representera de matematiska objekten. När eleverna erbjuds kopplingar till en tidigare erövrad diskurs, leder det till diskursiva framflyttningar. Eleverna visar sig vidare ha stora svårigheter att tolka och använda det formella matematiska symbolspråket som stöd för matematiserandet. Elevernas tolkning av likhetstecknet, olikhetstecknet och symbolen f´(x) på en processnivå skapar hinder för att utveckla den matematiska diskursen i önskvärd riktning. Den diskurs som handlar om deltagarna och deras egenskaper (identifiering) utgör ca 10 % av samtliga yttranden och är i stort sett samtliga negativa omdömen, ofta använda i syfte att utesluta eller införliva sig själva eller andra från deltagande i matematiserandet. Forskningsstudien visar på ett behov av ytterligare kunskap om hur matematiklärare på bästa sätt kan organisera arbete i smågrupper för att öka elevernas engagemang och kvaliteten på elevernas matematiserande. Studien pekar vidare på vikten av att matematiklärare belyser och varierar användningen av olika mediatorer för att representera de matematiska objekt som är föremål för lärandet. Fallstudien belyser även vikten av att bygga upp det tillåtande arbetsklimat där eleverna inte bedömer sig själva och andra, utan istället vågar ställa de frågor som innebär att de blir alltmer delaktiga i den matematiska diskursen. Ett behov framträder av ytterligare forskning riktad mot inte bara mot den bedömning som sker mellan lärare och elev, utan också mot den bedömning som pågår i klassrummet mellan eleverna, vilket kan påverka vilka roller de väljer eller tilldelas i klassrummet. Detta kan antas vara av stor vikt för hur eleverna kommunicerar om matematik med andra deltagare i klassrummet, vilket också kan antas påverka lärandet. / This case study takes its focus on upper secondary school students’ work in small groups with a problem related to the derivative. The analysis aims to identify factors that promote or hinder an individual’s participation in and development of the mathematical communication in the classroom. The theoretical basis of the study is Anna Sfard’s commognitive framework, where learning mathematics is seen as participating in a mathematical discourse. For more than a decade, reports about Swedish students’ decreasing levels of school mathematical knowledge have been put forward. Research points to various factors behind this development. The prevailing educational culture, where students largely work individually from the textbook, is seen as one explanation for the deterioration in the results, and that teaching does not give students the opportunity to develop all the required competencies in the curriculum. To achieve this, both research and the new Swedish curriculum from 2011 emphasize the importance of student communication in mathematics. In this perspective, there is a need to highlight the differences in student participation in the communication of mathematics in the classroom, particularly in the context of small group learning, and how this is assumed to influence students’ opportunities for learning. The focus of the research is directed towards the participants’ contributions to the group’s mathematical discourse, i.e. when they communicate about mathematical objects or processes, and how these affect students’ opportunities and participation in the communication. Focus is also directed to the communication that involves participants in the group, what the students are doing and how they evaluate each other’s way to participate in the mathematical discourse in the classroom. This type of communication is in the framework referred to as subjectifying, and is assumed to affect the individual’s mathematical learning. Data collection methods used are interviews, audio and video recordings, as well as “smart pens” to combine verbal and written communication. In the first step of the analysis, the mathematical discourse was studied regarding differences in the content of the participants’ utterances. The second step of analysis focused on the interaction flow of the group to understand more of the differences in each student’s participation and contribution to the communication. The results point to big differences regarding participation and content in student communication, both at group level and individual level. The development of students’ mathematical discourse benefits from the use of multiple mediators to represent the mathematical objects. When connections to a previously acquired discourse are offered, this leads to discursive advancements. Students were observed to have difficulties to interpret and use the formal mathematical symbolic language that would support their mathematizing. Students’ interpretation of the equality sign, the sign for inequality, and the symbol f´(x) on a process level, create obstacles to developing the mathematical discourse in the desired direction. The discourse about the participants and their own traits  (identification) constitutes about 10% of all utterances and are almost all negative reviews, frequently used in order to exclude or incorporate themselves or others from participating in the mathematizing activity. This research study points to a need for more knowledge about how mathematics teachers can best organize work in small groups to increase student engagement and the quality of their mathematizing. The study also indicates the importance of mathematics teachers highlighting and varying the use of different mediators to represent the mathematical objects to learn. The case study also highlights the importance of building up a permissive environment in which students do not evaluate themselves and others, but instead dare to ask questions that will make them increasingly involved in the mathematical discourse. A need emerges for further research not only on the assessment between teacher and student, but also on the assessment that goes on in the classroom between the students, which can affect what roles they take or are assigned to in the classroom. This can be assumed to be of great importance to the way students communicate about mathematics with other students in the classroom, which is also likely to influence learning.

A cooperative small group facilitated case-based learning method has been used in the medical college at the researchers educational institution since the 2003-2004 academic year. They were designed to be a supplement to a primarily lecture-based curriculum where it was believed that these cooperative cases helped students to develop a better understanding of the material taught in the lectures, although no rigorous investigations had been completed. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of these cooperative facilitated small group cases on five specific outcomes which included: 1) achievement, 2) knowledge confidence, 3) student satisfaction, 4) students perceived time on task, and 5) the students perceptions of the degree to which they believed a facilitator helped them to learn the material. These outcomes for cooperative learning (CL) were compared with individual learning (IL) outcomes. Quantitative data on student achievement and knowledge confidence were collected using a pre-test post-test 10 multiple choice question quiz. A brief questionnaire was also distributed to students to collect data regarding student satisfaction, time on task and perceived helpfulness of the facilitator.<p>Fifty-nine medical students were randomly assigned to either the CL or IL cohort (cooperative cohort, n = 32; individual cohort, n = 27). All students were blinded to the purpose of the study until all data were collected at the end of the investigation. Students completed the 10 multiple choice question pre-test. After each question they rated their level of confidence (on a scale from 1 to 10) that they had chosen the correct answer. Immediately after completion of the pre-test, they worked on the case, either cooperatively or individually. One week after the pre-test and case, the students completed the post-test quiz with the same questions, as well as the questionnaire.<p>A repeated-measures MANOVA was used to compare achievement and confidence in the CL (n =19) and IL (n =13) cohorts. An alpha level of .05 was used for all statistical tests. Effect sizes (d) were calculated for within-group and between-groups comparisons for achievement and confidence. Descriptive data on student satisfaction, time on task and facilitator helpfulness were gathered from the questionnaire and compared between groups.<p> Within-group results from the study showed that CL had a greater impact on student achievement and confidence than IL (achievement, d = 0.57 vs. 0.16; confidence, d = 0.52 vs. 0.14). The results for the statistical analysis did not reach significance for achievement or confidence. Between-groups effect sizes were calculated for average pre- to post-test change for achievement and confidence (achievement, d = 0.35; confidence, 0.40). Students in the CL cohort reported spending more time on task before and during the case session and less after the session. They also reported greater levels of satisfaction with the learning experience than IL group. The majority of students (90.5%) in the CL cohort felt that the facilitator helped them to learn.<p>The findings from this study showed that this CL method had a greater impact on the five outcomes outlined above compared to the IL method. Students made greater gains in achievement and confidence. They also spent more time on task, and had higher levels of satisfaction with the learning experience. Students in the CL cohort also believed that the facilitator helped them to learn. Implications of the study include possible expanded use of the cases within the curriculum of this medical college although the demands of resources and curriculum content would have to be carefully considered.

A cooperative small group facilitated case-based learning method has been used in the medical college at the researchers educational institution since the 2003-2004 academic year. They were designed to be a supplement to a primarily lecture-based curriculum where it was believed that these cooperative cases helped students to develop a better understanding of the material taught in the lectures, although no rigorous investigations had been completed. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of these cooperative facilitated small group cases on five specific outcomes which included: 1) achievement, 2) knowledge confidence, 3) student satisfaction, 4) students perceived time on task, and 5) the students perceptions of the degree to which they believed a facilitator helped them to learn the material. These outcomes for cooperative learning (CL) were compared with individual learning (IL) outcomes. Quantitative data on student achievement and knowledge confidence were collected using a pre-test post-test 10 multiple choice question quiz. A brief questionnaire was also distributed to students to collect data regarding student satisfaction, time on task and perceived helpfulness of the facilitator.<p>Fifty-nine medical students were randomly assigned to either the CL or IL cohort (cooperative cohort, n = 32; individual cohort, n = 27). All students were blinded to the purpose of the study until all data were collected at the end of the investigation. Students completed the 10 multiple choice question pre-test. After each question they rated their level of confidence (on a scale from 1 to 10) that they had chosen the correct answer. Immediately after completion of the pre-test, they worked on the case, either cooperatively or individually. One week after the pre-test and case, the students completed the post-test quiz with the same questions, as well as the questionnaire.<p>A repeated-measures MANOVA was used to compare achievement and confidence in the CL (n =19) and IL (n =13) cohorts. An alpha level of .05 was used for all statistical tests. Effect sizes (d) were calculated for within-group and between-groups comparisons for achievement and confidence. Descriptive data on student satisfaction, time on task and facilitator helpfulness were gathered from the questionnaire and compared between groups.<p> Within-group results from the study showed that CL had a greater impact on student achievement and confidence than IL (achievement, d = 0.57 vs. 0.16; confidence, d = 0.52 vs. 0.14). The results for the statistical analysis did not reach significance for achievement or confidence. Between-groups effect sizes were calculated for average pre- to post-test change for achievement and confidence (achievement, d = 0.35; confidence, 0.40). Students in the CL cohort reported spending more time on task before and during the case session and less after the session. They also reported greater levels of satisfaction with the learning experience than IL group. The majority of students (90.5%) in the CL cohort felt that the facilitator helped them to learn.<p>The findings from this study showed that this CL method had a greater impact on the five outcomes outlined above compared to the IL method. Students made greater gains in achievement and confidence. They also spent more time on task, and had higher levels of satisfaction with the learning experience. Students in the CL cohort also believed that the facilitator helped them to learn. Implications of the study include possible expanded use of the cases within the curriculum of this medical college although the demands of resources and curriculum content would have to be carefully considered.

Abstract In the 1980s, academic assessments called for "the ability of individuals and groups to talk, listen judge, and act on issues of common interest" (Morse, 1989, p. 30). More recently, corporate research findings, Are They Ready to Work? Employers' Perspectives on the Basic Knowledge and Applied Skills of New Entrants to the 21st Century U.S. Workforce (The Conference Board, Inc., Partnership for 21st Century Skills, The Corporate Voices for Working Families, & Society for Human Resource Management, 2006), report the workplace is seeking college graduates with skill in collaboration (e.g. build diverse relationships, negotiate, manage conflict). While the interest in collaborative learning has expanded in higher education and business, "sparse application" is reported in the college classroom. In academia, collaborative learning has been dependent on cooperative learning research focused on quantitative student achievement outcomes while faculty perceptions of a nonfoundational social constructivist view of collaborative learning is reported as "hardly begun." Along with an increased ambiguity in the terms collaborative and cooperative learning, a comprehensive understanding of collaborative learning and its potential uniqueness, if any, has been skewed. The purpose of this study was to describe and explain collaborative learning from the perspective of selected classroom practitioners representing multiple academic disciplines at a learning-centered institution. The exploratory questions guiding this qualitative case study were: (a) what elements constituted community college collaborative learning practitioners classroom experience and (b) what variables influenced the elements. The theoretical framework undergirding this dissertation is social constructivism nested in constructivism. A purposeful sampling of four instructional criteria indicative of a nonfoundational socio-constructivist concept of collaborative learning guided the participant selection process. The limited candidate list consisted of 31 faculty (20 females, 11 males) at the field site, a learning-centered community college with an FTE near 30,000 for the 2009 - 2010 school year. From 22 initial responses, seven faculty participants (6 female, 1 male) were selected and participated in two semi-structured in-depth interviews. The data collection included interviews, institutional and practitioner documents, the researcher's reflective journal, and field notes. The male participant was removed from the study because he did not submit all requested documents. Therefore, though unintended, six case studies of female instructors were analyzed over an eight month period and reduced to four when saturation was reached, no new information was elicited. All four participants fulfilled all four specified instructional criteria. The central finding able to help the college classroom is the strong identified practice of the defined collaborative learning concept with the articulated understanding limited and term interchange and confusion profound. Thus, the value of this study is the lack of definitional clarity in the terms collaborative and cooperative learning within academia which may offer one possible explanation for the reported sparse application in the college classroom. Supporting this major finding the single most defining attribute of this sophisticated or challenging concept of collaborative learning is the instructional criteria of distributed authority. Manifesting itself in students teaching students the faculty participants high level of consistent classroom application in concert with intellectual negotiation, consensus building, and student ownership of learning constitutes the collaborative learning skills sought by the work force. This study contributed to all three research attributes reported as minimal in the literature, qualitative research from a faculty perspective on the specified concept of collaborative learning. A comprehensive participant selection process was not conducted. In view of the central finding and the existing gaps in the literature, a priority recommendation for future research would be a more intentional expansion of candidate recruitment to potentially increase identification of classroom instructors practicing the particularized concept of collaborative learning. Other research recommendations would include a more focused study of the defined concept of collaborative learning in relationship to: (a) the learning-centered institution, (b) disciplines with a high density of foundational knowledge, (c) student and faculty resistance, (d) lines of authority, and (e) personality, gender, teaching styles, and learning styles.

English Learners experience challenges related to comprehension of science text particularly at the high school level. The language of science differs significantly from that of conversation and expository text. Students benefit from collaborative interpretation of readings. Additionally, there appears to be a need to train adolescents in the oral language skills requisite for academic discourse. This study employed a sample of high school physical science students (N = 75) whose first language was Spanish and who were currently developing English language proficiency. It used quasi-experimental methodology with treatment and comparison groups, during the normal operations of the public school classroom. It tested the effect of training with a textbook summarization method and with an academic conversation strategy on the comprehension of state-adopted science textbook readings. Posttest scores of both groups were analyzed using an ANOVA. Posttest scores of treatment group members were analyzed in relation to prior science knowledge, reading level, gender, and level of English proficiency using a factorial ANOVA. Findings suggest that the treatment had a positive impact on the achievement of students who had a low level of English language proficiency. In light of the at-risk nature of this population, given low socioeconomic status and that a high percentage of families are migrant workers, this in encouraging. The basic premise of the treatment appears promising. Evidence collected pertaining to its effect relative to students’ general ESOL level, science background knowledge, literacy skills, and gender neither confirmed nor denied the viability of the strategy. The further significance of this study is that it adds to the body of research on strategies to support English Learners.