Abstract
AbstractThis chapter provides an overview of different conceptualizations of student engagement with mathematical ideas in studies that occur in mathematics classrooms and teaching experiment environments, and the types of quality student mathematics learning activities that result in desired learning outcomes. Over the last three decades, mathematics curriculum initiatives have called for the development of student behaviors and dispositions (i.e., mathematical competencies, processes, proficiencies, and practices) that actively engage all students in knowing and doing mathematics. According to Medley (1987), it is axiomatic that all learning depends on the activity of the learner. One of the main purposes of teaching is to provide students with effective and equitable experiences that will result in successful learner outcomes. Given the complexity of studying student engagement with learning activities, including the “constraint-support system” (Kaput in Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning, Macmillan, 1992) of technology-based mathematics activities, and the persistent challenges of conducting research in mathematics classrooms, this chapter describes the evolution of research examining student learning experiences through the lens of multiple theoretical perspectives that provide explanations relevant to how and why student behaviors and dispositions develop in the way they do within different learning environments.
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Reference95 articles.
1. Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2017). The Australian curriculum: Mathematics: Key ideas. https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10curriculum/mathematics/key-ideas/.
2. Bartell, T., Wager, A., Edwards, A., Battey, D., Foote, M., & Spencer, J. (2017). Toward a framework for research linking equitable teaching with the standards for mathematical practice. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 48(1), 7–28.
3. Biddlecomb, B. D. (1994). Theory-based development of computer microworlds. Journal of Research in Childhood and Education, 8(2), 87–98.
4. Biddlecomb, B., & Olive, J. (2000). JavaBars [computer software]. http://math.coe.uga.edu/olive/welcome.html.
5. Bliss, J., & Ogborn, J. (1989). Tools for exploratory learning. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 5, 37–50.