skip to main content
10.1145/2460296.2460328acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageslakConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Nanogenetic learning analytics: illuminating student learning pathways in an online fraction game

Published:08 April 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

A working understanding of fractions is critical to student success in high school and college math. Therefore, an understanding of the learning pathways that lead students to this working understanding is important for educators to provide optimal learning environments for their students. We propose the use of microgenetic analysis techniques including data mining and visualizations to inform our understanding of the process by which students learn fractions in an online game environment. These techniques help identify important variables and classification algorithms to group students by their learning trajectories.

References

  1. E. Andersen, E. O'Rourke, Y. E. Liu, R. Snider, J. Lowdermilk, D. Truong, S. Cooper, and Z. Popovic. The impact of tutorials on games of varying complexity. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM annual conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 59--68. ACM, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. M. Behr, G. Harel, T. Post, and R. Lesh. Rational number, ratio, and proportion. In D. Grouws, editor, Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning, page 296--333. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, New York, NY, 1992.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. J. Confrey. Splitting, similarity, and rate of change: A new approach to multiplication and exponential functions. The development of multiplicative reasoning in the learning of mathematics, pages 293--330, 1994.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. J. Confrey and E. Smith. Splitting, covariation, and their role in the development of exponential functions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, pages 66--86, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. P. Gould, L. Outhred, and M. Mitchelmore. One-third is three-quarters of one-half. In Annual meeting of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australia, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. M. Kapur. Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3):379--424, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. P. A. Kirschner, J. Sweller, and R. E. Clark. Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational psychologist, 41(2):75--86, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. D. Kuhn. Microgenetic study of change: What has it told us? Psychological Science, pages 133--139, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. S. J. Lamon. The development of unitizing: Its role in children's partitioning strategies. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, pages 170--193, 1996.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. S. J. Lamon. Rational numbers and proportional reasoning: Towards a theoretical framework for research. In F. Lester, editor, Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning, pages 629--667. Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. T. Martin and D. L. Schwartz. Physically distributed learning: Adapting and reinterpreting physical environments in the development of fraction concepts. Cognitive Science, 29(4):587--625, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. J. Moss. Pipes, tubes, and beakers: New approaches to teaching the rational-number system. In S. Donovan and J. Bransford, editors, How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom, page 309--350. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. J. Moss and R. Case. Developing children's understanding of the rational numbers: A new model and an experimental curriculum. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, pages 122--147, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. M. Myers, J. Confrey, K. Nguyen, and G. Mojica. Equipartitioning a continuous whole among three people: Students' attempts to create fair shares. In S. L. Swars, D. W. Stinson, and S. Lemons-Smith, editors, Proceedings of the 31st annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Atlanta, GA, 2009. Georgia State University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. US Department of Education, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. A. Norton and A. J. Hackenberg. Continuing research on students' fraction schemes. LP Steffe & J. Olive, Children's fractional knowledge, pages 341--352, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. J. Olive and L. P. Steffe. The construction of an iterative fractional scheme: The case of joe. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 20(4):413--437, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. R. Siegler, T. Carpenter, F. Fennell, D. Geary, J. Lewis, Y. Okamoto, L. Thompson, and J. Wray. Developing effective fractions instruction for kindergarten through 8th grade. ies practice guide. ncee 2010--4039. What Works Clearinghouse, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. J. W. Stigler, K. B. Givvin, and B. J. Thompson. What community college developmental mathematics students understand about mathematics. MathAmatyc Educator, 1(3):4--16, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. A. Venezia, K. R. Bracco, and T. Nodine. One-shot deal? StudentsáĂŹ perceptions of assessment and course placement in CaliforniaáĂŹs community colleges. WestEd, San Francisco, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Nanogenetic learning analytics: illuminating student learning pathways in an online fraction game

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        LAK '13: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge
        April 2013
        300 pages
        ISBN:9781450317856
        DOI:10.1145/2460296

        Copyright © 2013 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 8 April 2013

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        LAK '13 Paper Acceptance Rate16of58submissions,28%Overall Acceptance Rate236of782submissions,30%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader