Abstract
This study employed the design-based research (DBR) methodology to explore how to design instructional prompts integrated into a computer-based cognitive tool, GeoGebra, for gifted mathematics education. This study was divided into two iterative research phases lasting for 3 semesters, in which differentiating the instructional prompts for gifted students was explored. During two iterations, a combination of quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis procedures were used to examine the effect of the designed prompts on gifted students’ learning achievements and explore their feedback on the learning activities based on the research conducted on 60 participants who were tenth-grade students. The findings led to a set of design propositions that contribute to the literature on both instructional prompts integrated into computer-based cognitive tools and gifted mathematics education. The propositions emphasize (a) prompts’ types, the algebraic-based prompts (ABPs) and software-based prompts (SBPs), (b) prompts’ order, emphasizing on presenting ABPs before SBPs, (c) prompts’ sequencing, adjusting the number of prompts’ sequences to gifted students’ characteristics, and (d) prompts’ combination, merging ABPs and SBPs to gain higher order learning outcomes. The prospective studies for the next phases of the DBR study are also discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Change history
02 December 2023
A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12375-3
References
Alabdulaziz, M. S., Aldossary, S. M., Alyahya, S. A., & Althubiti, H. M. (2021). The effectiveness of the GeoGebra Programme in the development of academic achievement and survival of the learning impact of the mathematics among secondary stage students. Education and Information Technologies, 26(3), 2685–2713. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10371-5
Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: a decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11428813
Aydos, M. (2015). The impact of teaching mathematics with GeoGebra on the conceptual understanding of limits and continuity: The case of Turkish gifted and talented students [Master’s thesis, Bilkent University]. İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey.
Bist, P. R. (2017). Use of GeoGebra in geometric construction. Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR), 3(9), 337–347.
Brame, C. J. (2016). Effective educational videos: principles and guidelines for maximizing student learning from video content. CBE Life Sciences Education, 15(4), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-03-0125
Chen, N. S., Wei, C. W., Wu, K. T., & Uden, L. (2009). Effects of high level prompts and peer assessment on online learners’ reflection levels. Computers and Education, 52(2), 283–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.08.007
Cooper, G., & Sweller, J. (1987). Effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on mathematical problem-solving transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 347–362. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.79.4.347
Dabbagh, N., Marra, R. M., & Howland, J. L. (2018). Meaningful and online learning integrating strategies, activities, and learning technologies for effective designs (1st ed.). Routledge.
Davis, G., Rimm, S., & Siegle, D. (2011). Education of the gifted and talented (6th ed.). Pearson.
Easterday, M. W., Lewis, D., & Gerber, E. (2014). Design-based research process: Problems, phases, and applications. In J. L. Polman, E. A. Kyza, D. K. O’Neill, I. Tabak, W. R. Penuel, A. S. Jurow, K. O’Connor, T. Lee, & L. D’Amico (Eds.), Learning and becoming in practice: The international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS) 2014 (Vol.1, pp. 317–324). International Society of the Learning Sciences
Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
Field, A. (2017). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Prentice, K., Burch, M., Hamlett, C. L., Owen, R., Hosp, M., & Jancek, D. (2003). Explicitly teaching for transfer: Effects on third-grade students’ mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 293–305. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.293
Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2003). Scaffolding students’ problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504515
Gökçe, S., & Güner, P. (2022). Dynamics of GeoGebra ecosystem in mathematics education. Education and Information Technologies, 27(4), 5301–5323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10836-1
Hooper, S., & Rieber, L. P. (1995). Teaching with technology. In A. C. Ornstein (Ed.), Teaching: theory into practice (pp. 154–170). Allyn and Bacon.
Jang, S. J. (2009). Exploration of secondary students’ creativity by integrating web-based technology into an innovative science curriculum. Computers and Education, 52(1), 247–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.08.002
Jonassen, D. H. (1994). Technology as cognitive tools: Learners as designers. IT Forum Paper (1 vol.). IT Forum Paper.
Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: a new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 215–239). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Jonassen, D. H., & Reeves, T. C. (1996). Learning with technology: using computers as cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (1st ed., pp. 694–719). Macmillan.
Joy, M., Foss, J., King, E., Sinclair, J., Sitthiworachart, J., & Davis, R. (2014). Incorporating technologies into a flexible teaching space. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(2), 272–284. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12040
Karadag, Z., & McDougall, D. (2011). GeoGebra as a cognitive tool: where cognitive theories and technology meet. In L. Bu & R. Schoen (Eds.), Model-centered learning: pathways to mathematical understanding using GeoGebra (pp. 169–181). Sense Publishers.
Kettler, T. (2014). Critical thinking skills among elementary school students: comparing identified gifted and general education student performance. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(2), 127–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986214522508
Kim, B., & Reeves, T. C. (2007). Reframing research on learning with technology: in search of the meaning of cognitive tools. Instructional Science, 35(3), 207–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-006-9005-2
Kim, M. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of enrichment programs on gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(2), 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216630607
Kim, M., Cross, J., & Cross, T. (2017). Program Development for disadvantaged high-ability students. Gifted Child Today, 40(2), 87–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217517690190
King, A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects of teaching children how to question and how to explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 338–368. https://doi.org/10.2307/1163313
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). 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. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
Lu, J., Li, D., Stevens, C., & Ye, R. (2017). Comparisons and analyses of gifted students’ characteristics and learning methods. Gifted Education International, 33(1), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429414565160
Manning, S. (2006). Recognizing gifted students: a practical guide for teachers. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 42(2), 64–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2006.10516435
McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2018). Conducting educational design research (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315105642
Miedijensky, S. (2018). Learning environment for the gifted—what do outstanding teachers of the gifted think? Gifted Education International, 34(3), 222–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429417754204
Morris, J., Slater, E., Fitzgerald, M. T., Lummis, G. W., & van Etten, E. (2021). Using local rural knowledge to enhance STEM learning for gifted and talented students in Australia. Research in Science Education, 51, 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-9823-2
Ocal, M. F. (2017). The effect of GeoGebra on students’ conceptual and procedural knowledge: the case of applications of derivative. Higher Education Studies, 7(2), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v7n2p67
Önal, N. T., & Önal, N. (2021). The effect of augmented reality on the astronomy achievement and interest level of gifted students. Education and Information Technologies, 26(4), 4573–4599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10474-7
Pierce, R., & Stacey, K. (2011). Using dynamic geometry to bring the real world into the classroom. In L. Bu, & R. Schoen (Eds.), Model-Centered Learning. Modelling and Simulations for Learning and Instruction (pp. 41–55). SensePublishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-618-2_4
Potts, J. A. (2019). Profoundly gifted students’ perceptions of virtual classrooms. Gifted Child Quarterly, 63(1), 58–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986218801075
Puntambekar, S., & Hübscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: what have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4001_1
Reigeluth, C. M., Myers, R. D., & Lee, D. (2016). The learner-centered paradigm of education. Instructional-design theories and models, volume IV (pp. 5–32). Routledge.
Rienties, B., Giesbers, B., Tempelaar, D., Lygo-Baker, S., Segers, M., & Gijselaers, W. (2012). The role of scaffolding and motivation in CSCL. Computers and Education, 59(3), 893–906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.010
Saunders, A. F., Spooner, F., & Ley Davis, L. (2018). Using video prompting to teach mathematical problem solving of real-world video-simulation problems. Remedial and Special Education, 39(1), 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932517717042
Siegle, D., & McCoach, D. B. (2010). The first word: a letter from the co-editors: redefining giftedness. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22(1), 5–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X1002200101
Smale-Jacobse, A. E., Meijer, A., Helms-Lorenz, M., & Maulana, R. (2019). Differentiated instruction in secondary education: a systematic review of Research evidence. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(November). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02366
Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory. In J. P. Mestre & B. H. Ross (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Cognition in education (Vol. 55, pp. 37–76). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00002-8
Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Pearson.
Thomson, D. L. (2010). Beyond the Classroom walls: Teachers’ and students’ perspectives on how online learning can meet the needs of gifted students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21(4), 662–712. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X1002100405
Topçu, S., & Leana-Taşcılar, M. Z. (2018). The role of motivation and self-esteem in the academic achievement of turkish gifted students. Gifted Education International, 34(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429416646192
Treffinger, D. J. (1975). Teaching for self-directed learning: a priority for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 19(1), 46–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698627501900109
Trinter, C. P., Brighton, C. M., & Moon, T. R. (2015). Designing differentiated mathematics games: discarding the one-size-fits-all approach to educational game play. Gifted Child Today, 38(2), 88–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217514568560
Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504682
Wang, Y. H. (2020). Design-based research on integrating learning technology tools into higher education classes to achieve active learning. Computers and Education, 156(May), 103935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103935
Wise, A. F., & Schwarz, B. B. (2017). Visions of CSCL: eight provocations for the future of the field. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12(4), 423–467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-017-9267-5
Yildiz, A., Baltaci, S., & Küçük Demir, B. (2017). Reflection on the analytic geometry courses: the GeoGebra software and its effect on creative thinking. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(4), 620–630. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2017.050411
Zheng, L. (2015). A systematic literature review of design-based research from 2004 to 2013. Journal of Computers in Education, 2(4), 399–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-015-0036-z
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Esmaeil Azimi: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing- Reviewing and Editing, Project administration. Leila Jafari: Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Software. Yousef Mahdavinasab: Formal Analysis, Methodology, Writing - Original Draft.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
Approval of this study was granted by the Ethics Committee of Islamic Azad University (8/01/2019/No. 135161).
Consent to participate
Written informed consent was obtained from the parents.
Conflict of interest
None.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The original online version of this article was revised: The affiliation of authors Leila Jafari and Yousef Mahdavinasab was incorrect in the original publication of this article.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Azimi, E., Jafari, L. & Mahdavinasab, Y. Using a design-based research methodology to develop and study prompts integrated into GeoGebra to support mathematics learning of gifted students. Educ Inf Technol 28, 12541–12563 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11632-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11632-9