32147чошановr PDF

Engineering of Learning:
Conceptualizing e-Didaccs
Mourat Tchoshanov
Conceptualizing e-Didactics
Moscow
2013
, http://verstkapro.ru/
UNESCO Institute for Information Technologies in Education
Author: Mourat Tchoshanov

Editor: Svetlana Knyazeva, UNESCO Institute for Information Technologies in Education
Reviewer: Marina Tsvetkova, Academy of Teacher Professional Development
Reviser: Karina Butyagina
The digital age demands re-thinking of traditional teaching and learning. Rapidly
growing technological innovations in education force a paradigm shift from traditional
teaching to engineering of learning. The main focus of the book is on the design,
development, and implementation of effective learning environments through the
use of Information and Communication Technologies in various formats: face-to-face,
blended, and distance education. Engineering of learning requires new understanding
and reconceptualization of traditional didactics toward e-Didactics in order to effectively
design and skillfully align learning objectives, content, and assessment in the digital age
classroom.
The choice and the presentation of facts contained in this publication and the opinions
expressed therein are not necessarily those of UNESCO and do not commit the
Organization. The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout
this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part
of UNESCO concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area of its
authorities, or the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Whilst the information in
this publication is believed to be true and accurate at the time of publication, UNESCO
cannot accept any legal responsibility or liability to any person or entity with respect to
any loss or damage arising from the information contained in this publication.
Published by the UNESCO Institute for Information Technologies in Education

8 Kedrova St., Bldg. 3, Moscow, 117292, Russian Federation
Tel.: +7 499 1292990
Fax: +7 499 1291225
E-mail: Liste.info.iite@unesco.org
www.iite.unesco.org
UNESCO, 2013
ISBN 978-5-905385-14-8
Printed in the Russian Federation
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-

Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license
visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
Contents
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Introduction. From Teaching to Engineering of Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Chapter 1. e-Didactics: Digital Age Didactics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

1.1. The Origins of Didactics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.2. Didactical Triangle and Didactical Tetrahedron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1.3. e-Didactics and Didactical Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Chapter 2. Learning Sciences in the Digital Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

2.1. The Guiding Principles of Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.2.Constructivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.3.Constructionism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
2.4. Social Constructivism in Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
2.5. Learning Culture and Multiple Intelligences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Chapter 3. The Engineering of Learning Toolkit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

3.1. Design of Learning Objectives, Tasks, and Didactical Situations . . . . . 63
3.2. Cognitive Tutoring, Representations, and New Literacies . . . . . . . . . 71
3.3. Research-Based Strategies in Engineering of Learning . . . . . . . . . . . 80
3.4. Assessment of Learning Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Chapter 4. Engineering of Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

4.1. Modular Design and Content Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
4.2. Content Interactivity and Content Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
4.3. Engineering of Distance Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Websites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Recent IITE publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
Preface
Following the development of innovative pedagogical technologies, the common

apprehension of pedagogy and didactics as the art and science of teaching and
instructional theory evolves together with the development of learning theories.
In the digital age, traditional learning theories behaviorism, constructionism
and cognitivism are supplemented by new approaches, for example, connectivism,
which suggests learning in the process of communication and connection within a
distributed network and can be exemplified by the actively spreading Massive Open
Online Courses.
The 21st-century teacher is equipped with numerous ICT tools and digital content
to enhance or change students experience of education; however, the fact that a
teacher uses digital materials or electronic tools does not necessarily suggest that
s/he is practicing appropriate pedagogical approaches tailored for the new tools.
Pre-service and in-service training of teachers still provides an insight mainly into
the traditional pedagogy; however, though digital pedagogy is emerging and some
teachers experiment with new approaches, it still has to become a common ground.
The digital age demands an adequate revision of pedagogical approaches. To meet
the needs of contemporary students new ways of ICT-enhanced teaching and
learning should be developed. The reframing and reconceptualization of traditional
didactics, pedagogies and the learning landscape should become a prerequisite
for a more efficient use of ICT in primary, secondary and higher schools. Digital
pedagogies should be designed in accordance with the following principles:
authentic personalized learning, broadening experience and deepening knowledge,
and learning in the global context (ACCE, 2008).
UNESCO recognizes the need to refocus thinking about the use of ICT in education,
shift the focus from the ICT tools to learning needs and pedagogies, novel approaches
to using the new tools. This publication of the UNESCO Institute for Information
Technologies in Education covers various aspects related to the concept of
e-Didactics, from the origins of didactics to didactical engineering. The main focus
of the book is on the design, development, and implementation of effective learning
environments through the use of Information and Communication Technologies
in various formats: face-to-face, blended, and distance education. The author,
Dr.Mourat Tchoshanov, considers advantages and disadvantages of various learning
theories and their modifications, for example, social constructivism in action.
He analyses the engineering of learning from the viewpoint of a learning toolkit,
which includes the design of learning objectives, tasks, and didactical situations,
cognitive tutoring, assessment of learning outcomes, etc. The chapter devoted to the
engineering of content outlines modular design and content development, content
6 Foreword
interactivity and communication, as well as engineering of distance learning. The

book concludes by an example of a unit developed by the Texas-Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics team, which should be of help for all those willing to
master the new didactic approaches.
I hope that this book will become a helpful tool for educators at different levels and
sectors of education in their transition to e-Didactics.
Dendev Badarch
IITE UNESCO Director a.i.
Introduction
From Teaching
to Engineering of Learning
Since 2000 the author has been studying the approaches to the use of Information
and Communication Technologies (ICT) in education and distance learning. In 2001,
he developed an open access web site Visual Mathematics (http://mourat.utep.
edu/vis_math/visuala.html) and used dynamic cognitive visualization to represent
solutions to mathematical problems and proofs. The website is used by the author
in mathematics methods and mathematics classes at the University of Texas at El
Paso, USA.
During the recent years the author has been developing and teaching hybrid/
blended (partially online) and distance (online) courses for pre-service and in-
service training of secondary school teachers of mathematics. The analysis, modeling
and designing of distance learning courses convinced the author that content and
didactical knowledge are necessary but not sufficient for the development of high-
quality online courses. In addition, one needs to acquire a new type of knowledge
that integrates content, didactics, and engineering. Application of engineering
approaches to didactics is called didactical engineering.
In addition to teaching online, the authors enthusiasm about the efficiency of

didactical engineering was supported by working with mathematics teachers in
an urban public school in the southwest Texas attended by about 750 students.
The school was equipped with computer labs; each mathematics classroom
was equipped with a computer for teachers and a few (three to five) computers
for students to work on individual tasks and projects. Each classroom was also
equipped with a projector and an interactive whiteboard. Mathematics classes
were block-scheduled each day for 90 minutes. The Department of Mathematics
employed 11teachers whose teaching experience varied from one to 25 years.
According to the results of the state standardized test, in 2003-2005 the average
level of achievement in mathematics of school students was around 41-46%.
Teachers explained the low rate by students reluctance to learn. During summer
2005, a group of teachers invited the author to work together with the Department
of Mathematics to improve academic performance of students. The analysis of the
curriculum, interviews with teachers, students, and parents revealed that poor
performance was due to teachers rather than students.
After a thorough analysis of the situation the author proposed to improve

performance using the didactical engineering approach. The hypothesis was that
the poor student performance was stipulated by the attitude of a teacher, his/ her
8 Introduction. From Teaching to Engineering of Learning
teaching methodology and subject matter proficiency. The vicious circle had to be
broken, passive teacher behavior (as teacher-technician) had to be changed to an
active one (as teacher-engineer). The author designed a professional development
plan in cooperation with the teachers. Starting from the fall 2005, every two weeks
he conducted didactical engineering seminars (one and a half hour sessions) for
teachers. In total, during the academic year, about 20 seminars were held, which
included but were not limited to the following diverse activities:
Analysis and development of learning objectives and expected outcomes for

Mathematics topics in the curriculum;
Detailed analysis of the content and teaching methods;
Selection and design of tasks, problems, projects and activities for the
development of students mathematical proficiency;
Design of lesson plans and didactical approaches to the development of
students abilities to reason and solve problems;
Classroom observations by peers followed by analysis;
Analysis of student work to identify and address common students
misconceptions;
Analysis of video records of mathematics classes, etc.
The study continued during four academic years in 2005-2009. The critical point
of the study was the first year (2005-2006), when teachers attitude started slowly
changing from passive to neutral. In 2006-2007 academic year, student achievements
began to improve and reached the average for the state. The performance measure
used in the study was the students rate in the state standardized test TAKS
(Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills). During 2007-2008 academic year the
school pupil performance exceeded the average rate for the state of Texas. This year
teachers attitude changed radically. Teachers no longer blamed students and became
more optimistic about the results of their work. During the next academic year (2008-
2009) the student achievement exceeded the psychologically meaningful level for the
school 85%. The dynamics of the schools student achievements in mathematics
compared with the state average for the period of the study is shown in Figure 1.
Fig. 1. Dynamics of student achievements in 2005-2009 academic years

Introduction. From Teaching to Engineering of Learning 9
The author would like to express special gratitude to the teachers from the school
where the study was conducted: Sue Spotts, Ricardo Bombara, Roger Carrera,
Michael Garcia, Marcy Loya-Griswell, Elsa Nunez, and others for the productive
cooperation.
In this book, the author shares his experience of practical application of didactical
engineering of student learning. The book consists of four chapters and an appendix
and focuses on the transformation of teaching in the era of new technologies.
The digital age demands revision of traditional teaching and learning. Rapidly
growing technological innovations in education force a paradigm shift from
traditional teaching to engineering of learning. The main emphasis of the book
is on understanding and designing the key features of learning experiences (e.g.,
objectives, content, assessment) through the use of Information and Communication
Technologies.
Chapter 1 addresses the transition of the traditional concept of didactics (e.g.,

didactical triangle: content teaching learning), through technologically-
enhanced didactics (e.g., didactical tetrahedron: content teaching learning
technology) to e-Didactics and didactical engineering as an emerging field of study
and design of innovative learning experiences and environments.
The society is experiencing truly revolutionary changes due to the intensive

implementation of new digital technologies that provide unprecedented
democratization of knowledge and access to open education. According to some
estimates, more than half a million personal computers and other mobile devices
(tablets and cell phones) are now connected to the global network. We are
witnessing the formation of a new phenomenon a virtual learning community
which now includes more than a billion users. The number continues to grow. Along
with the trend, the market of distance learning services is steadily increasing, which
requires rethinking of traditional teaching. Expansion of these services necessitates
training of online educators who are capable of analyzing information resources,
designing distance courses, and constructing effective learning experiences and
environments. Many universities around the globe have established consortia
and special platforms to design and offer the so-called MOOCs (massive open
online courses) to develop new instrumentation systems to support distance
learning, to create databases of multimedia lectures, online courses, e-books,
digital libraries, etc. Under these circumstances, the traditional understanding of
didactics as a science and an art of teaching does not meet the requirements of the
rapidly growing information society. Similar to the paradigm shift from traditional
teaching to engineering of learning, we are witnessing the shift from the traditional
didactics toward the digital age didactics e-Didactics with major emphasis
on its engineering function. We call this phenomenon didactical engineering.
The character e in e-Didactics means more than just electronic. Expanding the
new acronym, we consider e in e-Didactics within the framework of engineering
design and 5e model (Bybee et al., 2006), which describes a social constructivist
learning cycle, helping students to build new understandings and develop ideas
from prior experiences through the following five stages: engagement, exploration,
explanation, extension, and evaluation. The 5e model could be effectively used for
engineering of learning in different formats: face-to-face, blended/hybrid, and

distance learning. By synthesizing the transformation, we argue that digital age
didactics is simultaneously science, engineering, art of learning and teaching. As an
emerging field, didactical engineering offers opportunities for study and design of
effective learning experiences and environments in the digital age.
The main goal of Chapter 2 is to introduce Learning Sciences as a new approach

to understand learning in the ICT era. Learning sciences is an interdisciplinary
field that studies teaching and learning (Sawyer, 2006). This emerging innovative
field includes but is not limited to multiple disciplines such as cognitive science,
educational psychology, anthropology, computer science, to name a few. The
Learning Sciences help educators to design effective learning experiences and
environments, including distance learning, based on the latest findings about
the processes involved in learning. Engineering of effective learning is grounded
on the following guiding principles: building on students prior knowledge and
experiences; developing students procedural fluency within the conceptual
framework; engaging students in continuous self-regulative, metacognitive,
and reflective thinking (Donovan & Bransford, 2005). The Learning Sciences
heavily capitalize on theories of constructivism (J. Piget and L. Vygotsky) and
constructionism (S. Papert). The Learning Sciences provide guidance to teachers
in preparing students to participate in a global society which is increasingly based
on technological innovations.
Chapter 3 outlines the toolkit for engineering of learning: the design of learning
objectives, the issues related to cognitive tutoring, representations, new literacies,
the research-based strategies of learning and teaching, and assessment of learning
outcomes. It describes the hierarchy of learning objectives based on the pioneering
work of Bloom (1957) as well as its modifications developed by Gerlach and Sullivan
(1967), Guilford (1967), de Block (1975), Smith and Stein (2001), et al. The chapter
further expands the concept of cognitive demand. In order to engineer effective
learning, teachers need to persistently check for students understanding to
support student learning through the use of a variety of tasks (Shepard et al., 2005).
According to Boston and Smith (2009) different kinds of tasks lead to different
types of instruction, which subsequently lead to different opportunities for students
learning. This approach focuses on the framework that distinguishes between
different levels of cognitive demand: memorization, procedures with and without
connections, and reasoning. More specifically, the tasks at the level of memorization
involve reproducing previously learned facts, rules, formulae, or definitions. This
level may also include committing facts, rules, formulae, or definitions to memory.
The tasks at this level cannot be solved using procedures because a procedure
does not exist or because the time frame in which the task is being completed is
too short to use a procedure (Smith & Stein, 1998). Usually such tasks have no
connection to the meaning of facts, rules, formulae, or definitions. The procedures
without connection are algorithmic by nature and require limited cognitive demand
for completion. Moreover, such tasks do not require connections to the concept
or meaning that underlie the procedure. The procedures with connections focus
Introduction. From Teaching to Engineering of Learning 11
students attention on understanding of concepts and ideas. Such tasks usually

are represented in multiple ways (e.g., numerical, visual, concrete, symbolic) and
require making connections among multiple representations. The highest level of
cognitive demand reasoning requires non-routine, non-algorithmic thinking
to explore and understand the nature of concepts, processes, or relationships.
Such tasks usually require students to access relevant knowledge in order to solve
a problem, to examine the constraints that might limit possible solutions. The
reasoning tasks demand considerable cognitive effort due to unpredictable nature
of the problem solving process at this level.
Chapter 3 also addresses the digital age assessment. Assessment is considered

as one of the key didactical components that directly affects the effectiveness
of learning. In other words, successful learning largely depends on how well
assessment is designed and connected to learning objectives and content.
Engineering of assessment could be based on different learning attributes such as:
outcome (outcome-based assessment); standards (standards-based assessment);
competency (competency-based assessment); performance (performance-based
assessment), etc. Regardless of a particular learning attribute, engineering of
assessment should consider opportunities for integration of qualitative and
quantitative methods of assessment, transformation of extrinsic subjective
evaluation into intrinsic objective self-assessment, and development of students
self-monitoring skills for life-long learning.
The ultimate goal of digital age assessment is to strengthen students responsibility

for the process and outcome of self-learning. Digital age requires radical revision
of the traditional philosophy of assessment: from discrete assessment to
continuous assessment; from fragmented to systematic assessment; from
single way of assessing student learning to multiple ways of assessment;
from predominantly quantitative to qualitative and mixed assessment; from
fixed to flexible assessment; from standardized to authentic assessment;
from external to self-assessment. Examples of portfolio (including e-folios),
peer assessment, and other assessment techniques used in e-learning are also
discussed in the chapter. Last but not least, the connection between objectives,
content, and assessment is considered as an important component of engineering
of effective learning.
Chapter 4 focuses on the engineering of digital content. ICT has dramatically

changed content representation and delivery. The learning content is no longer
a plain text. The digital content is a hypertext withimages, videos, 3D objects,
and other interactive media types. The chapter describes the modular design
approach with its application to the content development: dynamic visualization
and animation (including applets), video streaming (e.g., NBC Learn), screen
casting (e.g., Khan Academy), gamification (e.g., Quest to Learn). The chapter also
addresses the phenomenon of new literacies with emphasis on social practice
perspective (Lankshear & Knobel, 2006), which refers to new socially recognized
ways of generating, communicating and negotiating meaningful content through
the medium of encoded texts within contexts of participation in discourses.
Thechapter discusses the use of digital technologies as the means of engineering

(e.g.,producing, sharing, and accessing) of interactive content. The content
development and modular design are further used in the chapter to discuss the
framework for engineering of distance learning.
The photographs and pictures used in the book are uploaded from open resource
repositories or belong to public domain. The author would greatly appreciate
comments and suggestions sent to mouratt@utep.edu.
Chapter 1
e-Didactics:
Digital Age Didactics
This chapter addresses the following main issues:
what is didactics and where it comes from;

didactical triangle and didactical tetrahedron;
what is didactical engineering
and why it is important indigital age.
Chapter 1. e-Didactics: Digital Age Didactics 15
1.1. The Origins of Didactics

People often have limited understanding of didactics; its misinterpretation as
teacher-directed learning occurs in some English-speaking countries (Hamilton,
1999, Nordkvelle, 2003). Didactics plays an important role in defining the main
construct of this book engineering of learning via the following theoretical
chain: didactics didactical engineering engineering of learning. Thus, let us
define didactics through the historical analysis of its origins.
There is a saying Didactics is as old as times. It is clear that the need to learn
and transmit the experience of previous generations to the next generation is a
necessary condition for the development of society. Generally speaking, when
one person teaches another person, this situation already suggests didactics. For
example, for the case when in the most ancient times senior members of a tribe
instructed young fellows in hunting mammoths, using the modern language of
didactics the roles can be assigned as follows: the senior a teacher, the younger
members students, and hunting the content of teaching and learning. The
triangle teacher learner content is called a didactical triangle. Moreover, the
original meaning of the word didactics (from the Greek didaskein) is to teach or
know how to teach.
Let us make a brief excursion in the history of didactics in the context of the
conceptual origin of didactics. Many authors in the history of education claim that
didactics was first proposed by Jan Amos Komensky (Comenius, 1592-1670)
the author of the famous Didactica Magna. Not diminishing the invaluable
contribution of Jan Amos Comenius to the formation of didactics as a science, let us
try to restore historical justice.
As noted above, the root of the word didactics (didaskein, didascalia,

didascalica) is of Greek origin. The term was first used in relation to the choir
rehearsals in Ancient Greece (Illich, 1995). The term didaskaleion was used
for the place where the music teacher conducted these rehearsals (Myhre, 1976).
Five hundred (!) years prior to Comenius, in 1120, the French philosopher Hugo of
St.Victor published a book called Didascalicon (1961), which was recognized as
an attempt to improve higher education in the Renaissance Era (Grabmann,1998).
In his book, Hugh formulated the framework of educational planning at universities
and suggested the rules of systematic teaching and learning using the methods of
dialectics (Nordkvelle, 2003).
In ancient Rome and the Hellenistic era in Greece, there was a range of academic
disciplines related to Fine Arts. According to the founder of the medieval
encyclopedia Isidore of Seville, this set of disciplines included two cycles: the
trivium (grammar, dialectic and rhetoric) and the quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry,
music, astronomy).1 We must admit that since the Antiquity there was a kind of
confrontation between the two classical fine arts: the dialectic and the rhetoric.
1
Isidore of Seville is the patron saint of computers, computer users, and computer
technicians.
16 Chapter 1. e-Didactics: Digital Age Didactics
Inancient Greece, dialectics was the method of philosophical inquiry. This method
has gained worldwide recognition through the dialogues of Socrates.
Rhetoric is the art of public speaking. In ancient Greece, and the more so in ancient
Rome, preference was given to the rhetoric, although Aristotle has called for equal
rights for the dialectic and the rhetoric. However, during the Renaissance Era the
dialectic took revenge over the rhetoric, which is reflected in Didascalicon
by Hugh. This text was used as a basic manual in the European higher education
institutions for the next three or four centuries. The dialectic has reached its dawn
in the Middle Ages. Figuratively speaking, if the Antiquity is the golden age of the
rhetoric, the Middle Ages is the golden age of the dialectics (Fefner, 1982).
Attention to the problems of education had risen during the Renaissance era, which
along with other great achievements was characterized by the rapid development
of higher education: the number of universities and, respectively, the number of
students in European countries increased considerably. By that time the society
accumulated social experience and knowledge that had to be transmitted to the
next generations but the lack of transmission mechanisms became an obstacle in
the development of the society. In the 12th century, this contradiction, along with the
development of higher education in the Renaissance era, to some extent, stimulated
the interest in Hugh and his colleagues to study the problems of teaching and
learning.
In the 16th century, Pierre de la Ramee (Petrus Ramus), French philosopher and
professor of the University of Paris, together with his fellow humanists Rodolphus
Agricola and Philip Melanchthon continued the work of Hugh. Their contribution
was extremely important for further formation of didactics: the ancient Greek
concept of dialectics was gradually transformed into the art of teaching.
Melanchthon considered dialectics as a method of teaching properly, orderly and
understandably (Ong, 1974). Ramee expressed this idea in a more succinct way:
dialectics is an art of teaching. Ramees vision of the new nature and the role of
dialectics in teaching was a kind of predecessor of didactics. In other words, with
a certain degree of historical accuracy one can say that didactics emerged from
dialectics.
The progressive views of the 16th-century French humanists extended to the whole
Europe (Hotson, 1994) undoubtedly had a positive impact on the minds of other
European scholars including Wolfgang Ratke. Due to the support of his colleagues
Junge and Helwig, in 1612-1613 Ratke made a proposal for an initiative called
didactics as the new art of teaching, which was supported by the Academic Council
of the University of Giessen.
Then, in the mid-17th century, Jan Amos Comenius, Czech educator, humanist, and
intellectual, presented didactics as a system of knowledge, setting out the basic
principles and rules of teaching in his seminal work The Great Didactic (1657).
The history of didactics after Comenius is well documented in the educational
literature.
As to the definition of didactics, it is most often defined as a theory of teaching

and learning. Didactics addresses issues related to the main goals and guiding
principles of learning and teaching, curriculum, content and methods of teaching
and assessment, to name a few. Being asked whether didactics is a science or
art of teaching and learning, most readers, based on the traditional definition of
didactics, would answer science. Indeed, as a science, didactics has its categorical
apparatus, methods of research, mechanisms to identify trends, its structure and
logic. Thus, didactics evolved as a scientific discipline the theory of teaching and
learning.
However, a theory without practice is blind. Didactics needs a teacher who would
implement the theory into practice. Here comes art part, which plays the vital
role in teacher professionalism, teacher personal qualities, culture and teaching
style, creativity and talent, teaching philosophy, etc. We also cannot disregard the
fact that the founders of the dialectic-didactics Hugh, Ramee, Ratke, and Comenius
considered didactics, above all, as an art of teaching. Some scholars understand
didactics as the theory, others as the art of teaching and learning. Both groups
are right, in their own way. As a part of pedagogy, didactics is not only the science
but also the art of teaching and learning. The evolution of views on didactics is
shown in Figure 2.
Didactics
Didactics Didactics
as as
a Science an Art
Fig. 2. The evolution of the concept of didactics
The two interpretations of didactics cannot exist separately; therefore, a question

about a link between them arises naturally. The diagram does not show a bridge
between the two components, though potentially this bridge should allow
teachers to effectively use the didactics-science in the educational practice. To be
able to teach effectively, a teacher needs to be able to conduct a comprehensive
and meaningful analysis of the teaching processes and situations. S/he must also be
able to select, design, and implement a variety of didactical products (e.g., learning
objectives, content and learning activities, assessments, etc.).
In addition to being science and art, didactics should also be considered as an

engineering activity. Engineering is the process of analysis, design and construction
of facilities/mechanisms for practical purposes. Generally, the term engineering
is applied to buildings and constructions. To build a house, one needs to make

calculations for a construction site, economic analysis, including estimated cost of
building materials, resources, and labor, etc.), then make the design (the drawing
plan) and only then proceed to the construction. In the case of didactic engineering,
we are talking about the analysis, design and construction of teaching products
for learning. In other words, in addition to science and art didactics should be an
engineering of teaching and learning. Therefore, we propose to define didactics as
science, engineering and art of teaching and learning (Figure 3).
Fig. 3. Didactics as a science, engineering, and art of teaching and learning
1.2. Didactical Triangle

and Didactical Tetrahedron
The Traditional View: Didactical Triangle
In a broader sense, a triangle teacher learner content including interactions
among components of the trivium is called didactical (Figure 4). Originally, this
construction appears in the work of Chevallard (1982), Brousseau (1997) et al.
Chevallard introduces the construction of the didactical system which involves
three components the teacher, the students, the knowledge taught and the
interactions between them (Chevallard, 1982: 8). Similar construction to represent
the classroom culture system was proposed by Brousseau (1997), which includes
the teacher, the student and the milieu (e.g., learning tasks, instructional materials,
and teaching strategies). Overall, the didactic triangle in which the student, the
teacher, and the content form the vertices (or nodes) of a triangle is the classical
trivium used to conceptualize teaching and learning (Goodchild and Sriraman,
2012: 581).
Fig. 4. The traditional didactical triangle
Some scholars are concerned with the limitations of the classical view and suggest
to consider the contextual factors (e.g., curriculum, assessment, and classroom
culture) in the model. Schoenfeld (2012) claims that classrooms are cultural
systems (p. 598) and what occurs in mathematics classrooms is indelibly a
function of the cultural forces that shape them e.g., how curricula are defined and
which curricula are made available, how factors such as testing shape teachers and
students decision making within the classroom (Ibid.: 598). The revised model
of the didactical triangle including the context (as a broader notion incorporating
curriculum, assessment, culture, etc.) is presented in Figure 5 below.
Fig. 5 The didactical triangle within the context

Transformation of the Traditional View:

Didactical Tetrahedron
The beginning of the XXI century is characterized by the revolutionary changes
associated with the intensive use of new technologies in education. The global web
is increasingly impacting the daily lives of individuals and the society. Scholars
started recognizing the transforming effect of technology on teaching and learning
in the mid-1980-ies, as soon as computer software provided means to represent
concepts in multiple ways including graphs, spreadsheets, dynamic visualization
tools, etc. (Tall, 1986). Due to the continuous intensive use of new technologies in
the learning process, the beginning of the XXI century was marked by the attempts
to revise the subject, the goals and objectives of didactics. Thus, there have been
various proposals to expand the heuristic device of the didactical triangle to form
a didactical tetrahedron by adding the fourth vertex to acknowledge the significant
role of technology in mediating relations between content, student and teacher
(Ruthven, 2012: 627) as shown in Figure 6.
Fig. 6. The didactical tetrahedron
Despite the fact that the didactical tetrahedron represents a whole, each of its faces
reflects a specific relationship. For example, the face lying in the bottom of the
tetrahedron shown in the figure above represents the traditional didactical triangle
teacher learner content. The face learner content technology reflects
the interaction between the student, the content, and the technology that might be
called e-Learning. This could also imply the flipped classroom approach (Bergmann
and Sams, 2012) and the self-organized learning model in a virtual environment
(Mitra, 2005). The face teacher content technology coincides with the face of
e-learning; the only difference is that a student is replaced by a teacher. That is why
it is called e-Teaching. The next face teacher learner technology reflects an
interaction between teachers and students beyond the subject domain via the use of
ICT. An example of such interaction could be e-Advising. The didactical tetrahedron
also depicts the integration of technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge,
which is known as TPACK (Koehler & Mishra, 2009).
1.3. e-Didactics and Didactical Engineering

Reconceptualization of the traditional didactics is important in the light of
rethinking its role in the digital age towards engineering of learning. New didactics
of e-learning is called e-Didactics (DAngelo, 2007).
Broadly defined, e-Didactics is an ICT-integrated didactics. In order to identify its

key characteristics, let us summarize the evolutionary development of didactics. As
we mentioned earlier (see Chapter 1.1), didactics had several cornerstones in its
development. We consider the following main stages in the conceptual evolution of
didactics:
Pre-didactics
Didactics-dialectics
Classical didactics
Digital age didactics.
The pre-didactics stage (IV BC VII AD) began with Socratic Dialogues written by
Plato (IV century BC), which later transformed to the well-known Socratic Method
of Teaching. At this stage the classical Fine Arts curriculum was established, which
included two major blocks of academic disciplines (e.g., trivium and quadrivium),
described later by Isidore of Seville in Etymologies (VII AD).
The didactics-dialectics stage (XII XVI AD) began with the distinguished work
of Hugh St. Victor Didascalicon, or On the Study of Reading (1120) and further
continued with Dialectique (1555) by Ramee, where dialectics was considered as
an art of teaching.
At the next stage classical (or traditional) didactics (XVII mid-XX), we observe
an important transition from the art to the science of teaching and learning. The
stage of classical didactics began with an initiative proposed by W. Ratke to call
didactics as new art of teaching (1613) and further developed in Didactica
Magna (1657) by J.A. Komensky, who outlined the didactical theory as a field of
study of teaching and learning. This classical tradition continued to the XX century.
The stage of digital age didactics (late XX present) began with reconceptualization
of classical didactics in the era of Information and Communication Technologies.
In1991, M.Artique proposed didactical engineering as a research and development
tool to study teaching and design effective learning. We consider didactical engineering
as a turning point from the classical didactics to e-Didactics. In 2007, G.DAngelo
described an e-Didactics paradigm to address the phenomenon of e-Learning.
The conceptual evolution of didactics is presented in Figure 7 below. Comparing

the stages of pre-didactics and didactics-dialectics, one can see the emergence of
the first teaching method (e.g., Socratic dialog) and curriculum (e.g., classical Fine
Arts) as well as recognition of dialectics as an art of teaching. Comparing stages
of didactics-dialectics and classical didactics, one can observe the emergence of
didactics as a theory and field of teaching and learning study. The key distinction
of digital age didactics from the classical didactics emerged in the late XX century
through the development of its engineering/design characteristics.
Next, let us compare the key characteristics of classical/traditional and e-Didactics.

Didactics still has its main goal on quality of teaching and learning through
developing the desired level of students competency and proficiency. Classical
didactics and e-Didactics share similar theoretical foundation based on learning
theory and its guiding principles of learning (Bransford, Brown, Cocking , 2000).
Fig. 7. Conceptual evolution of didactics
The difference between classical/traditional didactics and e-Didactics is stipulated

by a paradigm shift in the primary focus of didactics: from teaching to engineering
of learning. This shift becomes more visible in online education where teaching in a
traditional sense is limited by the structure of the format: if in traditional didactics
primary delivery format is face-to-face (and hybrid, in some cases), in e-Didactics
it is mostly blended and online. Along with the changing delivery format, the
learning and teaching space is changed: classroom is replaced by the virtual space
represented by various learning management systems (LMS) and social networks.
Moreover, there is a significant change in the role of a teacher in the digital age
didactics: from a transmitter of knowledge to an engineer of student learning. In

turn, transformation of teachers role influences the change in student role: from an
information receiver to a connected learner.
Another critical difference could be observed in the primary mode of learning:

passive learning transforms to more active and interactive discovery-type student
engagement. This difference is impacted by the change in representation of
instructional material among others: text and graphics in traditional teaching
are replaced by hypertext and media in on-line education; instead of hardcopies,
teachers and students get used to deal with softcopies of instructional materials; the
principle of visualization in traditional didactics (e.g., mostly static and illustrative) is
transformed to the principle of dynamic and interactive visualization in e-Didactics.
The primary mode and means of classroom communication and assessment

are also experiencing a significant change: from verbal to written; from oral
classroom discourse to written exchange of ideas via online discussion, chats, and
social networks; from traditional training and instruction to screencasting and
videostreaming; from paper-and-pencil to e-assessment and e-folios, etc.
Last but not least, revolutionary change in information access occurs: from
access limited by a textbook and a teacher in traditional didactics to open access
to knowledge unlimited by ICT resources in e-Didactics. Table 1 summarizes the
results of comparative analysis between traditional and e-Didactics.
Table 1. Comparing traditional didactics and e-Didactics
Characteristics Traditional Didactics e-Didactics

Dominating focus Science and art of teaching Engineering of learning
Primary goal Quality of teaching and learning,
students competency and proficiency
Theoretical basis Research-based guiding principles of learning
Delivery format Face-to-face, hybrid Hybrid, online, e-Learning
Primary teachers role Transmitter of knowledge Engineer of learning
Primary students role Information receiver Connected leaner
Dominating mode of learning Passive, active Interactive
Primary learning and teaching Physical classroom, auditorium Learning management systems,
space virtual space
Instructional material Text, graphics Hypertext, media
representation
Instructional material format Hardcopy Softcopy
Use of graphics and visualization Static and illustrative Dynamic and interactive
Dominating mode of Verbal Written
communication
Primary means of Classroom discourse Online discussion boards, chats,
communication social networks
Information access Limited by the textbook Unlimited by ICT resources
Primary mode of scaffolding Training, instructing Screencasting, videostreaming
Dominating assessment format Paper-and-pencil assessment On-line assessment, e-folio
The table shows that e-Didactics has a number of characteristics that makes its
position conceptually distinct from the classic didactics. The most important
distinction is that ICT and engineering play critical role in e-Didactics. Therefore,
e-Didactics could be defined as ICT-integrated didactics with a focus on engineering
of learning.
Within the framework of e-Didactics, we consider the following levels of ICT use:
low, medium and high. The low level of ICT is characterized by the spontaneous
use of some technological means such as calculators (including graphic calculators)
or basic software (e.g., Word, Power Point, Excel). The medium level involves
technology-enhanced learning with broad use of ICT and multimedia. The high
level includes the use of Learning Management Systems to support the process
of e-learning and e-teaching. The format of teaching and learning is divided into
traditional (f2f = face-to-face), hybrid (or blended) and distance (online). The level
of interactivity includes passive, active, and interactive learning environments. The
interactive level is characterized by engaging students in constructive learning
experiences (Bybee et al., 2006). If the zone of traditional didactics is the low level
of technological tools usage in a predominantly f2f teaching and learning with
primarily passive and some active learning, the zone of e-Didactics goes beyond
the traditional boundaries of teaching and learning toward the virtual space
using digital tools, interactive multimedia and systems of distance education with
predominately interactive learning environments (Figure 8).
Fig. 8. The zones of traditional and e-Didactics:

F2F face-to-face; H hybrid; OL online;
I zone of traditional didactics; II zone of e-Didactics
Engineering plays a significant role in the design of learning objectives, development

of content, selection of teaching and learning means, design of assessment in the
structure of the e-Didactics.
What is Didactical Engineering?

There are genetic engineering, computer engineering, or social engineering, to
name a few. How these different engineerings are defined? For example, genetic
engineering is defined as a set of molecular biology and genetics techniques
associated with the analysis, modeling, and design of new combinations of genes.
Computer engineering is related to the analysis, software development and
integration of software with a variety of computer platforms, hardware, and systems.
Social engineering is defined as a design of activities for new social institutions as
well as restructuring of existing social institutions by gradual reform and change.
Each of the above cases involves, to a certain extent, the following elements of
engineering: analysis, design, modeling, construction, and development. In a
broader sense, engineering is defined as analysis, design and/or construction of
facilities for practical purposes. Consequently, engineering as a human activity may
be applicable to various professions and it involves a wide range of activities from
the analysis and design of facilities to their operation and maintenance. Therefore,
didactical engineering is a kind of a generalized concept of the engineering approach
to didactics.
Didactical engineering is a relatively new approach in modern education. That is

why there are few publications in this area. First attempts to use an engineering
approach in didactics took place in the 1990-ies (Artigue & Perrin-Glorian, 1991;
Artigue, 1992; Douady, 1997). Douady (1997) defines didactical engineering
as a series of teacher-engineer related didactical actions, which ensure the
implementation of the learning project with a group of students. Ruthven (2002)
believes that didactical engineering aims to develop highly precise designs that
will be reproducible under suitably controlled classroom conditions, and to do so
through systematic and exhaustive analysis of variables and strategies, framed in
terms of an overarching didactical theory (p. 586).
Didactical engineering aims at using research-based practices and promotes the

development of teaching design thinking. Didactical engineering also fosters the
development of teachers analytic reasoning focused at the implementation of macro
and micro analysis of didactical systems, processes and situations. Accordingly,
didactical engineering (Figure 9) has its own subject domain that is characterized
by the following main parameters:
1. analysis, design and construction of outcome-oriented teaching products

(e.g., learning technologies);
2. application of a scientific method and design thinking to the analysis of
didactical systems, processes and situations in order to create effective
learning environments.
Fig. 9. Didactical engineering and its main purpose:

the design of effective learning environment
Didactical engineering has a dual nature: it is both a product and a process of an

educational design activity. It is a product of didactical analysis and design as well as
the process of applying an engineered teaching product to the learning environment.
Thus, as an instructional activity, didactical engineering can be defined as a series
of steps in analyzing, designing, and constructing of teaching products and their use
in the instructional process in order to create effective learning environments and
achieve desired learning outcomes.
A Teacher in the Digital Age:

Teacher-Engineer
The market of online educational services has been steadily growing. For example,
in the Department of Teacher Education at the University of Texas at El Paso (USA)
about 50% of graduate courses are delivered in an online format.
With the purpose of expanding online services, the leading universities create
the MOOC consortia (e.g., Coursera, Udacity, edX) to initiate special programs for
supporting the design and delivery of online courses as well as the development
of new tools for online learning systems (Grainger, 2013; Yuan & Powell, 2013).
However, some skeptics claim that massive open online courses are not a panacea.
The Gallup/Inside Higher Ed conducted a survey of the presidents of several US
universities involved in offering MOOC. The major findings of this survey is that
54% of the participants somewhat disagree or are not sure whether MOOC foster
creative pedagogical strategies. Moreover, 83% of the participants disagree or are

not sure that MOOC improve the learning of all students (Jaschik, 2013).
Some colleges such as the Duke University and the Amherst College rejected
proposals to join the MOOC consortia because the faculty does not see the benefits
of MOOC in improving student learning, in particular at the undergraduate
level. One of the faculty members expressed her concern about poorly designed
online classes saying students will watch recorded lectures and participate in
sections via Webcam enjoying neither the advantages of self-paced learning nor
the responsiveness of a professor who teaches to the passions and curiosities of
students (Kolowich, 2013).
The question is how to make sense of this skepticism with the seemingly endless
flurry of the MOOC-related announcements these days? (Jaschik, 2013). A
possible answer may be that the speed at which colleges have embraced MOOCs
has little to do with the readiness of the MOOC industry to offer high quality
products. To do so a paradigm shift should occur: the shift from teaching to
engineering of learning, which will foster creative pedagogical strategies to
design and implement online courses. And, consequently, this shift develops an
urgent need for training of online educators who are able to design and deliver
effective distance education.
This also creates a domino effect: along with the transfer of many university
disciplines, including teacher education courses, to the online format, there is a
need to revisit the training of school teachers. Instead of traditional teacher training
the focus is shifting toward the new type of teachers who can work effectively in
the digital environment and satisfy high demands on teachers knowledge and
ability to engineer online student learning. Moreover, in the digital era a teacher
is not just an online tutor. The teacher becomes a kind of analyst and manager of
informational resources, designer of courses, modules, lesson fragments using
interactive multimedia tools.
The emerging changes in the role of a teacher raise an important question:

what kind of teacher is needed in the digital age? According to The National
Educational Technology Standards (NETS) developed by the International Society
for Technology in Education (ISTE), the advancement of digital age teaching
is associated with the following standards: (1) facilitate and inspire student
learning and creativity; (2)design and develop digital age learning experiences
and assessments; (3)model digital age work and learning; (4) promote and model
digital citizenship and responsibility; and (5) engage in professional growth and
leadership (ISTE, 2008).
The new set of standards was published by UNESCO (2011). The UNESCO ICT
Competency Framework for Teachers emphasizes that it is not enough for teachers
to have ICT competencies teachers need to be able to help students become
collaborative, problem-solving, creative learners through using ICT (UNESCO,
2011:3). This statement, in a way, echoes the above Duke University facultys
concern on a lack of MOOCs support of students curiosity and creativity in online
learning. The UNESCO Framework addresses the following teacher competencies
in the digital age: (1) understanding ICT in education; (2) curriculum and
assessment; (3)pedagogy; (4) ICT; (5) organization and administration; (6)teacher
professional learning (UNESCO, 2011: 3). The UNESCO Framework further expands
the significance of integrating ICT and Pedagogy through the following teacher
competences: (a) integrate ICT into didactic knowledge acquisition and learning
theory models; (b) create learning activities that use ICT resources to support
specific educational outcomes; (c) apply ICT to just in time and spontaneous
learning interactions; (d) design presentations that appropriately incorporate ICT
resources (UNESCO, 2011: 50-52).
Some of the above standards and competences expand the role of a teacher
much beyond the traditional teaching. For instance, the UNESCOs competency
on integration of ICT and Pedagogy integrate ICT into didactic knowledge
acquisition and learning theory models has a hidden call for the expansion of the
role of a teacher to become a teacher-didactician someone who is knowledgeable
of the learning theory and research-based teaching. For a similar reason, Jaworsky
(2012) proposed an addition of an extra vertex to the traditional didactical triangle
to include the didactician as an integral part of the system for teacher development.
At the same time, the ISTEs standard for teachers on designing and developing
digital age learning experiences and assessments requires a teacher to extend his/
her role as an engineer someone who knows and able to design and construct
effective learning environments. In traditional education, the three roles mentioned
above (a teacher, a didactician, an engineer) were isolated.
Obviously, there is an emerging need to train a new teacher to face the challenges of
the digital age, to be a teacher, who, to some extent, combines the competences of
a didactician and an engineer. The digital age standards and competences demand
apush for e-Teaching as an integration of the roles of a teacher, a didactician, and
an engineer as presented in Figure 10.
Teacher
Didactician Engineer
Fig. 10. Teacher-engineer

The integration implies reconceptualization of the key role of a teacher-engineer

in the digital age: traditional teaching transforms toward the research-based
engineering of student learning. This transformation requires a teacher-engineer
to understand teaching theory and learning sciences (Bransford et al., 2000;
Sawyer, 2006) in order to effectively design learning objectives, digital content
and assessment, and as to make connections between the objectives, content, and
assessment (Figure 11).
Fig. 11. Learning sciences and engineering

of learning objectives, content, and assessment
The engineering of learning paradigm places a critical emphasis on the development

of teachers design thinking (Dym et al., 2005)). The development of teacher-
engineer design thinking is a complex process based on the advancements of learning
sciences. The teacher-engineer should acquire the following key competences:
1) design of learning objectives: create outcome-based, technology-enhanced

learning environments that enable students to set their own learning
objectives, monitor and assess their own learning progress;
2) engineering of content: develop interactive content and relevant learning
experiences through selection and design of tasks, problems, projects,
and activities that incorporates digital tools and ICT resources to promote
student learning and creativity;
3) design of assessment: select and develop authentic assessments aligned
with learning objectives and content; use assessment data to improve
teaching and promote student learning.
Chapter 2
Learning Sciences
in the Digital Age
This chapter addresses the following main issues:
learning patterns and guiding principles

oflearning;
constructivism and constructionism;
social constructivism and learning culture
inaction.
Chapter 2. Learning Sciences in the Digital Age 33
2.1. The Guiding Principles of Learning

During the last two decades the learning sciences scholars significantly advanced
the research in learning theories. Within half-a-decade, the U.S. National Research
Council published two major studies How People Learn (2000) and How Students
Learn (2005) with a focus on three fundamental and well-established principles
of learning:
1) Building on students prior knowledge;
2) Connecting students factual knowledge and conceptual understanding;
3) Involving students in meta-cognitive and self-monitoring activities.
Let us briefly discuss each of the above principles.
Principle 1. In addressing students prior knowledge, we are trying to gauge and

record students understanding of previously learned facts, concepts and procedures
that would help them to learn new material. Students come to the classroom
with preconceptions about how the world works. If their initial understanding
is not engaged, they may fail to grasp the new concepts and information that
are taught, or they may learn them for the purposes of a test but revert to their
preconceptions outside the classroom (Donovan & Bransford, 2005: 1). Based
on the first principle, it is of major importance to continually make links between
students experiences outside the classroom (e.g., everyday informal experiential
out-of-school knowledge) and inside the school and classroom (e.g., school-based
or instructional knowledge).
Building on prior knowledge requires considering certain sequences, for instance,

while introducing a new topic it is helpful to start with an activity to assess students
preconceptions and keep building on students prior understanding and experiences.
How can we best do this? One way is to use a powerful instructional strategy the
bridging context. The bridging context is a context that serves to connect students
experiences through multiple representations, for example, numeric (equations)
and spatial (graphical) understandings and to link their everyday experiences to
lessons taught. Another possibility is to engage students everyday experiential
knowledge. The experiential knowledge is a knowledge that students learn through
their practical experience. Using the language strategically and as a link to more
formal language use is another way to build on students prior knowledge. This does
not mean that all problems, tasks, statements should be phrased in the student
language. It is important for students to learn formal terminology and abstract
symbolism. However, using the student language is a way of assessing students
knowledge on particular topic and then build on what they already know to guide
them toward deeper understanding and use of formal language.
Summarizing, the first guiding principle suggests that students prior knowledge is
a building block for the development of more sophisticated ways of thinking. Topics
and activities presumed to be challenging and difficult for students may in fact have
intuitive or experiential underpinnings, and it is important to discover these and
use them for formalizing students thinking (Donovan & Bransford, 2005).
34 Chapter 2. Learning Sciences in the Digital Age
Principle 2. This principle suggests the importance of both conceptual understanding

and procedural fluency, as well as an effective organization of knowledge that
facilitates strategy development and adaptive reasoning (Donovan & Bransford,
2005). In order to implement this principle in a mathematics classroom, a teacher
needs to recognize and address the following main strategies.
Developing Students Knowledge Networks. This strategy requires close link between
procedural knowledge and conceptual understanding. The network of knowledge
must include both new concepts and procedures. Teaching in a way that supports
both conceptual understanding and procedural fluency requires the primary
concepts underlying a subject domain to be clear to the teacher or become clear
during the process of teaching for proficiency. Due to the fact that some subjects,
including mathematics, for instance, have traditionally been taught with an
emphasis on the procedure, the teachers who were taught this way might initially
have difficulty identifying or using the core conceptual understandings in a subject
domain. Therefore, teacher training with the focus on these guiding principles is
the key component of effective implementation of the principles in the classroom.
Addressing Students Learning Paths. The above networks of knowledge could be

often organized as learning paths from informal concrete methods to abbreviated,
more general, and abstract methods. The knowledge of student learning paths
and knowledge networks helps teachers to direct student learning along productive
lines toward valued knowledge networks. The research on learning has uncovered
important information on a number of typical learning paths and knowledge
networks involved in acquiring knowledge about a variety of concepts (Donovan
& Bransford, 2005). As teachers guide students through learning paths, a balance
must be maintained between learner-centered and knowledge-centered needs.
The learning path of the class must also continually relate to individual learner
knowledge.
Using Multiple Methods. The discussion of multiple methods in the classroom

drawing attention to why different methods work and to the relative efficiency and
reliability of each method can help to provide a conceptual ladder that helps the
students to move in a connected way from where they are to a more efficient and
abstract approach (Donovan & Bransford, 2005). This view of mathematics which
involves different methods does not mean that a teacher or a curriculum must teach
multiple methods for every domain. Alternative methods might frequently arise in
the classroom, either because students bring them from home or because students
think differently about many mathematical problems. Frequently, there are viable
alternative methods for solving a problem, and discussing the advantages and
disadvantages of each method can facilitate flexibility and deeper understanding.
Principle 3. This principle is concerned with a way of making students thinking

visible in a learning process. Metacognition is considered to be one of the key
approaches to promote students thinking about their learning. Learning
about oneself as a learner, thinker, and problem solver is an important aspect of
metacognition (Donovan & Bransford, 2005: 236).
The metacognition principle suggests the following instructional strategies to

support students self-monitoring activities: involving students in debugging errors,
engaging students in external and internal dialogue, and encouraging students to
seek and offer help in challenging learning situations.
Debugging Errors. The National Research Council strongly recommends to facilitate

students metacognitive activities by shifting from a focus on answers as just right
or wrong to a more detailed focus on debugging a wrong answer, that is, finding
where the error is, why it is an error, and correcting it (Donovan & Bransford,
2005: 239). Traditionally, debugging errors was primarily the teachers activity: the
teacher would grade students work, find errors, and report them to students along
with the grade. Debugging errors should be shifted to students. Students should
develop critical skills to recognize an error, identify it, locate the source of an error,
fix it and check the solution for correctness.
Internal and External Dialogue. According to the National Council of Teachers of

Mathematics Standards (NCTM, 2005), communication is an important process
that enriches student learning. The classroom culture should be built around
meaningful content-focused communication and discourse whether it is a reflection
on students own learning and thinking (internal dialogue) or discussion with peers
on comparing and contrasting different methods of problem solving (external
dialog). Of course, teachers must help students to interact fruitfully (Donovan &
Bransford, 2005: 241) through modeling good questioning techniques, providing
support structure for student learning, creating an atmosphere of subject-specific
communication and collaboration.
Seeking and Offering Help. Teachers acceptance of challenge translates to student

productive attitude toward problem solving (Valverde & Tchoshanov, 2013).
Therefore, it is critically important to encourage teachers to help students to be
independent problem solvers and actively seek for information or assistance when
they face a challenging problem. Students must have enough confidence not only
to engage with problems and try to solve them, but also to seek help when they
are stuck (Donovan & Bransford, 2005: 241). At the same time, working in groups
in solving challenging problems might facilitate the environment where students
can collaboratively offer help to each other in tough situations. Such helping can
also increase the metacognitive awareness of the helper as he or she takes into
consideration the thinking of the student being helped (Donovan & Bransford,
2005: 242).
Along with the guiding principles of learning, it is important to consider advances

of brain-compatible research in education to support student learning. In the last
couple of decades, studies of neuropsychological basis of the learning processes
are steadily growing as evidenced by the variety of subject domains involved and a
number of papers published during this period (Bruer, 1993; Caine and Caine, 1994;
Chabris and Kosslyn, 1998; Dehaene, 1996). That is why the decade of the 1990-ies
was called the decade of brain. One of the interesting challenges is the problem of
adapting the advances in neuropsychology and brain research to teaching.
The traditional popular image of the distinction between the functions of the
left and right hemispheres is still strong among practitioners and some scholars,
particularly, the fact that the left hemisphere is a domain of languages, numbers,
logic, analysis, and the right hemisphere is a domain of images, shapes, intuition,
synthesis, etc. However, in the light of modern advances in brain research this
view occur to be limited and incomplete (Posner and Raichle, 1994). Still there
are scholars who use these outdated ideas to propose teacher training on brain-
based education (Jensen, 1988; Sousa, 1995). For instance, for the development
of the left hemisphere functions Sousa (1995) suggests using different methods of
reading, writing, and arithmetic. The development of students imaginative right
hemisphere, according to the same author, requires intensive use of visualization
strategies.
In part, this distribution of functions between the hemispheres is based on

the structure of the human brain. This simplification cannot be abused and
overgeneralized. In fact, the brain functions as a whole and performs certain tasks
(verbal or visual) in conjunction with the neural structures located in both left
and right hemispheres of the brain. Posner and Raichle (1994) used the following
example to study the human brain in the process of solving basic visual spatial
problems: Specify the location of the given two points based on the questions
below:
which point is located higher than the other one?

is the distance between the points greater than one meter?
According to the traditional theory, it is a typical right-brain problem. However,

the experiment showed that the first part of the task is dealing with the categorical
spatial reasoning and mostly carried out by active zones of the left hemisphere
of the brain, and the second part of the task, directed by interposition of objects,
stimulated the neuron populations of the right hemisphere. Moreover, the study
showed that the left hemisphere of the human brain may do as good job as the
right one in solving visual spatial tasks. Based on the results of the study, Posner
and Raichle (1994) also claim that the traditional opinion on creative thinking as a
function of the right hemisphere of the human brain is inaccurate.
Another revealing example: in accordance with the traditional theory, the elementary
school task What is greater 2 or 5? is a left-hemispheric arithmetic task. However,
research conducted by Dehaene (1996) suggests that in dealing with such problems
the human brain functions as a bilingual learner: it speaks descriptive language
when we say the names of the numbers two and five and it speaks numeric
language when we use the symbolic representation of 2 and 5. In the first case,
the areas of the left hemisphere are activated, and in the second case neuronal
populations of both hemispheres of the human brain are engaged.
These examples show that depending on the specific conditions of the task,
whether it is verbal or numeric, arithmetic or visual, different areas of the
hemispheres could be involved in solving the problem. The distinct separation of
functions of the right and left hemispheres of the brain is one of the examples of
the myths that was debunked by the advanced research in the field during the
decade of brain.
The next myth is the scientific cooperation in the study of the brain among
neuroscientists and psychologists. For a certain period of time, two seemingly related
branches of the scientific knowledge neuropsychology (the science of brain)
and psychology (in this particular case, cognitive science) have evolved quite
separately. Neuropsychology, to put it in computer terms, explored the hardware
(structure and function) of the brain, whereas psychology independently studied
the software of the brain (mental mechanisms of cognitive activity). Meanwhile,
the educational scholars attempted to use fragmentarily the results of each of the
disciplines as a scientific basis for interpretation of the learning process. Only by
the end of the XX century researchers managed to merge the advances of these
disciplines in integrative brain-compatible education (Bruer, 1993). The emergence
of the combined field made it obvious that most of the previous attempts were
nothing but the application of a simplified version of neuropsychology achievements
to understanding of learning and teaching. At the same time, this approach brought
forward an opportunity to formulate a set of principles about brain functioning
during the learning process. This set includes the following principles (Springer
and Deutsch, 1993; Sylwester, 1995).
Brain is a parallel processor. The human brain is able to perform multiple functions
simultaneously. Thinking, emotions, imagination, and other complex processes
may occur in the brain at the same time, along with the mechanisms of information
processing and socio-cultural interaction (communication) with other people.
Based on this principle, the teacher could provide opportunities for the involvement
of students in a variety of content and learning activities using different teaching
methods and techniques.
Learning is a natural mechanism for the development of brain. Learning is as natural

for a human body, in general, and for a human brain, in particular, as respiration.
Nature has endowed a human brain as capable of learning and, therefore, curiosity
and desire for knowledge are key intellectual needs for brain development.
Didactics as a science, engineering, and art of teaching and learning should provide
conditions and environment to meet the critical intellectual needs.
Building on prior experience and the search for meaning are innate qualities of the
human brain. Brain is always functioning in the communication mode between the
previous experience and a new situation. Understanding and comprehension of the
new situation occurs when the brain finds a support in the prior knowledge and
ideas. Hence, it is critically important to engage students prior experiences in order
to acquire new knowledge (see Principle 1 above). This principle also supports the
Vygotskian conception of the zone of proximal development (ZPD) the distance
between what a learner knows and what s/he could potentially learn with the help
of a more knowledgeable one (Vygotsky, 1978).
Brain looks for a pattern. Confusion and chaos complicate the productive functioning
of a human brain. In any given situation, no matter how random it is, the brain
tries to find patterns. The following task illustrates this principle You have a
minute to memorize the given number 1123581321345589. After a minute write
it down on a piece of paper. At the first glance, the task is meaningless because it
seems to have no pattern. However, there is a hidden pattern. In mathematics, this
numerical pattern is called the Fibonacci sequence where each successive number
is the sum of the two preceding numbers. According to this principle, learning aimed
at mere memorization is not productive for the brain development. At the same
time, learning aimed at finding patterns is a good food for brain. In other words,
learning is effective when a students brain is developed by overcoming intellectual
difficulties in searching for a pattern.
Emotion is a necessary factor in the brain development. Surprise, indignation,

inspiration, a sense of beauty, and even a sense of humor, to name a few, are
permanent companions in the process of productive functioning of a human
brain. Neuropsychologists claim that emotion and cognition are inseparable. This
principle emphasizes an obvious need for inclusion of the emotional background
in the learning process via contradictions, paradoxical situations, elements of
literature, poetry, music, humor, etc. regardless of the subject specific content,
whether it is mathematics, history, language or any other discipline. Subjects
learned in a supportive emotional atmosphere are better remembered and
understood, as they have more stable relations with the corresponding emotional
state. Moreover, the emotional factor stimulates thinking and creativity of the
student.
Brain is capable to simultaneously analyze and synthesize an incoming information.

The results of neuropsychological studies show that brain has a unique ability
to see an object as a whole and recognize its parts. Brain can learn to divide
and multiply at the same time. In other words, the execution of mutually inverse
operations is another natural ability of the human brain. Analysis and synthesis are
two important and constantly interacting cognitive processes in learning.
Learning aimed at developing students analytical skills only, or as it is otherwise

called learning by steps blocks the natural potential of learners brain, its innate
ability to simultaneously analyze and synthesize the information. The same is true
about the so-called holistic learning, which underestimates the development of
students analytical abilities. With this principle in mind, the learning materials
should be presented in a constant interaction between the whole and a part,
analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, direct and inverse methods of
solving problems.
Brain is able to operate simultaneously with a focused attention and peripheral

perception. A human brain can absorb the information that lies not only in the
immediate field of attention, but also beyond it. Thus, a child in the classroom
perceives both teachers words and sounds outside the classroom in the hallway of
the school. In a well-organized classroom, a teacher can use the features of a childs
peripheral perception as a constructive factor of learning. For example, producers
use the background music to enhance the context of the movie. At the same time,
if this principle is ignored, the mechanism of peripheral perception could act as a

destructive element in the learning process.
Conscious and subconscious processes in learners brain occur simultaneously. In a

learning process we receive a lot more information than we can imagine. Itcould
be compared to an iceberg where the underwater part can be associated with
the processes that occur in learning at a subconscious level. Peripheral signals
(sounds, words, images, etc.) are often fed into brain without permission of our
consciousness and submerge into the deepest layers of the subconscious. Reaching
the subconscious, these signals can rise to the level of consciousness with a certain
delay or indirectly act on the human mind from inside through the inner motives,
unconscious desires, feelings and states. In the learning process, this principle should
be taken into account in conjunction with other neurophysiological principles.
Astudent is impacted not only and not so much by what a teacher said but also
by the full range of internal (prior experience, emotional state, level of motivation,
individual characteristics, etc.) and external (atmosphere in the classroom, sound,
light, etc.) factors of the learning environment.
Brain memorizes information at different levels: at the level of visual-spatial memory

and rote memorization level. The first level is a more natural way of memorization.
The second one produces high cognitive load. For example, we have no or little
difficulty in restoring a picture of where and how we spent the previous evening.
It does not require special ways of storing information, because it is located and
coded in our visual-spatial memory system. This system is closely linked with the
natural ability of human brain to sensibly perceive and encode the information.
The second level is called a rote memorization and it provides us with invaluable
assistance in cases when we need to remember isolated pieces of information such
as certain dates, names, phone numbers, phrases, etc. The more information is
disconnected from our previous knowledge, the greater the cognitive load is. The
disadvantage of this system is obvious: knowledge based on rote memorization
is not stable and unproductive. In contrast, visual-spatial memory systematizes
the information in a brain as in the library and keeps it organized and connected.
In this case, one can easily store the information and quickly retrieve it. This
implies the following sub-principle: brain understands and remembers best
when information is imprinted into the visual-spatial memory (the principle of
visualization).
Brain functioning is stimulated by freedom and creativity and suppressed by the

atmosphere of coercion and threat. It is known that creative persons cannot
tolerate any violence on themselves or on others. Neuropsychologists believe that
to become a creative person one should be led by another creative person, or a
person who is able to create a learning environment that provides freedom for
creativity. Some teachers in an effort to maintain strict discipline in the classroom
could unconsciously suppress the atmosphere of creativity. Of course, this does not
mean that the classroom management contradicts the development of students
creativity. Rather, a creative learning environment naturally eliminates an issue of
discipline in the classroom.
The brain of every human is unique. The brain of each human being has its own
individual characteristics in terms of information processing, predominance of
certain system of memorization, flexibility of mental processes, etc. That is why
every human being has his/her own individual style of learning, own unique
understanding of the world, own original style of thinking. The task of a teacher is to
maintain the uniqueness of each student via recognizing and supporting students
way of seeing, reasoning, and learning. This principle is particularly evident in the
philosophy of constructivism (to be further discussed in Chapter 2.2).
Application of the principles of the brain-compatible education in teaching and

learning is presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Application of the brain-compatible principles in teaching and learning
Principles of Brain-Compatible Education Application in Teaching and Learning

Brain is a parallel processor Variability of teaching and learning methods and forms
Learning in small groups and team learning
Multiple representations in learning and teaching
Learning is a natural mechanism of brain Learning at an optimal level of complexity
development Use of discovery learning
Constructive learning experience
Building on prior experience and the search Use of practical applications and real-life examples
for meaning are innate qualities of human Interdisciplinary connections
brain Problem-based learning
Brain looks for a pattern Patterns and algebraic reasoning
Proofs and refutations
Use of counter-examples and contradictions in learning
Emotion is the necessary factor in the brain Games in learning
development Use of aesthetic elements in teaching and learning
Paradoxes, surprise situations, riddles in learning
Brain is capable to simultaneously analyze Use of inverse operation in learning
and synthesize an incoming information Inductive and deductive reasoning in problem solving
Systemic thinking
Brain is able to operate simultaneously Creating productive classroom atmosphere
with a focused attention and peripheral Ergonomics of classroom
perception Use of background music
Processes of conscious and subconscious in Build on previous knowledge and experience
learners brain occur simultaneously Individualized learning
Development of students self-monitoring
Brain memorizes information at different Use of visualization in teaching
levels: at the level of visual spatial Verbal, symbolic, numerical, visual and other forms of
memory and rote memorization level representation
Use of cognitive maps
Brain functioning is stimulated by freedom Creative projects
and creativity and suppressed by the Cooperative learning
atmosphere of coercion and threat Use of creative thinking techniques (e.g., brainstorming)
Brain of every human is unique Individualized learning
Constructivism in learning
Learner-centered pedagogy
Neuropsychologists argue that education which is not supported by brain-based

principles is blind teaching and learning. It could lead to weakening of the
natural mechanisms of cognitive development. In this case, the recovery of these
mechanisms or re-teaching will take longer than the process of natural learning
consistent with the brain-compatible principles. The decade of brain is gradually
transitioning into the decade of mind, which provides educators with an ample
opportunity to design learning experiences and environments in accordance with
the scientific mechanisms of brains functioning.
2.2. Constructivism
In this section, we provide an overview of the key ideas of constructivism, its basic
principles in the context of a learning process, and briefly discuss its advantages
and disadvantages.
The key idea of constructivism is that knowledge cannot be simply transmitted to

a student. One can only create pedagogical conditions for successful construction
of knowledge and understanding. From a philosophical standpoint, constructivism
reflects fairly simple fact: each of us constructs his/her own understanding of the
world. Thus, each of us has a unique vision of the world, belief, and viewpoint.
Constructivism is a pedagogical theory that gives priority to a learners point of view

no matter how idiosyncratic it might be. According to Jean-Jacques Piaget, students
opinion is a starting position for construction of new knowledge by overcoming
the cognitive conflict between the existing internal structure (schema) and external
unknown reality. Eliminating this conflict restores the so-called cognitive equilibrium
(balance) characterized by the processes of assimilation of new knowledge into the
existing schema and accommodation (e.g., change, modification, replacement) of
previous schema based on newly learned knowledge and understanding. Another
prominent scholar Lev Vygotsky added an important social dimension to
constructivism emphasizing co-construction of knowledge and understanding.
Vygotskys claim that a learner develops new knowledge and understanding
through interaction with others expands the theory toward social constructivism.
Constructivism values the process more than the result. Piaget argues that scientific
knowledge is not a static phenomenon; it is a process, more specifically, the process
of continuous construction and reorganization.
Implementation of constructivism in the classroom requires rethinking of traditional

instructional practices. For instance, learning objectives and learning outcomes
should be designed around the key position of constructivism: knowledge cannot be
transmitted to a student; it could be self-constructed by a student or co-constructed
in the process of students interaction with others. That is why constructivists try
to avoid the imposing terminology in the design of the learning objectives and
outcomes, for example, teacher-directed actions such as teach, cover, tell,
show, etc. Instead, constructivism encourages using student-centered language in
the design of learning objectives and outcomes: construct, engage, understand,
justify, reason, reflect, etc.
Student motivation should be driven by real life exploratory activities, which

include but are not limited to searching, investigating, and solving sound socially
relevant problems, especially those arising at school, in the neighborhood, within
a community (e.g., environmental, economic, social, etc.). These types of problems
and activities engage students in data collection, analysis, and problem solving that
contribute to the well-being of their immediate environment.
Congruently, the content should be developed around those concepts and ideas
that support students understanding, stimulate students reasoning, encourage
students to share their assumptions, hypotheses and conjectures, motivate
speaking out, involve students into meaningful dialogue and exchange of diverse
viewpoints. Therefore, the classroom culture and environment should be built with
an emphasis on student learning, student intellectual needs, student collaboration,
and student success.
This type of student-centered environment is supported by the work of scholars.

For example, the framework of the 5e model (Bybee et al., 2006) describes a social
constructivist learning cycle, which helps students to build new understandings
and draw ideas from prior experiences through the following five stages: engage,
explore, explain, extend, and evaluate. The 5e model could be effectively used for
engineering of learning in different formats: face-to-face, blended/hybrid, and
distance learning.
The main objective of the engage stage is to engineer student learning via
building their intrinsic motivation and involving students in the activity along with
conducting pre-assessment of their prior knowledge and understanding. During
this stage, students make connections between past, present and new learning
experiences. At the explore stage students are directly involved in an inquiry-
based activity. This stage allows students to work collaboratively in teams, sharing
and communicating their understanding through testing hypotheses, making
predictions, and drawing conclusions. The major goal of the explain stage is to
engineer student communication using individual and group presentations of what
they have learned through the process of reflective thinking. The extend stage
allows students to expand on the concepts, make connections and generalize the
concepts. The purpose of the final e in the cycle the evaluation stage is
to engineer on-going diagnostic process that allows both the teacher and the
student to assess whether the desired level of understanding has been attained
through implementation of well-designed rubrics, observation, interviews, peer-
assessment, portfolios, and inquiry-based learning products/artifacts. This stage
also addresses students misconceptions and common mistakes.
Considering the key position of constructivism, the next question is how to become
a constructivist teacher? First of all, a constructivist teacher is not just a teacher in
a traditional sense; s/he is a facilitator, organizer, and coordinator of the problem-
based student learning. Constructivist teacher by his/her very nature is a teacher-
engineer. A constructivist teacher ensures favorable classroom environment for
co-construction of students new knowledge and understanding and encourages
student initiative and collaboration. In turn, students become co-designers of the
instructional process sharing the responsibilities for achieving learning objectives

and outcomes with the teacher.
In lesson planning, a constructivist teacher prefers to consider real life problems

including the context and data from practical situations and original sources.
Moreover, a constructivist teacher provides opportunities for students to collect
such data by observing real life situations, searching related information on the
web, surveying participants, etc. Figuratively speaking, a constructivist teacher
should engage both hands and brains of students.
Concepts, theories, algorithms, and theorems are abstractions that human beings
create as a result of discovery. Theory is a retrospection. Accordingly, in the
learning process an abstraction should be a destination rather than a starting point.
Therefore, constructivism suggests focusing on exploration first, understanding
main concepts and major ideas, and only then memorization of algorithms, rules,
and theorems. Moreover, a constructivist teacher designs learning objectives using
the cognitive terminology to emphasize understanding: classify, justify, analyze,
synthesize, predict, evaluate, etc.
A constructivist teacher allows students to take over teaching of some fragments of

the lesson, change the direction of the classroom discourse, offer ideas on improving
teaching and learning. Obviously, constructivist teaching requires not only easy
content handling but also profound pedagogical knowledge. Knowing-to-act at
the moment (Mason and Spence, 1999) becomes a key ability for a constructivist
teacher. This will allow a teacher to depart from the rigid structure of a lesson and
transfer the reins of power of leading the lesson to students while focusing on
achieving learning objectives of the lesson. A constructivist teacher never reports
his/her view first. Instead s/he listens to students viewpoints, explanations
and justifications, involves students in a meaningful discussion, addresses and
synthesizes diverse students views and only then offers his/her view on the issue
as one of the possible views among others.
A constructivist teacher encourages the development of students critical thinking

by considering opposing points of view, setting counterexamples, offering
contradictions in order to promote a productive classroom discourse. S/he values
good questions more than good answers. A constructivist teacher appreciates
substantive, good, and smart student questions. Moreover, a constructivist teacher
often uses waiting time after asking a question: s/he leaves students enough time
to think about an answer, make connections, and come up with analogies, images,
and metaphors to provide a substantiated response. A constructivist teacher does
not accept weak and short answers and always asks students to elaborate on their
responses.
A constructivist teacher provokes students curiosity by asking challenging

questions and using heuristics to support student learning. S/he refrains from
using low level teaching strategies to support student learning such as lecturing
(providing information) and demonstration (showing how to do). A constructivist
teacher would rather use advanced heuristics to support student learning such as
demanding explanation and justification, providing hints (e.g., organize your data
into a table), criticizing and posing counterexamples, sustaining high cognitive
demand questioning (e.g., why, what if), and focusing on action (e.g., how did
youdoit).
Table 3 highlights differences between constructivist and traditional approaches to

teaching and learning.
Table 3. C
omparison of traditional
and constructivist approaches to teaching and learning
Traditional Approach Constructivist Approach

Curriculum Curriculum emphasis is on basic knowledge Curriculum emphasis is on major ideas and
and skills concepts
Teaching Teaching and learning are predetermined Learning and teaching process is flexible
and by the strict implementation of the with an opportunity to modify the
Learning curriculum curriculum
Resources Teaching and learning is completely based Textbook is not a dominant source of
on the recommended textbook information
Student Student is an object of the learning Student is a subject of the learning
Positioning process. Knowledge is transmitted to a process. Knowledge is constructed by a
student student
Teacher Teacher imposes knowledge, Teacher is a facilitator of student learning
Positioning understanding and his/ her point of view and understanding
on students
Assessment Teacher evaluates the effectiveness of Teacher values student reasoning (even if
of Learning student learning by the number of correct itis not correct)
Outcomes answers
Criteria Test and exam results are the only source Student learning is assessed not only by
forStudent of information about the level of student test results but also by the efforts made
Success knowledge and skills. Learning objectives, by a student to achieve progress. Learning
teaching, and assessment are usually objectives, teaching, and assessment are
considered in isolation closely connected
As any innovation, constructivism has some obvious flaws. At the current stage
of its development, constructivism is more an educational philosophy than a
learning technology, which causes some difficulties in the practical implementation
of constructivism in the classroom. Some opponents accuse constructivism for
undermining the foundations of organized teaching and learning. The main
argument of opponents is fuzziness and lack of determination in teaching and
learning (Anderson, Reder, & Simon, 1998).
Despite opponents arguments, constructivism gets supporters among the teaching

community, which is taking concrete steps to introduce the theory into practice.
There is a shift from the old theories of behaviorism toward constructivism that
takes place at different educational levels (e.g., schools, colleges, and universities).
Most of the teacher training curricula are revised to include the principles of
constructivism. Instead of studying the works of E. Thorndike, B. Skinner and other
representatives of behaviorism, pre-service teachers study the works of J. Piaget,
J.Dewey, L. Vygotsky and other constructivist scholars.
2.3. Constructionism
Constructionism is the theory of teaching, learning, and design advanced by
Seymour Papert. Constructionism argues in favor of a more active participatory
learning through social interaction and production of tangible learning outcomes.
Learning, according to Papert, is building relationships between old and new
knowledge, in interactions with others, while creating artifacts of social relevance
(as cited by Kafai, 2006: 35).
Constructionism is closely related to the Piagetian constructivism theory. But

they are not identical: constructivism places a primacy on the development of
individual and isolated knowledge structures, whereas constructionism focuses on
the connected nature of knowledge with its personal and social dimensions (Kafai,
2006: 36). In this sense, the Papertian constructionism shows resemblance with the
Vygotskian social constructivism. In his original studies, Papert extensively used
the programming language Logo to provide children with the opportunity to learn
programming and to study Mathematics and Science through the manipulation of
digital objects (e.g., Logo turtle), in interaction with others, and reflection on their
own thinking and learning (e.g., metacognition).
In order to address the key ideas of constructionism, let us first consider the
major distinction between two opposing approaches: innovative constructionism
and traditional instructionism. Constructionism advances the idea of learning
by constructing (e.g., knowledge, learning artifacts), whereas instructionism is
associated with the traditional approach to teaching by transmitting knowledge.
According to Mooney (2000), Piaget claimed that children construct their own
knowledge by giving meaning to people, places, and things in their world. He was
fond of the expression construction is superior to instruction (p. 61). From this
perspective, constructionism is strongly rooted in constructivism. In his pioneering
publication Mindstorms, Seymour Papert tried to define constructionism by
contrast with constructivism:
Constructionism the N word as opposed to the V word shares constructivism`s

connotation to learning as building knowledge structures irrespective of the
circumstances of learning. It then adds the idea that this happens especially
felicitously in a context where the learner is consciously engaged in constructing
a public entity whether it is a sand castle on the beach or a theory of the universe
(Papert, 1993: 1).
According to the definition, active engagement in learning through construction of

a public entity is the central aspect of constructionism. Moreover, the context and
environment are critical in stimulating learning and construction of knowledge.
Technology plays a key role in the constructionist classroom because it enables
students to create public entities and develop both cognitive and affective skills
while acting as the agents of learning. According to constructionism, manipulation
of objects facilitates the connection between the old knowledge and a new concept.
The Papertian constructionism builds on the similar constructivist idea and

proposes the term objects-to-think-with. This process of mental identification with
the object supports the mechanism of appropriation and is called syntonic learning.
Papert used the Logo Microworlds as an example of the computer-based objects-
to-think-with approach that provided students with the opportunity to construct
artifacts through designing their own programs and construct their knowledge and
understanding at the same time.
To clarify the difference between constructivism and constructionism, Kafai

explains that, though both theories involve the mechanisms of assimilation and
accommodation, constructionism goes beyond these essentially cognitive processes
placing high emphasis on appropriation, a social interactive process, which suggests
that learners make knowledge their own and begin to identify withit (Kafai,
2006:39). In other words, appropriation is an essential final stage of the learning
process: students are expected to construct knowledge and design their own
artifacts by applying the concepts they have gained to new situations.
As the emphasis on appropriation is one of the main distinctions between

constructivism and constructionism, it will be discussed further after a brief
explanation of assimilation and accommodation mechanisms. Assimilation and
accommodation are complementary processes that can be best understood by
the comparison with Donovan and Bransford principles of learning (2005).
Assimilation corresponds to the first principle of learning it involves drawing
on prior knowledge (e.g., already existent cognitive schema) to understand
the new information. Accommodation refers to the second principle of
learning presented by Donovan and Bransford (2005) the relation between
factual knowledge and conceptual framework to support understanding. In
other words, conceptual understanding helps to create a new schema that
helps to accommodate the factual knowledge acquired. Appropriation is an
inherent aspect of learning highly emphasized in constructionist classrooms.
As appropriation implies ownership of knowledge, it requires that a learner
develops strong self-monitoring and metacognitive strategies, which Donovan
and Bransford (2005) identify as the third principle of learning. Metacognition
is critical in the knowledge appropriation because it includes an awareness of
the need to ask how new knowledge relates to or challenges what one already
knows questions that stimulate additional inquiry that helps guide further
learning (Donovan & Bransford, 2005: 11). Here lies the value of technology as
objects-to-think-with, which helps students to develop cognitive and affective
skills, as well as metacognitive competence as they engage in both individual and
collective activities involving designing public entity (e.g., a computer program)
and constructing understanding.
Kafais argument (2006) that technology facilitates the knowledge appropriation

in constructionist classes seems very plausible as she provides examples of the
research projects that corroborate this point. In one of the studies, older students
were required to design instructional software to teach fractions to younger
learners. The project provided substantial evidence to conclude that younger
students highly benefited from the software, whereas student-designers greatly

improved their programming skills and conceptual knowledge of fractions in
addition to developing metacognitive competence. Another revealing research
evidence substantiating the cognitive, metacognitive, and affective gains of using
technology as facilitator of learning is a study on the involvement of ten-year-old
students in designing and programming their own computer games. The project
provided students with an opportunity to design games according to their interests,
which is very important as the knowledge appropriation process requires learners
to be engaged in activities that are interesting, relevant, and meaningful to them
(Donovan & Bransford, 2005).
The Papertian constructionism also distinguishes from the Piagetian constructivism

with regard to cognitive development. Constructivism places a primacy on the
development of individual and isolated knowledge structures (Kafai, 2006: 36),
whereas constructionism emphasizes the role of social interactions in influencing
learning. This is a bridging point that constructionism builds between Piagetian
and Vygotskian views on constructivism. Vygotsky (1978) considered learning as
a result of collaboration and socialization. Furthermore, Vygotsky emphasized the
role of language in facilitating the learning process. Vygotsky (1978) also stressed
the role of the teacher as a dynamic and effective contributor to the learning process
by providing the needed scaffolding to learners until they are able to execute the
task independently.
Yet, the apparent major distinction between constructionism and constructivism,

regardless of its Piagetian or Vygotskian interpretation, is the emphasis that
constructionism places on the production of an artifact that can be shared and
reflected upon with others in addition to being personally meaningful. Perhaps,
this distinction may have resulted from the evolution of technologies, which lead to
advancing constructivism toward constructionism.
Papert also strongly emphasized the role of learning culture in knowledge co-
construction and claimed that this suggests a strategy to facilitate learning by
improving the connectivity in the learning environment, by actions on cultures
rather than on individuals (cited by Kafai, 2006: 39). To emphasize the influential
role of learning cultures, Papert describes how learning is facilitated among the
members of the Brazilian samba schools where the group participants of different
age learn from each other. Another difference refers to the equal value of concrete
and abstract thinking in constructionism. Papert and Turkle (1992) discovered that
the top-down or planning approach was not always superior to a more improvised,
more bricoleur-like approach (p. 30). Table 4 summarizes major differences
between the Piagetian constructivism and the Papertian constructionism via
multiple lenses.
Regardless of the differences between constructivism and constructionism as

depicted by Table 4, these theories play a significant role in providing a solid
foundation for framing and interpreting emerging learning phenomenon in the
digital age.
Table 4. C
omparison of the Piagetian Constructivism
and the Papertian Constructionism
The Piagetian Constructivism The Papertian Constructionism

Theoretical focus The theory of knowledge The theory of learning and teaching
development
Primary dimensions Places primacy on the Focuses on the connected nature of
in knowledge development of individual and knowledge with its personal and social
development isolated knowledge structures dimensions
View on learning Views learning as building Views learning as building relationship
relationship between old and between old and new knowledge in
new knowledge interaction with others
View on knowledge Views knowledge construction as Articulates a more distributed view of
construction an individual act knowledge construction
Aspects of learning Concerned primarily with Concerned with combination of cognitive
cognitive aspect of learning and emotional aspects of learning
to address knowledge as desire
phenomenon
Primary learning Building a cognitive schema Creating an artifact of social relevance
outcome
Cognitive mechanism Builds on the mechanisms of Extends the mechanisms of assimilation
of knowledge assimilation and accommodation and accommodation to the process of
construction appropriation
Role of technology Technology is not a primary focus Knowledge co-construction and
in knowledge in knowledge construction appropriation is facilitated by interactive
construction activities involving technology
Relationship between Distinguishes between concrete Equally valuing concrete and abstract:
concrete and abstract and abstract thinking and concrete thought could be just as
considers the latter as more advanced as abstract thought (Kafai,
advanced 2006)
Learning culture Concerned primarily with Emphasizes the importance of learning
individual learning and cultures with focus on apprenticeship
development irrespective of models
other circumstances of learning
Learning environment Authentic learning is not a Values learning environments, which
primary consideration promote authentic and syntonic
(e.g.,responsive and adaptive)
knowledge construction
Connectivism
With growing ICT integration in teaching and learning, there are new theoretical
models branching out of constructivism. One of these emerging branches is
connectivism.
Downes (2007) identifies the core proposition shared between social constructivism
and connectivism as the knowledge not being acquired, as though it were a thing.
Connectivism is a theoretical framework for understanding learning through the
process of connecting to and feeding information into a learning community (Kop
& Hill, 2008). Siemens (2005) further clarifies, A community is the clustering of
similar areas of interest that allows for interaction, sharing, dialoguing, and thinking
together. Within the connectivist framework, a learning community is described
as a node, which is always a part of a larger network. Nodes arise out of the
connection points that are found on a network (Kop & Hill, 2008) and knowledge is
distributed across the network and rest in diversity of opinions (Siemens, 2008).
This leads connectivists to propose the following definition of learning: learning
is the network and, therefore, learning can reside outside of ourselves (within a
network or a database).
Downes and Siemens attempt to locate the construction of distributed-knowledge

among other epistemological frameworks such as objectivism, pragmatism, and
interpretivism (Driscoll, 2000). Objectivism claims that reality is external to mind,
and knowledge is experientially acquired whereas pragmatism positions knowledge
as a negotiation between reflection and experience. Interpretivism persuades
that knowledge is an internal construction through socialization and cultural cues
(Driscoll, 2000). Siemens (2008) further argues that the concept of emergent,
connected, and adaptive knowledge provides the epistemological framework for
connectivism (p. 10) and suggests the following alignment between epistemologies
and learning theories: objectivism => behaviorism; pragmatism => cognitivism;
interpretivism => constructivism; distributed-knowledge => connectivism.
As any emerging framework, connectivism has its weak points that are criticized
by opponents. Thus, Kerr (2007) suggests that the basic ideas of connectivism
had already been proposed by Clark (1997) in his theory of embodied active
cognition built on the Paperts constructionism. Verhagen (2006) cannot distil any
new principles from connectivism that are not already present in other existing
learning theories. Critics also argue that recent widespread attention to the work
of connectivism is mainly due to the high visibility of networks in the digital age.
Moreover, critics including the author of the book are not convinced that learning
can reside in non-human appliances (Kop & Hill, 2008).
2.4. Social Constructivism in Action

Implementation of the social constructivist approach in the classroom requires
knowledge of specific teaching methods and techniques. One of the wide accepted
methods is the cooperative learning. When the author asked his graduate students to
define what was a cooperative learning one of them wrote social constructivism
in action.
There is a sustained interest to use cooperative learning in both face-to-face and

online classes. Modifications of cooperative learning include but are not limited to
the team-based learning, collaborative learning, learning in small groups. In this
section we will focus on a number of specific issues related to the implementation
of cooperative learning: what constitutes a cooperative learning, what is an optimal
size of a small group in cooperative learning, how to implement specific cooperative
learning techniques in the classroom.
The major research in cooperative learning took place in the 1980-ies. During
this period, a number of studies on the benefits of learning in small groups were
conducted by N. Davidson (1980), N. Webb (1982) and cooperative learning by
D. Johnson & R. Johnson (1999), R. Slavin (1983), and others.
Let us start the review of cooperative learning by asking the question: is any learning
in small groups cooperative? The quick answer is no. According to the above
mentioned studies, in order to ensure that learning in small groups is cooperative,
it should meet the following basic requirements: the majority of classroom and
extra-curricular activities should be carried out in small groups (3-5 people in each
group); each small group must possess a collective spirit the team spirit; each
team member should be responsible for him/herself, for others and for the members
of the team as a whole; it is preferable that students membership in a team is stable
and permanent within the class and across different classes; and, last but not least,
the collective student work should be considered as student achievement in the
course of progress assessment (Davidson, 1990; Johnson & Johnson, 1999).
The theoretical basis of cooperative learning pedagogy is grounded in the works of

L. Vygotsky and other scholars who emphasized the critical role of social interaction
and interpersonal communication in learning and intellectual development.
Studies (Sharan, 1990; Reynolds, 1995) showed that communication in the process
of cooperative learning had a positive effect on the development of students
language, thinking and intelligence. Moreover, well-organized cooperative learning
contributed to higher learning outcomes than traditional forms of teaching. Even the
most dynamic and informative lecture, in general, was less efficient than learning in
small groups with a skillfully constructed communication among students.
Let us consider the following main practical issues related to the implementation
of cooperative learning in the learning process: formation of small groups;
cooperative learning techniques; methods of cooperative learning; assessment of
group achievement.
The basic starting positions in planning cooperative learning are related to the
composition, size, structure and the lifespan of a small group. First, the principle
of heterogeneity (diversity) in the formation of small groups should be taken
into account. Studies show that homogeneous (uniform in terms of learning)
groups are not effective: the strong groups become stronger and the weak even
weaker. On the other hand, studies show that the heterogeneous composition of
small groups significantly improves learning and achievement of weak and mid-
performing students and, at the same time, stimulates the academic progress of
advanced students. In addition, small groups should be formed using the following
criteria: variety of educational interests, social and psychological characteristics
and psychological compatibility of group members; diversity of learning styles and
preferences, etc.
The second issue is related to defining the optimal size of a small group. Some
educators feel that the most appropriate size of a small group is three students
per group. Others suggest five students in a group. The option two students per
group is not considered as a learning team. Observations show that the optimal
size of a small group four students per group. It is also reported that this size of
a small group has the highest degree of efficiency and productivity, and is the most
suitable for intra-group communication (Reynolds, 1995). There are also some
other advantages for this particular composition: it could be easily rearranged into
two subgroups of two students (it is convenient to work in pairs). This is also the
most ideal combination for heterogeneity in terms of academic performance (one
strong, two medium and one weak student per group) and in terms of gender (two
males and two females).
It should be noted that the formation of a small group is rather complicated

process if one does not carefully consider the factor of group dynamics. If the group
dynamics is not addressed, a group can work productively for a while and then
quickly disintegrate. On the other hand, a carefully formed group will consistently
and effectively operate over a long period of time.
The principles of cooperative learning should be applied at various stages of a lesson

plan: starting at the exploration stage and ending at the evaluation stage. The main
goal of cooperative learning at the exploration stage is to link the prior collective
knowledge of group members to the new knowledge through collaborative project.
Let us consider an example of a collaborative project for the topic Trigonometric
relationships between the sine and cosine of the numeric argument. Each group
receives a description of the project and graphing calculators. The groups are asked
to record their observations of function behavior and write conclusions for further
discussion in the classroom.
Using a graphing calculator, plot graphs of functions f, g and f + g, where

f(x)=sin2x and g(x)=cos2x. Observe the behavior of the function f + g.
Plot graphs of the following functions: f(x)=cos x and g(x)=sin(x+c). By varying
the parameter c describe the behavior of the graphs of two functions. Record
the values of the parameter, at which the graphs of these functions are the
same.
Conduct the same observation for the following functions: f(x)=sin x and
g(x)=cos(x+c).
Plot graphs of the following functions: f(x)=cos 2x and g(x)=sin2 x. How
can a graph of the function g(x) be transformed to get the graph of the
functionf(x)?
Students work in small groups for 10-15 minutes constructing the appropriate
graphs of functions, discussing the results, asking questions, clarifying obscure
points in assigned tasks, formulating main conclusions from observations,
recording findings on the answer sheet, etc. Each group will be asked to present
their major finding. At the same time, each team member must be willing to speak
on behalf of the team. During the group work the teacher monitors the work of
teams, asks guiding questions to clarify certain points, provides recommendations
to better articulate findings, etc. In other words, the teacher coordinates and directs
the group work.
During the group presentations, the teacher selects one of the groups to share
its results. A speaker presents the findings on behalf of the group. For each
session the group appoints its speaker. Each member of the group should get
an opportunity to be a speaker. At the same time, the group might decide to
present as a whole group where one of the group members demonstrates the
graphics, another member comments on the findings for the first task, the next
member reports results for the second task, etc. While the first group presents,
the members of other teams listen to the presentation, ask questions, offer their
findings and conclusions if they disagree with the presented results, and express
support if they have the same results. Moreover, the members of other teams and
the teacher have the right to address questions or comments to any member of
the presenting team. Therefore, it is crucial that each member of the team is able
to explain any task and answer questions s/he is asked on behalf of the whole
team. During cooperative learning, the teacher and the team members need to
maintain friendly atmosphere in the process of discussion with the elements of
constructive criticism. The teacher acts as a discussant following the rules and
moderating the question and answer session without imposing his/her point
of view. At the end of the discussion, the teacher briefly summarizes the results
obtained by the groups, records major findings on each task, analyzes typical
errors and closes the discussion.
At the stage of learning new material the main purpose of the group work is to
provide formal proof for the empirical findings of the group obtained at the
exploration stage. The sequence of the group work at this stage is similar to the
exploration stage of cooperative learning. The third stage of the lesson is application
of the newly learned material: at this stage groups can work collaboratively on
assigned problems. Also, the teacher might administer a test to monitor and evaluate
individual students progress. Moreover, an additional project could be assigned as a
collective or individual homework. Thus, the teacher combines group and individual
assignments during the cooperating learning. If the homework project is assigned
as a group work, the team determines the scope and sequence of work as well as
the distribution of tasks between the team members. After doing each part of the
distributed homework individually, the group meets to discuss solutions, during
which each team member has an opportunity to understand solutions presented
by the other members through asking questions, discussing results, and correcting
solutions if necessary. An important requirement for the group homework is that
each member of the group should know how to solve every problem in the assigned
homework project and be able to present and justify the solution on behalf of the
group. Performance of each group member will impact the final groups grade for the
homework project. In the process of grading the group homework, the teacher has
a right to selectively invite individual team members for questions and comments
on the solutions for specific tasks encouraging each member to be responsible for
the results of the entire group, which motivates students to work hard on the group
homework projects.
There are diverse methods that can be used in cooperative learning (Webb,1992).
Let us consider some of the cooperative learning methods.
Jigsaw method is implemented through the following sequence of steps: students

are divided into teams of four students and the course material is divided into four
parts. Each student is assigned to study one of the parts. Then, members of different
teams who have studied the same part are brought together for 10-15 minutes to
discuss the new material. After the discussion, the students return to their teams
and each student of the team in turn explains the content of the assigned part
to the rest of the team. The student knowledge and understanding of the new
material is assessed by individual test or quiz. The winner is the team that gains
the highest cumulative team score on the test. The main feature of this method is
interdependence of the team members in learning: the team success depends on
the individual work of each team member and on the individual contribution of
each member to the collective learning and performance.
Achievement team. This method is implemented as follows: lecture group

work with the text individual self-study. At the beginning of each lesson, the
teacher delivers a brief lecture to provide an overview of the new material with an
emphasis on the main points, which later will be used to solve problems assigned
to each group. The lecture should be sufficiently broad in content and practical
application. Next, students work in teams on lecture notes and help each other to
understand its content. While working in groups, the students are involved in the
discussion to clarify the main points of the lecture. The students are allowed to ask
the teacher only when none of the team members can answer a question. After the
group work is done, the students carry out an individual assignment. At this stage,
each team member is working on his/her own without interaction with the other
team members. The main focus of this method is on individual student achievement
that will be added up to the team score. The importance of each student effort is
enhanced through the following arrangement: an individual student score counts if
it is above the students average score for his/her previous work. The team receiving
the highest score is the winner.
Team contest. The main characteristic of this method is that students at the same
level of academic achievement compete in the team contest. As a rule, this kind
of the team contest takes place once a week after the major topic was studied.
Students from all teams are divided into groups according to the level of educational
achievements: strong students form the first group, the mid-level students the
second group, and the low-achieving students the third group. Then each group
receives about thirty cards placed on the table in random order (questions down).
Each student from the first group selects a card and answers the question written
on it. The contest can be conducted either in oral or in written form. Other students
from the same group evaluate the answer, for example, using alternative scale:
correct (1 point) and incorrect (0 points). In case of a dispute, the students may
ask the teacher to be an umpire. In average, each student answers three questions.
Thus, for this contest the teacher needs to prepare about 90 cards with tasks for
three levels of difficulty. After the contest in groups, the students return to their
teams and add up the obtained team scores. The team with the highest score is
awinner.
Team-based individual learning. The essence of this method is to provide small

groups an opportunity to move through the curriculum at their own pace. Students
work in small groups on individually assigned tasks based on the previously learned
material and can access each other for advice, help, and assistance. The students
are also allowed to work with each other in a team to address misconceptions
and correct mistakes. The teacher oversees the group work and explains the
new material to those groups who first completed the work on individual tasks.
Individual tasks are evaluated by students from different groups appointed as
teaching assistants. The teaching assistants are provided with answer sheets which
help them to timely assess individual students performance. At the same time, the
teacher has an opportunity to explain new material to each small group. Individual
scores are added up to compose a team score at the end of each unit (week). It is
clear that the implementation of this method requires careful design of individual
assignments and tests for each unit on the teacher side. In addition, the teacher
must skillfully allocate study time to work on the new material with each group
separately.
Cooperative team learning method requires continious mutual understanding and

support from team members through peer-tutoring and peer-assessment. This
method can be used in various forms of study groups: formal (formed according
to criteria specific for a particular learning task), informal (formed on the basis of
sympathy or friendship), and basic (formed to address the long-term educational
goals).
Team project. The key feature of this method is that the course material is divided
among teams, so that by the end of the term students learn the entire course. Each
team is assigned a special topic. Teams work to prepare the group report on a topic
and present it to the class. Within each team, the topic is divided into units. Each
student is assigned a unit to independently work on. The student prepares his/her
part of the report, submits it to the group, and then, the team compiles the group
report based on the individual units submitted by the team members. Each team
receives a group grade for the project.
Coop-coop method. This method is very similar to the team project method with
the only difference that, in addition to delivering part of the report to the team,
each member makes a mini-presentation. After the final team report is compiled,
the group speaker makes a presentation for the team members and then for
the whole class. In addition to the group effort each student takes a test. The final
student grade consists of the group grade on the project and the individual grade
on the test.
Experiment in cooperative learning. The main purpose of this method is to

transform a randomly composed small group into a cooperative learning team.
That is if a class, for example, consists of 32 students, every student gets a randomly
assigned number from 1 to 8. Thus, the first group is formed by four students, who
were randomly assigned as the first, the second group by students randomly
assigned as the second, and so forth. The total number of the groups is eight. The
main goal of this method is, regardless of random formation of groups, to promote
a friendly and productive learning environment in each group. In other words,

a small group will become a cooperative learning team by the end of the term.
In order to achieve this goal, small groups are encouraged to start by identifying
common interests among group members, building team spirit, etc. This method is
particularly recommended for beginning teachers to learn team building skills in
cooperative learning.
Inquiry-based team learning. This method is aimed to build teams of students

for research, solve practical problems and/or to implement applied projects at
a high level of complexity and challenge. This method requires a certain level of
independency for each group. Therefore, groups may be formed using arbitrary
(often informal) criteria. The main goal set for each group is to conduct a mini-
research that requires creative approach to identify a problem, to formulate a
hypothesis, to gather empirical data, to conduct statistical analysis, to write a
research report, and finally, to defend the research results before a special advisory
council consisting of teachers of different disciplines, parents, and students.
The above methods do not exhaust the whole arsenal of cooperative learning
techniques. Implementation of these methods illustrates a wide range of practical
applications of the social constructivist approach in the classroom. Methods can
be combined and used in conjunction with the conventional teaching methods.
Furthermore, cooperative learning is an open and dynamic system that is
continuously improving by teacher initiative and creativity. The cooperative
learning methods and techniques discussed above could be easily modified to be
used in online teaching.
Last but not least, the group assessment should be clearly defined in cooperative
learning. Studies show that the group grades should not exceed 50% of the total
grade for each individual student (Davidson, 1980). One should be careful to ensure
that the group assessment does not significantly reduce the strong individual
student performance and, at the same time, does not increase the unjustified weak
individual student achievement. Therefore, it is critical to clearly assign grade
weights for every group and individual assignment. Implementation of cooperative
learning requires special training of teachers, in particular, to prepare teachers
to overcome challenges that can arise in the real classroom. When arranging
cooperative learning teachers should also be prepared to resolve some irregularities
and constraints with regard to the task assignment and completion. It might happen
that individual members, who are not supportive of the group work, are lagging
behind in completing homework projects, etc. One can expect difficulties related to
group dynamics when high achieving students dominate group discussions, refuse
to provide assistance to other group members. The so-called growth problems or
difficulties associated with group dynamics, formation and development of the
group as a team. In each case, a teacher needs to patiently explain the principles
of cooperative learning, hold informal meetings with the groups facing problems,
emphasize positive qualities of the group and its individual members, and support
psychological compatibility among group members. It is also important to
emphasize the ability to work in teams.
2.5. Learning Culture

and Multiple Intelligences
Learning culture embraces diversity and its inclusiveness. The theory of multiple
intelligences developed by H. Gardner (1983, 1993, 2000, 2004) provides an
opportunity to expand the humanistic dimension of learning culture.
In this section we describe the key ideas of Gardners theory. In 1904, by the request
of the Minister of Education of France psychologist Alfred Binet and his colleagues
designed an instrument to measure students intelligence. A little later, the
instrument was imported to the United States and became famous as an Intelligence
Quotient (IQ) test. Almost 80 years later, the Harvard psychologist Howard Gardner
challenged the theory of IQ. He proposed the Theory of Multiple Intelligences
(TMI), which is diametrically opposite to the IQ-theory. The key conceptual ideas
of Gardners theory are:
Intelligence cannot be measured in the laboratory by any test (including the

IQ test);
One cannot justify racial, ethnic, and religious differences based on the
results of any intelligence test;
Human intelligence is multiple.
The last attempt to defend the IQ theory after the crushing blows of the TMI was
the book The Bell Curve (Herrnstein and Murray, 1994). However, this attempt
was unsuccessful. Currently, the Theory of Multiple Intelligences is well respected
among scholars and practitioners as an approach to recognize and support the
diversity in human learning and development.
Gardners theory is based on the fundamental psychological and neurophysiological

studies carried by his predecessors. Let us describe the most important points. In
1981, Roger Sperry won the Nobel Prize for his work on the neurophysiological
mechanisms of specialization of the left and right hemispheres of the human
brain in processing information. Sperry found that the left hemisphere processed
information linearly, consistently, and in parts, while the right hemisphere
simultaneously, in parallel, and holistically. Paul MacLean, Head of the Laboratory
of Brain Evolution at the National Institute of Brain (Washington, DC), found that
the human brain consisted of three layers that were laminated to one another as
a person grows and passes to a higher level of thinking and mental development.
Karl Pribram from Stanford University proposed a new theory of human brain
functioning as a hologram: the information had been imprinted into the human
brain, hence each individual piece of information also belonged to its integral
structure. That is why by recalling a single episode one can reproduce the whole
picture of a past event.
On the contrary, the advocates of the IQ theory believe that the intelligence of a
person is predetermined, fixed, and static. That is to say, intelligence is something
that is given to a human from birth and it does not change throughout human life.
However, neuropsychological studies suggest the opposite: that intelligence can

be changed and developed throughout life. Moreover, Gardner argues that human
intelligence can be improved and developed in multiple directions (Gardner, 1993).
Gardner defines intelligence as an ability for nonstandard problem-solving,

generating new ideas, and creating products and services that have high social
and cultural value. Originally 2, the following types of intelligences were mentioned:
linguistic intelligence, logical-mathematical intelligence, spatial intelligence,
bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, musical intelligence, interpersonal intelligence,
and intrapersonal intelligence. Let us briefly examine each of the above types of
intelligence.
Linguistic intelligence is responsible for the diversity of spoken and written

languages including knowledge and skills in grammar, reading, writing, poetry,
and even humor. This type of intelligence is inherent to writers, poets, storytellers,
etc. Logical-mathematical intelligence is associated with the so-called scientific
thinking, that is, an ability of inductive and deductive reasoning, logical thinking,
an ability to handle abstractions, symbols and numbers, an ability to establish
cause-effect relationships, reveal patterns, an ability to connect concrete and
general, etc. This type of intelligence is clearly manifested in scientists, computer
programmers, accountants, lawyers, bankers, and, of course, mathematicians.
Spatial intelligence is related to such human abilities as painting, sculpture,
design, navigation, architecture, and, strangely enough, chess-playing. This type
of intelligence involves a highly developed ability for imaginative thinking and, as
a rule, is inherent to professionals in the field of architecture and art, cartography,
engineering, etc. Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence reflects the ability of a person
to perform creative expression of emotion, strength and beauty of using plastic
movements of certain muscles and body as a whole. Accordingly, this type of
intelligence is particularly pronounced among dancers, athletes, acrobats, skaters,
etc. Musical intelligence includes but is not limited to the ability to recognize
and use voice and rhythm, sensitivity to sound and tone, highly developed
musical audition, and an ability to play musical instruments. This intelligence,
as the previous one, is very close to the human nature: many of us love to sing
or whistle favorite tunes while performing body movements (dancing, walking,
playing, etc.). Obviously, the most vivid expression of this type of intelligence
is manifested among composers, singers, performers, music teachers, etc.
Interpersonal intelligence involves highly developed communication skills, an
ability to work in a team, an ability to sustain close contact and communication
with the audience, an ability of psychological understanding of another person.
This type of intelligence is inherent to therapists, religious leaders, politicians,
managers, etc. Intrapersonal intelligence involves, above all, the knowledge of the
inner mechanisms of human mental activities at the level of feelings, emotions,
self-awareness, intuition, etc. It also includes an ability to reflective thinking, in-
depth analysis, and internal dialogue. This intelligence can be found in thinkers,
philosophers, spiritual leaders, etc.
2
Later, two types of intelligences were added to the list: naturalistic intelligence and
existential intelligence (Gardner, 2004).
There are four key concepts of TMI. First, each person has a natural aptitude to a
particular type of intellectual activity. It is quite natural that different people have
different abilities that are developed to a varying degree of mastery: some have
universal intellectual abilities and others show their intelligence in a specific area.
For example, the famous German writer J. W. von Goethe was a statesman, a scientist,
and a philosopher. On the other hand, there are many examples of brilliant people
who have had extraordinary intellectual ability in a single area, for example, Carl
Gauss in mathematics, Bobby Fischer in chess, etc. At the same time, many
people are in the middle between the above extreme cases of human intelligence.
Second, the majority of people are capable of developing any type of intelligence to
an adequate level of competence. In other words, we cannot assert that this or that
person has no aptitude for mathematics, music, literature or art; they just had not
developed it properly. In the same way, every student has a potential to learn any
school subject, such as mathematics, if necessary conditions have been created.
Third, different types of intelligences can closely interact and influence each others
development. There are cases when students involvement in music contributed to
the development of his/her mathematical abilities. That is why it is important to
engage students in multiple learning activities through games, plays, music, and
sports.
Fourth, there are different ways to develop different intelligences. Thus, in order to
be a good storyteller, it is not necessary to know how to read and write. However, this
does not mean that we should not learn to read and write in order to be eloquent.
This example only underscores the fact that intellectual ability can be developed in
a variety of ways.
The key positions listed above provide an opportunity to consider TMI as an open
system. It can be extended with new varieties of intelligence as it happened later
with naturalistic and existential intelligences (Gardner, 2004). The only requirement
is the need for scientific evidence of the existence of a new type of intelligence
(Armstrong, 1994; Campbell, Campbell and Dickinson, 1994; Lazear, 1999).
How can multiple intelligences be developed? The development of intelligence

requires the use of appropriate teaching methods and learning activities. For
example, in the development of the linguistic intelligence the most favorable
learning activities can be reading, working with the dictionary, language develop
ment, keeping a diary, writing narratives and essays, poetry writing, discussions
and debates, using humor in the classroom, storytelling, etc. For the development
of the logical-mathematical intelligence it is recommended to use a variety of
challenging problems, logical games and puzzles, fallacies and paradoxes, etc.
Unfortunately, many teachers consider the logical-mathematical intelligence only
as an ability to master narrow subject knowledge and skills in mathematics and
logic. It happens that a student has a good command of mathematics at school,
but his/her logical-mathematical intelligence is not sufficiently developed. That
is why, for the development of this type of intelligence it is necessary to include
non-routine problems, discovery activities and student involvement in research.
Thedevelopment of the spatial intelligence involves such activities as drawing,

sculpting, creating spatial models of objects, initiation of active imagination, fantasy,
use of visual aids, videos, etc. Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence can be developed
through implementation of role-playing, dramatization, dancing, using body
language, sports and other activities. Musical intelligence is most fully manifested
in the educational gaming activities related to playing music, singing, using audio
materials, natural sounds, etc. Interpersonal intelligence is well developed in the
process of learning in small groups, collaborative teams, performing group projects,
peer assessment, etc. The development of intrapersonal intelligence involves
the use of individualized learning techniques, development of students self-
monitoring skills, use of mediation strategies, reflective thinking and metacognition,
development of students intuition.
Obviously, the development of any specific type of intelligence should not be

associated with a specific discipline only, for example, the development of the
linguistic intelligence with languages and literature, the logical-mathematical
with mathematics, the spatial with fine arts, and so on. On the contrary, it is
necessary to design the learning process in a way that each discipline is involved
in the development of various types of intelligence. An example of the unit plan
on Discovery and Invention aimed at the development of different types of
intelligence is presented in the matrix below (Table 5).
Table 5. Using multiple intelligences across disciplines
Disciplines
Intelligence
Mathematics and Science Language Arts Social Studies
Linguistic Reading literature on the Searching the Internet and Writing an essay on
history of inventions and reading encyclopedia of social and historical
discoveries in mathematics. discoveries and inventions. conditions, under
Discussing scientific principles Writing a short story What which a particular
of a particular discovery or would you like to invent? scientific discovery
invention was conducted
Logical- Studying a theorem Reading a popular book on Building a
mathematical or formula used in the the role of mathematics chronological
construction of a particular in scientific discoveries. timeline of the most
invention. Building a Describing the practical important discoveries
hypothesis for a new situation that would follow a in mathematics
invention particular discovery
Spatial Plotting a graph or a Reading an illustrated book Decorating a
geometric model of the about the discoveries in newspaper devoted
object included in a particular culture, art, and design. to a discovery in
invention. Drawing a sketch of Compiling a dictionary of social sciences
invented mechanism terms of discoveries in
culture, art, and architecture
Bodily- Inventing a device for Reading operating Creating and
kinesthetic measuring a parameter instructions for a specific executing a play or
of amuscle (strength, invention. Writing a user historical drama
endurance, etc.). guide for self-designed ofideas and people
Constructing a physical model technical model about a particular
of a technical invention discovery or
invention
Disciplines
Intelligence
Mathematics and Science Language Arts Social Studies
Musical Studying mathematical Reading biography of Listening music
foundations of designing new the inventor of a musical records from a variety
musical instruments. Learning instrument. Writing lyrics of historical eras
about scientific principles of to the music dedicated to
electronic records and digital discoverers and inventors
music production
Interpersonal Small group study of Reading and discussing Group discussion on
mathematical foundation of a an article on international cultural-historical
discovery. Group involvement scientific cooperation. occurrence of
in the debate on scientific Conducting a contest of the scientific discoveries
discoveries best collective play about
scientific discovery
Intrapersonal Independently solving Reading a book about the Reflection on the
math problems drawn from author of a discovery or topic What would
the results of a particular invention. Writing your own you do if you invent a
discovery. Developing a autobiography as a famous time machine?
program for self-study of inventor
scientific principles of a
specific invention
What are the advantages and disadvantages of the Theory of Multiple Intelligences?
Among other advantages, the major strong points of TMI are as follows: new
understanding and definition of intelligence; ample opportunities to develop
students skills with different types of intelligences; recognizing multiple forms
of human intelligence in a variety of fields: literature, science, art, music, sports,
politics, religion, etc.; democratic nature of the theory: each type of intelligence
has the right to be supported and developed; unique opportunities to enrich the
learning process through different types of intellectual activities. Disadvantages
of the theory are primarily related to the blurring boundaries of its interpretation
and application. For example, the distinction between the notions of talent and
intelligence is not clearly defined. What are the boundaries of TMI in terms of
incorporating new types of intelligence? For example, could extraordinary culinary
skills be considered a manifestation of intelligence? The limitations of TMI have not
been explicitly described. In general, the Theory of Multiple Intelligences developed
by Howard Gardner is, without a doubt, an innovative contribution to the science
of learning that has a great potential to improve student learning in the digital age.
Chapter 3
The Engineering
ofLearning Toolkit
This chapter addresses the following issues:
analysis and design of learning objectives;

cognitive tutoring, representations,
and new literacies;
research-based strategies in engineering
oflearning;
assessment of learning outcomes.
Chapter 3. The Engineering ofLearning Toolkit 63
3.1. Design of Learning Objectives,

Tasks and Didactical Situations
The design of learning objectives is one of the key elements in the engineering of
learning toolbox. Effective teaching and learning equally depends on each element
of the triad: objective content outcome.
The classical fundamental concept in this field is the taxonomy of educational

objectives developed by B. Bloom and his colleagues (1956). Later, Blooms taxo
nomy was modified in the works of W. Gerlach and A. Sullivan (1967), A.DeBlock
(1975), J.Guilford (1967), R. Gagne, M. Merrill (1964, 1971), R. Marzano and
J.Kendall (2006), and others.
The term taxonomy (from the Ancient Greek taxis arrangement and nomia
method) means organization, arrangement, and classification of objects according
to a certain method, criteria and principle, setting their hierarchy (a sequence of
levels in a particular structure).
Blooms Taxonomy. Despite the fact that Blooms taxonomy was developed over 50
years ago, however, it is still one of the most popular classifications of educational
objectives among both scholars and education practitioners. This taxonomy is the
most complete classification of educational objectives, it covers a variety of learning
activities of students in different domains: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor.
In this section, we will mainly focus on the cognitive domain. Blooms taxonomy is
based on the following principles: taxonomy should rely upon the theory of goal-
setting as well as be instrumental for teaching practice; it should be based on the
advances of modern psychology; it should be logically complete and have its internal
structure; the hierarchy of objectives does not imply the hierarchy of values. Based
on these principles, the taxonomy of educational objectives in the cognitive domain
includes the following six levels: (1) knowledge, (2) understanding, (3) application,
(4) analysis, (5) synthesis, and (6) evaluation.
The level of knowledge involves the development of educational objectives aimed at

memorization, recognition and reproduction of basic definitions, rules, algorithms,
and procedures. The objectives at this level include the following categories: specific
knowledge (dates, facts, numbers, terms, names, etc.); procedural knowledge
(criteria, directions, classes, rules, etc.); abstract knowledge (principles, axioms,
theorems, theories, etc.). The level of understanding includes learning objectives
in the following categories: translation (e.g., an ability to translate a task from
everyday language to the language of mathematics); interpretation (e.g., an ability
to explain a mathematical solution using everyday language); extrapolation (e.g.,
an ability to transpose knowledge to a similar situation). The level of application
involves the development of students applied skills to use the knowledge in
practical situations. This level may also be subdivided into the categories:
application of concepts; application of methods and algorithms; and application
of theories. The level of analysis contains learning objectives in the following
64 Chapter 3. The Engineering ofLearning Toolkit
categories: analysis of elements (e.g., separation of a whole into parts); analysis of

relationships (e.g.,establishing links between elements); analysis of principles (e.g.,
sequencing and placing elements in a certain order). The level of synthesis consists
of the following categories: synthesis of ideas (e.g., search for ideas to tackle a
problem); synthesis of procedures (e.g., development of a plan, a sequence of steps
to solve a problem); synthesis of structures (e.g., design of principles for groups,
sets, theories). The level of evaluation contains the following categories: evaluation
of abilities that relate to the internal knowledge and belief system (argumentation,
logic, constructive critique, etc.); evaluation of abilities that relate to the use of
external criteria (standards, rules, regulations, etc.).
Modifications of Blooms taxonomy. Along with advantages for designing learning

objectives, Blooms taxonomy has some drawbacks. Thus, though the systematization
of objectives in the cognitive domain is claimed, the cognitive structure itself is not
well defined. The taxonomy does not explicitly address the cognitive processes of
perception, memory, thinking, and intuition. Further, Blooms taxonomy is somewhat
redundant, for instance, the extrapolation category at the level of understanding in
a way replicates the category of application of concepts at the level of application.
Another weak point of Blooms taxonomy is a vague distinction between the levels
of application, analysis, and synthesis in terms of their cognitive hierarchy and
cognitive weight. In this regard, G. Madaus and his colleagues (1973) proposed
to modify Blooms taxonomy branching out application, analysis and synthesis
levels. This ensures a certain degree of flexibility and eliminates a contradiction in
the link application analysis synthesis. Some critics of Bloom, for example
R.VanHorn (2007), indicate that the taxonomy is quite general in nature and does
not reflect the characteristics of specific methodological aspects, for instance, the
development of students problem solving skills. In this regard, Horn proposed a
problem solving algorithm that was aligned with Blooms taxonomy.
Another modification was proposed by W. Gerlach and A. Sullivan (1967).

IfBlooms taxonomy is mainly based on the hierarchy of internal mental actions
(e.g.,understanding, analysis, synthesis), Gerlach-Sullivans taxonomy is built
upon the concept of learning behaviors or external procedures that students
perform during the learning activities. Based on this assumption, they proposed
the taxonomy of learning objectives consisting of the following levels: identification
and classification of objects (e.g., an object is an element of a certain set); naming
(e.g.,afigure is called an isosceles triangle); describing (e.g., reproducing/retelling
basic properties of a parallelogram); designing (e.g., constructing a perpendicular
line to another line from a given point on a plane); ordering (e.g., sequencing
arithmetic operations in a complex numerical expression); demonstrating
(e.g.,using external and internal representations of a concept).
Unlike the above taxonomies, the hierarchy of objectives proposed by A.DeBlock

(1975) is a practice-based spatial representation of learning objectives
including the following dimensions: learning categories (such as fact, concept,
correspondence, structure, method, relationship); connections (e.g., inter- and
intradisciplinary connections); levels (e.g., knowledge, understanding, application,
and generalization). Using three dimensions and corresponding elements, one

can make 72 combinations of learning objectives. Teachers appreciate the level
of detail in designing learning objectives using De Blocks taxonomy such as, for
instance, learning concepts at the level of understanding through interdisciplinary
connections.
Another well-known taxonomy of objectives in the development of intellectual

abilities of students is the model proposed by J. Guilford (1967). He used a spatial
model based on the following dimensions: content, products, and operations. The
content component includes various types of knowledge representation: figurative,
symbolic, semantic, and behavioral. Figurative content includes visual-practical,
audio-visual, and physical representation of knowledge. Symbolic content is based
on signs and abstract representation. Semantic content consists of verbal (both
written and oral) knowledge representation and behavioral content, includes
emotions, communication, and interaction.
The products of intellectual activity are presented at the following levels: units,
classes, relations, systems, transformations, and implications. Units include
elements, objects, and/or parts of a whole. Classes represent the set of elements
that are grouped according to certain criteria. Relations consist of connections
between various elements, sets, and classes. Systems represent integrative
holistic structures. Transformations are methods of changing elements and sets.
Implications include investigation, conclusions, predictions, etc.
The operational component of the model includes the following categories:

knowledge, memory, convergent thinking, divergent thinking, and evaluation. The
knowledge category represents information retrieval and recognition. Memory
includes acquisition and storage of information. Divergent thinking suggests a
variety of ideas and methods of problem solving, whereas convergent thinking could
be considered as a strictly logical thinking. Evaluation represents assessment of the
solution, its verification with the initial conditions, and control. As in De Blocks
model, every combination of three dimensions in Gilfords taxonomy represents a
certain learning objective, for instance, development of students evaluation skills
in understanding semantic units of knowledge.
Gagne and Merrill (Gagne, 1964; Merrill, 1971) proposed a taxonomy that
integrated different domains of learning: cognitive, affective and psychomotor.
It contained a hierarchy of objectives, which described four different levels of
learning behavior: the level of emotional behavior that encompasses affective
characteristics (e.g., surprise, joy, inspiration, confusion); the level of psychomotor
behavior that represents physical actions of students; the level of memory that
involves mainly recalling and recognizing; and the level of complex cognitive
behavior that includes a system of learning objectives on classification, analysis
and problem solving.
Marzano and Kendall (2006) proposed a taxonomy that consisted of three systems
and a knowledge domain. The systems were a self-system, a metacognitive system,
and a cognitive system. The self-system includes primarily affective dispositional
characteristics such as beliefs about the importance of knowledge and efficacy as

well as emotions associated with knowledge. The metacognitive system addresses
students self-monitoring of clarity, accuracy, and execution of knowledge along
with the specification of learning goals. The cognitive system consists of knowledge
retrieval, comprehension, analysis, and knowledge utilization. The knowledge
domain includes three categories: information, mental procedures, and physical
procedures.
Despite some flaws, the discussed taxonomies provide tools that make it possible
to identify the starting positions in the design of learning objectives. The next step
for a teacher-engineer is to take an initiative and design his/her own taxonomy that
reflects personal experiences, preferences and teaching style.
The process of analyzing and designing learning objectives leads a teacher-

engineer to careful selection and construction of learning tasks and activities.
Learning tasks create a link between learning objectives and learning outcomes.
Teachers persistently check for students understanding in order to support
student learning (Shepard et al., 2005). They often need to assign a variety of tasks
that would assess students understanding. According to Boston and Smith (2009),
different kinds of tasks lead to different types of instruction, which subsequently
lead to different opportunities for students learning (p. 122). In addition, tasks
convey messages about what mathematics is and what doing mathematics entails
(NCTM, 1991: 24). That is why choosing correct tasks is important for engineering
of learning.
According to Smith and Stein (1998), tasks that ask students to perform a
memorized procedure in a routine manner lead to one type of opportunity
for student thinking; tasks that require students to think conceptually and that
stimulate students to make connections lead to a different set of opportunities
for student thinking (p. 269). Quite often, students are given only the tasks that
require memorization or procedure that suggests following an algorithm. But
students should be asked to fulfill high-level tasks as well. Stein et al. (2000)
proposed a cognitive demand framework. They separated the low-level cognitive
demands from high-level ones where memorization and procedures without
connection fall to the low level, while procedures with connections and doing
mathematics represent the high-level of cognitive demand. More specifically, the
tasks at the level of memorization involve reproducing previously learned facts,
rules, formulae, or definitions. This level may also include committing facts, rules,
formulae, or definitions to memory. The tasks at this level cannot be solved using
procedures because a procedure does not exist or because the time frame in which
the task is being completed is too short to use a procedure (Smith & Stein, 1998).
Usually, such tasks have no connection to the meaning of facts, rules, formulae, or
definitions. Procedures without connection are algorithmic by nature and require
limited cognitive demand for completion. Moreover, such tasks do not require
connection to the concepts or meaning that underlies the procedure. Procedures
with connections focus students attention on understanding of concepts and
ideas. Such tasks are usually represented in multiple ways (e.g., numerical,
visual, concrete, symbolic) and require making connections among multiple

representations. The highest level of cognitive demand reasoning (or doing
mathematics) requires non-routine, non-algorithmic thinking to explore and to
understand the nature of mathematical concepts, processes, or relationships. Such
tasks usually require students to access relevant knowledge in order to solve the
problem, to examine constraints that may limit possible solutions. Reasoning tasks
demand significant cognitive effort due to the unpredictable nature of the problem
solving process at this level.
A modified version of the cognitive demand model presented by Tchoshanov, Lesser

and Salazar (2008) includes three levels: (1) facts and procedures; (2) concepts and
connections; and (3) models and generalizations. Every level is specified by the list
of descriptors presented in the table below (Table 6).
Table 6. Levels of cognitive demand descriptors
Levels of Cognitive Demand Descriptors
Facts and Procedures Recognize basic terminology and notation

Recall facts
State definitions
Name properties and rules
Do computations
Make observations
Conduct measurements
Simplify and evaluate numerical expressions
Solve routine problems
Concepts and Connections Select and use appropriate representation

Translate between multiple representations
Transform within the same representation
Transfer knowledge to a new situation
Connect two or more concepts
Explain and justify solutions to problems
Communicate major mathematical ideas
Explain findings and results from the analysis of data
Solve non-routine problems
Models and Generalizations Generalize patterns

Formulate mathematical problems
Generate mathematical statements
Derive mathematical formulas
Make predictions and hypothesize
Design mathematical models
Extrapolate findings from data analysis
Test conjectures
Prove statements and theorems
In order to illustrate the process of task selection and design at different levels of
cognitive demand, let us consider the following case focused on fraction division.
How much thinking is required to solve the task below?
Task 1. What is the rule for fraction division?
a c ac a c ab a c cd
A. = B. = C. = D.
b d bd b d cd b d ab
One would say a little or no thinking is required to solve this item. It demands
only memorization of the fraction division rule. All middle school teachers who
were given this task responded correctly (choice D). Task 2 below addresses the
same mathematical procedure fraction division.
Task 2. Which of the problems below represents the operation 13 1 =?

4 2
A. Juan has a piece of rope 13 feet long and cuts it in half. At what length
4
should he cut the rope?
B. Maria has 13 liters of juice. How many 1 liter containers can she fill?
4 2
C. A boat in a river moves 13 miles in 2 hours. What is the boat speed?

4
D. Daniel divides 13 pounds of coffee evenly between 2 customers.

4
How many pounds of coffee will each customer get?
What is the difference between Task 2 and Task 1? How much and what kind of
thinking is required to solve Task 2? Obviously, Task 2 is more cognitively demanding:
it requires understanding of the fraction division concept. 72% of the same sample
of middle school teachers was able to solve this task correctly (ChoiceB). Task 3
below deals with the same fraction division procedure.
Task 3. Some students mistakenly divide two fractions in the following way:
.If a, b, c, and d are positive integers, choose the correct answer:
A. This equation is always true.

B. This equation is true when c=d.
C. This equation is never true.
D. This equation is true when ad=bc.
This task is different from the Tasks 2 and 3 because it requires thinking at a higher
cognitive level generalization. Only 41% of the same sample of middle school
teachers responded correctly (choice B). Not surprisingly, the majority of incorrect
responses fell under choice C. Teachers low performance on Tasks 2 and 3, in
particular, showed that they lack understanding of very basic and fundamental idea
of school mathematics fraction division.
Understanding the design of learning objectives and its close connection to the
selection and construction of learning tasks and didactical situations is a critical
step in the engineering of learning. Traditionally, tasks are selected among those
available in textbooks. Students engagement in problem solving is primarily
considered as finding solution to a given task using prescribed methods (e.g., rules,
formulas, and conventional algorithms.
The holistic problem solving approach (Tchoshanov, 1996) requires students to be

involved in the complete problem solving cycle that includes the following three
major stages:
1) posing a problem;
2) solving a problem; and
3) debugging a solution.
Implementation of all three stages constitutes a holistic problem solving, as

opposed to the traditional fragmented problem solving approach. The first and the
most important stage is students engagement in posing the problem to be solved.
Problem posing lies at the heart of learning (Polya, 1945; Silver, 1994). If a student
is involved in designing of a task/problem, s/he will be highly motivated to solve
it. In traditional teaching, major emphasis is placed on the second stage solving
a problem; stages of posing a problem and debugging a solution are usually done
by a teacher or overlooked and ignored. This significantly reduces the efficiency
of problem solving as a learning activity. Each stage in the structure of a holistic
approach to problem solving can be broken down into steps. Problem posing
refers to both generation of new problems and reformulation of given problems
(Silver, 1994). The process includes the following steps: analyzing the situation
from which a problem may arise; defining a problem or question; identifying
constraints; collecting data if needed; formulating a problem; reviewing a problem
(Tchoshanov, 1996). The second stage is similar to the well-known problem solving
plan established by Polya (1945): understanding the problem; devising a plan;
carrying out the plan; looking back. The debugging stage includes the following
steps: recognizing an error in the solution; localizing the error; identifying a cause
of the error; devising a plan to debug the error; implementing the plan and checking
the fixed solution (Tchoshanov, 1996).
Another important element related to designing learning tasks is constructing

didactical situations. Building on the work of Makhmoutov (1975), Okon (1990),
Brousseau (1997), and other scholars, the didactical situation is defined as a
purposefully designed fragment of teaching that aims at engaging students in
a learning task, problem, and/ or activity. There are different classifications of
didactical situations proposed by different scholars. Didactical situations could be
categorized as theoretical and/or practical; inductive and/or deductive; routine
and problem-based, etc.
We propose the classification of didactical situations based on the idea of cognitive

conflict/tension (Tchoshanov, 1996). We consider cognitive conflicts between the
four main constructs: (1) known (K prior knowledge); (2) unknown (U new
knowledge); (3) theoretical knowledge (T); and (4) applied/ practical knowledge(P).
Thus, we distinguish the following main types of cognitive conflicts and correspond
ing didactical situations as depicted in Figure 12:
DS-1: KT-KP. Between the theoretical known (KT) and the practical known (KP);
DS-2: UT-UP. Between the theoretical unknown (UT) and the practical unknown (UP);
DS-3: UP-UT. Between the practical unknown (UP) and the theoretical unknown (UT);
DS-4: KT-UP. Between the theoretical known (KT) and the practical unknown (UP);
DS-5: KT-UT. Between the theoretical known (KT) and the theoretical unknown (UT);
DS-6: KP-UP. Between the practical known (KP) and the practical unknown (UP);
DS-7: KP-UT. Between the practical known (KP) and the theoretical unknown (UT);
DS-8: KP-KT. Between the practical known (KP) and the theoretical known (KT).
Fig. 12. Classification of didactical situations (DS) based on cognitive conflicts

between known (K) and unknown (U) knowledge (P practical and T theoretical)
Let us illustrate the selected types of didactical situations (DS) using the following
task: Lets start with the following true statement: 10 + 6 16 = 15 + 9 24. Then
lets factor 2 out in the left side and factor 3 out in the right side of the equation:
2 * (5 + 3 8) = 3 * (5 + 3 8). Lets then reduce both sides by the same expression
(5 + 3 8). We obtained 2 = 3. Do you agree with this line of reasoning? Explain why
you agree or disagree.
DS-1: A student has learned the theoretical rule of the division by zero is undefined
some time ago. However, s/he is experiencing a cognitive conflict of applying the
rule to a familiar practical situation: s/he knows most of the operations (e.g., adding,
subtracting, multiplying, factoring, and reducing).
DS-2: A student has just learned a new rule division by zero is undefined and s/he
is facing a new practical situation where s/he needs to apply division as reduction.
DS-3: A student recognizes that there is something wrong in the final statement
2 = 3 but s/he does not know the rule division by zero is undefined yet to justify
her/his empirical hypothesis.
DS-4: A student has learned the property of multiplying by zero (a*0 = 0) some time
ago but s/he has a cognitive conflict of applying this knowledge to a new practical
situation.
DS-5: A student knows that multiplication by zero is allowed (prior theoretical
knowledge) and assumes the same for division why not!? The result 2 = 3
confronts her/his assumption and leads to a new theoretical knowledge you
cannot divide by zero.
DS-6: This type of didactical situation is similar to DS-4 type with one significant
difference: while studying the topic Multiplication a student applied the rule
a*0 = 0 in familiar practical situations. While learning a topic on Division s/he
faced a new situation where the previously learned multiplication rule occurs in a
new veiled form a*0 = b*0.
DS-7: A student knows how to solve the problem 2=3 by using the multiplication
by zero property: if 2*(5 + 3 8) = 3*(5 + 3 8), then 2*0 = 3*0, which leads to
a true statement 0 = 0. Now the student is asked to find another method of solving
the problem which might lead her/him to discover the new division by zero is
undefined rule.
DS-8: A student knows how to solve the problem 2 = 3. Now s/he is challenged by
another non-routine problem, which requires applying the same multiplication by
zero or division by zero rules.
The practical implication of this approach is to examine possible types of cognitive

conflicts between the known and the unknown, the theoretical and the practical
knowledge in order to provide a systematic approach to classification and design of
didactical situations.
3.2. Cognitive Tutoring,

Representations and New Literacies
Technology skills have become increasingly important for active participation in
different social spheres. Considering the need to prepare students to become fully
functional citizens, school curricula have integrated technology innovations meant
to equip students for the work while also developing critical thinking. Cognitive
tutoring is a good example of technology innovation that serves the purpose of
preparing students to meet the requirements of modern society.
Derived from the theory of human learning and performance called Adaptive Control
of ThoughtRational (ACTR; Anderson & Lebiere, 1998), computer tutoring proved
to be an effective method for providing individualized tutoring, incorporating
advances in learning sciences into the classroom, testing associated learning
principles, and adapting them to the needs of students and teachers. Koedinger and
Cobbert (2006) reported that the students who had used Cognitive Tutor Algebra
system performed 15-25% better on the standardized test items taken from the
SAT than the control group. Moreover, their findings revealed that 50 to 100% of
the students utilizing the cognitive tutoring program performed better on problem
solving and representation use. They explained why the Cognitive Tutor Algebra
system enhances student motivation: (1) authentic problem situations make
mathematics more relevant, interesting, and sensible; (2) the majority of students
prefer doing instead of listening and the structure of the Cognitive Tutoring
Algebra problems is similar to playing a video game; (3) students feel safer, less
threatened, and experience less frustration when the feedback and opportunities
for learning are provided by a computer tutor instead of a human tutor; and (4)
students feel empowered knowing that they are mastering mathematics. Stemming
from the ACT-R theory, cognitive tutors resemble good human tutors, as they are
able to monitor individual student performance and learning (Koedinger & Corbett,
2006). In this regard, classroom learning experiences could be greatly enhanced
by cognitive tutors, a measure that would be considerably less costly than hiring
human tutors for one-to-one instruction.
Koedinger and Corbett further explored the pedagogical benefits of cognitive

tutors, which are computer programs based on cognitive models that represent
learner thinking or cognition in the domain of interest (p. 62). The cognitive model
relies on a if , then system to represent the strategies that students may apply
to solve problems. In identifying the strategy selected by a student, and detecting
typical student misconceptions, cognitive tutors are able to provide context-specific
instruction and scaffolding that includes immediate feedback. The if , then rule
is one of the models used in the computer science discipline known as knowledge
engineering (Feigenbaum & McCorduck, 1983) along with logical models, frames,
and semantic webs to solve complex problems requiring high level of human
expertise.
A cognitive tutor utilizes two main features: model tracing and knowledge tracing.
Model tracing involves identifying student`s approach to a problem to provide
individualized assistance as immediate feedback. Since just-in-time feedback
is crucial for students, the authors corroborate this point by highlighting the
studies that found immediate feedback to contribute to accelerated learning with
simultaneous increase in student motivation (Corbett & Anderson, 2001; Schofield,
1995). Unlike model tracing, knowledge tracing monitors each student`s learning
applied to problem-solving and decides whether s/he is ready to start working
on a higher-level task. If the student is not ready yet, the computer program will
provide more practice before moving on to the next level. As shown by Huber
(1990) and Corbett et al. (2001), knowledge tracing is an important feature of
cognitive tutors because it offers students the opportunity to learn at their own
pace and also learn from their own errors without frustrating experiences of
stigmatization among peers. Even though cognitive tutors have been found to be
very effective, experienced teachers still play a key role in the classroom enhanced
by cognitive tutors because they facilitate the learning process by helping students
to make connections between computer-based activities and other types of
classroom activities designed to promote interaction among students. From a

constructionist perspective, the ability to make meaningful connections between
what is being learned and the social context is critical in the process of knowledge
appropriation (Kafai, 2006). Through interactive classroom activities experienced
educators strengthen the implementation of cognitive tutors in assessing students
prior knowledge, debugging misconceptions, helping students to recognize the
applicability of the content learned to real life situations, and also fostering students
self-monitoring and reflective thinking processes (metacognition). Cognitive tutors
with teacher guidance can greatly contribute to the assimilation, accommodation and
appropriation of knowledge using graphical, tabular, and symbolic representations
(Figure 13: http://www.carnegielearning.com/galleries/4/).
Fig. 13. Screenshot of the Cognitive Tutor Algebra system
The multiple modalities used in the Cognitive Tutor Algebra system (e.g., symbolic,
tabular, graphic) are considered to be external representations. However, scholars
claim that representation 3 could refer to both internal and external manifestations
of concepts (Pape & Tchoshanov, 2001). Based on this approach, representations
may be thought of as external stimuli (numerals, equations, graphs, tables,
diagrams, etc.) of concepts or internal cognitive schemata abstractions of ideas
that are developed by a learner through experience. Representation could also
refer to the act of externalizing an internal, mental abstraction. The key question
is the relationship between external and internal representations in learning: how
3
The section on representations is adapted from authors collaborative work with S. Pape
(Pape and Tchoshanov, 2001)
students internal schemata assimilates external representations, and how new

external representations help students to accommodate their emerging internal
representations. Figure 14 depicts the interplay between students internal and
external representations in learning a basic concept of five, as an example.
Fig. 14. The relationship between external and internal representations in developing
understanding of the concept five (modified from Pape and Tchoshanov, 2001)
Both local and national standards require that students should be able to create and
use various forms of representations flexibly to organize, record, and communicate
ideas; to select, apply, and translate among representations; to solve problems, to
investigate, model, and interpret real-world phenomena. The pathway toward the
flexible use of multiple representations, however, is challenging. The development
of students representational thinking is a two-sided process, an interaction of
internalization of external representations and externalization of mental images
(Figure 14). There is a mutual influence between the two forms of representations:
the nature of the external representation influences the nature of the internal one,
and vice versa.
Symbol systems support the cognitive activity by reducing the cognitive load,
clarifying the problem space, and revealing immediate implications. Thus, symbols
or symbol systems help an individual to solve a problem, or to provide an explanation,
prediction, or justification (Perkins & Unger, 1994: 6). At the same time, simplistic
external representations could engender simplistic understandings, while complex
external representations may facilitate students understanding of more complex
phenomena, and vice versa. Finally, representation is an inherent social activity.
When students are asked to represent data in a graph, the graph should not be a
static end result, but rather a vehicle for further discussion to help them establish a
justification within a social context. Therefore, representational thinking is learners
ability to construct, interpret, and communicate effectively with both forms of
representations, external and internal, individually and within social situations
(Pape & Tchoshanov, 2001).
There are various views on the relationship between external and internal
representations. On the one hand, the advocates of a picture theory of
representation (Mitchell, 1994; Wileman, 1980) argue that there is no difference
between external and internal (mental) representations: mental representation is
equivalent to what it represents. On the other hand, some researchers (Arnheim,
1969; Mc Kim, 1972) believe that the development of students thinking is directly
connected to their ability to operate with mental images (e.g., seeing, imagining and
idea-sketching).
Cobb, Yackel, and Wood (1992) criticize the picture theory and claim that this
representational view begins with experts ideas and conceptions and attempts to
reproduce these ideas within instructional materials. Therefore, when learning a
procedure using manipulative materials, for example, learners task is to create a
mapping between the manipulation of these concrete materials and the internal
abstraction. From a constructivist perspective, the mapping between the concrete
materials and the algorithm requires intensive social co-construction of meanings.
Teachers and students co-construct their understanding of the steps in establishing
the mapping while manipulating with the materials.
The conceptualization of representation is also based on recent findings in the

theory of cognition and brain research (Caine & Caine, 1994; Chabris & Kosslyn,
1998). According to these studies, the brain works more effectively while making
representational patterns for encoding (internalizing) and decoding (externalizing)
information. For example, it is almost impossible to memorize a multi-digit number
1123581321345589, unless the students recognize and follow the Fibonacci
pattern, where each succeeding term is the sum of the two preceding. Seeing this
relationship means that the students can easily internalize (e.g., understand) and
externalize (e.g., reproduce) the number based on the pattern.
Unfortunately, as opposed to the varied and complex patterns generated in the human
brain, most of the content offered to students is typically presented in abstract/
symbolic and linear forms. The cognitive capacity of the human brain, however,
more closely resembles multiple representational patterning: combinations of
concrete, visual, and abstract. It seems reasonable that the language of the brain
consists of multiple representations. Therefore, the development of students
thinking requires a multiple representational approach.
As discussed before, the critics of the representational view of mind (Cobb et al.,
1992) believe that it is problematic because the instructional materials developed
by experts embody their conceptions of mathematical ideas, and may not be readily
available or understandable to the novice. Only when the use of representation(s)
is built up in the classroom as a cultural activity students are able to come to an
understanding of the meanings of the concrete materials and the associated
symbolism. That is, for external manifestations and the internal concept they
represent to be connected with students experiences, representations must be
viewed as vehicles for exploration within social contexts that allow for multiple
understandings of content (Seeger, 1998).
Students need to practice the use of multiple representations in various situations.

Practicing representation(s) must be a part of the social environment; learning
to construct and interpret representations involves learning to participate in the
complex practices of communication and reasoning in which the representations
are used (DiSessa et al., 1991; Greeno & Hall, 1997: 361). Initial students attempts
to portray phenomena using representations often involve non-standard symbolism
that is negotiated and refined through the discourse with peers and teacher (DiSessa
et al., 1991).
Representations must be thought of as tools for cognitive activity rather than

products or the end result of a task. For example, the models (e.g., graphs or other
pictorial representations) produced may be used to help students to explain or
justify an argument. When representations are used as tools for understanding
and communication, they are constructed and adapted for the purposes at hand
(Greeno & Hall,1997: 362). Representations allow individuals to track intermediate
results, ideas, and inferences. Since an external representation embodies the
important relationships presented in data or a word problem, they lighten the
cognitive load of the individual and serve to organize individuals further work on
a problem. Given the representation, the learner may work on the alternative parts
of the problem. Representations then may be used to facilitate an argument and to
support conclusions.
Finally, the sequence and combination of multiple representations are important.

A study on trigonometric problem solving and proof by high school students
showed an impact of representational sequence on students understanding
(Tchoshanov, 1996). The first group of students (pure-analytic) was taught by a
traditional analytic (algebraic) approach to solving and proof. The second group
(pure-visual) was taught using a visual (geometric) approach with enactive
(i.e., geoboard as a manipulative aid) and iconic (pictorial) representations. The
third group (representational) was taught by a combination of analytic and
visual means using translations among different representational modes. The
representational group scored 26% higher than the visual group and 43% higher
than the analytic group. This experiment also showed that the students in the pure
(analytic and/or visual) groups stuck to one particular mode of representation;
they were reluctant to use different representations. For instance, the students in
the pure-visual group tried to avoid any analytic solutions: they were comfortable
only if they could use visual (geometric) problem-solving and proof techniques.
The students in the representational group were more flexible switching from
one mode of representation to another and discussing solutions with their peers
for better understanding of mathematical concepts. Therefore, any intensive
use of only one particular mode of representation does not improve students
conceptual understanding and representational thinking. This study also proved
the importance of students social interaction using different models (e.g., concrete,
visual, and abstract) in the process of developing representational thinking.
The development of students understanding and representational thinking

requires the combination of multiple representations as well as the interaction
between internal and external representations. Through activity the learner begins
to abstract meaning. However, we must be cautious not to advocate the position that
this abstraction occurs solely within the individual. It is through the externalization
of these abstractions within social environments that learners begin to negotiate
the meanings of their understandings and refine these representations accordingly.
The interrelated processes of internalization and externalization are called cognitive
representation which reflects both the process (internalization) and the product
(externalization) of representational thinking.
In the digital age, the idea of cognitive representation is closely connected to the
emerging concept of new literacies. Technology acts as a platform for new literacies
and shared learning. As a result of the expanding technological repertoire, the
identity of literacy is also continuously expanding. Learning sciences position
literacy within the new and continuously advancing technological landscape. As a
result of the new intersection created by the merging of literacy and technology,
the new problem space was created (Reinking et al., 1998). New opportunities for
communication are provided through electronic mail, discussion threads, interactive
chats and collaborative data bases. New literacy and technology discourses have
emerged as students engage in individual and collective enterprise (Palincsar &
Ladewski, 2006). Nixon (2003) recognizes the expanding definitions of literacy as
a repertoire of practice for communicating and accomplishing goals in particular
social and cultural contexts (p. 300). Palincsar & Ladewski (2006) discuss multiple
forms of literacy that are needed for students to access, interpret, decode and
manipulate various technological tools. Expanding on the idea of new literacies,
Perez Tornero and Varis (2010) analyze an impact of digital age and information
society on media literacy which is required by the convergence of media, both
analogical and digital, and new multimedia platforms (p. 33).
New literacies require sets of skill and strategies for successful use and adaption
of the rapidly changing information and communication technologies. The changes
are guided by ten principles that include global community, internet use, literacy
and technology transactions, centrality of strategic knowledge, social constructs of
learning, and the role of a teacher (Leu et al., 2000). While the role of a teacher
is listed lastly, this component is certainly not the least, as teachers are central to
facilitating students navigation through the new literacies that link education to
the expanding technological landscape. It is imperative that teachers realize and
accept their important role in facilitating students operational, cultural and critical
literacy in the digital age.
Operational, cultural, and critical literacies are three dimensions of literacy that
are related to learning sciences (Palincsar & Ladewski, 2006). Operational literacy
consists of ones competences with tools, procedures and techniques in written
language proficiency, particularly in navigating hypermedia text which is primarily
reader-driven. When students are competent with these features, they are better
equipped to be productively engaged in the use of new technologies to develop
deeper understanding of a content domain. Therefore, studying literacy in todays
technological world necessitate a consideration for incorporating multimedia,
hypermedia and hypertext environments which are fluid, spatial, decentered,
bottom up and playful (Ibid.: 302), as well as being reader driven, giving the
readers the freedom to choose the ways to navigate through such environments.
These features, in turn, suggest that new literacies are constantly changing as new
technologies emerge.
Cultural literacy is defined as a competence with the meaning system of a practice

(Palincsar & Ladewski, 2006: 302) and reflects the key idea that literacy is not a
unitary construct but rather is embedded in and develops out of the social practices
of a culture expressed by Gee (1991, 1996). Based on this perspective, the study
of literacy opens in multiple ways including global media culture that became an
integral part of the youths affiliations and identities. Hulls (2003) ethnographic
project Digital Underground Storytelling for Youth is an example of how the
cultural literacy could be reinforced in the community. The aim of this project was
to close the digital divide and provide youth with access to new technologies and
a context in which they can create, envision, and revise, represent themselves and
their ideas, and learn the power of communication (Palincsar & Ladewski, 2006:
308). Moje et al. (2004) investigation addresses the importance of links between
the worlds of family and school and illustrates the power of bridging perspective
to the study of learning. According to this perspective, individuals occupy several
spaces, each of which offers an opportunity to engage in literacy learning. Home,
community, and peer networks constitute the first space, whereas the second space
refers to the contexts experienced in schools, workplaces, and churches, where
more formalized language and literacy are used. The bridging context between these
two spaces is called the third space. The cultural literacy capitalizes on the funds of
knowledge defined as an intellectual and social knowledge existing in families and
communities and ways of using language and print literacy that shape students
interactions with texts in and out of school (Palincsar and Ladewski, 2006: 399).
Although the students funds of knowledge are rich with possibilities to build
connections between in- and out-of-school contexts and deepen understanding
of content knowledge, teachers seldom utilize these funds in classroom. Teachers
need to be aware and develop a third space by engaging students in experiments,
discussions, and reading and writing activities that focus on texts and experiences
of different communities (Ibid.: 399).
Critical literacy. The ability to attend to how texts represent the self and others is
a critical literacy. Information and communication technologies have opened new
vistas for research, inclusive of exploring learning from media and texts, having
implications for effective engineering of learning and enhancing students proficiency.
New technologies have shifted learning spaces from linear to hypermedia learning;
from instruction to construction and discovery; from teacher-centered to learner-
centered classrooms; from focusing on students ability to absorb material to
learning how to navigate and how to learn; from schools to lifelong learning; from
one-size-fits-all teaching to customized, differentiated learning; from learning as a
torture to learning as fun; from teachers as transmitters to teachers as facilitators
(Tapscott, 2009). Teachers continue to be the critical component of students
literacy acquisition and development along with new technologies that are rapidly
and increasingly gaining influence in todays classrooms.
Understanding the media and technology influence on literacy learning is critical

to teaching. Students embrace technology and often are more comfortable with its
use than teachers are. Teachers need to understand the emerging digital reality
and use it to their instructional advantage. Bridging digital culture to the classroom
context impacts instruction in positive ways by increasing student engagement
in learning. The new generation of children is the first to grow up completely
surrounded by technology (Tapscott, 2009) and teachers should learn to address
and take advantage of the new literacies and the learning spaces that the digital era
has provided. To do so, teachers need to advance their own levels of operational,
critical, and cultural literacy. Therefore, providing professional development and
training is central to support teachers in accepting and acting in their important
roles as facilitators of the new literacies.
New literacies also advance a reflection upon Lave and Wengers (1991) situated
learning theory, which places the importance on the authentic social interaction
as being fundamental to learning. The authentic social interactions for literacy
learning are taking place through the use of new technologies, creating a com
munity of practice, which reinforces developmentally appropriate versions of the
situated and meaningful practices of experts (Sawyer, 2006: 5). When students
are engaged in authentic and situated practices to solve problems through the use
of new technologies, they socialize with communities that share similar interests
resulting in valuable benefits from others who might be more knowledgeable in
that particular discourse. Authentic experiences create a learning culture that
supports students learning and thinking.
Authentic practices have gained increasing attention from educators and

researchers. It is believed that the engagement in authentic practice activities is
beneficial for students for three main reasons: they bridge disciplinary knowledge
to the outside world; they increase students` motivation by making content
meaningful; they enable students to understand the structure of knowledge
(e.g.,epistemology). Edelson and Reiser (2006) discuss the importance of
engaging students in authentic practices that mirror the practices of scientists.
An authentic practice is described as the activities through which experts in a
domain apply their understanding to achieve valued goals... when we talk about
engaging students in authentic practices, we are talking about developmentally
appropriate versions of the authentic practices of experts (Edelson & Reiser,
2006: 352). However, implementation of authentic practices suggests pedagogical
and practical challenges. Among the pedagogical challenges one can mention: first,
teachers may have never incorporated these practices and second, teachers have
limited time and resources to support the implementation. To respond to these
challenges, a systemic perspective in design is needed to include the following
strategies: (a) situate authentic practices in meaningful contexts; (b) reduce the
complexity of authentic practices or cognitive load; (c)make implicit elements
of authentic practices explicit; and (d) sequence learning activities according to
developmental progression. Along with the strategies, three key elements in design
research are considered critical in the implementation of authentic practices:
classroom activities (curriculum); tools and resources; and social structures, which
relate to communication, interaction, and learning culture. Most importantly,
authentic practices require authentic assessment which will be addressed later
inChapter 3.4.
3.3. R esearch-Based Strategies

in Engineering of Learning
Engineering of learning depends on many factors including but not limited to the
knowledge of learning theories and learning sciences that will inform outcome-
oriented design of learning objectives, engineering of content, and assessment
toward creating effective learning environment. Along with the guiding principles
of learning (discussed in Chapter 2), learning theories and learning sciences inform
a teacher-engineer about research-based strategies to support learning.
Below we consider some research-based strategies to address the guiding principles

of learning in engaging students prior knowledge, connecting factual knowledge
and conceptual understanding, and fostering students meta-cognitive and self-
monitoring abilities.
Strategies to engage
students prior knowledge
In order to build on students prior knowledge and experiences, a teacher-engineer
should design and construct teaching products and select instructional materials
according to strategies to ensure:
right level of difficulty

signaling
varying content and complexity
contiguity
minimizing cognitive load.
Let us consider the strategy which suggests the use of learning materials at
the right level of difficulty. The right level of difficulty means that the learning
material should not be too easy or too complex. If the learning material is too
easy, a student is not challenged enough. If the material is too complex, a student
may give up. In both cases, student motivation, attention, and engagement will
be significantly decreased (Ambrose et al., 2010; Metcalfe & Kornell, 2005; Wolfe
et al., 1998). The learning material should be at a level of the students zone of
proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978), so that s/he could learn and understand
new material with some support and scaffolding. The same strategy should be
applied while designing assignments and assessments. Assignments should not
be too difficult or too easy. The right level of difficulty in case of assignments and
assessments means that students cannot complete the assignment effortlessly.
However, they can successfully complete it with some cognitive effort, support
and/or scaffolding. If assignments/assessments are too difficult or too easy,
students may get frustrated or bored (Ambrose et al., 2010; Metcalfe & Kornell,
2005; Wolfe et al., 1998).
Along with the right level of difficulty, before starting a lesson a teacher-engineer
should provide an overall structure and highlight the organization of the lesson.
This strategy is called signaling and includes using outlines, section headings,
bullets, which draw students attention to the most important points in the lesson
(Harp & Mayer, 1998; Mautone & Mayer, 2001; Mayer, 2005). Moreover, the learning
material should be presented in a way that the points that require attention are
highlighted, trying to avoid irrelevant information (even if it might be artistically
and aesthetically appealing). Appealing but irrelevant information (e.g., text and
graphics) distracts students attention and leads to missing important points
(Kalyuga, et al., 1999).
Opportunity to work on problems that vary in content and complexity will help
students to develop multiple layers of knowledge including facts, procedures,
concepts, and models, and to connect these layers (Rouet, 2006; Spiro et al., 1991).
Moreover, a teacher-engineer should design a learning environment where students
could work collectively on challenging real-world problems. In a cooperative
problem-solving activity, students prior knowledge should be linked to challenging
real-world problems, which will motivate student and facilitate learning by applying
multiple levels of knowledge and skills (Johnson & Johnson, 1999, 2009; Karau &
Williams, 1993; Hodara, 2011).
The contiguity strategy suggests introducing closely in time and space the concepts
and ideas that need to be connected. By implementing this strategy, a teacher-
engineer will make associations stronger, for instance, when corresponding words
and images are presented simultaneously rather than successively (Mayer, 2005).
The minimizing cognitive load strategy recommends to divide complex learning

material into smaller parts, thus students learn better. This strategy is increasingly
important in designing materials for flipped instruction and other multimedia
learning environments. While designing narrated screencasting or animation, a
teacher-engineer should present it in segments rather than a single continuous
unit, so that students could control it at their individual pace; this will help to
avoid overwhelming students with too much information at once (Mayer, 2005;
Mayer & Moreno, 2003).
Strategies to develop
students procedural fluency
within the conceptual framework
The strategies to connect students factual knowledge and conceptual understanding
include but are not limited to:
desirable difficulty
cognitive conflict
adaptive fading
in-depth questioning
multiple representations
engaging in reading and writing
generation strategy
timely constructive feedback.
The desirable difficulty strategy requires effortful cognitive processing by students

in learning new knowledge. The learning material at the desirable level of difficulty
will make it more memorable. Therefore, rather than introducing the learning
material in the same order as it is in a textbook, a teacher-engineer should modify
the material presentation to facilitate students active information processing.
Moreover, learning is enhanced when students put additional effort to organize
the material themselves, which promotes long-term memorizing of information
(Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1985; Bjork, 1988).
The cognitive conflict strategy suggests that in-depth learning is often achieved by
engaging students in problem solving situations that are non-routine, paradoxical,
and/or counterintuitive to their current knowledge. When students encounter
situations that are in dissonance with their existing schemata, a cognitive
conflict occurs that could lead to a conceptual change in students learning
and understanding. A teacher-engineer should design situations of cognitive
conflict by presenting paradoxes, refutations, and/or asking students to predict
an answer, knowing that students responses would be most likely conflicting
with the solution (Chinn & Brewer, 1993,1998; Eryilmaz, 2002; Guzzetti, 2000;
Hynd,2001).
A teacher-engineer should alternate examples (that illustrate a solution) and

problems (that students have to solve on their own). Illustrative examples are helpful
for low-achieving students. Research shows that fading (or gradual elimination)
of examples depending on student performance (adaptive fading) leads to better
knowledge retention, compared to fading of examples in the same manner for all
students (fixed fading) (Kalyuga et al., 2001; Salden et al., 2009; Schworm & Renkl,
2002; Trafton & Reiser, 1993).
Another research-based strategy in promoting student learning and understanding

is an in-depth explanatory questioning technique. In-depth questions include cause-
and-effect questions, why or why-not questions, what-if questions, etc. While
using the in-depth questioning technique, a teacher-engineer should encourage
students to think aloud by speaking and/or writing their explanations to answer
the questions (Craig et al., 2006; Graesser & Person, 1994; Pressley et al., 1992).
The use of multiple representations (including concrete, abstract, graphical,

descriptive) is an important strategy in building students conceptual
understanding. Most of low-achieving students may understand a concept
with concrete examples using manipulatives. However, using only concrete
representation will limit student learning. A teacher-engineer should gradually
switch concrete examples into abstract representations (e.g., symbols, formulas,
equations) to help students transfer knowledge to new situations (Goldstone &
Son, 2005; Kaminiski, Sloutsky, & Heckler, 2006; Richland, Zur, & Holyoak, 2007).
At the same time, a teacher-engineer should connect graphical representations
(e.g., graphs, pictures, videos) with descriptive representations of a concept (rather
than simply presenting the text alone) to support student learning. Following the
recommendation of the contiguity strategy, graphics and accompanying textual
description should be presented close in space and time (Clark & Mayer, 2003;
Mayer, 2001; Mayer et al.,2005).
Research suggests that involving students in reading and writing is correlated with
the improvement in students critical thinking, complex reasoning and writing
skills. Therefore, while designing a course, a teacher-engineer should include
assignments in both intensive reading (more than forty pages per week) and
writing (more than twenty pages per course) in the syllabus to increase student
performance in critical thinking and writing (Arum & Roska, 2011). Along with
reading and writing, it is recommended to use quizzes frequently to re-expose
students to key concepts in order to actively recall/generate information. This
strategy is based on the generation effect reported by Butler and Roedinger (2007)
and others. It is also well documented that learning is enhanced, when students
construct responses compared to selecting answers among multiple choices.
Congruently, timely feedback provided after each quiz/test contributes to student
learning and understanding of the material covered in the test (Butler & Roediger,
2007; Dempster, 1997; Pyc & Rawson, 2010; Roediger & Karpicke, 2006a, 2006b).
At the same time, it is recommended that timely feedback with clear learning goals
should be provided as a formative assessment with the purpose of improving
student learning, as opposed to summative assessment with a focus on evaluation
of what students have learned (Ambrose et al., 2010). Timely constructive feedback
(compared to delayed summative feedback) is important to student learning and
significantly contributes to the improvement of students performance on exams
(Ambrose et al., 2010; Black et al., 2003; Dihoff et al., 2004; Kulik & Kulik, 1988;
Wiliam, 2007).
Strategies to foster students metacognition

and self-monitoring
Below we will consider the research-based strategies that support students
metacognitive and self-monitoring activities:
debugging misconceptions
active information processing
constant self-monitoring
mixed practice
spacing effect
goal-directed practice.
The debugging misconceptions strategy (briefly discussed in Chapter 2) helps a

teacher-engineer to recognize, address, and correct students common mistakes.
In order to correct students misconceptions, a teacher-engineer should create a
bridge between the prior concept and the new one using meaningful examples and
model-based reasoning. They could help students to construct new representations
different from their initial intuitive conceptions and make them aware of their
own misconceptions. Awareness is the first step in helping students to fix their
own misconceptions. Next is developing students epistemological reasoning
(beliefs about the nature of knowledge) in order to facilitate conceptual change for
revising their own misconceptions. The research also suggests to engage students
in Interactive Conceptual Instruction (ICI), which incorporates ongoing teacher-
student dialogue and the use of research-based instruments to provide formative
feedback, conceptual terrain of student learning including subject matter knowledge
and possible misconceptions (Savinainen & Scott, 2002). Once the students have
overcome their misconceptions, the teacher-engineer should engage them in the
arguing to learn type of classroom discourses to help strengthen their new concept
(Savinainen & Scott, 2002; American Psychological Association, 2011).
An active information processing is another research-based recommendation to

foster student metacognition and self-monitoring. Learning techniques such as
outlining, connecting, and synthesizing information improve student performance
(e.g., long-term retention) compared to rereading materials or using more passive
techniques. Along with reorganizing and reviewing the material, students may
create their own testing situations such as restating the information in their own
words and synthesizing information from multiple sources (e.g., lecture notes,
textbooks, web resources) (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000). The research
shows that students learn better when they verbally (rather than by typing) explain
the material to themselves using self-generated inferences (Ainsworth & Loizou,
2003; Chi et al., 1989; De Bruin, Rikers, & Schmidt, 2007; Griffin, Wiley, & Thiede,
2008; Roscoe & Chi, 2008).
A teacher-engineer should constantly engage students in a variety of metacognitive

activities to monitor and control their own learning, including but not limited
to assessing the difficulty of the assigned task, evaluating their own strengths
and weaknesses, planning their actions, self-monitoring their performance, and

assessing the degree to which the task is complete. In order to be more effective,
the results of self-monitoring should be shared with the teacher and the peers
(Ambrose et al, 2010; Blerkom & Blerkom, 2004; Brown & Frank, 1990; Chang,
2007; Zimmerman, 2001).
The study by Smith and Vela (2001) claims that when the material is studied in one
environment, associations are established between what is studied and contextual
factors, preventing the transfer of learning. Contrary, when the same material is
studied in multiple environments, its associations with one or a few particular
locations dissipates. This, in turn, facilitates students flexible recall of the material
in the new and different environments (ibid). The strategy called mixed practice,
when the student solves problems related to different topics within the same study
session, improves student learning compared to the blocked practice where all
problems are taken from the same topic (Rohrer, 2009; Taylor & Rohrer, 2010).
The research conducted by Capeda et al. (2008), Kornell (2009), and Rohrer &
Taylor (2006) indicates that students learn better when they spread their study
over several shorter practice sessions, rather than concentrate it into one longer
session. The practice distributed over time results in better retention of material
than cramming (Ibid.). The spacing effect increases, if a student is engaged in the
distributed practice that focuses on a specific goal. The goal-directed practice
supported by the timely targeted feedback, promotes greater learning gains
(Ambrose et al., 2010; Ericsson, Krampe, & Tescher-Romer, 2003; Rothkopf &
Billington, 1979). Finally, while designing a course, a teacher-engineer should make
a schedule of course quizzes, tests and exams, because students benefit more from
repeated testing when they expect exams rather than when exams are unexpected
(Szupnar, McDermott, & Roediger, 2007).
The above research-based strategies play an important role in the engineering of

learning through designing engaged learning experiences and effective learning
environments.
3.4. Assessment of Learning Outcomes

The problem of assessment is one of the key issues that directly affects the
effectiveness of learning. The overall student success in learning largely depends
on how well the assessment is designed and connected to learning objectives and
content.
There are different approaches to designing assessment (Arter,1990; Hart,1994;

Herman et al.,1992): outcome-based assessment; standard-based assessment;
competency-based assessment; performance-based assessment. The main
difference between these approaches is orientation either toward a product (e.g.,
outcome-based and standard-based assessment) or toward the process of learning
(competency-based and performance-based assessment), although all these

approaches are important links in the teaching and learning chain: standard
competency performance outcome.
The ultimate goal of assessment is to strengthen students responsibility for the

process and outcome of learning. Research suggests that the future projection of
traditional assessment should be revised toward authentic assessment changing
its dimensions from discrete to continuous; from isolated to interdisciplinary;
from focusing on a single measure to more diverse assessment; from primarily
quantitative to qualitative and integrated assessment; from prescribed to flexible;
from standardized to open; and, last but not least, from assessment to self-
assessment (Tchoshanov, 2011). Let us briefly describe each of the approaches.
From discrete to continuous assessment. In the traditional system, assessment is

seen as a discrete process: it ends at the stage of the final exam. The main idea of
the revised approach is that learning is recognized as a continuous process that
does not terminate after the final exam. Moreover, the traditional understanding
of the assessment as a measure of the end product should be revisited toward the
assessment as a process of achieving the desired outcome. With this revision, for
instance, it becomes apparent that students have a right to make mistakes in the
process of learning and correct mistakes as they progress toward achieving the
desired learning outcomes.
From isolated to interdisciplinary assessment. The traditional assessment is

usually aimed at testing students skills and knowledge of a specific topic within
a given subject domain. In most of the cases the assessed knowledge and skills are
isolated and highly technical by their nature. Accordingly, an assessment primarily
reflects the low cognitive level of students ability at the level of memorization and
procedures without connections. The revised approach calls for the assessment
that involves the development of interdisciplinary knowledge and skills at a higher
level of cognitive demand (e.g., understanding and reasoning).
From focusing on a single measure to a more diverse assessment. The traditional

assessment is usually limited to a single test. Moreover, most of the tests used in
the traditional assessment are multiple choice. As a rule, traditional tests measure
single type of intelligence: for example, mathematics tests mostly measure logical-
mathematical intelligence, language arts tests measure linguistic intelligence, etc.
Moreover, the traditional assessment is mainly individual and does not include
group assessment. The revised approach encourages diversity in assessment:
variability of instruments, diversity of assessment methods, measurement of
multiple intelligences, inclusion of individual and group assessment, etc.
From primarily quantitative to qualitative and integrated assessment. One of the key
approaches is transition from primarily quantitative assessment to the assessment
of multi-dimensional quantitative and qualitative characteristics of student
learning. The traditional quantitative assessment does not always reflect real level
of students learning. Moreover, in some cases, it only provides a distorted estimate
of where a student is in his learning curve. The quantitative assessment often
overlooks such important characteristics of student learning as communication

skills, ability to work in a team, level of student effort, individual style of thinking, etc.
In order to evaluate these characteristics, assessment needs to include qualitative
information through observations, interviews, analysis of student work, to name
a few. The qualitative component of the assessment will greatly complement and
enrich its quantitative component to provide a more comprehensive assessment of
students learning. Integration of quantitative and qualitative methods will help to
make a shift from a short-term assessment of students knowledge and skills to a
long-term evaluation of students intellectual potential as a learner.
From fixed and prescribed to more flexible assessment. The traditional system of
assessment is strictly determined by policy regulations (standards, format, time
factor, etc.). Of course, the traditional assessment policies have some advantages:
they help to standardize assessment procedures and make it more objective.
However, in traditional assessment procedures play a role of a catcher: a student
is punished for what s/he did not learn or did not know. At the same time, it shapes
the type of mentality what is assessed is what is valued. The revised projection of
assessment acknowledges and evaluates everything that a student knows and can
do in the subject domain even beyond the established programs and standards.
From standardized to open assessment. The standardized assessment is stressful.

Studies have shown that under stress students cannot demonstrate even those
knowledge and skills that they actually possess. A true assessment should be open
and natural that relieves students stress and tension. Moreover, open assessment
should be connected to activities and projects that have personal, cultural and
social relevance to students. Surveys, interviews, self-reflections, peer-assessment
are some of the methods that could add certain level of openness and authenticity
to traditional assessment.
From assessment to self-and-peer-assessment. In the traditional assessment, the

answer to the question who is the judge? is easy; of course, it is the teacher who
controls the assessment. The teacher evaluates students achievements and reveals
gaps in students knowledge. The revised projection approach of the assessment
recognizes students self-and-peer-assessment (Sadler and Good, 2006). Moreover,
the teachers role as a judge is transformed to the role of a consultant, facilitator
and advocate. Interaction between teacher and student is a natural extension of
collaboration in achieving desired learning outcomes.
The revised dimensions emphasize characteristics of authentic assessment (e.g.,

continuity, diversity, integration, flexibility, openness, self-and-peer-assessment)
that could facilitate effective learning environments in both face-to-face and on-line
education.
One of the forms of such innovative authentic assessment is a learning portfolio

(Johnson and Rose, 1997, Tierney, Carter and Desai, 1991) or e-portfolio in case
of online learning (Challis, 2005). In general sense, a learning portfolio is a form
of organization and a process of collecting, reporting, and analyzing the products
of student learning. An e-portfolio (or e-folio) is defined as a digitized collection
of artifacts including demonstrations, resources, and accomplishments that

represent an individual, group, or institution (Lorenzo & Ittelson, 2005). Some
scholars characterize a learning portfolio as a collection/exhibition of student
work that comprehensively demonstrates not only academic achievements, but
also the effort put forward by the student as well as the demonstrated progress in
achieving learning outcomes (Arter, 1990; De Fina,1992). The portfolio could also
be considered as a focused, systematic and continuous evaluation and student self-
assessment of learning outcomes (Tierney et al., 1991). The main purpose of the
learning portfolio is to showcase the student learning.
What is included in the portfolio? First, there is no clear list of items that should be
included in a portfolio. This entirely depends on the requirements of a particular
course/teacher. Second, the range of materials to be included in the portfolio
also depends on learning objectives and expected outcomes of the course. Third,
composition of the portfolio could also be restricted by certain items for inclusion.
In general, a learning portfolio could consist of student work and evidence collected
by a student and the documents submitted by others including teachers, peers,
parents, etc. (Arter, 1990; De Fina, 1992; Johnson and Rose, 1997). The scope of
items of a portfolio can be broad: samples of projects; students independent work;
homework; group work; presentations; essays; critiques; annotated bibliographies;
literature review; student autobiography; journal log; collection of media resources
(e.g., photographs, videos, sites, online encyclopedias) related to the subject domain;
graphic work; spreadsheets; laboratory work; student resume; extracurricular
activities; awards; etc.
Along with the student work, the learning portfolio could include evidence from
teachers, classmates, parents, etc. This list could be also as long as defined by course
requirements. Samples might include: teacher observations; evidence of teacher-
student communication (e.g., emails, interviews, conversations); attendance
checklist; copies of teachers notes to parents, the list of assessments and teachers
comments on student work; the letters of support/reference from classmates,
parents, community organizations; etc.
Aside from the student work and evidence from others, it is highly desirable that
the portfolio includes the following essential elements: a title page; a cover letter
describing the purpose and the brief composition of the portfolio; the content of
the portfolio with the list of its main elements; reflection statement. This provides
potential readers of the portfolio with a structure and makes it customer-friendly.
Some scholars advise to use two types of learning portfolios: a working portfolio
and a final portfolio. The working portfolio could be considered as a depository
of all student work that s/he produces during a term (a quarter or a semester).
Further, a student could select from the working portfolio those items that were
either required by a teacher or considered by the student as best evidence of her/
his effort and progress to be included in the final portfolio. In case of items
selected by the students for the inclusion in the final portfolio, s/he can make sticky
notes (physical or digital) on the margins of the best samples indicating my best
work, my favorite project, the best thought-provoking article, etc. The teacher
could also select from the working portfolio additional items that s/he considers
original, interesting and deserving merit.
Technological advances allow composing and presenting a portfolio in a digital

format through open sources specially designed for e-portfolios such as, for
example, mahara.org (Figure 15).
Fig. 15. Open source website (mahara.org) for the e-portfolio development
In some U.S. teacher training colleges during the final year of study, future teachers
can use the e-portfolio developed as a requirement of their coursework for the
employment purposes.
How learning portfolios can be assessed? The issue of portfolio assessment is rather
complicated. First, the mandatory minimum and the optional maximum of items
included in the portfolio should be clearly defined. Second, the rubrics, as well as
the distribution of weight between the elements of the portfolio, should also be
explicitly formulated. Third, summative score on the portfolio elements should be
eventually converted to the grading system used in the institution.
Challis (2005) presents a checklist for a high quality e-portfolio that includes the
following criteria: selection of material; level of students reflection; content of the
e-portfolio; use of multimedia; design of the e-portfolio; and customer-friendly
navigation. Each criterion is described further through the list of specific descriptors.
For instance, the criterion of selection of materials for e-portfolio requires it to
be relevant (e.g., everything should be related to the purpose and audience) and
thoughtfully structured (e.g., each point/example/illustration makes a useful
contribution). The criterion of reflection should reveal the depth of students
understanding, self-awareness, growth, and responsiveness. Thecriterion of content
should reflect the depth and breadth of thinking, as well as contextualization and
personalization. It also reflects how accurately the content of the portfolio is and
succinctly written and polished. The criterion of multimedia use addresses how the
selected digital resources enhance the content and engage a reader, how appropriate
and purposeful is the selection, and how well it is integrated into the e-portfolio. The
criterion of design evaluates whether the portfolio is uncluttered and elegant, well
organized and coherent. The criterion of navigation requires that the portfolio is fully
hyperlinked, clear, intuitive, and allows users to select their own pathways (Challis,
2005). An example of a grading rubric for portfolio assessment is presented below.
An excellent portfolio is characterized by comprehensiveness; it meets the main

criteria on material selection, level of reflection, use of multimedia, and navigation.
The content of the portfolio shows students consistent effort and significant
progress toward achieving desirable learning outcomes. The content and design
of the portfolio demonstrate quality, creativity, originality, and ingenuity. The
navigation is clear and intuitive.
A good portfolio shows students significant effort and progress toward major
learning objectives. However, some of the criteria are not fully met. The content
and design of the portfolio demonstrate the certain level of quality without distinct
creativity and originality.
An average portfolio contains evidence of student satisfactory progress through the

course. The content and design of the portfolio are limited to the required elements
without distinct quality, creativity, and originality. Most of the criteria are not fullymet.
A poor portfolio does not contain enough information to judge on students satis
factory progress through the course. The content and design of the portfolio show
limited or no effort to demonstrate its quality and originality. The navigation is poor.
Let us summarize the main benefits of using learning portfolios in education. In

contrast to the traditional approach, which usually separates teaching, learning, and
assessment, a portfolio attempts to integrate these major components. A portfolio
allows for using both quantitative and qualitative methods of assessment through
evaluation and analysis of student products and demonstrated effort. Portfolio
approach encourages using multiple ways of assessing student performance,
including teacher, peer and self-assessment. Portfolio promotes teacher-student
collaboration in assessment. A portfolio could be used as a form of continuous
assessment of learning progress that goes beyond a particular course. Finally, a
portfolio can be easily integrated into the professional portfolio for employment
and job seeking purposes.
Chapter 4
Engineering
of Content
This chapter deals with the following main issues:
modular design and content development;

content interactivity and content
communication;
engineering of online learning.
Chapter 4. Engineering of Content 93
4.1. M
odular Design
and Content Development
Engineering of content includes three major components:
1) content development;
2) content interactivity, and
3) content communication.
The content development is a the key element in the engineering of learning and
it involves the process of planning and designing a variety of learning materials
such as modules, activities, readings, discussions, assignments, assessments, and
other items to support learning objectives of the course. Modular design is one of
the most effective approaches used in the content development, particularly, in
the design of online learning content.
Modular design. More broadly, modular design or modularity is defined as an

approach that subdivides a system into smaller parts (modules) that can be
independently created and then used in different systems to drive multiple
functionalities (Clark and Baldwin, 2000). A modular design can be characterized
by the following features: partitioning into reusable units consisting of isolated,
functional, and self-contained elements; well-defined entry and exit characteristics
of a module; flexibility in revision, change, and replacement of a module as
needed. Modularity stands as one of the basic principles of the general systems
theory. The principle of modularity determines the dynamics and the mobility of
the system. Moreover, the system itself can be represented as a set of modules or
treated as a separate module in the structure of a larger system.
The idea of using modular design in education was initiated in the 1970-ies
(Goldschmidt and Goldschmidt 1974; Russell, 1974; and others) to provide self-
paced individualized instruction. Scholars have outlined distinctive features of
the modular design: breakdown of the learning content into manageable parts
(modules); screening of the content in order to eliminate extras; maximizing
self-paced individualized learning. A learning module is defined as a self-
contained independent unit of a planned series of learning activities designed
to help students accomplish certain well-defined objectives (Goldsmith &
Goldsmith, 1973, p: 16) and it usually consists of learning objectives, content and
activities, skill practice, and assessment. Sometimes module is also called a unit.
A module may take several class periods, lessons, or, in some cases, several weeks
to complete.
The traditional modular structure is limited and may include the following
elements in a module: list of learning objectives, text (usually, in PDF format),and
a test. In other cases, a module may include presentation (usually, in PowerPoint
format), screencast, or video clip. The composition of elements in the module
may also vary. The key question is whether and how modules structure supports
94 Chapter 4. Engineering of Content
student learning. This was a critical question in developing modules structure in

the authors previous work (Tchoshanov 1996, 2011). We believe that modules
structure and its elements should reflect the guiding principles of learning:
building on students prior knowledge, developing students procedural fluency
in a conceptual framework, and engaging students in metacognitive and self-
reflective activities (Donovan & Bransford, 2005). Therefore, there are three
main elements in a module: introductory elements, core elements, and applied
elements as presented in Figure 16 (Tchoshanov, 1996). Pre-assessment and
introductory elements address students prior knowledge. Modules core and
some applied elements aim at developing students mathematical proficiency
and procedural fluency within a conceptual framework. Applied elements such
as generalization and debugging also focus on fostering metacognitive and self-
monitoring skills.
Fig. 16. The structure of a module/unit
Let us briefly describe each element of a module/unit. The pre-assessment

element is designed to evaluate and determine students readiness to learn the
content of the unit. The introductory elements prepare students to learn the unit
core. The unit objectives identify what students should know, understand and be
able to do upon completion of the unit. The prior knowledge element consists
of review of students common preconceptions, skills, and experiences that may
impact the learning of the unit core. The unit map provides a holistic picture of
the content to be learned in the unit and represents the learning pathway through
the unit. The unit project addresses the evolution and origins of fundamental
concepts and ideas in the unit; it may include inquiry-type, problem-based
explorations. The language and communication element identifies and clarifies
main mathematical notions and concepts, and supports vocabulary development

of English Language Learners (ELL). The unit core addresses the key concepts of
the unit. A critical part of planning the unit core is sequencing major concepts
to construct students learning pathway. Applied elements aim at developing
students procedural and conceptual fluency of the content learned in the unit
core. Application and connection elements are designed to enable students to
practice skills in solving routine and non-routine problems and to deepen their
understanding of the concepts. Generalization element provides a summative
representation of the key concepts of the unit. Debugging element addresses
common students misconceptions, as well as ways to fix the misconceptions.
Extension provides enrichment activities to further deepen students knowledge.
Post-assessment element is designed to evaluate overall retention of the module
content.
Below we describe the unit planning and development activity at the University
of Texas at El Paso (USA) using as an example one of the fundamental topics in
in-service training of middle school mathematics teachers Proportionality.
The unit planning started with composition of the didactical engineering team,
which consisted of five members with different expertise, including two college
mathematics professors, one mathematics educator, and two mathematics coaches,
whose primary responsibility was to work with teachers from local school districts.
The team carefully conducted main steps in the didactical engineering process
including analysis, design, and construction of the unit.
Analysis. The most important step was to conduct a comprehensive analysis of

different resources, including but not limited to the literature review on issues
related to learning sciences, modular design, proportional reasoning; analysis of
state teacher standards and competences, as well as standards for middle school
mathematics; analysis of assessment data and student work, etc. As a result of the
analysis, the team understood that proportional reasoning is one of the challenging
topics in the middle school curriculum. Moreover, most of the middle school
teachers were not sufficiently prepared to teach it.
An analysis of student work is a critical step in the engineering of learning. This

analysis allowed the team to use the idea of model tracing discussed in Chapter3.2.
(Koedinger and Corbett, 2006) to identify common student misconceptions
and trace different possible actions students may take in solving proportionality
problems. One of the most common student misconceptions is applying additive
reasoning in proportional situations. For example, in solving the following mixture
problem: Would three cups of iced tea and two packets of sugar be sweeter or the
same as four cups of iced tea and three packets of sugar?, most of the middle school
students (grades 7 and 8) would use the idea of constant difference to justify their
answer (Figure 17). Students response Its the same thing because both ice tea
cups would have one cup without sugar clearly indicates the additive reasoning
misconception.
Fig. 17. An example of misconception in applying additive reasoning in proportional situation
The same misconception is observed in another proportional situation with a

slightly different context. When students were asked to solve the following lever
problem: The lever below holds a 3-unit weight at a distance of 3 units from the
fulcrum (center) on left side, and a 2-unit weight at a distance of 4 units from the
fulcrum (center) on the right. Is the lever balanced? A sample of student work
with the same misconception of applying additive reasoning (it even[s] out if you
add 4 and 2 also 3 & 3) in a proportional situation is presented in Figure 18 below.
Fig. 18. Additive reasoning misconception in the lever context

Two samples of student work presented above illustrate how strong the additive
reasoning misconception could be. These types of misconceptions should be
carefully considered in designing the learning pathway and constructing the unit
and its elements.
During the analysis stage, the team also studied advances in learning sciences and
modular design. The team decided to use the modular design in connection with
guiding principles of learning to construct teaching products. The team used a
set of key questions that needed to be addressed in the process of planning and
developing a unit (modified from Brahier, 2005):
What students are expected to know and be able to do by the end of the unit?
(Unit objectives)
What type of experiences have students already had with this topic? (Prior
knowledge)
As students explore the unit, what are the key concepts and skills they will
encounter and need to understand? (Unit map and core)
In what order should the key concepts be learned? (Unit core sequencing)
How many lessons will it take to accomplish the learning objectives for the
unit? (Unit core timing)
What kind of experiences should students have to help them learn these
concepts? (Unit core and applied elements)
What materials and tools will support learning this unit? (Resources)
How do you know if students are ready for the unit? At the end of the unit,
how do you know whether students really understand the most important
concepts in the unit? (Pre-and post-assessment)
Once students complete the unit, what is the next logical step in the students
learning sequence? (Inter-unit planning)
Design. The most critical question for the team at this stage was what was the
learning pathway to proportional reasoning? In order to conceptualize the learning
pathway, the team spent several working sessions trying to find answers to the key
questions: what is a starting point in the development of students proportional
reasoning, what constitutes an end point, and how to get from one to another?
Analysis of resources helped the team to realize the importance of student transition
through the following conceptual corridor: rational numbers proportional
relationship direct variation model linear function, where the concept of
relationship plays a central role. Moreover, the team discussed potential learning
outcomes what are key characteristics of a good proportional thinker? The team
came up with the list of characteristics, which later were converted into learning
objectives, activities, and learning outcomes:
To know and understand the idea of relationship;

To recognize multiplicative situations and distinguish them from additive
situations;
To recognize and explain the difference between proportional (y=mx) and

non-proportional (y=mx+b) situations; it was important to note that in the
latter situation, y was not proportional to x, but rather, y was proportional
to x;
To recognize and distinguish between different types of proportionality:
direct and inverse;
To use proportionality as a mathematical model in real-world contexts;
To know and use the language of proportionality;
To understand the concept of function to express the co-variation;
To recognize that the graph of a direct proportional situation y=kx was a
straight line that passed through the origin;
To recognize that the graph of a non-proportional situation was a straight
line intersecting the y axis b units away from the origin;
To know that the graph of an inversely proportional situation was a hyperbola;
To understand that k was the constant ratio in direct proportional situations;
To understand that k was the constant product in inverse proportional
situations.
Based on the list of characteristics, the team designed the following learning
pathway to the proportional reasoning presented in Figure 19.
Fig. 19. Learning pathway to proportional reasoning as a unit map

Along with the learning pathway, the team discussed another key design
question what constituted an effective learning? Effective and ineffective
learning may start with either no-conception or pre-conception on student
side. If the learning is ineffective, the student preconception is converted to
misconception and then, if no debugging takes place, it leads to a mistake and
eventually to misunderstanding. Effective learning is engineered by building on
student preconception and further strengthening it through the development
of students conception, concept, and understanding. Ineffective learning could
become effective, if the debugging is built into the learning process through
recognizing student misconception, addressing it and continuously supporting
students self-monitoring (Figure 20).
Fig. 20. Effective vs. ineffective learning design
Construction. Having analyzed and designed the learning pathway, the team
modified the conceptual corridor: relationship multiplicative structure
proportionality direct variation linear function to start constructing teaching
products the unit and its elements. The team selected the Mission Atlantis as
the unit theme. At the construction stage, the team also considered appropriate ICT
resources to support student learning. Blackboard LMS (Learning Management
System) (see Figure 21) and the open source software Geogebra were chosen as
primary digital technologies for the implementation of the unit.
Fig. 21. Screenshot of the course Learning Pathway to Proportional Reasoning
Based on the list of characteristics of a proportional thinker, the team performed a

backward design and conducted an inventory of prior knowledge and prerequisite
skills that students would need in order to work on the introductory elements of
the unit. Then the inventory was used to design pre-assessment to evaluate and
determine students readiness to learn the content of the unit.
The list of characteristics of a proportional thinker also helped the team to select
and develop the unit objectives to identify what students should know, understand
and be able to do upon studying the unit. After the successful completion of this
unit, the student was expected to:
apply mathematical process standards to use in proportional and non-

proportional relationships to develop foundational concepts of functions;
represent linear proportional situations with tables, graphs, and equations
in the form of y = kx;
represent linear non-proportional situations with tables, graphs, and
equations in the form of y = mx + b, where b 0;
contrast bivariate sets of data that suggested the linear relationship with
bivariate sets of data that had not suggested a linear relationship from a
graphical representation;
use a trend line that approximated the linear relationship between bivariate
sets of data to make predictions;
solve problems involving direct variation;
distinguish between proportional and non-proportional situations using
tables, graphs, and equations in the form y = kx or y = mx + b, where b 0.
In order to construct the prior knowledge element, the team analyzed students
common preconceptions that may impact the learning of the unit core. One of the
common preconceptions is a lack of understanding of a difference between a notion

of conversion and a concept of relationship. The team developed a case study to
address this preconception.
Making Sense of Dollars and Pesos 4. This summer, Andy saved money to buy a guitar.
He waited for the right time to ask his mom to go across the U. S. border with him to
the Juarez city market. He took his summer savings, $132 dollars, and they headed
to Mexico. When they arrived at the market, Andy learned that the cost of Guitaras
Valencianas was 15,000 pesos. He did not have enough money and had to borrow
money from his mom to buy the guitar. How much money, in U.S. dollars, had to
borrow Andy? Try the following:
1. express 1 U. S. dollar equal to 10.77 Mexican pesos in ratio form

2. use your ratio to set up a proportion showing this relationship,
use D for dollars and P for pesos
3. determine the correct number for the following:
1 Mexican peso =___U. S. dollars
4. use the statement in the previous question to set up a proportion
showing this relationship, use D for dollars and P for pesos.
Next, answer the questions:
1. What difficulties, if any, did you have in working on the problems a) d)

above?
2. What did you have to remember to work on the problems b) and d)?
Ms. Benning was going over a new unit for her eighth grade mathematics class.
She wanted to assess what her students had understood and remembered about
ratio and proportions from the seventh grade. Also she wanted to have an activity
that would engage and interest her students. In her eighth grade mathematics
class, Ms.Bennings plan was to have students start with proportions and extend
the concept to direct variation, a concept in mathematics that modeled various
everyday phenomena. She usually taught the eighth graders taking Algebra, but
because of her students success with the performance on last years state tests, she
was asked to teach a class of 8th graders who had not scored very well as 7th graders.
About one third of the students were English language learners, about half of the
class had scored right at or a few points below the passing score in the 7th grade
assessment, and only five students were progressing well enough to be ready to
take algebra as ninth graders successfully next year.
Ms. Benning knew she was being challenged with this very diverse group of
students. Also, from the past experience she knew some students never learned how
to work proficiently with rational numbers, which was essential in understanding
proportionality. She wanted to prepare these students not just for the state exams
but also for their 9th grade Algebra course, which was essential in understanding
Mathematics and a major challenge for most ninth graders.
4
This case study was written by L. Michal and edited by M. Tchoshanov.
At the start of class, Ms. Benning was careful to engage every student. She first asked,
Who has recently used the exchange rate from dollars to pesos to buy something at
across the U. S. border at Mercado Juarez? Many of her students raised their hands
and wanted to share some of their experiences. Because she only had 46 minutes
for class, she was careful to select a few students but really wanted to hear from
everyone. Carla was an English language learner and rarely shared any comments
with the class, so Ms. Benning was pleased to see Carla raise her hand. She asked
Carla to share her experience. Carla shared that they spent most of the day at the
Centro Artesanal, the citys new Art center, with her family from Phoenix. Charles,
on the other hand, said his family had taken his Uncle Bill to the market and had
gone to the bank the day before to change dollars to pesos. Ms. Benning asked
Charles, if he knew the current exchange rate. Charles said I think one dollar is
equal to about eleven pesos. The two, Carla and Charles, were completely different
students. Ms. Benning saw them both on the same plane mathematically but not
on the same plane in class. She wished there would be a way to get Carla to share
more with peers, because even though her language was limited, her knowledge of
Mathematics surpassed that of all the other students in the class.
Ms. Benning asked the students to form groups of 2 to work together in pairs. She
proceeded with the idea of having students see how one set of numbers generated
another set of numbers. To see how much her students had remembered from the
seventh grade, she proceeded with her plan to have students work in pairs to get
them to use the exchange rate to uncover their understanding of the topics and
concepts which had been covered in the seventh grade mathematics. As she walked
around the room, she noticed Nolan, the school football star, hiding the morning
newspaper under his notebook. Nolan, do you have the morning newspaper
with you? Nolan was caught completely off guard and said, Uh, yes, Ms. Benning,
but IGood, said Ms. Benning, will you turn to the front page of the business
section and write the exchange rate between U. S. dollars and Mexican pesos on
the blackboard? Nolan checked the rate and wrote 1 U. S. dollar = 10.77 Mexican
pesos. Thanks, Nolan. Alright, for the sake of simplicity let us round off the pesos
to the nearest peso. Ms. Benning knew this was something most students should
know by now but wanted to see how many students remembered this. Nolan felt
he had to contribute an answer and asked, Is it ten point seven eight? To confront
Nolans response, Ms. Benning asked Adriana to share her answer and explain how
she got it. Adriana said, We got 11 pesos. First we saw the number after the decimal
point, saw that it was seven and so changed it to 11. Okay, good said Ms. Benning,
what did you change to eleven and also why did you change it? You are right; I just
want to make sure others can see what your thoughts were? Adriana said, Um
we saw seven after the decimal point, and since seven is more than 5, we changed
the 10to11.
Ms. Benning restated what she thought Adriana had wanted to say, So you changed
the 0 to 1 which made the 10 and 11, right? Adriana nodded, yes. Okay, does
everybody remember how to round off? If not, please see me for some problems to
work before tomorrow. Ms. Benning reminded them to work in pairs and went back
to the equation Nolan had written on the board 1 U. S. dollar = 11 Mexican pesos
and said, If we write this equation in a ratio form, what would this look like? She
selected David to come up to the board. Okay, David, can you write the ratio on the
board? David wrote 1:11 on the board. Okay, good. Carolina, I noticed you had
another way to write the ratio, will you write it on the board for us?
Carolina wrote, 1 on the board. Great, so from your work in Mathematics class
11
you remember that a ratio can be written in two ways. We will use the second way
to write the ratio and build on that form. Are there any questions before we go on?
Rodrigo raised his hand and asked, Could we also write eleven over one?
Yes, that is another way to write the ratio. We just have to remember to associate
11 with pesos and 1 with dollars, said Ms. Benning.
Ms. Benning was getting ready to go on to proportions, when someone said, could
we also write 11 pesos over 1 dollar? Ms. Benning said, Yes, however, when we
write the number with the unit of measurement, the ratio becomes a rate. So, when
writing a ratio with denominate numerals, numbers with units of measurements,
you are writing rates. I sense that you have remembered proportions and we are
going to do next.
Before doing proportions, Ms. Benning asked the students to write an equation in
numerical symbols. Jerry came up to the board and wrote, D = 11P. Ms. Benning
asked the class to use what Jerry had written to change 5 dollars into pesos. Jerry
was the first to ask, Do we use the 5 where the D is? After this question Ms. Benning
suggested that students set up a proportion with using the ratio and the variables D
for dollars and P for pesos. Several students offered answers to this and she finally
wrote on the board, D = 1 . Okay, lets use this proportion to see how many pesos
P 11
we have when you have dollars. Lets use a table to organize our work and then plot
these pairs of numbers on a rectangular coordinate system, remember to use D for
dollars and P for pesos. Please note the table has a process column in the middle
for you to record what you are doing each time to determine the amount of pesos.
Ms. Benning continued to walk around the class to see the work of students in
pairs. The students had an activity sheet with the table to organize their work and
a rectangular coordinate system to plot their ordered pairs. She saw the students
filling in the table without filling out the process column. She added again When
you offer a value for P, be prepared to tell us how you had found the value, so use the
process column to write down what you are doing to get P.
After giving the students a few minutes to fill in the table of values, she asked
for volunteers to give their values for P and also how they had determined those
values. Carla was ready to give the first answer. Ms. Benning, for 5 dollars, there
are 55pesos. I multiplied 5 by 11, but if I had 5 pesos, would I divide by 11? It took
Ms. Benning by surprise, so she did not have an answer ready. Instead of answering,
she asked the class to answer. She said, A very good question. Do we divide by 11,
class? This created a lot of noise in the classroom with students talking about it,
so Ms. Benning was pleased that she had deferred the question to the class. As she
was getting ready to answer the question, the bell for the next period rang and she
ran out of time to summarize what they had done. She felt very good about the
noise at the end of class time, and would be prepared to start the next day with
the answer for Carla.
Questions for the case study analysis and discussion:
1. What was Ms. Bennings main purpose in her lesson on exchange rates?
2. Did the class work let her get at what students understood and remembered
about proportions?
3. Were the needs of the English language learners addressed in class?
4. Did she deal with the case of Nolan and the newspaper appropriately?
5. How would you have answered the last question that was asked in class?
6. What did she learn about student learning?
Later, the case study was converted into the pre-unit activity that teachers could use
in their own teaching (the pre-unit activity is presented in the condensed version of
the unit in the Appendix).
Studies show that more than 80% of college students have similar misconception
(Lochhead and Mestre, 1988). Indeed, in situations such as the conversion at
the center of this activity (11 pesos makes 1 dollar), a very common student
misconception, called the reversal error, is to translate the conversion 11 pesos=
= 1 dollar to 11P = 1D; but if we interpret that equation so that P stands for the
number of pesos, and D stands for the number of dollars, then the correct equation
is in fact 11D = 1P. Research (PCK Tools: Students Understanding of Symbolic
Representation, Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE), 2003) also
shows that this is a tough misconception to fix. One reason is that 11P = 1D is what
students get when they translate the words directly to symbols. The word by word
translation of a problem is usually effective in conversion statements, but does not
work here because it uses P and D as the units of quantities, instead of the quantities
themselves. Put another way, this misconception is interpreting 11P as 11 pesos
instead of 11 times the number of pesos. In order to fix this misconception we ask
students to express the currency exchange physically (e.g., place one dollar on the
table . . . ) and verbally (e.g., describe how you would tell someone to exchange
pesos to dollars). After in-depth discussion on the case study, the team decided
to further address the common misconception and constructed an algorithm for
translating words into Algebra to help teachers to distinguish between conversion
statements and algebraic relationships, between labels and variables.
Step 1. Identify the quantity you are dealing with. For instance, consider the
problem One green square tile consists of four red square tiles. Let G be an area of
the green square tile and R be an area of the red square tile. Write down a symbolic
representation of the relationship between G and R. In this problem, the quantity
we are dealing with is area. Correspondingly the problem addresses the conversion
between G and R, which represent labels for different areas.
In contrast, consider the problem One green square tile consists of four red square
tiles. Let G be the number of the green square tiles and R be the number of the
red square tiles. Write down a symbolic representation of the relationship between
G and R. In this problem, the quantity we are dealing with is a number. And,
correspondingly the problem addresses the relationship between G and R, which
represent variables.
Step 2. Probe your guess/solution for reasonableness. Ask yourself questions: which
tile has a greater area? Are there more red tiles than green tiles in a given shape?
Step 3. Write the symbolic representations: for the conversion statement (G=4R)
and for the algebraic relationship (R=4G).
Step 4. Check your symbolic representation by plugging in several numerical values.

Does the representation make sense?
In the first problem, the conversion statement considering the area of the red tile
as 1 unit square, it makes sense that the area of one green tile would be equal to the
area of four red tiles. In the second problem, the algebraic relationship: if we plug
in 2 instead of number of the green rods (G), we get R=8, which makes sense (there
are 8 red tiles in 2 green tiles).
Let us illustrate the above algorithm with another example: One gallon is equal to
four quarts. Let us denote gallons by G and quarts by Q. Write down: (1) a conversion
statement between G and Q; (2) an algebraic formula for the relationship between
G and Q.
The difference between different types of symbolic representation in case of

conversion statement and algebraic relationship is depicted in Table 7.
Table 7. Comparison between conversion statement and algebraic representation
Type of Symbolic Representation

Symbolization
Conversion Statement Algebraic Relationship
Role of Symbols Labels Variables
Quantity Capacity Number of Units

G 1
Proportion/ Table =
Q 4
Process of Symbolic Direct Translation Gallons (G) Quarts (Q)

Representation of the Statement to Symbols 1 4
2 8
3 12

G 4G
1 Gallon = 4 Quarts Q = 4G
Symbolic Representation 1G = 4Q Q = 4G
Written Representation One gallon is equal to four quarts For every gallon there are four quarts
The importance of the unit map (Figure 19) in representing students learning
pathway to proportional reasoning was discussed earlier in the design section.
As mentioned above, the unit project addresses the evolution and origins of
the fundamental idea of the unit multiplicative relationship. The team used a
project based on one of the famous historical discovery: Archimedes, a Greek
mathematician, was the first to explain the principle of lever. Although he did
not prove this principle, he was the first to state, weights of equal distances are
in equilibrium, and equal weights at unequal distances are not in equilibrium but
incline towards the weight which is at the greater distance. When weights are equal,
distances of the weights from the fulcrum must be adjusted to have a balanced state
of equilibrium. Therefore, Archimedes lever principle tells us, if W1D1 = W2D2, then
the above is in static equilibrium, with all torques balanced. The distance from the
point where you place the weight W1 to the fulcrum is the lever arm distance D1 and
the distance from the point where you place weight W2 to the fulcrum is the lever
arm distance D2. Distances are measured from the fulcrum to weights. Archimedes
is said to have stated, give me a lever and a place to stand and I can move the earth.
Imagine you have a huge lever on one side of which you have the Earth and on the
other side a place to stand. How far would you have to stand to move the earth!? The
unit project is included in the Appendix.
The language and communication element identifies and clarifies mathematical

vocabulary as well as describes how a student will acquire the content knowledge
using different modalities (listening, speaking, reading, and writing). This
element may include some of the following language objectives: explicitly teach
the vocabulary required to master the content objective; include a description of
the interaction, in which students will participate, such as discussions or paired
and/or cooperative learning activities; give students the opportunity to use
functional languagereading, speaking, listening, and writingin the content
area; encourage reflection at the end of lesson to assess whether or not language
objectives were met; and encourage teacher to model the behavior that supports
the student expectation (adapted from Texas Education Agency, 2006). For the
unit on proportionality, the team selected the following language objectives: use
mathematical vocabulary to explain orally or in writing the main properties of
proportionality; construct the Venn diagram to contrast and compare proportional
and non-proportional situations; create a list of attributes of proportional and
non-proportional situations; explain how to solve a proportion to a partner;
describe the relationship between diameter and circumference of a circle; write,
in your own words, an explanation of the proportionality concept; connect an
informal language to the formal mathematical language in a graphic organizer;
write out the formulas that are related to proportionality; engage in a Walk
About or Gallery Walk activity (What have you learnt today?); and construct a
flip book of vocabulary words on the topic of proportionality with representative
diagrams.
The unit core addresses the key concepts of proportionality and it is a critical
element in constructing a logical sequence of activities to support students learning
pathway. The team included the following activities united by the theme Mission
Atlantis in the core (missions are presented in the Appendix):
Mission One: Representing proportional relationships;

Mission Two: Proportional relationships;
Mission Three: Non-proportional relationships;
Mission Four: Proportional and non-proportional relationships.
Let us briefly consider the content of the first mission. It consists of the following
activity Besides astronauts, the International Space Station, ISS, has also hosted
tourists from planet Earth. Between 2001 and 2007, five tourists have traveled to
ISS at an average cost of $25 million per person. Currently, 200 seats for tourists
have been presold and a set of guiding questions listed below:
1. Complete the table to show the cost of different numbers of tourists if

the cost remains the same. Let t represent the number of tourists and c
represent the cost of tours in millions.
2. Write how you would find the cost of 11 tours.
3. Explain the rule you would use to find the cost of any number of tours (t).
4. Graph the relationship between the number of tourists and the cost of
tours. You may use Geogebra (Figure 22) to construct your graph.
Fig. 22. Screenshot of open source mathematical software Geogebra
5. Use your rule to write an equation that describes the relationship between
the number of tourists, t, and the cost of tours, c.
6. What is the rate of tourists to cost? What is the rate of cost to tourists? What
is the unit rate of cost to tours?
7. What will the cost be for 200 tourists? Use a proportion and the equation to
verify this cost.
8. How many tourists would be able to travel for $425 million? Show your
work.
9. Identify where the unit rate appears in the table, the graph, the equation,
and the proportion.
Each mission is supplemented with instructional notes and mathematical

discussions 5. The instructional notes for the Mission One, for instance, describe
the planning parameters for teaching the activity and include:
Time schedule: 1-2 days

Vocabulary: Relationship, Rate, Unit rate
Materials and ICT resources: Geogebra
Teaching method: Primarily individual and small groups, with a class discussion
at the end, when discussing where the rates appear in the equation, graph,
and proportion. There could also be a brief discussion at Question 3 (Explain
the rule you would use to find the cost of any number of tours.)
The mathematical discussion addresses the main goals of the activity: compare the
table, graph, and equation for the simple proportional relationship. In particular,
students should see the rate, or constant of proportionality, in each of these
representations of the relationship. The tasks for this activity will be repeated, with
constants of proportionality that are increasingly harder to describe, in subsequent
activities.
The mathematical discussion also describes important terms that deserve a closer
consideration. For instance, what is the difference between ratio and rate? Lamon
(2007) states that Early definitions of ratio and rate were linked to comparisons
within and between measurement spaces. A ratio was considered a comparison
between like quantities (e.g., pounds : pounds) and a rate a comparison of unlike
quantities (e.g., distance : time), although, as noted by Lesh, Post, and Behr (1987),
there was a disagreement about the essential characteristics that distinguished
the two. Below is the list of the definitions of key terms the team used throughout
the unit:
Relationship is an equality, inequality, or any property for two objects in a

specified order, for example a=b, a<b, ab=ba, etc.
Ratio is a multiplicative comparison between two quantities.
Rate is reflectively abstracted constant ratio (Thompson, 1994). Unit rate
is a rate with the second term equal to one. Composite unit is a constant ratio
expressed in the lowest terms.
Slope is the constant rate of change for the related linear function.
A relationship between two varying quantities is proportional when the ratio
of corresponding terms is constant.
5
The mathematical discussion section was written by A. Duval and edited by M. Tchoshanov.
The mathematical discussion also includes tricky points that students may have
difficulty with, for instance, the concept and representation of the quantity millions.
There are two points of view about the use of millions in the cost. The computa
tionally simplest way is to interpret million as the part of the unit (along with
dollars), and treat the numerical value of the cost per tourist as 25. The alternative
is to treat the numerical value as 25,000,000, but all extra zeros can get awkward.
There is nothing wrong with the point of view, as long as we are consistent and
careful to not lose the units since the units are very important to all rate problems.
Another tricky issue is the point (0, 0). As with the balance activity, the point (0; 0)
is included in our relationship, since the relationship is proportional. Here, though,
it may be easier to understand; if no tourists, it does not cost anything. Its still a
good idea to point out how (0, 0) shows up in the table and the graph, and satisfies
the formula. In the proportion, it is less clear how (0, 0) works. For instance, we
do not want to plug in 0 and 0 into the proportion, because we would have 0/0,
which is indeterminate. Not undefined, as some students and teachers might think.
The further discussion on the difference between undefined and indeterminate
could be worthwhile. Let x0, then x/0 is undefined, because if you try to define it
as x/0=k, you end up with a contradiction: x=k0=0. However, let x=0, then 0/0 is
indeterminate, because if you try to determine it as 0/0=k, you have a statement
0=k0, which is true for any k.
Last but not the least, the mathematical discussion includes an overview and
clarification of some activity questions as listed below.
Question 1: Complete the table For this question and the next one, students
might use the formula ($25 million per person), or eventually notice that each
entry in the table is $25 million more than the previous entry. These are both
important points of view.
Question 4: Graph the relationship Once again, students should notice that the
data forms a straight line that passes through the origin.
Question 6: The unit rate question. Describe the unit rate; it should be easy in this
activity where the proportional relationship was initially defined in terms of a
unitrate.
Question 7: Use a proportion and the equation to verify this cost. In the Using
a Proportion column, students should verify the solution they had got (probably,
with the equation 200 tourists x $25 million= cost). Alternatively, some students
may set up a proportion to solve the problem, but then they should verify their
answer with an equation: 200 tourists x $25 million/tourist= $5000 million.
Aminor teaching opportunity: either way, the equation is a good time to highlight
how units and dimensional analysis work.
Question 9: Identify where the rates appear in the equation, the graph, the table,
and the proportion. This question captures the main goal of the Mission One
activity. The Mission One, as well as other three missions, is included in the unit
(see Appendix).
Applied elements are constructed to assist students in developing their procedural

fluency and conceptual understanding of proportional reasoning. Application and
connection elements are designed to provide students with practice skills in solving
routine and non-routine problems and to deepen students understanding of the
proportionality concept. An example of the application element is enclosed in the
Appendix.
In order to assist teachers with assessing students proportional reasoning, the

following levels of proportional thinking were used by the team (adapted from
Langrall and Swafford, 2000).
Level 1 Non-proportional reasoning: a student guesses and/or uses visual clues;

is heavily dependent on additive structures and unable to recognize multiplicative
relationships; randomly uses numbers, operations, or procedural strategies; is not
capable to link two measures and establish relationship between them.
Level 2 Pre-proportional reasoning: a student uses pictures, models, or

manipulatives to make sense of situations; makes qualitative comparisons; uses
repeated addition to solve proportional situations.
Level 3 Quantitative proportional reasoning: a student unitizes or uses composite

units; finds and uses unit rate; identifies or uses the scale factor or a table; uses
equivalent fractions; builds up both measures.
Level 4 Symbolic proportional reasoning: a student sets up a proportion using

variables, understands the meaning of the proportion and solves it using a cross-
product rule or equivalent fractions; fully understands that the ratio between two
values stays constant even though the values themselves may change.
The Debugging element deals with common students misconceptions as well as

ways to address misconceptions. Debugging is represented in the table with the
following columns: type of misconception, example of misconception, cause of
misconception, and way to fix the misconception. In constructing this element, we
identify three main groups of errors/mistakes: epistemological, methodological,
and common student errors. Epistemological mistakes are made by scholars in
the process of scientific evolution and historical development. They are caused by
the relativity of human knowledge, its incompleteness and limitations. The use of
epistemological errors in teaching and learning fosters students to think critically
and substantially changes students attitude: students no longer perceive science
as a set of ready-handed knowledge, but rather as a historical drama of ideas, as
an intellectual struggle of different schools of thought. Of a particular interest
among the epistemological errors are the so-called great errors. Louis de Broglie,
a prominent physicist, considered it very useful to reflect on the mistakes made
by great minds, as they often had a good reason to make them. Methodological
errors are errors of teaching: they occur when the teacher lacks the knowledge of
content, didactics (including learning sciences) or both. Common student errors
are typical mistakes that occur in learning. We group errors in debugging tables
and use them as a means of improving student learning. In other words, if the
traditional approach is limited to transitioning from students preconception to new

knowledge, in modular design we expand students zone of proximal development
(ZPD) to the zone of advanced/perspective development (ZAD) (Vygotsky, 1978)
where students may self-fix their errors. An example of the debugging element is
enclosed in the Appendix.
The generalization element is included in the unit (see Appendix) to represent a

synthesis of the key concepts of the unit and connections between the concepts.
Extension element provides enrichment activities to further deepen students
knowledge and understanding of proportionality including both direct and
inverse variations. In both cases of direct and inverse proportionality k is called
a constant of proportionality. The key difference in the role of k between direct
proportional and inverse proportional relationship is as follows: in the inverse
proportional relationship xy=k, k represent a coefficient; whereas in the direct
proportional relationship y=kx, k represents a coefficient with a special role a
constant rate of change. Extension element is enclosed in the unit (Appendix).
Post-assessment element is designed to evaluate overall student learning and
understanding of the proportional reasoning. Item analysis of student work on
the post-assessment helps a teacher to identify the node in the student learning
pathway and corresponding activity which needs to be repeated in order to
successfully complete the unit.
Overall, the modular design has a number of advantages, in particular, its content
and instructional flexibility (Tchoshanov, 2011). For instance, as modules are
developed, they could be used in multiple courses and professional development
workshops. Throughout the coursework an individual module could be maintained
and updated separately without impacting other modules if needed. Moreover,
modular design helps an instructor to select and appropriately sequence modules
to meet the main course requirements. On a student part, it reduces a course to a
set of key topics, simplifies the design of the course, and makes it easier to focus on
major learning objectives. The modular approach could also optimize the course
development through team-teaching and development when different modules are
designed and taught by different instructors; at the same time, every instructor in
the team could teach the entire course.
Among the weaknesses of the modular design the opponents (FESC, 1986; Russell,
1974) emphasize fragmentation of learning with the allocation of a large proportion
of coursework to independent study mode; opponents see it as a lack of proper
guidance; ignorance of the integrity and the logic of the subject; reduction of the
course to a series of discrete and disconnected units; and challenges in designing
modules.
As modular design is progressively utilized in the online content development,

many of these shortcomings are gradually smoothed out. This particularly
applies to preserve the integrity and the logic of the subject as well as addressing
defragmentation of student learning through carefully designed conceptual
corridors and learning pathways (Tchoshanov, 2011).
4.2. Content Interactivity

and Content Communication
Along with content development, content interactivity and content communication
play important role in the engineering of learning. In this section, we will consider
some of the approaches that will help to enhance content interactivity, such
as cognitive visualization and other emerging techniques, for example, video
streaming, screencasting, and gamification. We will also discuss different formats
of content communication in this section.
Visualization is one of the few areas of research in education, whose relevance
is continuously increasing over time in different subject domains including
Mathematics. It was relevant in 1957, when P. Van Hiele first presented the model
of teaching Geometry with a support for the development of student visual thinking
(Van Hiele, 1986). The relevance of this problem sustained in the 1970-ies, when
R.Skemp proposed the theory of conceptual scheme (Skemp, 1987). The significance
of the visualization problem was emphasized in the 1990-ies by the publication
Visualization in teaching mathematics (Zimmerman and Cummingham, 1990).
The level of relevance of this issue is still dominating nowadays with its critical role
in designing content interactivity for online learning (Sigmar-Olaf and Keller, 2005;
Konate, 2008).
The direct application of the science of learning findings in visualization such as
People learn better from words and pictures than from words alone (Mayer, 2011:
70) to the practice of learning through recommendation Add relevant graphics to
text lesson (Ibid.: 70) sounds invigoratingly simplistic. The meaning of visualization
in learning is much broader yet complex than just adding graphics to the text.
Moreover, visualization plays a significant role in the engineering of learning via
linking advances in the science of learning and the practice of using visualization in
the classroom as shown in Figure 23.
Fig. 23. Engineering of learning as a link between the science of learning

and the practice of learning in using visualization
Visualization is a multidimensional construct that has several important

characteristics. We will consider the following dimensions:
illustrative and cognitive visualization

static and dynamic visualization
passive and interactive visualization
isolated and connected visualization
visualization and multiple representations
academic and scientific visualization.
Visualization could be illustrative and cognitive. Illustrative visualization usually

represents an answer to a low cognitive demand question such as: what is it? For
instance, if one asks what is an isosceles triangle?, a visual illustration of a triangle
with two congruent legs would be a sufficient answer. Cognitive visualization
goes beyond just illustration: it unpacks the meaning of the concept. For example,
cognitive visualization is used to develop students understanding of problem
solving and proof in Mathematics. Let say, we would like to visually represent the
proof of the following theorem Sum of interior angles of a triangle is equal to a
straight angle. The proof of this basic theorem requires multiple steps, which are
depicted in the cognitive visual representation (Figure 24).
Fig. 24. Cognitive visualization of the theorem for sum of interior angles of a triangle
Visualization could be static and dynamic. Using the above example (Figure 24), we
could represent the final step as a static visual image of the proof, or we could show
the same proof in dynamics as a series of steps. Most of the visual proofs presented
in a fascinating series Proof without words: Exercises in visual thinking (Nelsen
1993, 2000; Nelsen & Alsina 2006) are primarily static. Authors open access
website on Visual Mathematics (http://mourat.utep.edu/vis_math/) consists of
examples of cognitive dynamic visualization on various topics of Mathematics
(Figure 25).
Fig. 25. Screenshot of the Visual Mathematics website
A dynamic visualization feature helps learners to develop their conceptual

understanding and is intensively used in a variety of software packages such as
Geogebra, Geometers Sketchpad, Cabri, Mathematica, to name a few.
Visualization could be passive and interactive. Passive visualization requires

little or no student involvement in the visualization process whereas interactive
visualization allows students to manipulate certain parameters of the demonstration
to better understand the concept. The open source Wolfram Demonstrations Project
(Figure26) presents interactive visual solutions using computer animations and
applets to various mathematics and science problems where students can play
with the demonstration changing its parameters. For example, interactive visual
solution to the problem of an area under cycloid presented in the Figure 26 has
multiple benefits compared to an analytic solution: students can visually follow
the trace of the cycloid, they can understand how the curve is produced, students
can visualize the concept of the area under the cycloid, and finally, they can build
conceptual understanding of why the area under the cycloid produced by a circle
with a radius R is equal to A=3R2.
Fig. 26. Screenshot of the Wolfram Demonstrations Project
Visualization could be isolated and connected. Let us consider the following

problem The cookie monster sneaks into the kitchen and eats half of the cookie;
on the second day he comes in and eats half of what remains of the cookie from
the first day; on the third day he comes in and eats half of what remains from the
second day. If the cookie monster continues this process for four days, how much
of the cookies has he eaten? How much is left? If the process continues forever, will
he ever eat all cookie? The author used this problem in one of his graduate classes
with in-service teachers while discussing possibilities of early introduction of the
infinity concept at the middle school level. In order to look for the solution, teachers
usually start with making a table with the values given in the problem. Very few
of them use visualization as a problem solving tool. After the class discussion on
different methods of solving the Cookie Monster problem, they admit that the
visual solution is the best one in developing students understanding of the concept.
One of the possible visual solutions is shown in Figure 27.
Fig. 27. Visual solution to the Cookie Monster problem

The discussion is further extended to other visual representations of the problem:

teachers get engaged in considering the number line (using a bread stick instead
of a square-shaped cookie), a pie model (using circle-shape crackers), or even
cubic (using a 3D cubic-shape brownie) visual representation of solution. The
teachers understand that within the same modality of visualization there could
be multiple ways to represent the same concept. Most importantly, the teachers
see the difference between an isolated visual image and multiple connected visual
solutions for the same problem.
Visualization could be used as a singular mode and as one of the modalities in

multiple representations. Using the same Cookie Monster problem, the teachers
were able to synthesize multiple methods of solving the problem into the multiple
representational diagram depicted in Figure 28. The visual solutions discussed above
(e.g., number line, pie, square and cube models) are presented along with other
multiple representational modalities (e.g., tables, graphs, equations, diagrams).
Fig. 28. Representational modalities for solutions to the Cookie Monster problem
Last but not least, visualization could be academic and scientific. The visualization
examples presented above are all academic by nature because they are used to
support student learning in a particular academic discipline. Scientific visualization
is an interdisciplinary branch of science which is recognized as important for
understanding data, whether measured, sensed remotely or calculated (Wright,
2007) and it is primarily concerned with visualization of three-dimensional
phenomena in scientific research. Therefore, scientific visualization could be
too advanced for students to grasp and understand. An important question here
is how to get students motivated in searching for and appreciating the scientific
visualization. For example, most of the high school and college students know
what a 3-D cube looks like. However, many of them might be curious to know and
surprised by what a 4-D cube looks like (see Figure 29: http://upload.wikimedia.
org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Tesseract.ogv).
Fig. 29. Visualization of a 4-D cube: orthogonal (left) and perspective projection (right)
Addressing the visualization issue would be incomplete without considering the

role of visual tools in the form of concept and/or mind maps to support student
learning and understanding (Wycoff, 1991). The main purpose of a concept map is
to engage students in making connections between concepts and procedures and
expand students understanding of a subject domain through a holistic perspective.
An example of the concept map is presented in Figure 30 (http://www.svsu.edu/
mathsci-center/uploads/math/gmconcept.htm).
Fig. 30. Example of a concept map for Algebra

Video and/or media streaming is another widely used technique to enhance content
interactivity. Video streaming helps learners to understand complex concepts that
are not quite convincing to explain with plain text and graphics (Klass, 2003). Video
streaming is particularly important for online learning due to its distinct interactivity
component. Incorporation of multimedia including video streaming can improve
the learning process as students see the concepts and ideas in action (Michelich,
2002). In addition, a moving image can help students visualize a process or see
how something works. Video can take tacit information or knowledge that may be
too difficult to describe in text into an articulate, vivid description through the use
of images (Hartsell and Yuen, 2006: 32). Video streaming can evoke emotional
reactions and increase student motivation. Furthermore, streamed videos can be
accessed by students at any location that has an Internet access (such as library,
home, caf) and at any time. Another advantage is a student choice over priority
and sequence of video materials to be observed on-demand. The true advantage
of video streaming is an opportunity for self-pacing online learning: students are
in charge of starting, pausing, skipping, and reviewing the media material. Among
major limitations in implementation of video streaming in online learning could be
resources, support structure and personnel training, since it is difficult to sustain
streaming video in academic institutions because of limited access to technology
and knowledgeable experts who can assist maintaining and developing media
streaming (Shepard, 2004). There are ample opportunities for video and media
streaming offered by variety of educational sources such as Discovery Education
(http://streaming.discoveryeducation.com/), National Geographic (http://video.
nationalgeographic.com/video/), NBC Learn (http://www.nbclearn.com/portal/
site/learn/) and many other resources. An example of NBC Learn media streaming
site on Science of NHL Hockey is presented in Figure 31.
Fig. 31. Screenshot of the NBC Learn media streaming resource

Screencasting is a technique of creating dynamic and engaging content through

digital video and audio recording of a computer screen while developing tutorials
and demonstrations. Screencasting could also be used for digital storytelling and
narrated presentations with a variety of media (e.g., video clips, pictures, graphs,
and animations) imported into it. There are multiple advantages both for students
and instructors in incorporating screencasting in learning. Screencasting is an
effective tool that helps teachers to explain difficult concepts and allows students
to learn a sequence of steps in performing a certain procedure, working on a
task and solving a problem. Similarly, with video streaming, students can watch
a screencast anywhere and anytime. Moreover, students can review any part of
the screencast, pause, rewind, and repeat it as needed, which creates an effective
learning environment for self-paced learning. Screencasting can be used to fulfill
a variety of learning objectives, including but not limited to topic introduction,
overview of the concept, discussion, and skill practice. Screencasting is widely
used by open source repositories, such as Khan Academy (Figure 32), to provide
opportunities for flipped classroom activities (Bergmann & Sams, 2012) when
students watch teachers screencast lecture as a homework and use class time for
discussing difficult topics and challenging problems, working on projects, activities,
etc. In order to produce a quality screencast, teachers need to have screencasting
software (e.g., Webinaria, Jing, Screencast-o-Matic) and the screencasting tools such
as microphone (for narration), webcam (for video), digital tablet or touch-screen
with stylus (for drawing), etc. The most obvious drawback of screencasting is that
it is not interactive. Although some lessons lend themselves to fixed demonstration,
others do not and should not be taught with screencasts Simply recording the
instructors screen during a class session can be an inefficient way to transfer
information (ELI, 2006).
Fig. 32. Screenshot of the Khan Academy use of screencasting

Gamification, game-based learning, or game-informed learning are the names for

the emerging phenomenon in education using game-based mechanics, aesthetics
and game thinking to engage people, motivate action, promote learning, and solve
problems (Kapp, 2012: 10). As a pedagogical approach, gamification is constructive
by nature and built on the elements of multiple intelligences theories, situated
learning, experiential learning and the activity theory. Gamification allows students
to learn and experiment in a non-threatening environment, supports learning by
doing through social interaction and collaboration. Gee (2007) emphasizes that a
good instructional game would pick its domain of authentic professionalism well,
intelligently select the skills and knowledge to be distributed, build in a related
value system as integral to gameplay, and clearly relate any explicit instructions to
specific contexts and situations.
Well-designed gamification has multiple benefits including but not limited to

providing authentic learning context and activities, multiple roles and perspectives
in co-construction of knowledge as well as encouraging scaffolding and integrated
assessment. An example of gamification is Function game where by inputs and
outputs you have to identify a function (Figure 33).
Along with benefits there are some limitations to the gamification approach.
The content should be a major driving force for designing game-based learning.
Unfortunately, gamification based on the quiz-and-reward format only is not the
most effective way to engineer learning and motivate students. Well-designed
gamification supports high cognitive demand content and focuses on students
understanding and reasoning more than just memorizing facts and procedures.
Another critical consideration in gamification has a natural and seamless connection
between the game and the learning: the game improves the learning and the
learning supports the game. A well-designed gamification also carefully balances
content, learning, and assessment.
Fig. 33. Screenshot of the Function game

Content communication. Along with the content development and content

interactivity, promoting and facilitating content-focused communication between
the instructor and students is critically important to the success of the course
whether it is face-to-face, hybrid, or online. With regard to distance learning, the
content communication is an essential point of distinction between truly effective
online course and poorly designed old-fashioned correspondence course. The
content communication within an online course could be organized in individualized
and/or group-based format. It also could be synchronous and/or asynchronous.
Regardless of the format, the communication is a key to creating and sustaining an
effective learning environment in the course.
In order to initiate and encourage communication between students, it is helpful to

provide an opportunity for students to introduce each other at the beginning of the
course. There are various tools available to support individualized communication
such as texting, e-mailing, using Skype, FaceTime, Facebook, Twitter, etc. Instructor
may choose to schedule phone or Skype conversations with individual students in
an online course during virtual office hours which should be posted in the course
syllabus. As an instructor of the course, you may also interact with individual
students via text messaging and e-mailing. Another form of virtual communication
with individual students is using Skype and/or FaceTime that enables face-to-face
interaction by video as well as by voice. Instructor may also use social networking
tools such as Facebook and/or Twitter to communicate with individual students as
well as with the groups of students and the whole class through posting messages,
blogs, and other ways of promoting communication.
Group communication and discussions are equally critical for the online course as
individual communication. Various learning management systems offer multiple
channels for group communication such as chat rooms, different modifications
of discussion boards (e.g., Contribute, WebEx), collaborative document sharing
and editing tools in real time (e.g., Google Docs, CampusPack). These virtual tools
allow students and the instructor to engage in a text-based synchronous group
conversation and discussion for various purposes including but not limited to
the review sessions for major course assignments, to discuss group projects and
presentations. Instructors have preferences in using particular tools for the group
communication. Let us share an example of using the Blackboard discussion board
to promote group communication in a content-specific topic. The graduate class
of in-service middle school teachers was assigned to read the chapter on rational
numbers and take a test. One of the questions in the test is below:
Which of the statements below is true?

a) 2.4999 < 2.5
b) 2.4999 = 2.5
c) 2.4999 > 2.5
d) Cannot be determined given the above information.
Explain your answer.
The level of complexity of this item is determined by its connection to the fundamental
idea of duality. Most of the class participants felt unfamiliar and challenged by the
question posted in the assignment. Some of the students who selected the answer
a, e-mailed the instructor expressing the confusion. The most trivial solution to
this situation is that the instructor could simply provide a correct answer to avoid
discussion on the challenging concept. However, this option would significantly
limit student learning. The instructor (his signature in the Table 8 is represented
as mt) decided to provoke the whole class discussion using the Blackboard. As
depicted in the table, the discussion consists of four major stages:
1. Provoke: instructor selects a provoking question and invites participants

to the discussion; the instructor monitors student responses and provides
clarification.
2. Sustain: instructor capitalizes on students reasoning to require further
exploration.
3. Evaluate: instructor asks students to explain and evaluate the solution.
4. Synthesize: instructor brings a closure to the discussion.
The table also includes discussion actions and discussion context to illustrate the
complexity and challenges of purposefully-orchestrated discussion in supporting
student learning 6.
Table 8. The fragment of content communication via discussion board
Discussion Discussion
Discussion context
stage action
Provoke Instructor Dear All, one of the participants had difficulty understanding the
selects a problem 5 on Chapter Test #3. The student wrote: I dont understand
provoking why my answer (letter A) was incorrect. 2.4999... has to be smaller than
question 2.5. Do we have people answering this problem differently? Share your
and invites responses, please. mt
participants Dr. Tchoshanov, I agree with the student, due to the construct or the
to the limited information though of the quesiton regarding the answer
discussion responses. I understand what the student is thinking. 2.4999 is smaller
than 2.5, unless you estimate the value (though this was not indicated
as an approximation). They are virtually the same, but they are not,
there is a difference which is miniscule. There is no way we could view
the difference. For example, in measurement all measurements are
approximations, a measurement of 2.5 and 2.4999... would be virtually
the same, if you are in approximation. Techinally, it is smaller value even
if the value is a miniscule in difference. Brianna
Brianna, I also agree with you. Mathematically, I think 2.4999. is
less than 2.5 because there is a very small difference in between these
numbers. Also, we can say 2.4999 is approximately equal to 2.5. I
do not think 2.4999. is equal to 2.5. If we see this problem through
students point of vie, 2.4999 is equal to 2.5. Because, in a number line,
2.4999. is very close to 2.5. We teach them to round to the nearest
number in the number line. Pat
When I answered this question I was picturing a number line which in
that case the 2.49999 is smaller than 2.5, but then I second guessed
myself thinking should I round up to the nearest tenth? If so, the
two numbers would be equal. I guess as you say it all deals with the
approximity of your numbers. Enrique
6
Students grammar and style intentionally have been left unchanged.
Discussion context
stage action
I too think that if you look at it in a technical and mathematical way,
2.4999 is literally smaller than 2.5, but if it is being compared through
the form of approximation then they are the same. Depends on how you
look at it. Radhika
Radhika, I completely agree on your thoughts, it really depends how
you are viewing the contexts of this problem. I do not believe there was
sufficient amount to answer if greater than or equal. It does depend on
how you see it, I do not think it incorrect. I put D. for the answer (I view
things in a technical light) since all the above answers is plausible, if your
counting the approximations or not. Good point. Brianna
Instructor However, the problem didnt ask for rounding or approximation. mt
monitors I think we can all make a strong point for every answer choice there was,
student but the question did not state if this was an approximation or not, so i
responses read the question in its most literal definition and chose the answer the
and provides was most correct, I also chose A. Jaime
clarification I agree that it really depends on how you view it which is why I also
chose D on this question. I can definitely see why A looks like a good
answer because really it could be true but I too think it depended on how
you viewed the problem which is why I ultimately chose D. Samantha
When I answered this question, I chose to think of it in terms of fractions.
For instance, 1/3 can be represented physically. But if you put it in
decimal form, 1/3 is the same as 0.3333.... Then I thought to myself, is
this number less than 0.34? Yes! I can represent both. So to me 2.4999....
is less than 2.5. I as well do not understand why a is wrong. I went
through the reading as well as searched the web and looked in my old
math texts. I did not find anything contradicting my idea. Ann
Sustain Instructor let me provide you with a counterexample to sustain the discussion.
capitalizes Ann uses a very convincing argument saying 1/3 is the same as 0.333...
on students If we accept Anns argument, then lets do the following:
reasoning a) lets multiply both sides of 1/3 = .333... by 3;
to require b) (1/3)x3=(.333...)x3
students c) 1=.999...!
exploring Share your insights on 1=0.999..., please. mt
further Dr. Tchoshanov, lets consider the inequality that we use for domain and
range of a function (introduction of function in Algebra 1) with a graph
using closed and open circles. For example, the domain of a graph of
a function with an open circle at x=1 extend to the negative infinity is
-x<1. Even though the function is very close to x = 1, the domain is not
-x1. Thank you. Rick
Rick, very valid point. Thank you. The question is how do we connect the
two ways of reasoning about the same concept? mt
I asked a middle school math teacher and she didnt know. Then I
asked an engineer and he sent me this email:
Debbie,
2.49999... = 2.5. To prove this, assume: 10 * x x = 9 * x, so:
24.9999... 2.49999... = 9 * 2.4999...Considering that 0.0999... will
cancel in the subtraction, then: 24.9 2.4 = 9 * 2.4999... Simplifying:
22.5 = 9 * 2.4999... Dividing by 9: 2.5 = 2.4999... QED
It did make sense. We know that simply substituting numbers didnt
necessarily make something true. Here is a case where you could try
simple numbers like two or three and the final numbers would be the
same, but if you substituted 2.4999..., it would come out as 2.5 on one
side and 2.4999... on the other. However, the expression still holds even
though there is a case where substituting doesnt work. This is a very
interesting problem and Im curious to see what others will say about it.
Debra
Discussion context
stage action
Evaluate Instructor Debra, I appreciate you researching this problem and getting an engineer
asks involved. I think he has a solution to be discussed further. Lets call it the
students to engineer solution and ask everybody to share their insights on this.
explain and Post your reaction on the engineer solution, please. mt
evaluate the Here is my attempt to go against the engineer just to be difficult. The
engineer problem states 2.5 equals 2.4999 I think there is a difference of saying
solution exactly 2.5 and infinitely close to 2.5. We can say that 2.4999 may
have a limit but it will never be reached because it does on forever, so in
reality there is a difference between both. Depending on your calculator
2.49! does not equal 2.5! If we consider this in a real word application
and have two runners one a time of 2.49 sec and one with 2.5 sec who
would be considered the winner? I think infinity is a concept and not a
number, its like saying 1/infinity = 0 you cannot divide a number by a
concept. Jaime
Hi Debbie, Thanks for posting the engineers solution. I went from step
to step, and realized it did make sense. I never had this mathematical
training as most engineers would receive. A lot of my education, in
my undergraduate work has been fully in the Liberal Arts category. It
keeps reminding me of DNA how the match of 99.9999...% is essentially
a complete or 100% match. It makes sense, after this supplemental
solution. Again, it was very interesting viewing this! Brianna
This question is really bothering me. My answer was A, because the
question was very straightforward: Which statement below is true?
And it is true that 2.49999... < 2.5. It does not matter how many 9s we
add to the 2.499.... it will never reach 2.5, it will always be smaller than
2.5. I also have talked to some people, a PhD mathematics student told
me that of course, 2.499 is smaller than 2.5, but that it will also depend
on the context. Looking at the context of the question, my answer is still
<. As an engineer myself, I know how critical is to work with decimals.
Juan
I actually enjoy reading the lively discussion this problem has created.
Ithink it helped me see proof in a new way, and it was a good
extension of our previous discussions. I believed the instructor also
pushed us to come up with our own understanding of the challenging
problem. Joanna
Synthesize Instructor Dear All, this was a thought provoking discussion and, most importantly,
brings a it exemplified the convincing a skeptic strategy that we have discussed
closure to the last week. Let me synthesize the discussion.
discussion Juan made a good point that the solution to this problem depends
on the context. Pat earlier mentioned that mathematically, I think
2.4999. is less than 2.5 because there is a very small difference
in between these numbers. At the same time, Debbie presented
the engineer solution to the problem that convinced some of the
participants: 2.4999=2.5. Extending further, Jaime argued that there is
a difference of saying exactly 2.5 and infinitely close to 2.5.
Thus, throughout the discussion we were looking at the same problem
from the two distinctly different lenses: (1) the process view (e.g.,
2.4999 <2.5), and (2) the object view (e.g., 2.4999 = 2.5). In
mathematics education, this phenomenon is called process-object
duality. We will be further unpacking the idea of duality in our
forthcoming discussions.
Greatly appreciate everybodys input into this intellectually challenging
yet engaging discussion. mt
A well-designed and seamlessly implemented content interactivity and content

communication significantly contribute to the effectiveness of learning environment
in face-to-face and online education.
4.3. Engineering of Distance Learning

There are different Learning Management Systems used by universities across the
globe for designing and offering online courses. In this section, we will describe the
main features of the Blackboard Learn system to engineer distance learning using
as an example one of the courses the author teaches at the University of Texas at El
Paso MTED5318 Learning Theory in Mathematics Classroom (Figure 34).
Fig. 34. Screenshot of the MTED5318 course homepage in the Blackboard learning system
The author has been using the learning management systems including Blackboard
for designing and teaching courses in Mathematics and Mathematics methods
for both pre-service and in-service teachers as well as graduate and doctoral
courses in cultural-historical epistemology and learning sciences since 2005.
As a designer and an instructor, the author is able to develop the course content,
construct assignments, select ICT resources in connection with the course goals
and objectives, design a system of monitoring and evaluating student progress,
provide learning environment for student interaction (individually and in group)
and communication using both synchronous (e.g., chat-room) and asynchronous
modes (e.g., discussion board, blog, wiki).
The Blackboard Learn course environment consists of three main sets of tools: the
Course Menu, the Control Panel, and the Course Content. The Course Menu central
for the organization and navigation of the course is located on the left side of the
course homepage. The designer uses the Course Menu tool to present the key links
to the course materials such as Getting Started, Announcements, Learning
Modules, Assignments, Calendar, Discussions, Mail, etc. The appearance and
the order of the links could be customized by the designer using two views available
to users: (1) the list view, which displays only the top level of course materials, and
(2) folder view, which displays the course materials as a directory tree.
The Control Panel is the course management tool, which consists of the following
features: Content Collection, Course Tools, Evaluation, Grade Center, Users and
Groups, Customization, Packages, and Help. The Content Collection is a repository
of course files. Changes made to a file in this area will be automatically replicated to
all of the courses where the file is used. The Course Tools includes communication,
collaboration, assessments, and other tools available for use in the course.
TheEvaluation feature provides links to Course Reports, Performance Dashboard,
and Early Warning to access the diagnostic information on student performance
(e.g.,activity and content usage). The Grade Center includes links to the assignments
and assessments that need grading and the grade book/spreadsheet with students
grades. The Users and Groups feature consists of the list of students enrolled in the
course and enables the designer to organize students into groups. The Customization
helps the designer to manage properties such as course availability, tool availability,
and course appearance. The Packages and Utilities are used to import, export, and
archive the course. The Help feature provides access to the Blackboard Learn
Guide and On Demand Learning Center.
The Course Content includes the following tools: Build Content, Assessments, Tools,
and Publisher. The Build Content allows the designer develop the content of the
course through uploading files, folders, posting syllabus, lesson plans, modules, and
making links to external resources such as NBC Learn, for example. Assessments
tool is used to create tests, surveys, assignments, etc. The Tools include discussion
boards, blogs, wiki, etc. The Publisher provides links to the Textbook publisher
and its additional resources such as MyLab and others.
All the tools used in the Blackboard Learn could be categorized into two
main groups: (1)interactive tools and (2) evaluation tools. The Interactive
Tools include announcements (e.g., notifying students about course events,
assignment clarifications, and schedule changes), blogs (e.g., an online journal or
a diary), calendar (e.g., important events and dates in the course), collaboration
(asynchronous communication tool including a virtual classroom and a chatroom),
contacts (instructors contact information), discussion board (an asynchronous
communication tool for creating forums), glossary (e.g., a list of important course
terms and definitions), groups (e.g., creating and managing groups), journals
(e.g., similar to a discussion board with a selective access to view journal entries),
messages (e.g., similar to email), roster (the list of students enrolled in the class),
email (sending email to students enrolled in the course), tasks (e.g., assigning as well
as defining priority and tracking task status), wikis (allows students to collaborate
on writing and editing course assignments).
The Evaluation Tools group consists of course reports (e.g., information about
students activity and content usage), an early warning system (sending email to
students when the due date, test score, or other criteria and requirements are not
met), full grade center (a grade book with main course assignments and tests),
needs grading (e.g., items pending for grading), performance dashboard (an up-to-
date report on students activity and performance), pools (e.g., a repository for test,
quiz, survey questions), rubrics (e.g., creating a qualitative assessment criteria),
safe-assign/turn-it-in assignments (e.g., self-checking for plagiarism). The key
for the evaluation tools is the grade center which resembles a spreadsheet and is
designed as a dynamic and interactive tool allowing the instructor to record data,
calculate grades, and monitor the student progress. It also permits to generate
reports on student performance. The instructor can customize views and create
grading schemas including grading periods, categories, and columns to present and
gather the desired information.
While designing an online course, the author uses the didactical engineering
approach which was discussed in Chapter 1. It includes three major stages: analysis,
design, and construction of teaching products in order to create an effective learning
environment for distance learning. Let us consider each stage in engineering of the
MTED5318 course mentioned above.
Analysis. At this stage, the designer builds the foundation for the course through the
study and analysis of standards, teacher competences, place and role of the course
in the program, course description, texts and materials relevant to the topic of the
course, digital media and ICT resources applicable to the course goals, teacher
misconceptions, etc. The designer also selects the required textbook and readings
materials as well as defines learning objectives at the analysis stage.
The MTED 5318 is a semester-long graduate level topic course. It is aimed

to develop competencies necessary to deal effectively with Mathematics
instruction; includes curriculum, concepts, teaching strategies, and skills
necessary to integrate content and teaching strategies. The author selected the
topic of Learning theory in Mathematics classroom for this course and defined
the following learning objectives. Upon completion of this course students should
be able to:
1. know and understand the guiding principles of learning Mathematics in the

classroom;
2. apply the guiding principles in the Mathematics classroom in order to
develop students conceptual understanding and procedural fluency;
3. analyze and reflect upon implementation of the guiding principles in the
middle school Mathematics classroom;
4. evaluate effectiveness of learning in the Mathematics classroom using
selected ICT resources.
Through the extensive and careful analysis of available resources and materials
relevant to the topic and learning objectives of the course, the author identified the
following required texts for the course:
National Research Council (2005). How Students Learn Mathematics in the

Classroom. M.Suzanne Donovan & John D. Bransford, Eds. Washington, DC:
The National Academies Press (available online at http://books.nap.edu/
catalog/10126.html)
Boaler, J., & Humphreys, C. (2005). Connecting Mathematical Ideas: Middle
school video cases to support teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
The design stage focuses on the development of student learning pathway based
on the learning objectives defined at the analysis stage. At the design stage, the
instructor is primarily concerned with the connection between the learning
objectives, the course content, and the assessment of learning outcomes. It order
to achieve the seamless connection, the instructor carefully designs and selects
the major course activities, assignments and course deliverables. The assessment
of learning outcomes in connection with the learning activities and assessment is
shown in Table 9.
Table 9. Connecting learning objectives, learning activities, and learning outcomes
Learning Outcome Achieved by Measured by

To know and understand the guiding principles Readings and reflections Concept Test
of learning Mathematics in the classroom Participation in discussions Participation Checklist
To apply the guiding principles in the Applying activities in the Lesson Plan and Video
Mathematics classroom in order to develop classroom of Lesson
students conceptual understanding and Participation in discussions Participation Checklist
procedural fluency
To analyze and reflect upon implementation Reflections on video cases Written Reflection
of the guiding principles in the middle school Participation in discussions Participation Checklist
Mathematics classroom
To evaluate the effectiveness of learning in Reflections on ICT Written Reflection
Mathematics classroom using selected ICT enhanced activities Participation Checklist
resources Participation in discussions
The construction stage builds on the design stage and aims at the selection and
development of particular teaching products including but not limited to syllabus,
modules, lessons, assignments, ICT resources, etc. It also aims at creating an
effective online learning environment.
The syllabus is the key document defining the course objectives, its content,
requirements, and assessment. Structurally the syllabus may include the following
components: title and description of the course; contact information about
the developer/instructor of the course, including virtual office hours; learning
objectives; connection between the objectives of the course, its content and
assessment; textbooks and reading materials used in the course; schedule of classes
and activities; list of course assignments; grading scale, rubrics, class participation
requirements; software requirements; professionalism and academic integrity
statements.
The course content for the MTED5318 includes eight problem solving activities
aligned with reflections on eight video cases of the middle school Mathematics
classroom, five chapters from the required text on How Student Learn with
corresponding chapter tests, analysis, and reflection on five selected ICT resources,
four lesson plans for selected activities with classroom teaching and videotaping, a
collection of student work, and participation in class discussions. There is a mixture
of individual and group activities in the course. Problem solving as well as lesson
plan design, teaching, and classroom videotaping are group activities whereas
reflections, chapter tests, and participation in discussions are individual activities.
At the construction stage, the designer uploads the course content into the LMS and
selects the main interactive and evaluations tools to support and monitor student
learning over the course duration. The author usually uploads the course materials
two weeks prior to the beginning of the class, so the students have an access to view
the syllabus and major requirements of the course. The students may also need an
extra time to order the required texts for the course.
The Getting Started feature at the course menu is an important step in the
beginning of the course where the instructor introduces himself/herself and sends
a welcome message and an invitation to the course. The getting started message
may also outline the key information for students to help them get off to a good start
such as friendly suggestions, communication and software requirements, support
system, etc. (Figure 35).
Fig. 35. Screenshot of the Getting Started message for the MTED5318 course
One of the central course assignments is problem solving, analysis, reflection,

lesson planning, and teaching based on the selected video cases of the middle
school mathematics classroom. This assignment is a connected set of activities that
addresses the learning objectives of the course and outlines the student learning
pathway. It consists of the following steps:
pre-video problem solving activity;

during-video analysis of the didactical situations occurring in the video;
post-video reflection;
post-video discussion;
video-based lesson plan development;
pre-teaching conference;
teaching and videotaping the lesson;
reviewing and analyzing the classroom video.
The first step is to involve students in solving the problem that later they will watch
in the video. Let us consider the Border problem from the first video episode as an
example. The instructor divides the class into small groups to work on the following
activity:
Problem 1: Using the 10 by 10 grid (Figure 36), figure out without writing and
without counting one by one, how many unit squares are in the colored border of the
grid? Explain your method.
Fig. 36. Border problem (version 1)
Problem 2: How many unit squares are in the colored border of the grid below
(Figure 37)? Explain your method.
Fig. 37. Border problem (version 2)
The groups post their solutions and explanations on the discussion board. The
whole class has a chance to comment on the posted group solutions before the
next online session where the instructor provides an access to the video case
(Figure38).
Fig. 38. Video case based problem solving activity
During-video activity includes an element of gamification. The game-based

learning activity designed for this assignment is called Didactical Chess. The
objective of the game is to watch the video case until the pause point purposefully
selected by the instructor, analyze the situation, come up with the most effective
didactical move, and justify why the selected move is the most effective with regard
to student learning.
Below are the steps of the game. First, the designer/instructor carefully selects
the didactical situation(s) in the video that include teachable moments, such as
student ways of problem solving, student misconceptions, student questions, etc.
The designer includes the pause point in the video track. The students watch the
video until that very point and during the pause they individually work on the
Engineering of a didactical move chart which includes the following segments.
1. Analysing the situation:

analyse the content
analyse the teacher action(s)
analyse the student action(s)
analyse the classroom environment
2. Designing possible didactical moves

define the didactical task
identify the main factors impacting the potential move(s)
list possible didactical moves
3. Selecting the move and constructing the next didactical situation

select the most effective didactical move
justify why it is effective
construct a similar didactical situation.
The main purpose is to come up with the next most effective move, if they were
teachers in the video. Students can rewind the video back but they cannot continue
watching the video until they submit the response. The most intriguing part for
the students after completing the response is to watch the teacher action in the
video case. It usually happens that few students might come up exactly with the
same move as in the video. The designer/instructor usually selects one didactical
situation per video case. The Didactical Chess activity involves teachers in
zooming into details and dissecting the molecular didactical situations into
teaching atoms. Good teaching is about being able to conduct microscopic
analysis of teaching craft and, based on this analysis, to understand how to
effectively engineer student learning. After all, the devil is in the details. The
post-video activity includes an individual student reflection on the entire video
case. The sequence in the video lesson included the following events (adapted
from Boaler & Humphreys, 2005): the teacher collected wrong answers to the
Border Problem and asked students reaction and thinking about the incorrect
answers; the teacher collected different methods for thinking about the correct
solution; the teacher gave a method from the previous days class and asked
students to make sense of it geometrically; the teacher initiated the discussion of
the similarities and differences between methods; the teacher posed a question
about shrinking the square to a 6-by-6 grid and there was some discussion of the
proposed student answers.
The reflection was supported by the following guiding questions divided into four
main areas: (1)the activity, (2) the teacher; (3) the students; (4) the classroom
environment (Boaler & Humphreys, 2005).
The Activity section includes the following questions for reflection: What were the
mathematical tasks of the lesson? How did they follow from the main activity? What
do you think about each of the events in the lesson? What do you think about the
progression of the events? What Mathematics means did each of them suggest?
What were the decision points in the lesson that had changed the flow of the activity
and when did they occur? Were there any didactical situations in the lesson you
would have approached differently? What mathematical content and mathematical
process did the lesson address? Where could this lesson go from here? What could
students work on during in the next lesson?
The Teacher section of the reflection consists of the following questions: How did
the teacher respond to students different methods? How did the teacher capitalize
upon students diverse way of thinking? How did the teacher gather information
from the students? What kinds of information did s/he gather? What would you
have done differently if you were the teacher? At which didactical situations would
you have made different decisions and why?
The Students section includes the following questions: What did students learn in
this lesson? Do you think it was different for different students? How? Why? What
were the various roles students played in the classroom? What different things were
the students required doing? What questions did students ask? Which students
were contributing or not contributing to the discussion?
Finally, the Environment area of the reflection includes the following set of questions:
What classroom norms did you see in this class? What do you think the teacher
had done to set up these norms? How was the classroom arranged? What materials
were used and which role did they play? What in the classroom environment made
the Mathematics more visible?
After the students submit individual reflections, the instructor invites them to the
post-video discussion. An example of the invitation to the discussion on video cases
consisting of the Border Problem is presented below.
Dear All,
It took me a little longer to read first two reflections. At the same time, I have had
enough time to think how to respond to the issues that were challenging to the most
of you. Based on your reflections, I feel that many of you enjoyed watching Cathys
teaching. I did too. Particularly, I value her way of ENGAGING students in learning
and understanding of challenging topics in Algebra such as pattern generalization,
concept of variable and notion of proof. The first comment I would like to make is
dont shy away from digging deeper in the content. After all, this is a class on learning
MATHEMATICS.
Now, let me share my observations on some of the important content-specific

issues related to video cases 1 and 2. The ideas of a pattern generalization (video
case 1) and a variable (video case 2) are key concepts. In video case 2, Cathy nicely
pushes students to use letters in order to come with an algebraic expression for
Joes case. I wish Cathy would make a very important distinction in the role letters
play in algebraic representations. Letters could play a dual role: for example,
in an equation 4x 4 = 36, x is unknown, in a function y = 4x 4, x is variable.
The case when x is variable takes care of students confusion on the question What is
staying the same and what is changing? 4 is staying the same as a number of sides
for any square as well as -4 stays the same because you always have to take off four
overlapping unit squares in the corners, and x is changing (it could be 10 for the case
of 10x10 square, it could be 6 for the case of 6x6 square, it could be 100 for the case of
100x100, and so on).
Understanding what is a variable, also addresses the question How might you
explain to students when another variable is needed? In one of the episodes, Pam
suggested to use two variables s and n=s-2 for the side lengths. How would you
address this issue?
At the same time, in the expression y = 4x 4 we, indeed, have two variables: an
independent variable x the number of unit squares on one side of a given square,
and a dependent variable y the total number of unit squares on the border of
agiven square. So, if x=10, then y=36. If x=6, then y=20, and so on. If so, do we need
two independent variables in this case!? Does this make sense to you? If your answer
isyes, explain WHY? If not, share your concerns, please. mt
Through the invitation, the instructor encourages the students to dig deeper into the
important content-specific issues addressed in the video case. Unfortunately, some
of the middle school teachers have a tendency to use a general and descriptive way
of reflecting on video cases. Some of them shy away from the content. Instructors
role is to engage the students into the content-focused discourse and sustain
the focus throughout the discussion. An example of the extended description of
the discussion to promote content communication was presented in Section 4.2
(Table 8). After the individual participation in the discussion, the students work
in groups on developing the lesson plan based on the same video case. When the
draft of the lesson plan is ready, the group submits it to the instructor and requests
a virtual office hour to conduct a pre-teaching conference. The instructor holds
a synchronous conference with the group via chat room or Skype and provides
a feedback on the lesson plan developed by the group. The second synchronous
post-teaching conference is conducted after the group has taught the lesson and
submitted the videotape to the instructor. The post-teaching conference concludes
the engineering of teacher learning cycle: teacher learning lesson planning
teaching practice student learning (Figure 39).
Fig. 39. Engineering of teacher learning cycle

Another activity used in the online MTED5318 class is an analysis and reflection
on selected digital interactive ICT resources. For example, in order to achieve
the course objective To evaluate effectiveness of learning in Mathematics
classroom using selected ICT resources students are assigned the task:
Explore the e-example, Understanding Distance, Speed, and Time Relationships
Using Simulation Software (Figure 40: http://standards.nctm.org/document/
eexamples/chap5/5.2/index.htm). Set up several trials using the simulation applet.
You may try out this activity in your own classroom. Evaluate the effectiveness of
this activity in promoting student learning. Reflect on the following question: what
big ideas about functions and representing change over time students learn while
working on this activity?
Fig. 40. Screenshot of a digital interactive learning resource
Throughout the course activities, the instructor continuously encourages students

to focus on the content and develop their pedagogical knowledge and skills. Another
way to emphasize the importance of content-specificity is to construct and provide
rubrics for students reflection and participation in the discussion. An example of
such a rubric is presented in Table 10.
Table 10. A
n example of the rubrics for assessment of students reflections
and discussions
High Good Satisfactory Poor

Quality
4.0 Points 3.0 Points 2.0 Points 1.0 Point
Completeness Responds to all Responds to most Responds to few Responds to one
questions questions questions question or does
not respond a single
question
Clarity and The main idea The main idea The main idea is The main idea is
Details stands out and is clear but somewhat clear but not clear. There
is supported by the supporting there is a need for is a seemingly
detailed and information is too more supporting random collection of
content-specific general information information
information
Accuracy All supportive Almost all Few supportive No facts are
facts are reported supportive facts facts are reported reported or most
accurately are reported accurately are inaccurately
accurately reported
Resources All resources used Most resources Few resources used The resources used
for quotes and used for quotes for quotes and facts for quotes and
facts are credible and facts are are credible and facts are less than
and cited correctly credible and cited cited incorrectly credible (suspect)
using APA format correctly using and cited incorrectly
APA format
Grammar No errors in One or two errors Three of four More than 4 errors
grammar or in grammar or errors in grammar in grammar or
spelling distracting spelling that or spelling that spelling that distract
readers attention distract the reader distract the reader readers attention
from the content from the content from the content
At the end of the semester, the students develop an e-folio, which includes all the
major assignments for the course including problem solving, reflections, chapter
tests, lesson plans, classroom videos as well as students contribution to the class
discussions.
The students course evaluations conducted at the end of the semester reflect the
level of intellectual challenge, as well as benefits the course offers for both pre-
and in-service teachers enrolled in the class. Below are the samples of students
evaluations.
This course has been a great experience for me. It was challenging and thought
provoking. The assignments have been challenging too and have addressed
mathematical topics that will contribute to enhancing my teaching perspective and
experience. The course was well facilitated. The teacher provided ample time and
instruction for the assignments to be understood and completed. I can definitely say
that I have enjoyed being the part of this online course.
This course was extremely rigorous! It is absolutely the best course I have taken at the
UTEP 7 and should be a mandatory course for anyone pursuing a degree in teaching.
Ihad learned far more than I expected to learn, and left with many ideas for things
Icould do to help my future students understand math. Other courses I have had at UTEP
7
University of Texas at El Paso
have been very theoretical or have asked me (someone with very limited experiences
in the classroom) to come up with lesson plans or discipline plans (which I really didnt
know anything about so the lesson plans I came up with were not based in reality).
This course GAVE me the lesson ideas, showed me the ways of teaching, and then asked
me to evaluate which ones I thought would be most effective or least effective. Instead
of having me create lessons out of thin air with no past experience to build on, I had
the chance to observe great lessons I now have some ideas to emulate. I LOVE this
model. Its amazingly helpful. I will gladly take any other courses Dr. T is teaching (but
Ill be sure Im not too busy because this class was TOUGH and took much more time
than I expected). However I learned a great deal for my investment in time and money,
and I really feel that this course was a good investment.
I really do want to give high remarks for this professor for the selection in course
textbooks and assignments. Out of all the ATCP 8 courses I have taken, I feel this has
been the most beneficial, effective, and the most that I have learned. The professor was
very good in responding and giving good discussion questions and his own discussion
remarks. Despite being an online course, the instructor was very efficient in answering
e-mails and assisting students with technical problems.
Synthesizing the multiyear engagement in designing and teaching online courses,

the author concludes that it is a challenging yet a rewarding experience that requires
seamless integration of content, didactical and engineering knowledge, and skills
to create an effective learning environment in distance education. This new type
of knowledge the author calls CODE = content-oriented didactical engineering
knowledge. The author believes that this type of knowledge emerges as a critically
important code to unlock challenges of designing effective learning environments
and improving teacher competence in the digital age.
Alternative Teacher Certification Program, which is a part of the Teacher Education

8
Program at the University of Texas at El Paso.

Conclusion
In todays world, current revolutionary changes are associated with the intensive
use of digital technologies in many spheres of human life, which democratize
knowledge and access to open education. The ICT is increasingly implemented in
the daily lives of individuals and the society. We are witnessing the formation of
a new phenomenon a global virtual learning community, which today includes
more than one billion users. And the numbers continue to grow. Along with this,
the market of online educational services is steadily growing. For example, in the
Department of Teacher Education at the University of Texas at El Paso (USA) about
50% of graduate courses are conducted in an online format. With the purpose of
expanding online services, the leading universities create MOOC consortiums (e.g.,
Coursera, Udacity, edX, etc.) to initiate special programs for supporting the design
and delivery of online courses, as well as the development of new tools for online
learning systems. This creates a domino effect: along with the transfer of many
university disciplines, including teacher education courses to the online format,
there is a need to revisit the training of school teachers. Instead of the traditional
teacher training, the focus is shifting toward a new type of training for teachers
who can work in the digital age, with high demands on teachers knowledge and
ability to engineer an effective online learning. Moreover, in the digital era a teacher
is not just an online tutor, s/he becomes an analyst and manager of informational
resources, a designer and a constructor of courses, modules, and lesson fragments
using interactive multimedia tools.
In connection with the emerging changes in the role of teachers in the digital age
an important question arises: what kind of teacher is needed in the digital age? In
order to meet the demands of the new era, a teacher in a traditional sense (e.g.,
someone who teaches) should be replaced by a teacher-engineer (e.g., someone
who engineers student learning). This shift comprises integration of teacher
knowledge of content, engineering, and didactics. At the same time, the integration
implies reconceptualization of the key role of a teacher-engineer in the digital age:
traditional teaching transforms into a research-based engineering of student learning.
This transformation requires a teacher-engineer to understand the teaching theory
and learning sciences in order to effectively design the learning objectives, digital
content, and assessment, and to connect them.
The engineering of learning paradigm places a critical emphasis on the development

of teachers engineering design thinking. The development of teacher-engineers
design thinking is a complex process based on the advancements of the learning
sciences. It involves the following key competences:
1) the design of learning objectives: to create outcome-based, technology-

enhanced learning environments that enable students to set their own
learning objectives, monitor and assess their learning progress;
140 Conclusion
2) the engineering of content: to develop interactive content and relevant

learning experiences through the selection and design of tasks, problems,
projects, and activities that incorporate digital tools and ICT resources to
promote student learning and creativity;
3) the design of assessment: to select and develop authentic assessments
aligned with the learning objectives and content, and to use assessment
data to improve teaching and promote student learning.
In order to respond to the challenges of the digital age, didactics itself needs to be
re-conceptualized. This re-conceptualization has a clearly defined vector. Modern
didactics is moving towards strengthening its engineering functions didactical
engineering. We call this trend e-Didactics and define it as ICT-integrated didactics
with its major focus on engineering of learning.
Didactical engineering is a relatively new approach in education. It focuses on the

precise design of the learning process, which can later be reproduced in other
point of time and space under the predetermined conditions.
e-Didactics aims to use scientific methods and promotes the formation of

teachers design thinking. e-Didactics also fosters the development of teachers
analytic reasoning focused on the implementation of macro and micro analysis of
didactical systems, processes and situations. Accordingly, e-Didactics has its own
subject domain that is characterized by the following main parameters: analysis,
design and construction of outcome-oriented teaching products (e.g., learning
technologies); application of a scientific method and design thinking into the
analysis of didactical systems, processes, and situations in order to create effective
learning environments.
The development of didactics in the direction of the e-Didactics and didactical

engineering offers new opportunities for further understanding of learning and
teaching in the digital age and creating effective learning environments in an
emerging global learning community.
References
Ainsworth, S., & Loizou, A. T. (2003). The effects of self-explaining when learning
with texts or diagrams. Cognitive Science, 27, 669-681.
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M K. (2010).
How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
American Psychological Association. (2011). Modules for teachers: How do I get my
students over their alternative conceptions (misconceptions) for learning. Re-
trieved from http://apa.org/education/k12/misconceptions.aspx
Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Lebiere, C. & Matessa, M. (1998). An integrated theory of
list memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 341-380.
Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M. & Simon, H. (1998). Radical constructivism and cog-
nitive psychology. In D. Ravitch (Ed.) Brookings papers on education policy.
1998. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press.
Armstrong, T. (1994). Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Arnheim, R. (1969). Visual Thinking. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.
Arter, J. (1990). Understanding the Meaning and Importance of Quality Classroom
Assessment. Portland, OR: NREL.
Artigue, M. & Perrin-Glorian, M. (1991). Didactic engineering, research and devel-
opment tool: Some theoretical problems linked to this duality. For the Learn-
ing of Mathematics, 11, 13-17.
Artigue, M. (1992). Didactic engineering. Recherches en Didactique des Mathema
tiques, Special book ICME VII.
Begg, M., Dewhurst, D., & Macleod, H. (2005). Game-informed learning: Apply-
ing computer game processes to higher education. Innovate, 1 (6). Re-
trieved June 27, 2013 from: http://www.innovateonline.info/index.
php?view=article&id=176
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1985). Cognitive coping strategies and the problem
of inert knowledge. In S. F. Chipman, J. W. Segal, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking
and learning skills: Vol. 2. Current research and open questions (pp. 65-80).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bergmann, J., Sams, A. (2012). Flip Your Classroom: Reach Every Student in Every
Class Every Day. Alexandria: VA: ASCD.
Bertalanffy, L. (1969). General Systems Theory: Foundations, Development, Applica-
tions. NY: Braziler.
Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. London and New York: Routledge
Press.
Bickford, S. (1988). The new revolution: Graphics workstations. Computer Pictures,
2, 45-51.
142 References
Binet, A. La pedagogie scientifique. LEnseignement Mathematique, 1, 29-38.

Bjork, R. A. (1988). Retrieval practice and maintenance of knowledge. In M.M.Grune
berg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory: Current
research and issues: Vol. 1 (pp. 396-401). NY: Wiley.
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for Learn-
ing: Putting it Into Practice. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Blerkom, M. L., & Blerkom, D. L. (2004). Self-monitoring strategies used by develop-
mental and non-developmental college students. Journal of College Reading
and Learning, 34, 45-60.
Bloom, B.S. (Ed.) (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of
Educational Goals, Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain. N.Y.: David McKey Co.
Bloom, B. (1984). The 2 sigma problem: the search for methods of group instruction
as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher.
Boaler, J., & Humphreys, C. (2005). Connecting Mathematical Ideas. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Boston, M. D., & Smith, M. S. (2009). Transforming secondary mathematics teach-
ing: Increasing the cognitive Demands of instructional tasks used in teachers
classrooms. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 40(2), 119-156.
Brahier, D. (2005). Teaching Secondary and Middle School Mathematics, 2nd Edition.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Bransford, J., Brown, A., Cocking, R., eds. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind,
Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Brenner, M. E., Mayer, R. E., Moseley, B., Brar, T., Duran, R., Reed, B. S., & Webb, D.
(1997). Learning by understanding: The role of multiple representations in
learning algebra. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 663-689.
Brooks, M., & Brooks J. (1993). In Search of Understanding. The Case for Constructiv-
ist Classrooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of Didactical Situations in Mathematics. Dordrecht,
The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Brown, D., & Frank, A. R. (1990). Let me do it: Self-monitoring in solving arithme-
tic problems. Education & Treatment of Children, 13(3), 239-248.
Bruer, J. (1993). Schools for Thought: A Science of Learning in the Classroom. Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bruer, J. (1999). In search of brain-based education. Phi Delta Kappan, 5, 649-657.
Bruner, J. (1964). The course of cognitive growth. American Psychologist, 19, 1-15.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H. L. (2007). Testing improves long-term retention in a
simulated classroom setting. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19,
514527.
Bybee, R., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Carlson, J., Westbrook, A., Landes,
& N. (2006). The BSCS 5E Instructional Model: Origins and Effectiveness. Colo-
rado Springs, CO: BSCS.
References 143
Caine, R., & Caine G. (1994). Making Connections. Teaching and the Human Brain.
Menlo Park, CA: Addison Wesley.
Campbell, L., Campbell B., & Dickinson D. (1994). Understanding Multiple Intelli-
gences. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Capeda, N. J., Vul, E., Rohrer, D., Wixted, J. T., & Pashler, H. (2008). Spacing effects in
learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention. Psychological Science, 19,
1095-1102.
Chabris, C., & Kosslyn, S. (1998). How do the cerebral hemispheres contribute to
encoding spatial relations? Current Directions in Psychology, Vol. 7, 8-14.
Challis, D. (2005). Towards the mature e-portfolios: Some implications for higher
education. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(3).
Chandler-Olcott, K., & Mahar, D. (2003). Adolescents anime-inspired fanfictions:
An exploration of multiliteracies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,
46(7): 556566.
Chang, M. (2007). Enhancing web-based language learning through self-monitor-
ing. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 187-196.
Chevallard, Y. (1982). Pourquoi la transposition didactique? (Why didactic trans-
position?) Seminar in Didactics and Pedagogy of Mathematics, (pp. 167-194).
IMAG, University of Grenoble.
Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explana-
tions: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems.
Cognitive Science, 13, 145-182.
Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge ac-
quisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction.
Review of Educational Research, 63, 1-49.
Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1998). An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses
to anomalous data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6),
623-654.
Chomsky, N. (1977). Language and Responsibility. N.Y.: Pantheon Books.
Clark, A. (1997). Being There: Putting Brain, Body and World Together Again. Cam-
Clark, K., & Baldwin, C. (2000). Design Rules. Vol. 1: The Power of Modularity. Cam-
Clark, R.C., & Mayer, R.E. (2003). E-Learning and the science of instruction: Proven
guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Clarke, D. (1992). Assessment Alternatives in Mathematics. Carlton, Australia: Cur-
riculum Corporation.
Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & Wood, T. (1992). A constructivist alternative to the representa-
tional view of mind in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Math-
ematics Education, 23, 2-33.
Constructivist views of the teaching and learning of mathematics (1990). Edited by
R.Davis, C. Maher, & N. Noddigns. Reston, VA: NCTM.
144 References
Craig, S.D., Sullins, J., Witherspoon, A., & Gholson, B. (2006). The deep-level-reason-
ing- question effect: The role of dialogue and deep-level-reasoning questions
during vicarious learning. Cognition and Instruction, 24, 565-591.
Crocker, D. (1991). Constructivism and Mathematics Education. The AMATYC Re-
view, 13 (1), 66-70.
DAngelo, G. (2007). From Didactics to e-Didactics: e-Learning Paradigms, Models
and Techniques. Napoli: Liguori.
Davidson, N. (1980). Small-group learning & teaching in mathematics. Cooperation
in Education. Ed. S. Sharan et al. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press.
Davidson, N. (1990). Cooperative Learning in Mathematics: A Handbook for Teach-
ers. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
De Block, A. (1975). Taxonomie van Leerdoeleu. Amsterdam: Standard Wetenschap-
pelijke Uitgererij.
De Bruin, A., Rikers, R., & Schmidt, H. (2007). The effect of self-explanation and pre-
diction on the development of principled understanding of chess in novices.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 188-205.
De Fina, A. (1992). Portfolio Assessment. Jefferson City, MO: Scholastic Professional
Books.
Dehaene, S. (1996). The organization of brain activations in number comparison.
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, Vol. 8, 47-68.
Dempster, F. N. (1997). Distributing and managing the conditions of encoding and
practice. In E. L. Bjork & R. A. Bjork (Eds.), Human Memory (pp. 197-236). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Dewey, J. (1902). The School and Society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Dihoff, R. E., Brosvic, G. M., Epstein, M. L., & Cook, M. J. (2004). Provision of feedback
during preparation for academic testing: Learning is enhanced by immediate
but not delayed feedback. Psychological Record, 54, 207-231.
DiSessa, A. A., Hammer, D., Sherin, B., & Kolpakowski, T. (1991). Inventing graphing:
Meta-representational expertise in children. Journal on Mathematical Behav-
ior, 10, 117-160.
Donovan, M., & Bransford, J. (2005), How Students Learn: History, Mathematics, and
Science in the Classroom. National Research Council Report. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
Donovan, M., & Bransford, J. (2005). Introduction. In M. S. Donovan & J. D. Bransford
(Eds.), How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Douady, R. (1987). Lingenierie didactique: une methodologie privilegiee de la re-
cherch. Proceedings of 11th PME Conference, Montreal, Canada, Vol. 3, 222-
228.
Douady, R. (1997). Didactic engineering. Learning and teaching mathematics: Anin-
ternational perspective (p. 373-401). Edited by T. Nunes & P. Bryant. East Sus-
sex: Psychology Press.
References 145
Downes, S. (2007, February 3). Msg 1, Re: What Connectivism Is. Online Connectiv-
ism Conference: University of Manitoba. Retrieved from: http://ltc.umani-
toba.ca/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=12
Driscoll, M. (2000). Psychology of Learning for Instruction. Needham Heights, MA,
Allyn & Bacon.
Dym, C., Agogino, A., Eris, O., Frey, D., & Leifer, L. (2005). Engineering design think-
ing, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94 (1), 103-120.
Edelson, D., & Reiser, B. (2006). Making authentic practices accessible to learners:
Design challenges and strategies. In R.K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge hand-
book of the learning sciences (pp. 335-354). Cambridge: University Press.
ELI (2006). 7 Things You Should Know About Screencasting. Retrieved June 27, 2013
from: http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI7012.pdf
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tescher-Romer, C. (2003). The role of deliberate
practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100,
363-406.
Eryilmaz, A. (2002). Effects of conceptual assignments and conceptual change dis-
cussions on students misconceptions and achievement regarding force and
motion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 1001-1015.
Fefner, J. (1982). Tanke og Tale: Den Retoriske Tradisjon i Vesteuropa. Kobenhavn:
C.A. Reitzels Forlag.
Feigenbaum, E., & McCorduck, P. (1983). The Fifth Generation (1st ed.) Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Friedman, S., Klivington, K., Peterson, R. (Eds.) (1986). The Brain, Cognition, and
Education. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Gagne, R.M. (1964). The implications of instructional objectives for learning. In Lin-
dall C.M. (Ed.) Defining educational objectives. Pittsburgh, PA: University of
Pittsburgh Press.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. NY: Basic
Books.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice. NY: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (2000). Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century.
NY: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (2004). Changing Minds: The Art and Science of Changing Our Own and
Other Peoples Minds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Gee, J. P. (1991). What is literacy? In C. Mitchell & K. Weiler (Eds.), Rewriting literacy:
Culture and the discourse of the other. New York: Bergin & Garvey.
Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (2nd ed.). Bris-
tol, PA: Taylor and Francis.
Gee, J. P. (2007). Good Video Games and Good Learning. New York: Peter Lang.
Gerlach, V., & Sullivan A. (1967). Constructing Statements of Outcomes. Inglewood,
CA: Southwest Regional Laboratory for Educational Research and Develop-
ment.
Gitlin, T. (2001). Media unlimited. NY: Metropolitan Books.
146 References
Goldsmith, B., & Goldsmith, M. (1973). Modular instruction in higher education:

Areview. Higher Education, 2, 15-32.
Goldstone, R.L, & Son, J.Y. (2005). The transfer of scientific principles using concrete
and idealized simulations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 69-110.
Goodchild, S., & Sriraman, B. (2012). Revisiting the didactic triangle: from the par-
ticular to the general. ZDM The International Journal of Mathematics Edu-
cation, 44(5), 581-585.
Grabmann, M. (1998). Hugh St Victors Didascalicon: En hoyskolepedagogikkfor
det 12 arhundre. Agora, 1, 39-46.
Graesser, A. C., & Person, N. K. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American
Educational Research Journal, 31, 104-137.
Greeno, J. G., & Hall, R. P. (1997). Practicing representation: Learning with and with-
out representational forms. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 361-367.
Greigner, B. (2013). Introduction to MOOCs: Avalanche, Illusion or Augmentation?
Policy Brief, July 2013. UNESCO Institute for Information Technologies in Ed-
ucation.
Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., & Thiede, K. W. (2008). Individual difference, rereading, and
self-explanation: Concurrent processing and cue validity as constraints on
metacomprehension accuracy. Memory & Cognition, 36, 93-103.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The Nature of Human Intelligence. NY: David McKey Co.
Gutierrez, K., Baquedano-Lopez, P., & Tejeda, C. (1999). Rethinking diversity: Hy-
bridity and hybrid language practices in the third space. Mind, Culture, & Ac-
tivity: An International Journal, 6 (4), 286303.
Guzzetti, B. J. (2000). Learning counter-intuitive science concepts: What have we
learned from over a decade of research? Reading & Writing Quarterly, 16(2),
89-98.
Hall, N. (1998) Concrete representations and the Procedural Analogy Theory. Jour-
nal of Mathematical Behavior, 17, 33-52.
Halpern, D. F., Graesser, A., & Hakel, M. (2007). 25 Learning principles to guide peda-
gogy and the design of learning environments. Washington, DC: Association
for Psychological Science. Retrieved from : http://psyc.memphis.edu/learn-
ing/whatweknow/index.shtml
Hamilton, D. (1999). The pedagogic paradox (or why no didactics in England?). Ped-
agogy, Culture and Society, Vol. 7(1), 135-152.
Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1998). How seductive details do their damage: A theory
of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology,
90, 414-434.
Hart, D. (1994). Authentic Assessment. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Hartsell, T., & Yuen, S. (2006). Video streaming in online learning. AACE Journal,
14(1), 31-43.
Herman, L., Aschbacher P., & Winters L. (1992). A Practical Guide to Alternative
Assessment. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Hiebert, J. (1988). A theory of developing competence with written mathematical
symbols. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 19, 333-355.
References 147
Hodara, M. (2011). Reforming mathematics classroom pedagogy: Evidence-based

findings and recommendations for the developmental math classroom. Com-
munity College Research Center, New York, NY. Working Paper No.27.
Holmes, B., & Gardner, J. (2006). e-Learning: Concepts and Practice. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Hotson, H. (1994). Philosophical pedagogy in reformed central Europe between
Ramus and Comenius. In M. Greengrass, M. Leslie & T. Raylor (Eds). Samuel
Hartlieb and Universal Reformation: Studies in Intellectual Communication.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 29-50.
Hugh St Victor (1961). The Didascalicon. Trans. by J. Taylor. NY: Columbia University
Press.
Hull, G. A. (2003). Youth culture and digital media: New literacies for new times.
Research in the Teaching of English, 38(2), 229233.
Hyerle, D. (1996). Visual Tools for Constructing Knowledge. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Hynd, C. R. (2001). Refutational texts and the change process. International Journal
of Educational Research, 35(7), 699-714.
Illich, I. (1995). In the Graveyard of the Text: A Commentary to Hughs Didascalicon.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Information Society for Technology in Education (ISTE, 2008). The National Edu-
cational Technology Standards for Teachers. ISTE. Retrieved on June 3, 2013
from: http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-teachers.
International Encyclopedia of Educational Technology. 2nd ed. T. Plomp & D. Ely
(Eds.). New York: Pergamon, 1996.
Janvier, C., Girardon, C., & Morand, J. (1993). Mathematical symbols and representa-
tions. In P. S. Wilson (Ed.) Research ideas for the classroom: High school math-
ematics (pp. 79-102). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathemat-
ics.
Jaschik, S. (2013). MOOC skeptics at the top. Inside Higher Ed. May 02, 2013. Retrieved
on June 3, 2013 from: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/05/02/
survey-finds-presidents-are-skeptical-moocs.
Jaworsky, B. (2012). Mathematics teaching development as a human practice: Iden-
tifying and drawing the threads. ZDM The International Journal of Math-
ematics Education, 44(5). Doi:10.1007/s11858-012-0437-7.
Jensen, E. (1988). Teaching with the Brain in Mind. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Johnson, N., & Rose L. (1997). Portfolios: Clarifying, Constructing, and Enhancing.
Lancaster, PA: Technomic.
Johnson, D. & Johnson, R (1989). Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research.
Edina, MN: Interaction Book.
Johnson, D. & Johnson, R. (1980). Promoting Constructive Student-Student Relation-
ships Through Cooperative Learning. Minneapolis, MN: National Support Sys-
tem Project.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning Together and Alone (6th ed.). Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
148 References
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story:

Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Re-
searcher, 38, 354-379.
Kafai, Y. (2006). Constructionism. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of
the learning sciences (pp. 35-46). Cambridge: University Press.
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., Tuovinen, J., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention
and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13,
351-371.
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., Tuovinen, J., & Sweller, J. (2001). When problem solving is
superior to studying worked examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93,
579588.
Kaminiski, J.A., Sloutsky, V.M., & Heckler, A.F. (2006). The advantage of abstract ex-
amples in learning math. Science, 320, 454-455.
Kapp, K. (2012). The Gamification of Learning and Instruction: Game-based Methods
and Strategies for Training and Education. San Francisco: Pfeifer.
Karau, S., & Williams, K. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoreti-
cal integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 681-706.
Kerr, B. (2007). A Challenge to Connectivism. Transcript of Keynote Speech, Online
Connectivism Conference. University of Manitoba. Retrieved from: http://ltc.
umanitoba.ca/wiki/index.php?title=Kerr_Presentation
Klass, B. (2003). Streaming media in higher education: Possibilities and pitfalls.
Syllabus, 16 (11). Retrieved June 27, 2013 from http://www.syllabus.com/
article.asp?id=7769
Koedinger, K., & Corbett, A. (2006). Cognitive tutors: Technology bringing learning
science to the classroom. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the
learning sciences (pp. 135-174). Cambridge, NY: Cambridge: University Press.
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowl-
edge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 29
(4), 60-70.
Kolowich, S. (2013). Duke U.s undergraduate faculty derails plan for online
courses for credit. The Chronicle of Higher Education. April 30, 2013. Re-
trieved on June 3, 2013 from: http://chronicle.com/article/Duke-Us-
Undergraduate/138895/?cid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en.
Konate, D. (Ed.) (2008). Mathematical modeling, simulations, visualization, and e-
learning. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Kop, R., & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: learning theory of the future or vestige of
the past? The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learn-
ing, Vol. 9 (3). http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewArti-
cle/523/1103%22
Kornell, N. (2009). Optimising learning using flashcards: Spacing is more effective
than cramming. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 1297-1317.
Kotulak, R. (1996). Inside the Brain: Revolutionary discoveries of how the mind works.
Kansas City, KS: Andrews McMeel.
References 149
Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1988). Timing of feedback and verbal learning. Review of
Educational Research, 58, 79-97.
Lamon, S. (2005). Teaching Fractions and Ratios for Understanding. 2nd ed. Mahwah:
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Langrall, C., & Swafford, J. (2000). Three balloons for two dollars: Developing pro-
portional reasoning. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 6, 255-258.
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2003). New Literacies: Changing Knowledge and Class-
room Learning. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Lazear, D. (1999). Multiple Intelligence Approaches to Assessment. Tucson, AZ: Zephyr.
Lemke, J.L. (1998). Metamedia literacy: Transforming meanings and media. In R.K.
Sawyer, The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, 299-314. Cam-
bridge University Press.
Lesh, R., Post, T., & Behr, M. (1987). Representations and translations among repre-
sentations in mathematics learning and problem solving. In C. Janvier (Ed.),
Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp.
33-58). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Leu, D. J., Jr. (2000). Literacy and technology: deictic consequences for literacy edu-
cation in an information age. In R.K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook
of the learning sciences, 299-314. Cambridge University Press.
Lochhead, J., & Mestre, J. P. (1988). From words to algebra: Mending misconcep-
tions. In A.Coxford and A. Schulte (Eds.). The Idea of Algebra K-12. (pp. 127-
135). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Lorenzo, G., & Ittelson, J. (2005). An overview of e-portfolios. Educause Learning
Initiative, ELI Paper 1. Retrieved on June 18, 2013 from: http://net.educause.
edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI3001.pdf
Madaus, G.F., Woods E.N., & Nuttal R.L. (1973). A causal model analysis of Blooms
taxonomy. American Educational Research Journal, 10. 253-262.
Madigan, S., & Rouse M. (1974). Picture memory and visual-generation processes.
The American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 87, 151-158.
Maher, C. A., & Speiser, R. (Eds.). (1998a). Representations and the psychology of
mathematics education: Part I [Special issue]. Journal of Mathematical Be-
havior, 17(1).
Maher, C. A., & Speiser, R. (Eds.). (1998b). Representations and the psychology of
mathematics education: Part II . Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17(2).
Makhmoutov, M. (1975). Problem-based Teaching and Learning: Main Theoretical
Issues. Moscow: Pedagogika.
Marshall, S. (1995). Schemas in Problem Solving. N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.
Marzano, R., Pickering D., & McTighe J. (1993). Assessing students outcomes. Alex-
andria, VA: ASCD.
Marzano, R., & Kendall, J. (2006). The New Taxonomy of Educational Objectives.
2nded. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
150 References
Mason, J., & Spence, M. (1999). Beyond mere knowledge of mathematics: The im-
portance of knowing-to act in the moment. Educational Studies in Mathemat-
ics, 38 (1-3), 135-161.
Mautone, P. D., & Mayer, R. E. (2001). Signaling as a cognitive guide in multimedia
learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 377-389.
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. NY: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Mayer, R. E. [Ed.]. (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia
learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43-52.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia
learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43-52.
Mayer, R.E., Hegarty, M., Mayer, S., & Campbell, J. (2005). When static media promote
active learning: Annotated illustrations versus narrated animations in multi-
media instruct. Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied, 11, 256-265.
Mc Kim, R. (1972). Experiences in Visual Thinking. Monterey, CA: Brooks/ Cole.
Meira, L. (1995). The microevolution of mathematical representations in childrens
activity. Cognition and Instruction, 13, 269-313.
Merrill, M.D. (1971). Necessary psychological conditions for defining instructional
outcomes. Instructional Design: Readings. Inglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Metcalfe, J., & Kornell, N. (2005). A region or proximal of learning model of study
time/ location. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 463-477.
Michelich, V. (2002). Streaming media to enhance teaching and improve learning.
The Technology Source. Retrieved June 27, 2013 from: http://ts.mivu.org/de-
fault.asp?show=article&id=941
Mitcham, C. (1994). Thinking through technology: The path between engineering and
philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mitchell, W. (1994). Picture Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mitra, S. (2005). Self organising systems for mass computer literacy: Findings from
the hole in the wall experiments. International Journal for Development Is-
sues, 4 (1), 71-81.
Modularization and the new curricular. London: FESC Report, 1986. Vol. 19, N4.
Moje, E. B., Ciechanowski, K. M., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R., & Collazo, T. (2004).
Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of eve-
ryday funds of knowledge and discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1),
3870.
Mooney, C. G. (2002). Theories of childhood: An introduction to Dewey, Montessori,
Erikson, Piaget, and Vygotsky. St. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press.
Myhre, R. (1976). Pedagogisk idehistorie fra oldtiden til 1860. Oslo: Fabritius.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1991). Professional standards for
teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
References 151
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and Standards for

School Mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
Nelsen, R. (1993). Proofs without Words: Exercises in Visual Thinking. Washington:
MAA.
Nelsen, R. (2000). Proofs without Words II: More Exercises in Visual Thinking. Wash-
ington: MAA.
Nelsen, R., & Alsina, C. (2006). Math Made Visual: Creating Images for Understanding
Mathematics. Washington: MAA.
Nixon, H. (2003). New research literacies for contemporary research into literacy
and new media? Reading Research Quarterly, 3 8 (3), 407413.
Nordkvelle, Y. T. (2003). Didactics: From classical rhetoric to kitchen-Latin. Peda-
gogy, Culture & Society, 11(3), 315-330.
Okon, V. (1990). Introduction to General Didactics. Moscow: Vyschaya Shkola.
Ong, W. (1974). Ramus: Method and the decay of dialogue. 2nd ed. New York: Octagon
Books.
Palincsar, A.S., & Ladewski, B. G. (2006). Literacy and the learning sciences. In
R.K.Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 299-
314). Cambridge, NY: Cambridge: University Press.
Pape, S., & Tchoshanov, M. (2001). The role of representation(s) in developing math-
ematical understanding. Theory Into Practice, 40(2), 118-127.
Papert, S., & Idit, H. (1991). Constructionism. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Papert, S., & Turkle, S. (1992). Epistemological pluralism and the re-evaluation of
the concrete. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 11(1), 3-33.
Papert, S. (1993). Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. 2nd ed. NY:
Basic Books.
Pashler, H., Bain, P. M., Bottge, B. A., Graesser, A., Koedinger, K. R., McDaniel, M., &
Metcalfe, J. (2007). Organizing instruction and study to improve student learn-
ing. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research, Institute of
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from: http://
ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/practiceguides/20072004.pdf.
Perez Tornero, J.M., & Varis, T. (2010). Media literacy and new humanism. UNESCO
Institute for Information Technologies in Education.
Perkins, D. N., & Unger, C. (1994). A new look in representations for mathematics
and science learning. Instructional Science, 22, 1-37.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder B. (1971). The Psychology of the Child. N.Y.: Basic Books.
Polya, G. (1957). How to Solve It. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Polya, G. (1963). On learning, teaching and learning teaching. Mathematical Discov-
ery, Vol.2. John Wiley & Sons.
Posner, M., & Raichle M. (1994). Images of Mind. N.Y.: Scientific American Library.
Pressley, M., Wood, E., Woloshyn, V. E., Martin, V., King, A., & Menke, D. (1992). En-
couraging mindful use of prior knowledge: Attempting to construct explana-
tory answers facilitates learning. Educational Psychologist, 27, 91-109.
152 References
Pyc, M. A., & Rawson, K. A. (2010). Why testing improves memory: Mediator effec-
tiveness hypothesis. Science, 330, 335.
Radical Constructivism in Mathematics Education (1991). E. Von Gleisersfeld (Ed.).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Reinking, D., McKenna, M. C., Labbo, L.D. & Kieffer, R.D. (1998). Handbook of literacy
and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world. Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Reynolds, B. (1995). A practical guide to cooperative learning in collegiate math-
ematics. Washington, DC: MAA Notes #37.
Richland, L.E., Zur, O., & Holyoak, K.J. (2007). Cognitive supports for analogy in the
mathematics classroom. Science, 316, 1128-1129.
Roediger, H.L., & Karpicke, J.D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory
tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17, 249-255.
Roediger, H.L., & Karpicke, J.D. (2006). The power of testing memory: Basic research
and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Sci-
ence, 1, 181-210.
Rohrer, D. (2009). The effects of spacing and mixing practice problems. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 40, 4-17.
Rohrer, D., & Taylor, K. (2006). The effects of overlearning and distributed practice
on the retention of mathematics knowledge. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20,
1209-1224.
Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Tutor learning: The role of explaining and re-
sponding to questions. Instructional Science, 36, 321-350.
Rothkopf, E. Z., & Billington, M. J. (1979). Goal-guided learning from text: Inferring
a descriptive processing model from inspection times and eye movements.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 310-327.
Rouet, J. (2006). The skills of document use: From text comprehension to web-based
learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rouillard, L.A. (1993). Goals and Goal Setting: Achieving Measured Objectives. Menlo
Park, CA: Crisp Publications.
Russell, J.D. (1974). Modular Instruction. A guide to the design, selection, utilization
and evaluation of modular materials. Minneapolis, MN: Burgess Publishing.
Ruthven, K. (2002). Linking researching with teaching: Towards synergy of schol-
arly and craft knowledge. Handbook of International Research in Mathematics
Education. Lyn D. (Ed.). English. London: LEA, 581-598.
Ruthven, K. (2012). The didactical tetrahedron as a heuristic for analysing the in-
corporation of digital technologies into classroom practice in support of in-
vestigative approaches to teaching mathematics. ZDM The International
Journal of Mathematics Education, 44 (5), 627-640.
Sadler, P., & Good, E. (2006). The impact of self-and-peer grading on student learn-
ing. Educational Assessment, 11(1), 1-31.
Salden, R., Alaven, V., Renkl, A., & Schwonke, R. (2009). Worked examples and tu-
tored problem solving: Redundant or synergistic forms of support? Topics in
Cognitive Science, 1, 203-213.
References 153
Savinainen, A., & Scott, P. (2002). The Force Concept Inventory: A tool for monitor-
ing student learning. Physics Education, 37(1), 45-52.
Sawyer, K. (Ed.) (2006). The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schoenfeld, A. (2012). Problematizing the didactical triangle. ZDM The Inter
national Journal of Mathematics Education, 44 (5), 587-599.
Schofiled, J. (1995). Computers and Classroom Culture. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge
University Press.
Schults, B. (1988). Scientific visualization: Transforming numbers into computer
pictures. Computer Pictures, N1, 11-16.
Schworm, S., & Renkl, A. (2002). Learning by solved example problems: Instruction-
al explanations reduce self-explanation activity. In W.D. Gray & C.D. Schunn
(Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science So-
ciety (pp. 816-821). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Seeger, F. (1998). Representations in the mathematics classroom: Reflections and
constructions. In F. Seeger, J. Voigt, & V. Werschescio (Eds.), The culture of the
mathematics classroom (pp. 308-343). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Sharan, S. (Ed.) (1990). Cooperative Learning: Theory and Research. N.Y.: Praeger.
Shepard, K. (2004). Questioning, promoting, and evaluating the use of streaming
video to support student learning. In J.J. Hirschbuhl & D. Bishop (Eds.), Com-
puters in education (pp. 124-130). Guilford, CT: McGraw-Hill.
Shepard, L., Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., Rust, F., Snowden, J., Gordon,
E., Gutierrez, C., & Pacheco, A. (2005). Assessment. In L. Darling-Hammond
& J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers
should learn and be able to do (pp. 275-326). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Shulman, L., & Keislar, E. (1996). Learning by Discovery: A Critical Appraisal. Chi-
cago, IL: Rand McNally.
Siemens, G. (2005, August 10). Connectivism: Learning as Network Creation.
eLearning Space.org website. http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/net-
works.htm
Sigmar-Olaf, T., & Keller, T. (Eds.) (2005). Knowledge and information visualization:
Searching for synergies. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Silver, E. (1994). On mathematical problem posing. For the Learning of Mathematics,
14, 19-28.
Skemp, R. (1987). The Psychology of Learning Mathematics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Skinner, B. (1953). Science and Human Behavior. NY: Macmillan.
Slavin, R. (1983). Cooperative Learning. N.Y.: Longman.
Smith, N. B. (1965). American reading instruction. Newark, NE: International Read-
ing Association.
Smith, S. M., & Vela, E. (2001). Environmental context-dependent memory: A review
and meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 203-220.
154 References
Sousa, D. (1995). How the Brain Learns: A Classroom Teachers Guide. Reston, VA:
NASSP.
Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. C. (1991). Cognitive flexibil-
ity, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced
knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. Educational Technology, 31,
24-33.
Springer, S., & Deutsch G. (1993). Left Brain, Right Brain. N.Y.: W.H.Freeman.
Stein, M. K. & Smith, M. S. (1998). Mathematical tasks as a framework for reflection:
From research to practice. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School. 3(4),
268-275.
Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M., & Silver, E. A. (2000). Implementing stand-
ards-based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional develop-
ment. New York: Teachers College Press.
Stenmark, J. (1991). Mathematics Assessment: Myths, models, good questions and
practical suggestions. Reston, VA: NCTM.
Sylwester, R. (1995). A Celebration of Neurons. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Szentagothai, J. (1975). The modular concept in cerebral cortex architecture.
Brain Research, Vol. 95, 4, 475-496.
Szupnar, K. K., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L. (2007). Expectation of a final cumu-
lative test enhances long-term retention. Memory & Cognition, 35, 1007-1013.
Tall, D., & Vinner, S. (1981). Concept image and concept definition in mathemat-
ics with particular reference to limits and continuity. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 12(20), 151-169.
Tapscott, D. (2009). Educating the net generation. In A.C. Ornstein, E.F. Pajak &
S.B.Ornstein (pp. 284-289). Contemporary issues in curriculum. Pearson.
Taylor, K., & Rohrer, D. (2010). The effects of interleaved practice. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 24, 837-848.
Tchohanov, M., Lesser, L., & Salazar, J. (2008). Teacher knowledge and student
achievement: Revealing patters. Journal of Mathematics Education Leader-
ship, Vol. 13, 39-49.
Tchoshanov, M. (1996). Flexible Technology of Problem-Modular Instruction. Mos-
cow: Narodnoe obrazovanie.
Tchoshanov, M. (1997). Visual Mathematics. Kazan, Russia: ABAK.
Tchoshanov, M. (2011). Engineering of Learning Technologies. Moscow: Binom.
Thompson, P. (1994). Students, functions, and the undergraduate curriculum. Re-
search in Collegiate Mathematics Education, Vol. 4, Part 1. Washington, DC:
American Mathematical Society.
Tierney, R., Carter M., & Desai L. (1991). Portfolio Assessment in the Reading-writing
Classroom. Noorwood, MA: Christofer-Gordon Publishers.
Trafton, J.G., & Reiser, B.J. (1993). The contributions of studying examples and solv-
ing problems to skill acquisition. In M. Polson (Ed.), Proceedings of the 15th
Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1017-1022). Hills-
dale, NJ: Erlbaum.
References 155
UNESCO (2011). UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers. UNESCO. Re-
trieved on June 3, 2013 from: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco/
themes/icts/teacher-education/unesco-ict-competency-framework-for-
teachers/.
Valverde, Y., & Tchoshanov, M. (2013). Secondary mathematics teachers disposi-
tion toward challenge and its effect on teaching practice and student perfor-
mance. Kazan Pedagogical Journal, Vol. 3, 25-33.
Van Hiele, P. (1986). Structure and Insight: A Theory of Mathematics Education. NY:
Academic Press.
Van Horn, R. (2007). Educational Games. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(1), 73-74.
Verhagen, P. (2006). Connectivism: A new learning theory? Surf e-learning thema-
site. Retrieved from http://elearning.surf.nl/e-learning/english/3793
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Pro-
cesses. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Webb, N. (1992). Student interaction and learning in small groups. Review of Educa-
tional Research, 52, 421-445.
Wheatley, G. H. (1997). Reasoning with images in mathematical activity. In L. D.
English (Ed.), Mathematical reasoning: Analogies, metaphors, and images (pp.
281-298). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wiliam, D. (2007). Keeping learning on track: Formative assessment and the regu-
lation of learning. In F. K. Lester, Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of mathematics
teaching and learning (pp. 1053-1088). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Pub-
lishing.
Williams, L. (1983). Teaching for the Two-sided Mind. A Guide for Right Brain/ Left
Brain Education. N.Y.: A Touchstone Book.
Wolfe, P., & Brandt R. (1998). What do we know from brain research? Educational
Leadership, 11, 7-10.
Wolfe, M. B. W., Schreinder, M. E., Rehder, B., Laham, D., Foltz, P., Kintsch, W., & Lan-
dauer, T. (1998). Learning from text: Matching readers and texts by latent
semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 309-336.
Wright, H. (2007). Introduction to Scientific Visualization. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Wycoff, J. (1991). Mindmapping. NY: Berkley Book.
Yuan, L., & Powell, S. (2013), MOOCs and Open Education: Implications for Higher
Education http://publications.cetis.ac.uk/2013/667.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achieve-
ment: An overview and analysis. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.),
Self-regulated learning and academic achievement (2nd ed., pp. 1-38). Hills-
dale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Zimmerman, W., & Cummingham, S. (1990). Visualization in Teaching and Learning
Mathematics. Washington, D.C.: The MAA Inc.
156 Websites
WEBSITES
Screenshot of the Cognitive Tutor Algebra system
http://www.carnegielearning.com/galleries/4/
Open source for the e-portfolio development
http://www.mahara.org
Authors open access website on Visual Mathematics
http://mourat.utep.edu/vis_math/
Open source Wolfram Demonstrations Project
http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/AreaUnderACycloidII/
Open source Scientific Visualization project
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Tesseract.ogv
Open access Mathematics and Science Education website
http://www.svsu.edu/mathsci-center/uploads/math/gmconcept.htm
NBC Learn media streaming resource
http://www.nbclearn.com/portal/site/learn/
Khan Academy https://www.khanacademy.org/math/trigonometry/functions_
and_graphs/undefined_indeterminate/v/undefined-and-indeterminate
Open access Function Game http://www.functiongame.com/
Open access NCTM e-examples
http://standards.nctm.org/document/eexamples/chap5/5.2/index.htm
Appendix
UNIT9
LEARNING PATHWAY TO PROPORTIONAL REASONING
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
After successful completion of this unit, the student is expected to:
apply mathematical process standards to use proportional and non-

proportional relationships to develop foundational concepts of functions;
represent linear proportional situations with tables, graphs, and equations
in the form of y = kx;
represent linear non-proportional situations with tables, graphs, and
equations in the form of y = mx + b, where b 0;
contrast the bivariate sets of data that suggest a linear relationship with
the bivariate sets of data that do not suggest a linear relationship from a
graphical representation;
use a trend line that approximates the linear relationship between bivariate
sets of data to make predictions;
solve problems involving direct variation;
distinguish between proportional and non-proportional situations using
tables, graphs, and equations in the form y = kx or y = mx + b, where b 0.
9
The unit was developed by the Texas-Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
(T-STEM) team: A. Duval, D. Garcia, L. Michal, M. Tchoshanov, and A. Torres. This is a reduced
version of the unit.
158 Appendix
UNIT CONTENT
Pre-assessment (not included)
Introductory Elements
Unit Objectives
Prior Knowledge
Unit Map
Unit Project
Language and Communication
Unit Core
Mission One
Mission Two
Mission Three
Mission Four
Applied Elements
Applications
Connections
Generalization
Debugging
Extensions
Post-assessment (not included)

Appendix 159
UNIT MAP
160 Appendix
PRIOR KNOWLEDGE: IDEA OF RELATIONSHIP

Dollars and Pesos
1. What did the newspaper state as the exchange rate between dollars and pesos?
2. On July 14, 2007, the exchange rate from U. S. dollars to Mexican pesos was
stated as: 1 US dollar = 10.77 Mexican pesos.
Round* 10.77 to the nearest peso: 1 US dollar = ____ Mexican pesos
3. Place one dollar on the table and the number of pesos we will use from 2 above
to remind us of the exchange rate.
4. Write this in the ratio form*.
5. What other ratio form could we use?
6. Using your work with proportions*, set up a proportion with this ratio, use D
for US dollars and P for Mexican pesos.
7. Write a statement in words you would use to tell someone how you convert
dollars to pesos.
Write a statement in words that you would use to tell someone how to convert
pesos to dollars.
8. Fill in the table of values* for dollars or pesos. Write the mathematics you are
using in the process column (D = U. S. Dollars and P = Mexican pesos).
Dollars Process Pesos (D, P)

0
1
2
3
4
5
200
300
400
500
Appendix 161
Graph the table of values on a graph with dollars on the horizontal axis* and pesos
on the vertical axis*.
P (Pesos)
D (Dollars)
9. In the table of values and the graph of the pairs of numbers we get, what is
happening each time we have the number of dollars and want to find the
number of pesos?
Here, let D = x and P = y and we have y = x . 11 or y = 11 . x
So the equation, the table, and the graph represent the same relationship. We are
multiplying all the numbers along the dollars axis, that is, the horizontal real
number line*, to get the new numbers that we will be using for pesos axis, that is
the vertical real number line*.

* Prior knowledge students may bring into the classroom from their experiences but also
to assess the prior knowledge that has been formally taught in previous mathematics classes
denoted with an asterisk.
162 Appendix
UNIT PROJECT:
AN IDEA OF MULTIPLICATIVE RELATIONSHIP
Balancing Activity
For this activity you will need a balance and some blocks of different weights. You
will be placing these blocks weights at different distances from the center, or the
fulcrum of the balance.
Identical Weights
1. Get two blocks of the same weight. Put one block 3 cm to the left of the fulcrum.
Where on the right side of the fulcrum do you need to place the other block so
that it balances the first block?
2. Next, move the block on the left 1 cm further away from the center. Where do
you need to place the block on the right side so that the balance stays balanced?
3. Now move the left block 5 cm away from the center. Where do you need to
place the block on the right side so that the balance stays balanced?
4. What do you observe about where the blocks have to be placed to keep balance?
Try some more experiments. Write down, in your own words, what you have
observed.
Different Weights
Now you are going to balance a different number of blocks on the left and right sides
of the fulcrum. Make two groups of blocks, where one group (Group L) will weigh
double the other group (Group R). Group L will be placed on the left side of the
fulcrum and Group R will always be placed on the right side of the fulcrum.
My Group L has _________ blocks and Group R has _________ blocks.
4. Place Group L 3 cm to the left of the center of the balance. Place Group R 3 cm
to the right of the center. Describe what is happening?
6. Where do you need to place Group R to balance two sides?
7. Now move Group L 1 cm further to the left. Where do you need to place Group
R so that the balance stays balanced?
8. How does this compare to the previous situation with the identical weights?
Appendix 163
Making a table
Complete the table that compares the distances from the fulcrum for Group L and
Group R.
Group L Group R
1 cm
2 cm
3 cm
4 cm
5 cm
6 cm
7 cm
9. How much further out does Group R move every time you move Group L 1 cm?
Making a graph
10. Graph the data from the table.
Group R
Group L
11. What do you notice about the points you plotted?

164 Appendix
Making predictions
12. If you had a bigger scale and could put Group L 8 cm from the center, where do
you think you would have to put Group R? Explain your answer using both your
table and your graph.
13. Suppose you could put Group L 10 cm from the center. Where do you think you
would have to put Group R? Again, try to use both your table and your graph to
explain your answer.
Historical Note
Archimedes, a Greek mathematician, was the first to explain the principle of the
lever. Although he did not prove this principle, he was the first to state, weights of
equal distances are in equilibrium, and equal weights at unequal distances are not in
equilibrium but incline towards the weight which is at the greater distance.
When weights are equal, distances of the weights from the fulcrum must be adjusted
to have a balanced state of equilibrium. The Archimedes lever principle tells us,
if W1D1 = W2D2 , then the above is in static equilibrium, with all torques balanced.
The distance from the point where you place the weight W1 to the fulcrum is the
lever arm distance D1, the distance from the point where you place the weight W2 to
the fulcrum is the lever arm distance D2. Distances are measured from the fulcrum
to the weights. Archimedes is said to have stated, give me a place to stand on, and
I will move the Earth. Imagine you have a huge lever on one side of which you have
the Earth and on the other side a place to stand. How far would you have to stand
to move the Earth?
Mathematical Note
From Physics, torque, force, and weight are given by the following.
T = F D Torque is force times lever arm distance.
F = M g Force is mass times acceleration.
W = M g Weight is mass times acceleration of gravity on earth.
To have a balanced state, Torque1 must equal Torque2, that is,

T1 = T2.
F1 D1 = F2 D2 Substitute force times distance for torque.
M1 g D1 = M2 g D2 Substitute mass times acceleration for force.
W1 D1 = W2 D2 Substitute weight for mass times acceleration.
Appendix 165
ATLANTIS MISSION ONE

Representing Proportional Relationships
Along with astronauts, the International Space Station, ISS, has also hosted tourists
from planet Earth. Between 2001 and 2007, five tourists have traveled to the ISS
at an average cost of $25 million per person. Currently, 200 seats for tourists have
been presold.
1. Complete the table below to show the cost of different numbers of tourists
if the cost remains the same. Let t represent the number of tourists and c
represent the cost of tours in millions.
Number of tourists ( t) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... t

Cost of tourists (c)
2. Write how you would find the cost of 11 tours.
3. Explain the rule you would use to find the cost of any number of tourists (t).
4. Graph the relationship between the number of tourists and the cost of tours on
the coordinate grid provided.
166 Appendix
5. Use your rule to write an equation that describes the relationship between the
number of tourists, t, and the cost of trip, c.
Mathematical Note
Relationship is equality, inequality, or any property for two objects in a

specified order, for example a=b, a<b, ab=ba, etc.
Ratio is a multiplicative comparison between two quantities. Rate is a
reflectively abstracted constant ratio. Unit rate is a rate with the second
term equal to one.
A relationship between two varying quantities is proportional when the
ratio of corresponding terms is constant.
6. What is the rate of tourists to cost?
What is the rate of cost to tourists?
What is the unit rate of cost to tourists?
7. What will the cost be for 200 tourists?
Use a proportion and the equation to verify this cost.
Using a Proportion Using an Equation
8. How many tourists would be able to travel for $425 million?
Show your work.
9. Identify where the unit rate appears in the table, the graph, the equation, and
the proportion.
Appendix 167
ATLANTIS MISSION TWO

Proportional Relationships
The International Space Station, ISS, relies on solar energy to power itself. It needs
a total of eight solar array panels. The ISS used the Mercury Solar Company to buy
the commercial size solar panels. The cost of each panel is $19 million. Due to the
structural constraints of the space station, the panels must be installed in pairs.
1. Write a ratio that compares the number of panels to the cost of panels.
2. What would the cost of three panels be? Use this information to determine if
the relationship between the number of the panels and the cost of panels is
proportional. Explain your reasoning.
Mathematical Note
Linear relationships in the form y = mx + b are not proportional.
For example, lets consider the equation y = 2x.
If x = 1, then y = 2 and if x = 4, then y = 8.
The proportional relationship = 4/8 is true.
Therefore the equation y = 2x is a linear proportional relationship.
Now lets consider the equation y = 2x + 3.
If x = 1, then y = 5 and if x = 4, then y = 11.
Therefore the proportional relationship 1/5 = 4/11 is false.
Therefore the equation y = 2x + 3 is a linear non-proportional relationship.
3. Let p represent the number of solar panels and c the cost of panels. The table
below shows the number of array panels and the cost of panels. With the
ratio from above, use a proportion to complete the table below with the given
information.
Photovoltaic Modules
Number of panels (p) 0 2 4 6 8 10 60 P
Cost of panels in millions (c)
168 Appendix
4. Graph the relationship between the number of panels and the cost of panels on
the coordinate grid provided.
5. Write an equation that describes the relationship between the number of

panels and the cost of panels.
6. What will the cost be for the eight panels needed for the ISS? Use a proportion
and the equation to find this cost.
7. How many panels could the ISS buy with $115 million?
Use the multiple representations to find your solution.
Using a Proportion Using the Equation Using the Table Using the Graph
8. Compare the solutions under each of the multiple representations.
9. Let p represent the number of solar panels and t the total cost of panels. The
Mercury Solar Company adds a $3 million fee to any purchase. This fee pays
the research and development expenses attached to the manufacturing of the
panels.
Appendix 169
The table below shows the number of array panels and the total cost of panels.
Complete the table.
Photovoltaic Modules
Number of panels (p) 0 2 4 6 8 10 60 P
Total cost of panels (t)
10. Graph the relationship between the number of panels and the total cost of
panels on the coordinate grid provided.
panels and the total cost of panels.
12. What will the total cost be for eight panels needed for the ISS? Use a proportion
and the equation to find this cost.
13. How many panels could the ISS buy with $115 million?
Use the multiple representations to find your solution.
Using a Proportion Using the Equation Using the Table Using the Graph
170 Appendix
14. Write the equation for the relationship between the number of array panels and
the cost of panels and the equation for the relationship between the number of
array panels and the total cost of panels.
Panels vs. Cost of Panels Panels vs. Total Cost of Panels
15. Compare the multiple representations of #7 and #13. How are the equation,
table, and graph of these two relations similar and different?
16. List the characteristics you have encountered of a proportional and a non-
proportional relationship for each of the representations.
Multiple Representation Proportional Relationship Non-Proportional Relationship

Proportion
Equation
Table
Graph
17. Determine the proportionality of the relationship between the number of

array panels and the cost of panels. Refer to the equation, table, and graph of
the relation to support your answer. Use as many characteristics as possible
from your list above.
18. Determine the proportionality of the relationship between the number of array
panels and the total cost of panels. Refer to the equation, table, and graph of the
relation to support your answer. Use as many characteristics as possible from
your list above.
You are now going to make a model of these solar panels. Your setup materials
will cost you fifteen dollars. The paper to make the model panels will cost you
four dollars per a set of panels. You plan to sell these models to the NASA for
seven dollars per set.
19. What relationship would be linear and proportional?
20. Justify your response.
21. What relationship would be linear and non-proportional?
22. Justify your response.
23. Describe how the equation of the relationship in problem 19 could help you
determine its proportionality.
Appendix 171
ATLANTIS MISSION THREE

Non-Proportional Relationships
1. Recall that the cost of four panels is $75 million. The Mercury Solar Company
adds a $3 million fee to all purchases. This fee pays the research and
development expenses attached to the manufacturing of the panels. The table
below shows the number of array panels and the total cost of panels. Let p
represent the number of solar panels and c the total cost of panels. Complete
the table.
Number of panels (p) Process Row New cost of panels in millions (c) Rate of cost to panels (c/p)
0
2
4
6
8
10
20
...
P
2. Graph the relationship between the number of panels and the new total cost of
the panels on the coordinate grid provided.
172 Appendix
3. Explain how you found the total cost of the panels.

panels and the total cost of panels.
5. Verify the total cost for the eight panels needed for the ISS using the equation.
Use the equation to find the cost of fifteen panels.
Using your Equation for 8 panels Using your Equation for 15 panels
6. The ISS is considering storing panels for future use. What will be the cost for
purchasing 77 panels?
7. Can you use a proportion to find the total cost for the eight panels? Explain why
or why not.
Using a Proportion
8. Compare the solution using an equation and the solution using a proportion.
Mathematical Note
In the equation c=mp + b, the relationship between c and p is not

proportional. On the other hand, the rate of change between the cost per
panel (c) and the number of panels (p) is proportional.
9. Show the multiple representations for the relationship between the number of
panels and the new total cost of panels in this mission.
Using your Equation Using the Table Using the Graph Proportion
Appendix 173
10. Is the constant rate of change in your equation also a constant of proportionality?
Explain your opinion.
11. In Mission One, the cost of four panels was $75 million. Show the multiple
representations from Mission One in the space below.
Equation Table Graph Proportion
12. Is the constant rate of change in the equation in Mission Two also a constant of
proportionality? Explain your opinion.
13. Write the equation for the relationship between the number of panels and the
cost of panels, and the equation for the relationship between the number of
panels and the new total cost of panels.
The Number of Panels to the Cost of Panels
The Number of Panels to the Cost of Panels

including an additional fee
14. If the cost per panel is the same for both situations, why is the total cost
different?
15. Compare multiple representations for Mission Two and Mission Three. How
are the equations, tables, and graphs of these two relationships similar and
how are they different?
Representation Similarities Differences

Equation
Table
Graph
16. Which relationship is proportional? Justify your response.
17. Which relationship is not proportional? Justify your response.

174 Appendix
ATLANTIS MISSION FOUR

Proportional & Non-proportional Relationships
The International Space Station, ISS, uses different systems to record data for each
mission. It is important to be able to convert these measurements between systems
as different countries use different systems. The International Space Station
records their measurements in a variety of systems. Let us take a look at the two
graphs below that show the relationship of length measurements and temperature
between the metric and customary system. Recall the following conversion: one
mile is approximately 1.6 kilometers.
4. Complete the following tables by reading the graphs above. Let k represent the
number of kilometers and m the number of miles.
Change
in kilometers
^ ^ ^ ^
Number ... k
of kilometers (k)
Number
of miles (m)
^ ^ ^ ^
Change
in miles
change in m
change in k
m
Ratio
k
Appendix 175
Let C represent the degrees in Celsius and F the degrees in Fahrenheit.
Change
in kilometers
^ ^ ^ ^
Number of degrees ... C
Celsius, C
Number of degrees
Fahrenheit, F
^ ^ ^ ^
Change in degrees
Fahrenheit
change in F
change in C
F
Ratio
C
5. Describe your rule for finding the number of miles when the number of
kilometers is given.
6. Explain how to convert 200 kilometers?
7. Show how you could use the unit rate of miles to kilometers to find the
conversion of 200 kilometers into miles.
Unit rate = _______________
number of kilometers, k, and the number of miles, m.
9. If a degree of 50 degrees Celsius was recorded, explain how you could convert
it into degrees Fahrenheit?
10. Show how you could use a rate of degrees Celsius to Fahrenheit to convert 100
degrees Celsius into degrees Fahrenheit.
Unit rate = _______________

176 Appendix
degrees in Celsius, c, and the degrees in Fahrenheit, f. Using the two graphs,
tables, and equations of two conversion relationships complete the following
information:
Differences in graphs
Differences in table
Differences in equations
12. Given what you have learned about proportional and non-proportional
relationships, describe the two conversion relationships in terms of their
equation, table, graphs, and constant rates.
Kilometers to Miles
Celsius to Fahrenheit
Appendix 177
GENERALIZATION AND EXTENSION
1. Each scale below has numerical values for weight and distance on both sides
of the scale. The triangle in the middle is a fulcrum. Which scale below is
balanced?
Explain your choice below:

178 Appendix
2. The scale below has a weight of x units at a distance of 3 units on the left side
of the scale, and a weight of y units at a distance of 5 units on the right side
of the scale.
If the scale is balanced, what is the relationship between weights x and y? Write down
the relationship as an algebraic expression. Describe a type of this relationship.
Provide your solution in the space below:
3. The scale below has a weight of x units at a distance of 5 units on right side
of the scale, and a weight of 7 units at a distance of x units on left side of the
scale.
If the scale is balanced, what is the relationship between weight x and distance y?
Write down the relationship as an algebraic expression. Describe the type of this
relationship. Provide your solution in the space below:
4. The scale below has a weight of y units at a distance of x units on the left side
of the scale, and a weight of 3 units at a distance of 7 units on the right side
of the scale.
Appendix 179
If the scale is balanced, what is the relationship between weight y and distancex?
Write down the relationship as an algebraic expression. Describe a type of this
relationship. Provide your solution in the space below:
Mathematical Note
While performing exercises 1-4 you, probably, noticed that multiplicative

structures could be balanced and unbalanced.
The multiplicative structure below is balanced because 4x3=3x4.
In general, this type of the multiplicative balance ab=ba we call

commutative.
The multiplicative structure below is balanced too because 4x3=2x6.
In general, this type of the multiplicative balance ab=cd we call non-

commutative.
The multiplicative structure below is unbalanced because 4x33x5.

180 Appendix
Appendix 181
Lets consider the first setting for the direct proportional relationship when a and
d are constants and b and c are variables. Let the variable b be equal to y and let
the variable c be equal to x. So, b=y, c=x. Then the multiplicative balance statement
ab=cd can be rewritten as ay=xd. Lets solve this statement for y:
y = dx .
a

Since both a and d are constants, then the ratio of two constants d is a constant too.
a
d d
Let constant k equal to the ratio then k= . Finally, we have: y=kx.
a a
5. Show how the second setting for the direct proportional relationship when b
and c are constant and a and d are variables leads to the algebraic statement
y=kx.
6. Show how the third setting for the direct proportional relationship when a and
c are constant and b and d are variables leads to the algebraic statement y=kx.
7. Show how the fourth setting for the direct proportional relationship when b
and d are constant and a and c are variables leads to the algebraic statement
y=kx.
Lets consider the first setting for the inverse proportional relationship when a and
b are constants and c and d are variables. Let us denote symbol x to the variable c
and symbol y to the variable d: c=x, d=y. Then the multiplicative balance statement
ab=cd can be rewritten as ab=xy. Since both a and b are constants, the product of
two constants ab is a constant too. Lets denote symbol k to the product ab: k=ab.
Finally, we have: k=xy or xy=k.
8. Show how the second setting for the inverse proportional relationship when c
and d are constant and a and d are variables leads to the algebraic statement
xy=k.
Mathematical Note
In both cases of direct and inverse proportionality k is called a constant of

proportionality. The difference in the role of k between direct proportional
and inverse proportional relationship is the following:
in the inverse proportional relationship xy=k, k represents

acoefficient;
in the direct proportional relationship y=kx, k represents

acoefficient with a special role a constant rate of change.
182 Appendix
DEBUGGING MISCONCEPTIONS
In the table below complete the column How to fix the misconception?
Type of Cause of How to Fix the

Example of Misconception
misconception Misconception Misconception?
1. Ignorance On a missing value problem, a student Students ignore part

ofdata uses only two of the three pieces of the of the question or
given information to find a solution. some of the data.
Using the gum example, a student might
say 8 sticks of gum costs 72 cents since
9 cents times 8 sticks is 72, not using the
piece of data which tells us that 9 cents
is for 2 sticks of gum.
2. Additive This strategy is called a constant Students use an

reasoning in difference. Here, a student might notice additive strategy
proportional that 9 cents is 7 more than 2 sticks, so that focuses on the
situation to find the missing value they would add constant different
7 to 8, the number of sticks of gum in between two numbers
the second ratio, to predict that 8 sticks in a proportion, as
would cost 15 cents. opposed to their
constant rate.
3. Mixing Here, a student may find the correct Students may use
additive and non-integer ratio, but only multiplies by a combination
multiplicative the whole number component of the of additive and
strategies ratio to find the missing value, adding multiplicative
the remainder. For the gum problem, strategy, often
a student might say that 9/2 is 4 R1, so occurring with non-
they would multiply 8 by 4 and then add integer ratios.
1, getting 33 instead of 36.
4. False rate or Students may set up a proportion, but Students may use a
proportion put the numbers in the wrong places. faulty application of a
They may find the wrong unit rate, but correct strategy.
use it correctly to find the missing value.
5. False For example, in the Mr. Short and Mr. Students make a
assumption Tall problem, the student may assume change in scale that
that the little paper clips are half the they predict the given
size of the big paper clips. Therefore, information not given
they choose a scale factor of two in the problem.
and make a prediction accordingly. In
actuality, the scale was only 1.5 for the
task (remember, 4/6 = 6/x).
6. False Students may say that they feel one Students make a
numerical ratio is larger than the other because decision based on
preference they like number 5, and not because of the appearances of
the values of two ratios. other extraneous
factors in a problem,
often called using a
qualitative method.
Appendix 183
APPLICATION
Use the following information to answer questions 1 9 below.
Andy and Angela are remodeling their kitchen. The first phase will involve replacing
all countertops. They have chosen a countertop that will cost them $350 for every
10 square feet including installation. To make sure all permits are filed and the work
is up to code, the contractor charges an additional $1,500 to oversee the project.
Andy and Angela decide to install as much of the countertop around the kitchen as
their budget will allow. The contractor has given them four designs with different
amounts of square feet for each of the four designs. Fill in the rows of table for
designs 1-4 to help you answer the questions that follow:
Cost
s = square Countertop Contractors project

t = total cost (s, t)
feet cost oversee charge
Design 1 200
Design 2 175
Design 3 150
Design 4 125
Andy and
Angelas design
1. How much will the countertop cost for design 1?

What is the total cost if they decide to go with design 1?



184 Appendix
5. Let s = square feet and t = total cost

Use the grid below to plot the points (s, t) collected from each design.
6. If Andy and Angela have $6,500 to spend on buying and installing new
countertops, estimate how many square feet of countertop they could have
installed if they come up with a new design? (It may not be one of the options
given.)
7. Fill in the last row of the table using the square feet you have determined from
the graph. Check your answer.
8. Explain in words, how you would determine the total cost for any number of
square feet?
9. Write an equation using s for square feet and t for total cost that expresses the
explanation you just wrote.
10. It is recommended that an average adult take a daily allowance of 0.8 grams of
protein for every 2.2 pounds of body weight. Harry weighs 160 pounds.
a. How many grams of protein should Harry allow himself?
b. Write an equation anyone could use to determine their daily grams of

protein allowance using w as the number of pounds they weigh and p
as the daily amount of protein they need in grams.
c. Can this equation be expressed as a proportion? Is the relationship a

proportion?
Appendix 185
11. Harrys sister, Angela is on a swim team and needs an additional 5 grams of
protein each day on top of the recommended average daily allowance. She
weighs 128 pounds.
a. How many daily grams of protein should Angela allow herself?
b. Write an equation Angelas swim team members can use to determine their
daily grams of protein allowance using p as the number of pounds they
weigh.
c. Can you write the equation for a swimmer as a proportion? Is the

relationship between pounds and grams of protein needed for a swimmer a
proportional relationship?
12. Complete the following data for Angelas swim team members. Use your work
from 11 above to complete the table for the other swim team members.
Grams of protein Additional Total daily allowance

Team Weight in
needed based grams needed of protein needed, (w, p)
member pounds, w
onweight forswimmers p
Angela 128
Isabella 145
Daisy 130
Laura 152
Ana 125
Dolly 141
Any team w
member
13. Explain the process you used to fill in the column for total daily allowance of
protein needed.
14. Write the process you used in the form of an equation. Use w for swimmers
weight and p for the amount of protein needed. Use this to fill in the last row of
the table.
186 Appendix
15. In the coordinate x, y plane given below, plot the points from the table you
completed for Angelas team members. Use weight for the horizontal axis and
protein for the vertical axis.
16. Connect the points to form a line.
17. Plot the point for Harrys weight and protein allowance. Where would the line
for all the non-swim team members like Harry go?
Guided Review of Proportion Concepts

1. The heart of an average adult beats 16 times every 12 seconds.
a. Is this a proportional relationship?
b. What is the unit rate of the heartbeat of an average adult?
c. How many times does the average adult heart beat in one minute?
2. Forming a Concept and Organizing Knowledge.

a = c is a true proportion. Write the proportion in at least two other ways.
b d
Recent IITE publications
Information and Communication Technologies in Education (In Russian)

UNESCO IITE, Moscow, 2013.
The monograph summarizes the results obtained within UNESCO IITE
projects and analytical materials provided by IITE experts. The book cov-
ers the best practices of UNESCO Member States in integration of ICT in
their educational systems in the context of development of knowledge
society and emergence of new technologies and alternative forms of edu-
cation delivery. Based on the generalisation and extrapolation of contem-
porary trends in ICT in education the book presents recommendations for
education policy.
Pedagogies of Media and Information Literacies

IITE produced this Handbook in collaboration with the Finnish Society on
Media Education. The Handbook published in English and Russian should
help teachers to enhance their media and information literacy and en-
courage them to take up media education in the classroom. The main
target group is teachers of secondary schools who are either in training
or in service.
IITE-2012 International Conference ICT in Education: Pedagogy, Educa-

tional Resources and Quality Assurance(Abstracts)
The Book of Abstracts of the IITE-2012 International Conference (orga-
nized by UNESCO IITE and UNESCO Moscow Office in cooperation with
the Moscow State University of Economics, Statistics and Informatics and
State Institute of Information Technologies and Telecommunications In-
formika on 13-14 November 2012 in Moscow, Russia) includes keynote
speeches and extended abstracts in English or Russian.
Recognizing the potential of ICT in early childhood education (in Rus-

sian)
The analytical survey published by IITE in 2010 in English has been trans-
lated into Russian and published. The survey suggests strategies for the
development of ICT capability of ECE centres and recommendations,
which should be helpful for educators, parents and school policy deci-
sion makers in their efforts to adapt the child development process to the
continuous evolution of the digital universe.
188 Recent IITE publications
Media and Information Literacy: Curriculum for Teachers (in Russian)

The Institute has translated into Russian and published the UNESCO
curriculum for teachers Media and Information Literacy. Authors:
Wilson, Carolyn; Grizzle, Alton; Tuazon, Ramon; Akyempong, Kwame;
Cheung, Chi-Kim. Scientific editors of the Russian version: Prof. Natalia
Gendina, Director of the Research Institute of Information Technolo-
gies, Kemerovo State University; Prof. Sergey Korkonosenko, Chair of
the Department of the Theory of Journalism and Mass Communica-
tions, St.Petersburg State University.
ICT in Primary Education

The book is the first publication in the framework of the UNESCO IITE
three-year project. It explores the origins, settings and initiatives of effec-
tive integration of up-to-date innovative technologies in primary school
and accumulates the best practices of ICT incorporation gathered from
the project sample primary schools across the globe. The analytical study
was elaborated by IITE experts from Chile, Hong Kong, Hungary, Slovak
Republic, South Africa, Russia, UAE and UK.
Educational Portals and Open Educational Resources in the Russian Fed-

eration
The survey Educational Portals and Open Educational Resources in the Rus-
sian Federation (authors: Alexey Sigalov and Alexey Skuratov, Informi-
ka) provides an up-to-date survey of the current level of development of
educational materials and repositories of educational resources in Russia.
Open Educational Resources in Poland: Achievements, Challlenges and

Prospects for Development
IITE published a new case study describing main achievements, challeng-
es and prospects for development of electronic textbooks and Open Edu-
cational Resources in Poland developed by Kamil liwowski and Karolina
Grodecka (Coalition for Open Education and Akademia Grniczo-Hutnicza
im. Stanisawa Staszica).
Conceptualizing e-Didactics
The book opens the series of UNESCO IITE research in digital pedagogy.
The author (Mourat Tschoshanov) summarizes new tendencies in the de-
velopment of pedagogical research under the rapid introduction of ICTs
in education. The main focus of the book is design, development, imple-
mentation, and assessment of learning experiences through the use of
ICT in various formats: face-to-face, blended, and distance education.
Recent IITE publications 189
Information and Communication Technologies for Visually Impaired

People
The training course was developed in cooperation with the Institute
of Professional Rehabilitation REHACOMP. The course covers peda-
gogical, technical and practical aspects of education and training man-
agement of visually impaired people through advanced integration of
standard and specialized innovative technologies.
Analytical Report Promotion of the Use of ICTs in TVET in CIS

ountries
The report is prepared by IITE within the framework of the joint project
with the Intergovernmental Foundation for Educational, Scientific and Cul-
tural Cooperation of CIS. The publication presents the results of comparative
studies on the current situation and major tendencies in ICT use in TVET in
the Kyrgyz Republic, Republic of Armenia, Republic of Azerbaijan, Republic of
Belarus, Republic of Kazakhstan, Republic of Moldova, Republic of Tajikistan,
Republic of Uzbekistan, Russian Federation and Ukraine.
Multimedia in Education Curriculum

This is a revised edition of the book prepared by Bent B. Andresen (Dan-
ish University of Education, Denmark) and Katja van den Brink (Univer-
sity of Landau, Germany) previously published by IITE in 2001. The cur-
riculum provides a well-structured and systematic explanation of several
pedagogical scenarios for the use of multimedia in education, including
the description of the different aspects of performance and portfolio as-
sessment, the role of multimedia end users, multimedia production pro-
cess, practical use of multimedia in teaching and learning.
UNESCO IITE International Master Programme ICT in Teacher Profes-

sional Development (Russian Version)
This Master Programme Curriculum aims at bringing together key ICT
awareness, skills, knowledge and attitudes, and build upon them an efficient
strategy. The Russian version of the Master Programme is developed
according to the requirements of the third generation of the Russian
Federation Standards and addressed to Russian and CIS universities.
Guidelines on UNESCO ICT-CFT Adaptation (Methodological Approach

to Localization of the UNESCO ICT-CFT)
The Guidelines contain a description of the methodological approach to
localization of the UNESCO ICT-CFT and aim to assist UNESCO Member
States developing national (regional) ICT competency standards for
teachers, standard setting being one of the key components of the policy
in the field of ICT application and professional development in education.
IITE Policy Briefs
Technology-Enhanced Assessment in Education

ICTs offer new opportunities for innovation in educational assessment. Tech-
nology-enhanced assessment includes strategies for self-assessment and peer
assessment emphasizing the next steps needed for further learning. The Policy
Brief contains an overview of the state-of-the-art, major trends, challenges
and policy recommendations on design, implementation and monitoring of
ICT-based assessment.
ICTs in Global Learning / Teaching / Training

The Policy Brief outlines the systematic approach that must be taken for
ICTs to fulfill their promise. Schools must focus on training teachers; creat-
ing curriculum materials; making organizational arrangements; and creat-
ing networks. Higher education must rethink its role for a world where
open educational resources make high quality content abundant and stu-
dents want to combine work and study seamlessly.
Personalized Learning: A New ICT-Enabled Education Approach

Personalized learning becomes increasingly prominent in policy discussions
on the future of education. The latest developments in ICT technologies
and digital content are revolutionizing education. They make the benefits
of personalized learning available for mass adoption in schools, universities
and adult training institutions. The Policy Brief highlights the advantages of
personalized learning and offers the ways of implementing it in educational
institutions.
ICTs for Curriculum Change

The emergence of new jobs and the change in existing jobs due to ICTs
has an impact on the curriculum of vocational education programs. The
potential of ICTs as a medium for teaching and learning is recognized by
many, but the implementation is often problematic, as a result relatively
few students worldwide are offered the opportunity to learn with the
help of ICTs. To effectively integrate ICTs into educational practices teach-
ers need to develop competencies which will help them to integrate ap-
propriate pedagogy and knowledge about ICTs.
Recent IITE publications 191
ICT and General Administration in Educational Institutions

This policy brief provides an overview of ICTs that are used to support
educational administration. This includes technologies used to support
learners from their initial inquiries about courses throughto graduation,
technologies to support teachers in the design and delivery of teaching
and technologies to support the research lifecyclefrom bidding through
to project management and finally researchdissemination.
Quality management and assurance in ICT-integrated pedagogy

Quality management and assurance (QA) is the process of ensuring that sys-
tems, establishments, practices and resources are fit for purpose. The Policy
Brief draws attention to some of the new ICT-linked issues involved that re-
quire additional QA criteria. One of the most important issues is the impact on
the professional development of teachers and lecturers. Another is the poten-
tial of ICT to enhance education, which requires flexibility.
Alternative Models of Education Delivery

The goal of this Policy Brief is to produce a number of alternative
models of education delivery in the formal education sector. Five al-
ternative models would sufficiently populate the various subsectors
of formal education. The models have to be archetypal, easy and
quick to describe, memorable, repeatable, andtranslatable into other
languages. They should also be generalisable, scalable, sustainable,
deployable, and deliverable in most high-income economies. For
each model the features, the advantages and the disadvantages are
outlined.
How Technology Can Change Assessment

Many discussions of technology-based assessments concentrate
on automating current methods of testing to save time and cost.
However, technology also changes what educators can assess, how,
when and for what purpose. Assessments can be embeddedin ICTs, and
have the potential to measure learning processes, inaddition to end-of-
lesson knowledge. Technology-aided assessmentsare useful not only in
the evaluation of ICTs, but also as part of thedesign process, leading to
iterative improvement.
Learning Analytics
Learning Analytics is a rapidly growing research field, with presumably
disruptive potential. While educational researchers have for many years
used computational techniques to analyze learner data, generate visual-
izations of learning dynamics, and build predictive models to test theo-
ries for the first time, these techniques are becoming available to edu-
cators, learners andpolicy makers.
ICTs in Early Childhood Care and Education

The Policy Brief outlines the values that ICT offers to early childhood
learning; gives different perspectives on the process of implementa-
tion of ICTs into ECCE practice, lists most frequent safety concerns and
presents general criteria for determining the developmental appro-
priateness of the ICT tools to be applied in ECCE. The message is the
understanding that the potential of ICT for ECCE can be productively
harnessed only if new technologies are integrated into early childhood
learning experience alongside many other ordinary everyday activities.
Introduction to MOOCs: Avalanche, Illusion or Augmentation?

The New York Times labeled 2012 The Year of the MOOC. Less than 24
months after the launch of the first massive open online course (MOOC)
at Stanford University and with potentially over 5 million students
around the world now registered with a MOOC platform, massive open
online courses appear to be a new and significant force within higher
education. This Policy Brief provides a background to the expansion of
MOOCs, explain their differences and similarities, identify the types of
students using MOOCs, investigate their business models and potential
direction, and finally scope the risks and benefits associated with their
development.
Mourat Tchoshanov was born and educated in
Turkmenistan. He received his Ph.D. in Russia. Currently
Prof. Tchoshanov lives and works in the U.S. He is dual
appointed as a Professor of Mathemacs Educaon
by the Department of Mathemacal Sciences and the
Department of Teacher Educaon at the University of
Texas at El Paso (UT-El Paso). He is also in charge of the
Ph.D. Program in Teaching, Learning, and Culture at UT-El
Paso. Areas of his research interest include but are not
limited to e-Didaccs, didaccal engineering, teacher
knowledge, representaon and cognion in learning. The
list of his publicaons includes more than 150 scholarly
works, 10 of which are monographs printed by naonal
and internaonal publishers.

32147чошановr PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

32147чошановr PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

32147чошановr PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Engineering of Learning:

UNESCO Institute for Information Technologies in Education

Author: Mourat Tchoshanov

Published by the UNESCO Institute for Information Technologies in Education

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-

Chapter 1. e-Didactics: Digital Age Didactics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Chapter 2. Learning Sciences in the Digital Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Chapter 3. The Engineering of Learning Toolkit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Chapter 4. Engineering of Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Following the development of innovative pedagogical technologies, the common

interactivity and communication, as well as engineering of distance learning. The

In addition to teaching online, the authors enthusiasm about the efficiency of

After a thorough analysis of the situation the author proposed to improve

Analysis and development of learning objectives and expected outcomes for

Fig. 1. Dynamics of student achievements in 2005-2009 academic years

Chapter 1 addresses the transition of the traditional concept of didactics (e.g.,

The society is experiencing truly revolutionary changes due to the intensive

engineering of learning in different formats: face-to-face, blended/hybrid, and

The main goal of Chapter 2 is to introduce Learning Sciences as a new approach

students attention on understanding of concepts and ideas. Such tasks usually

Chapter 3 also addresses the digital age assessment. Assessment is considered

The ultimate goal of digital age assessment is to strengthen students responsibility

Chapter 4 focuses on the engineering of digital content. ICT has dramatically

Thechapter discusses the use of digital technologies as the means of engineering

This chapter addresses the following main issues:

what is didactics and where it comes from;

1.1. The Origins of Didactics

As noted above, the root of the word didactics (didaskein, didascalia,

As to the definition of didactics, it is most often defined as a theory of teaching

Fig. 2. The evolution of the concept of didactics

The two interpretations of didactics cannot exist separately; therefore, a question

In addition to being science and art, didactics should also be considered as an

is applied to buildings and constructions. To build a house, one needs to make

Fig. 3. Didactics as a science, engineering, and art of teaching and learning

1.2. Didactical Triangle

Fig. 4. The traditional didactical triangle

Fig. 5 The didactical triangle within the context

Transformation of the Traditional View:

Fig. 6. The didactical tetrahedron

1.3. e-Didactics and Didactical Engineering

Broadly defined, e-Didactics is an ICT-integrated didactics. In order to identify its

The conceptual evolution of didactics is presented in Figure 7 below. Comparing

Next, let us compare the key characteristics of classical/traditional and e-Didactics.

Fig. 7. Conceptual evolution of didactics

The difference between classical/traditional didactics and e-Didactics is stipulated

didactics: from a transmitter of knowledge to an engineer of student learning. In

Another critical difference could be observed in the primary mode of learning:

The primary mode and means of classroom communication and assessment

Table 1. Comparing traditional didactics and e-Didactics

Characteristics Traditional Didactics e-Didactics

Fig. 8. The zones of traditional and e-Didactics:

Engineering plays a significant role in the design of learning objectives, development

What is Didactical Engineering?

Didactical engineering is a relatively new approach in modern education. That is

Didactical engineering aims at using research-based practices and promotes the

1. analysis, design and construction of outcome-oriented teaching products

Fig. 9. Didactical engineering and its main purpose:

Didactical engineering has a dual nature: it is both a product and a process of an

A Teacher in the Digital Age:

1.2. Didactical Triangle