Hosein, Anesa; Aczel, James; Clow, Doug and Richardson, John T. E.
PDF (Version of Record)
- Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
|Google Scholar:||Look up in Google Scholar|
Three mathematical software types: black-box (no steps shown), glass-box (steps shown) and open-box (interactive steps) were used by 32 students to solve conceptual and procedural tasks on the computer via remote observation. Comparison of the three software types suggests that there is no difference in the scores that students receive for conceptual understanding tasks. Students using the black-box are more likely to explore answers than students using the glass and open-box software.
|Item Type:||Conference Item|
|Copyright Holders:||2008 The Authors|
|Keywords:||mathematics education; learning; TEL; e-learning; CAL; cognitive science|
|Academic Unit/School:||Learning Teaching and Innovation (LTI) > Institute of Educational Technology (IET)
Learning Teaching and Innovation (LTI)
|Interdisciplinary Research Centre:||Centre for Research in Education and Educational Technology (CREET)|
|Depositing User:||James Aczel|
|Date Deposited:||17 Nov 2010 09:27|
|Last Modified:||07 Feb 2017 19:03|
|Share this page:|
Download history for this item
These details should be considered as only a guide to the number of downloads performed manually. Algorithmic methods have been applied in an attempt to remove automated downloads from the displayed statistics but no guarantee can be made as to the accuracy of the figures.