Student reflections on the use of 360-degree video to support pseudo-synchronous collaborative mathematical problem solving in online learning environments

Amie Albrecht; Lisa O'Keeffe; Bruce White

doi:10.24059/olj.v29i4.4292

Authors

Amie Albrecht University of South Australia
Lisa O'Keeffe University of South Australia
Bruce White University of South Australia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v29i4.4292

Keywords:

360-Degree Video, Pseudo-Synchronous Learning, Online Problem Solving, Collaborative Problem Solving, Mathematics

Abstract

Online learning offers increased flexibility to students but also poses new complexities. For example, there are challenges in digitizing teaching approaches that rely on the co-construction of knowledge through social interaction and collaboration between learners. This study explores a novel pseudo-synchronous approach using 360-degree video to improve access to collaborative mathematical problem solving for online students. We trialed the use of 360-degree video extracts of authentic collaborative problem-solving situations to offer online learners the opportunity to engage with different approaches and methods in various mathematical problem-solving situations. Data were collected through online surveys and analyzed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis to examine student experiences. The findings suggest students prefer face-to-face collaborative problem solving but see the value of having the 360-degree video as a support when face-to-face interaction is not available or for students choosing to engage in an online environment. The study demonstrates that pseudo-synchronous 360-degree video can provide meaningful collaborative learning experiences for asynchronous online learners.

References

Barfield, A. (2016). Collaboration. ELT Journal, 70(2), 222–224. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccv074

Borko, H., Jacobs, J., Eiteljorg, E., & Pittman, M. E. (2008). Video as a tool for fostering productive discussions in mathematics professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(2), 417–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.012

Borup, J., West, R. E., & Graham, C. R. (2012). Improving online social presence through asynchronous video. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(3), 195–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.11.001

Choi, J., & Walters, A. (2018). Exploring the impact of small-group synchronous discourse sessions in online math learning. Online Learning, 22(4), 47-64. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i4.1511

English, L., & Gainsburg, J. (2015). Problem Solving in a 21st-Century Mathematics Curriculum. In Handbook of International Research in Mathematics Education (3rd ed.). Routledge.

Foster, C. (2019). The fundamental problem with teaching problem solving. Mathematics Teaching, 265, 8–10.

Foster, C. (2023). Problem solving in the mathematics curriculum: From domain‐general strategies to domain‐specific tactics. The Curriculum Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/curj.213

Gillett-Swan, J. (2017). The challenges of online learning: Supporting and engaging the isolated learner. Journal of Learning Design, 10(1), 20–30.

Graham, C. R., & Misanchuk, M. (2004). Computer-mediated learning groups: Benefits and challenges to using groupwork in online learning environments. In T. S. Roberts (Ed.), Online collaborative learning: Theory and practice (pp. 181–202). Idea Group.

Ham, Y., & Hwang, J. (2021). Mathematical literacy and collaborative problem-solving: Comparison between Korean and U.S. Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics, 31(3), 299–320. https://doi.org/10.29275/jerm.2021.31.3.299

Hesse, F., Care, E., Buder, J., Sassenberg, K., & Griffin, P. (2015). A framework for teachable collaborative problem solving skills. In P. Griffin & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills: Methods and approach (pp. 37–56). Springer

Jaques, D., & Salmon, G. (2007). Learning in groups: A handbook for face-to-face and online environments. Routledge.

Lesh, R., & Zawojewski, J. (2007). Problem solving and modeling. Second handbook of research on teaching and learning, 2, 763-804.

Lester, F. K., & Cai, J. (2016). Can mathematical problem solving be taught? Preliminary answers from 30 years of research. In P. Felmer, E. Pehkonen, & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), Posing and Solving Mathematical Problems: Advances and New Perspectives (pp. 117–135). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28023-3_8

Mason, J., Burton, L., & Stacey, K. (2010). Thinking mathematically (2nd ed.) Prentice Hall. (Original work published 1982)

Mayer, R. E. (2020). Multimedia learning (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316941355

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM] (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. NCTM

NRICH. (n.d.). M, M and M. https://nrich.maths.org/problems/m-m-and-m

OECD (2017). PISA 2015 assessment and analytical framework: Science, reading, mathematic, financial literacy and collaborative problem solving. OECD Publishing.

Olivares, D., Lupiáñez, J. L., & Segovia, I. (2021). Roles and characteristics of problem solving in the mathematics curriculum: A review. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 52(7), 1079–1096. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2020.1738579

O’Leary, M., & Wood, P. (2019). Reimagining teaching excellence: Why collaboration, rather than competition, holds the key to improving teaching and learning in higher education. Educational Review, 71(1), 122–139.

Peterson, A. T., Beymer, P. N., & Putnam, R. T. (2019). Synchronous and asynchronous discussions: Effects on cooperation, belonging, and affect. Online Learning, 22(4), 7-25. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i4.1517

Picciano, A. G. (2017). Theories and frameworks for online education: Seeking an integrated model. Online Learning, 21(3), 166-190. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i3.1225

Pólya, G. (2004). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method (Vol. 85). Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1945)

Pólya, G. (2004). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1945)

Rich, P. J., & Hannafin, M. (2009). Video annotation tools: Technologies to scaffold, structure, and transform teacher reflection. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 52–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108328486

Rosendahl, P., & Wagner, I. (2023). 360° videos in education – A systematic literature review on application areas and future potentials. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11549-9

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Academic Press.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense-making in mathematics. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook for Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 334-370). New York: MacMillan.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (2016). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics (Reprint). Journal of Education, 196(2), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741619600202

Schukajlow, S., Rakoczy, K., & Pekrun, R. (2023). Emotions and motivation in mathematics education: Where we are today and where we need to go. ZDM-Mathematics Education, 55(2), 249–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-022-01463-2

Stacey, K. (2022). Looking back on Pólya’s teaching of problem solving. Teaching Mathematics and Computer Science, 20(2), 207–217.

Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2014). Computer-supported collaborative learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (2nd ed., pp. 479–500). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139519526.029

Stoessel, K., Ihme, T. A., Barbarino, M-L., Fisseler, B., & Sturmer, S. (2015). Sociodemographic diversity and distance education: Who drops out from academic programs and why? Research in Higher Education, 56, 228–246.

Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296.