Virtual Controllers: what are they?
As the name "hand-On Heads-
On: The "effective use of virtual and physical manipulation" conducted at Edith Cowen University investigated the use of virtual manipulation and interactive whiteboards (IWB).
Virtual operations can be defined as virtual representation of physical operations, which can help develop mathematical conceptual understanding through various dynamic processes.
In order to understand how teachers started using IWB, the ateacher user group was created.
As the team is in its early stages, it is not possible to report detailed findings that will be followed up later.
However, in due course, certain preliminary views of this group have been included.
Providing students with opportunities for virtual operations, using virtual operations in mathematics education is the most recent thing (
Moyer & Heo, 2005)
There are few studies on their effectiveness in learning (
Brooks, Brooks, and Lyon, 2006).
When computers are not yet common in primary education in Australia, it is not surprising that the virtual manipulator has an impact on them3 classrooms (Dwyer, 2007).
Some of the reasons why students do not have easy access to information technology are the lack of professional development of teachers, the fear that children may damage equipment, and the pressure to prepare students for standardized testing (Dwyer, 2007).
In a survey by the New Zealand Board of Education Studies (2004)
52% of the classes in the children's environment (aged 3-5)
No computer was used.
Consideration should also be given to the suitability of using computers with young children, and how and whether young children learn using technologies such as computers and IWBs.
Globally, there are examples of classroom teachers trying to use virtual operating websites.
In the United States, for example, rambati and korodner (2004)
Created a software system called Digi quilt that allows "children to design patchwork quilt blocks in the context of learning symmetry and Scores "(p. 143).
Manipulatives aims to promote thinking and help children solve abstract mathematical concepts (
Moyer & Bolyard, 2002)
Virtual Controllers can play the same role.
Moyer and Bolyard suggest using virtual operating tools to transfer earner from visual thinking level to thinking level through information deduction and reasoning.
For example, Moyer and Bolyard (2002)
Describes how students can explore and understand the properties of a quadrilateral by using a website that displays virtual pattern blocks.
Figure 1 shows the quadrilateral dragged to the page.
One of the benefits here is that they are really two. dimensional. [
Figure 1 slightly]
Cannon, treatment and Wellman (2000)
Participated in the design and creation of the National Virtual operator Library (1)(
Utah State University, 1999).
The library contains a virtual version of the existing concrete material, starting with the electronic version of the geography board.
An excerpt from the web page in Figure 2 shows the earth plates used with virtual elastic bands that can be dragged and placed on a nail.
There are some shortcomings in physical operation;
In this study, it was noted that one of the most common obstacles to the use of manipulating materials in mathematics was classroom management.
Virtual operations can overcome some of these problems. Cannon et al. (2000)
Discover that virtual controllers have some benefits that they can't imagine;
For example, children can keep counting by changing the color of the shape face.
They list the following advantages of a virtual operation: * the actions of the user can be recorded and stored;
* They are available online for free;
* Parents and students can use these virtual operating tools on their computers at home;
* Teachers may not be willing to send specific handling devices home for students to use, and they may be more likely to assign assignments to students who have access to virtual handling devices via a home computer;
* Possible changes (p. 1083). [
Heddens and Gorin (1995)
They also pointed out similar advantages, adding that virtual manipulation also allowed different groups of students with special needs in the classroom to use manipulation.
Virtual manipulation attracts older students because it is more complex than using the manipulation in a specific form (
Moyer, Fort Boyard & Spikell, P. 2002. 4).
Interactive whiteboard as a platform for virtual operators, with the introduction of virtual operators and other computer software, it is a logical step to find a tool to show this information to the class.
In order to avoid the IWB being used as a presentation whiteboard, consideration needs to be given to how the overall, group, pairing, and personal work is interrelated. Thompson(1992)
To achieve this result, the projector screen connected to the Macintosh computer was adjusted.
Subsequently, the invention of IWB provided a purpose --
Without any adjustments, the tool is built for this group interaction.
In 2004 [1 [Pound)
Invested in IWBsin in the UK (Beauchamp 2004).
However, the use of iwbs is not just a simple representation of what is on the computer screen. Bell(2002, p. 2)
The important point is, "since the boards can be used with any software, they are perfect for a lot of use and do not need to purchase additional software.
"Many preliminary research projects working with IWBs have reported positive findings (
Glover and Avius Miller, 2004).
For example, some teachers claim that their teaching is more effective (Latham, 2002)
Students are more engaged (Beeland, n. d. ). Bell (2002, p. 2)
"Interactive whiteboard is a great tool for Constructivist educators.
Miller, Glover and Ivy (2005, p. 108)
Claiming that learning is encouraged by the intrinsic simulation provided by the combination of visual, emotional and auditory pathways.
They also found that "the teacher's management and orchestration skills maintain a continuous focus throughout the course and strengthen learning through constant challenges, often evaluating achievements as further involved
"Our researchers also noticed similar high interest when visiting schools that use IWBs.
Teachers at a school reported a sharp increase in children's attention due to the use of ofIWBs.
It is worth noting that IWBs has been around for three years and the "novelty effect" has disappeared.
As the name implies, IWB has the potential to support interactive learning (Latham, 2002; Miller et al. , 2005).
One strategy to achieve this is to "maximize the number of children working on the board so that they can develop their own self.
Respect in use and stimulate others in the class to participate in what happens to the board "(Miller et al. , 2005, p. 107).
Other strategies to achieve interactivity are: these three-
The way teachers, students and learning materials interact seems to be at the heart of the potential contribution of IWB.
In our study, we observed a teacher who created this interaction.
The 7 th grade classes are organized in this way, with four to five children in each group.
In turn, they had to answer the math questions placed behind the IWB window.
If they fail to answer these questions successfully, the rest of the class will have the opportunity to answer them.
The teacher sat behind with his laptop, so the students focused on the IWB.
The role of the teacher is to create an environment that allows this interaction and leads the discussion to explore the student's response. Miller et al. (2005)
They found that as teachers became more experienced with the technology, they seemed to be more aware of the interactivity it promoted.
Consistent with this, teachers in our user group often initially use IWB for demonstration purposes only, but as they become more experienced, they begin to shift ---
Technology from demo whiteboard to IWB. [
Figure 3 slightly]
Because of its large size, virtual operations are presented using an interactive whiteboard (
Similar to standard whiteboards)
, IWBallows allows the class to watch the virtual operation instead of browsing around a small computer monitor.
Primary school math teachers use this technology and they see benefits throughout the classroom.
This means that the board can support all the other manipulation teaching in the classroom in a very effective way.
The key factor in the effectiveness of IWB is that it is a tool to be used so that the classroom can run as a learner community.
Teachers need to consider their teaching methods to ensure that their students benefit from the experience they share.
An effective use of IWB in the classroom may be to involve students and challenge students through the activities shown in figure 3.
This is a competition shot from the National Virtual operation library that can be used to teach scores.
This can be accessed via IWB for the whole class to share, or at the end of the course to share strategies for children to solve problems.
Concluding remarks a limitation related to the studies conducted so far is that many findings about IWB come from small scale studies (
Smith, Higgins, wall and Miller, 2005).
Despite this concern, it seems reasonable to assert that IWBs has the potential to make it easier for large groups of children to access manipulation tools and to further enrich students' learning with shared learning experience in the classroom.
Maybe this one should end with cotton (2006)
Comment "a resource cannot force learners to describe what they are thinking, which can only be done with good teaching "(2006, p. 3).
Many teachers may not use virtual operating tools because they do not "understand how to use representation in math teaching and how to use technology "(
Repulse & Moyer, Page 20052).
The type of classroom where a computer is placed is clearly a crucial factor, in which way virtual manipulation is no different from physical manipulation.
If teachers become more clear about how to ensure that their classrooms are actively involved, virtual manipulation and IWB may be a place worth adding.
Reference: Beauchamp, G. (2004).
Teacher use of interactive whiteboards in primary schools: towards an effective transition framework.
13. Technology, pedagogy and pedagogy (3), 327-346. Beeland, M. (2002).
Student participation, visual learning and technology: can an interactive whiteboard help?
On February 12, 2007 was retrieved from vol1no1/beeland_am. pdf Bell, M. (2002).
Why use an interactive whiteboard?
More than a dozen reasons for a baker
Retrieved from Cannon, Los Angeles, March 14, 2007, Heal, R. & Wellman, R. (2000).
Unexpected discovery in Interactive Mathematics: Virtual (electronic)
Learning the means of primary school mathematics. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds)
Minutes of 2000 International Conference on Information Technology and Teacher pedagogy (pp. 1083-1088).
Retrieved from reader on February 20, 2008.
ViewAbstract & Paper _ id = 15782 cotton, T. (2006).
How many mushrooms are mom?
Mathematics Teaching, 194,37-40. Dwyer, J. (2007)Computer-
Basic learning in primary schools: differences between early and later stages of primary education. Asia-
Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 35 (1), 89-103. Heddons, J. & Speer, W. (1995).
Englewood Cliff: Merrill Lynch. Latham, P. (2002).
Primary school mathematics teaching and learning: the impact of interactive whiteboard.
London: education. Lamberty K. & Kolodner, J. (2004).
A new computing operation tool: Children learn mathematics and design quilting with the operation tool.
2004 Interactive Design and children: record of community building conference (pp. 143-144).
New York: ACM Press. Miller, D. , Glover, D. & Averis, D. (2004).
Develop teaching skills for using interactive whiteboards in mathematics.
March 2007 retrieved from = en & lr = & q = cache: eejqqwvu_muj: www. keele. ac.
Miller, D. uk/depts/ed/iaw/docsGlover, D. & Averis, D. (2005).
Demonstration and pedagogy: effective use of interactive whiteboards in mathematical papers. In D. Hewitt and A. Noyes (Eds)
Minutes of the Sixth Conference on Mathematics Education in the UK, 25 (1), pp. 105-112.
London: The British Institute of Mathematics research. Moyer, P. & Bolyard, J. (2002).
Explore the representation of intermediate levels: study geometry with virtual manipulation.
Australian math teacher, 58 (1), 19-25. Moyer, S. , Bolyard, J. & Spikell, M. (2002).
What is a virtual operation?
Teaching Children Mathematics, 8 (6), 372-377. NZCER. (2004).
The role and potential of ICT in early childhood education: A New Zealand and international literature review.
Search from K repulse October 22, 2007& Moyer, P. (2005). Third-
Grade students learn scores using virtual operators.
Journal of Mathematics and Science Teaching computer, 24 (1), 5-25. Smith, H. , Higgins, S. , Wall, K. & Miller, J. (2005).
Interactive whiteboard: welfare or trend?
Critical Review of Literature.
Journal of Computer-aided learning, 21, 91-101. Steen, K. , Brooks, D. & Lyon, T. (2006).
The influence of virtual operation on geometry teaching and learning in Grade 1.
Computer Journal of Mathematics and Science Teaching, 25 (4), 373-391. Suh, J. , Moyer, P. & Heo, H. (2005).
Techniques used in the classroom: develop a sense of score using a virtual operation concept tutorial.
Journal of interactive online learning 3 (4), 1-21. Thompson, P. (1992).
Symbols, conventions, and constraints: contributions to the effective use of concrete materials in elemental mathematics.
Journal of Mathematics Education Research, 23 (2),123-147.
State University of Utah(1999).
National virtual operation Library.
Search from Paula Mildenhall, University of Edith Cowen, Washington, September 27, 2007mildenhall@ecu. edu.
Au> Paul Swan, Edith Cowen University, Maria Northcote, WA, Edith Cowen University, Linda Marshall, WA1. )
Please see the popular views in this issue.