As for all educational approaches, as a scientist, I am always curious whether any evidence on their benefits is available. What benefits on the impact of the new approach can be identified? So I did some search on related evaluation studies.
(Cognition, 1992) presents the results of an evaluation of the effectiveness of using Jaspers adventures for teaching mathematics. The authors recruited 739 five-grade and sixth-grade students. 17 classes formed the intervention group, 7 classes formed the control group. The intervention consisted of three Jasper adventures, presented during one week each. All test instruments were self-developed, as the authors argue that standardized math tests are not the best indicators of the type of goals that they want to achieve with Jaspers. The evaluation study results show:
- Both groups improved at the same rates in basic math knowledge.
- The performance of the Jasper group in solving word problems was superior to the control group.
- The Jasper group students scored higher on both planning and sub-goal comprehension questions.
- Jasper’s students showed significantly improved attitudes towards mathematics as compared to the control group.
- Qualitative analysis of teacher’s comments found strong positive feedback to Jasper. Only the standardized paper-based tests on program effectiveness were considered negative and frustrating for the students.
The authors summarize that evaluation was “highly positive” (Cognition, 1992). Interestingly, no qualitative or quantitative evaluation of the students’ attitudes was evaluated or reported which I see as a big limitation. Also, no long-term evaluation was conducted, e.g. one year after the Jaspers experience, to determine whether the positive effects remained stable. These two aspects could form a new line of inquiry.
I looked for newer studies, and especially for studies that were not written the original Jaspers team. I want to present two of them:
Park (2012) reports about “anchored instructions” in the context of a problem-based blended learning course. However, no evaluation results are reported here. I looked for the full paper in the Ebsco database, but didn’t found any subsequent publication on evaluation results.
Shyu (2000) presents the evaluation of a computer-assisted videodisc anchored instruction on attitudes towards mathematics and problem-solving skills among Taiwanese elementary students. They argue that the Taiwanese education system is based on memorization and less on independent thinking and thus that it is unclear whether the positive results of Jaspers anchored instruction can be transferred from the US to Taiwan. The Math video that was developed was comparable to the Jaspers series. The authors recruited 74 fifth-graders resp. 37 sixth-graders for two experiments. Results show significant higher student attitudes (p<.01) and improved problem-solving skills post-test (p<.000) compared to pre-test. Students also were positive towards anchored instruction. The authors conclude that the anchored instruction provides “a more motivating environment” and that all students profit from this. As a limitation, no control group was available, and the teacher’s point of view is not assessed. As strength, the authors also included the attitudes of the students, stratified according to high-, middle- and low group ability, and evaluated the impact of Jaspers in culturally different settings.
Summarizing, I found some positive evaluation results of anchored instruction. We should note, however, that negative evaluation result maybe have not been published – a phenomena called publication bias.
Overall, in my database query, I found 26 papers referring to “Jaspers”, the newest one from 2016. So it seems that the ideas of Jaspers have survived the change of educational technology. Also the term “anchored instruction” is frequently being used, I found 260 papers in a quick search in Ebsco, the newest paper published in 2018.
I found that anchored instruction is not limited to videos to present motivating and realistic problems any more, but nowadays include also “computer-based interactive activities” (such as an interactive tape measures to teach fractions) in addition to video-based anchored problems and hands-on applied projects (Bottge, 2018). By this, the interactive functions of technology that the earlier videos did not have are today exploited for anchored instructions.
References:
Bottge, B.A.;,Cohen, A.S., Choi, H.-J. (2018). Comparisons of mathematics intervention effects in resource and inclusive classrooms. Exceptional Children. 84(2), 197-212.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992). The Jasper series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program, description, and assessment data. Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 291-315.
Park, K., & Park, S. (2012). Development of professional engineers’ authentic contexts in blended learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(1), E14-E18
Shyu, H. Y. C. (2000). Using video‐based anchored instruction to enhance learning: Taiwan’s experience. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1), 57-69.
Hi Elske,
Very interesting that you note that no negative results have been published about the Jaspers materials. While I think they have proved to have many benefits, as you mention, there are some limitations as well. For instance, if students are not consistently being engaged in anchored instruction do they maintain their positive attitudes towards Mathematics or does it diminish over time.
While working in Asia, I am continually surprised at the lack of problem-solving skills some students have while having the ability to look at a numerical problem and solve with an algorithm or using mental maths. For instance, I have an eight-year-old boy in my class who can do 40, 3 by 1 digit multiplication questions in his head in under five minutes, but when given a multi-step word problem has no idea where to start. I feel because I have experienced so many instances where students lack critical thinking and problem-solving skills, I value anchored instruction and materials such as Jaspers, but am mindful of using a wide variety of tools so that students are exposed to different ways of learning and building understanding.
Where you teach, do you find students come to school with strong problem-solving skills, or is it something that needs to be developed in school?
Cheers,
Sarah
Hi Sarah,
thank you for your comment and your question.
Well, here in Austria, there is some emphasis on problem-solving skills, as far as I can see as a mother of two kids. For example, students at age of 8 already have to solve word problems where they have to show their conceptual understanding of the mathematical operations they have learned before. Also, students have to do a lot of small presentation (e.g. on a book, on a country), so they have to collect informaton an present it in poster.
What I miss is problem solving on a higher level – e.g. working on a small scientific project over several weeks, or developing solutions for a given problem. This is not really done (at least until grade-7th).
Elske
Hi Elske
I like the fact that you added a diagram of Anchored Instruction right at the beginning. As a visual learner, this helps me a lot more than words 🙂
I wonder about “students’ attitudes” as well. I am starting a study —looking at continual enrollment and exiting of online course…and one thing I am going to look at is “students’ attitudes” and motivation.
A good next step might share some interactive activities that you have found useful and not so useful.
Christopher
Hi Christopher
we made quite some positive experiences with the so-called “E-tivities” by Gilly Salmon. They are build on a constructive understanding of learning and include aspects of situated learning in a community of practice, of collaborative learning and of a community of inquiry. These E-tivities activate students as early as possible in the course – they provide relevant problems and let students find and discuss solutions. Our students find this approach quite motivating and relevant for their learning! If you want to know more, please let me know.
Kind regards,
Elske
Hello Elske,
I appreciated your outlook on this week’s topic and readings. I also struggled to find current articles to support Jasper’s anchored instruction. Consequently, I found myself to going back how gamification has enhanced opportunities for real-world applications. Shin, N. et al. found “that game technology positively impacts elementary students’ learning of arithmetic regardless of ability level” (p.558). I referred to Mathletics in my posting, have you found other math online applications that can extend thinking?
~Mary
Shin, N., Sutherland, L. M., Norris, C. A., & Soloway, E. (2012). Effects of game technology on elementary student learning in mathematics. British journal of educational technology, 43(4), 540-560.
Hi Mary,
in ETEC 510, we discussed gamification – did you do this module already? I personally found gamification quite helpful also for adult students – at least for some of them (we tried out badges in our recent online course). Regarding your question: As I am not an expert in math, I don’t have ideas on further good math tools.
Kind regards,
Elske
Hi Mary,
You may be interested in reading one of the articles I found for my Framing Issues paper by Meletiou-Mavrotheris and Prodromou (2016). They brought pre-service teachers in Cyprus through a series of TPACK-enhancing activities to mature their abilities to identify and select not just a “math game” but a superior math instructional game that met research-based criteria not only for proper game design but also for the development of higher-level mathematical thinking. In their reference to one group’s work, they identified several games which met this criteria:
Post survey results identified five “advantages that can make games a more meaningful, engaging, and effective learning experience for students:” (Meletiou-Mavrotheris and Prodromou, 2016, p.389):
1. Active learning and experimentation
2. Promotion of student autonomy and self-directed learning
3. Support of peer collaboration and healthy competition
4. Portability
5. Building of transversal skills and competences [sic] “In addition to supporting the mathematics curriculum, pre-service teachers also saw gaming as possessing benefits that transcend the scope of specific subjects: ‘Games can help children build important competences essential for in [sic] modern society — technological fluency, planning skills, communication and collaboration skills, increased focus, persistence and determination” (Meletiou-Mavrotheris and Prodromou, 2016, p.390).
Examples of highly scoring math games from this paper that I could access online to some degree were:
Timez Attack http://www.bigbrainz.com/Multiplication.php
See this video https://youtu.be/1SFtT4433io
or download the free version http://www.bigbrainz.com/Downloads.html
Ice Ice Maybe https://www.mangahigh.com/en-us/games/iceicemaybe
They included a particularly interesting table comparing the latter game to another math game (Weigh the Wangdoodles https://www.mathplayground.com/wangdoodles.html) which they decided was not as cognitively valuable or well-designed. Their explanations and the rubrics they used for making the evaluations were illuminating for me. One thing they pointed out for the lower scoring game was that the technology did not really add value to the learning of math because “the teacher could just give this activity on a handout and achieve similar learning outcomes” (Meletiou-Mavrotheris and Prodromou, 2016, p.392). I’m curious to know how Mathletics compares when these qualifiers are applied?
References
Meletiou-Mavrotheris, M. and Prodromou, T. (2016). Pre-Service Teacher Training on Game-Enhanced Mathematics Teaching and Learning. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, [online] 21(3), pp.379-399. Available at: https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/10.1007/s10758-016-9275-y [Accessed 5 Feb. 2018].
Hi Elske. I found your background on anchored instruction very helpful. Like you, I’ve found that there are many potential benefits of anchored instruction. One thing I wonder about though – would the critical thinking and problem solving skills continue year over year? For example, I could imagine a sibling or a friend saying to another “Oh, you have Mr. So-n-so for math. Are you doing the Jasper thing? The best way to save the eagle is to…” which would take away much of the validation for the critical thinking part of the series. Ideally, a new scenario ought to be made each year, but it is perhaps unrealistic to do so. Thoughts?
Also, I wonder, how you would fit anchored instruction in with constructivism? What distinguishing features would it have that other methods don’t? Sometimes I think we use so many different labels to distinguish between very similar ideologies.
Dave
Hi Elske,
I appreciated your post’s thoroughness in outlining the results of the three studies you found and clearly stating their strengths and limitations. I also enjoyed the visual at the top of your post. Although you stated that there hasn’t been any negative studies produced (perhaps due to publisher bias, as mentioned), I wonder why I’m on my 8th MET course before even hearing the phrase “anchored instruction”. I’ve heard of Phet and other simulation technologies elsewhere. I wonder if anchored instruction is only really being applied in Mathematics as a model of instruction?