Classroom Simulator, a new instrument for teacher training.

The case of mathematical teaching

H Sabra, F. Emprin,P.-Y. Connan, C. Jourdain

Our Team

• Multidisciplinary :– Didactic of mathematics– cognitive psychology– Science of information and communication

(and linguist)– Sociology

• Having different perspectives

A classroom simulator ?

• Some questions : – Why should we do it?– Will it be possible?– And if it is possible, will it be desirable?

What are simulators made for?

• Training :– Less risks– Less expensive– Accelerating experience (a lot of special

cases)– Acquiring Automatic reflex

Our choices• Simulation of a didactic situation

– Not the whole work in a classroom• Based upon results of didactic on pupils activity.• Leading teachers to analyze their choices

– Reducing interaction students – teacher– Reducing student compartmental model (sensitivity,

need for encouragements, tiredness…)– Not working in real time (not suitable to reflect)– Using computers to appropriate knowledge by solving

problems on digital artefacts

Origin of this work

• A pioneer : Morge (2006) regardingphysics education“

But it looks like…“Books where YOU are the Hero”• We have chosen to compute a prototype

of simulator nearest form today standardsBut it looks like… what a TO7 could do in 1982

A prototype and a project

• The prototype : SIC Informatic classroomsimulator

• A project financed by the Champagne Ardenne Region : regional directorate ofresearch and technology

• Re – compute SIC• Creating an interface to build a scenario

Mathematical situation

Scenario framework

Interactions Teacher / students

Interaction teacher / student

Example of pedagogical contents• If you explain the problem without giving

any other instruction

What to do

Asking for not turningcomputers on

Asking for turningcomputers on but afterswitching screens of

Example of didacticals contents

• It is very difficult for students to make a correct construction on dynamic geometrysoftware and it takes a lot of time.

Diameters are chords Plots are not on the circle

• In fact their is two differents tasks :– The drawing– The conjecture (which needs a correct drawing)

• Each task has a specific goal.– The drawing gives an experiment to students but is

not compulsory (drawing on software can be given by teachers)

– Students have to use correct mathematic language(perpendicular to … passing through…)

• The two tasks could be separate (in twodifferents moments)

First use in teachers educationcourses

Pre service and in service teacher• The simulator is accepted as a tool to

analyse teachers’ pratices• During the sessions teachers make on

average 4,8 attempts• Didactical knowledge is uttered by

teachers during the session

A second use : analysing whatis determing teachers’ pratices

• Putting the simulator online• Asking users for some informations like :• Age / gender / seniority / level in

informatics…professional practices…It offers a fully controlled situation and a reproducible activity : it allows us to analyse choices linked with those parametersIt allows a large scale study

Progress of the project…

• The new software allows users to computetheir own scenario ( the number of phases, students’ states (of knowledge) linked withteachers’ choices…)

• Limited to 1 student’s behavior at the moment

• The web interface is ready to use but onlyin French

… and prospect

• Developing new partnership for a more ambitious project

• Improving our software (building of scenario interface)

• Networking theoretical frameworks to analyse the large scale study about the influence of a teacher’s profil on hischoices

Theoretical frameworks• Teachers education :

– the reflective practitioner (Schön, 1984)

• Analysing teachers practices : twofold approach (Robert, 1999)– a didactical framework, specific to the situation of education in a

given discipline (mathematics in our case) ;– a cognitive ergonomic framework that allows analyzing the

individual work.

• Didactic context :– Theory of Didactical Situations (Brousseau, 1986)

• As far as technologies are concerned : – instrumental approach (Rabardel, 1995)

Why communicating in constructionism conference ?

• Taking our cue from Lagrange and Psycharis(2013) we consider “fragmentation of theoretical frameworks as resulting from the existence of different research traditions.”

• “At the level of their principles, Constructionism and TDS share a common focus on the design of learning through devices that provide affordances for interaction and knowledge construction”

Points of similarity

• Constructionism incorporates constructivism’s connotation of learning as ‘building knowledge structures’

• Using computer to appropriate knowledgeby solving problems

• Mutual understanding is the first step for networking theoritical frameworks

What currently exists? : an example

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61sT8ViHesQ

• TLE TeachLivE™ is a computer-simulated, immersive, mixed-reality classroom whichgives teachers the opportunity to developtheir pedagogical practice in a safeenvironment that doesn’t put real studentsat risk

• http://exceptionaleducation.buffalostate.edu/teach-live

Why not using this tools ?

• Too far from our teachers’ educationtradition

• Centered (mainly) on pedagogicalcontents

• and on training (in the sense of « bringingteachers to do automatically » )

An Internet searchClassroom

Salle de classe

Thank you

• Contact :fabien.emprin@univ-reims.fr

references• D.-A. Schön, Le praticien réflexif. (J. Heynemand, & D. Gagnon, Trads.) les éditions

Logique, 1994.• A. Robert, « Recherches didactiques sur la formation professionnelle des

enseignants de mathématiques du second degré et leurs pratiques en classe ». DIDASKALIA, no. 15, 1999.

• Brousseau, G. (1997). The theory of didactic situations in mathematics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

• L. Morge, De la modélisation didactique à la simulation sur ordinateur des interactions langagières en classe de sciences, Note de synthèse pour l’habilitation à diriger des recherches, UNIVERSITÉ BLAISE PASCAL (Clermont-Ferrand), UFR Psychologie, Sciences Sociales, Sciences de l’éducation, 2008

• Lagrange, J. B. & Psycharis, G. (2013) Investigating the Potential of Computer Environments for the Teaching and Learning of Functions: A Double Analysis fromTwo Research Traditions. On line first, Technology, Knowledge and Learning.

• Emprin F. (2010), A didactic engineering for teachers education courses in Mathematics using ICT, proceeding of the 6th CERME conference, Lyon, France, jan28th to feb 1st 2009. Accessible en ligne : http://www.inrp.fr/publications/edition-electronique/cerme6/wg7-25-emprin.pdf

• Emprin F.(2008) Analysis of teacher education in mathematics and ICT, Proceeding of the 5th CERME conference, Ed: D. PITTA-PANTAZI & G. PHILIPPOU, Larnaca, Cyprus, 22-26 february 2007

examples

Centrale de Belleville France

http://www.flightexperience.fr/votre-experience/le-simulateur/

Main Caracteristics

• Scale 1:1• Realistic• That is what Pastré (2005) called : Full

scale simulators

For professional development :

– Leading an individual to analyse his practices– Reflexivity on practices

• simulator for buyer / seller relationship

Allianz France

Main caracteristics

• Only some parts of reality simulated• Simulated time is not real time

• That is what Pastré (2005) called : Part scale simulators

• Near from serious games