DIGITAL ORCHESTRATION OF DIVERSE STUDENT RESPONSES TO OPEN-ENDED MATHEMATICAL TASKS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Valeria Yekti Kwasaning Gusti

doi:10.36987/jpms.v12i2.10036

DIGITAL ORCHESTRATION OF DIVERSE STUDENT RESPONSES TO OPEN-ENDED MATHEMATICAL TASKS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Valeria Yekti Kwasaning Gusti

Abstract

This systematic review examines how digital technologies mediate the elicitation and orchestration of diverse student responses to open-ended mathematical tasks, with particular attention to how response diversity becomes visible, organized, selected, compared, connected, and used in mathematical discussion. The review followed PRISMA 2020 reporting principles. An Elicit-assisted search identified 1,000 records, of which 765 passed title-and-abstract screening. Full-text assessment was available for 376 records, resulting in 265 publications in the frozen-protocol corpus. These publications were classified according to their coverage of mathematical openness, digital mediation, and pedagogical orchestration. The principal analytic corpus comprised 29 publications classified as Core and Strong Partial, representing the most relevant evidence for the review's central research questions. Data were extracted and coded according to the functions of the student-response workflow, including collection, access, analysis, categorization, selection, display, comparison, connecting, discussion, justification, and feedback. Discussion/justification was explicitly documented in 28 of the 29 principal analytic publications, while collection/access appeared explicitly in 20, public display in 22, and comparison/connecting in 20. Teacher selection was explicit in eight publications, whereas automated analysis was explicit in five. These findings indicate that digital technologies primarily support the visibility and organization of diverse student responses, while teachers retain a central role in interpreting, selecting, sequencing, and connecting mathematical contributions. The review identifies hybrid teacher-technology orchestration as an important direction for developing mathematically productive classroom discussions.

Full Text:

PDF

References

G. Albano, M. Mollo, M. Polo, and G. Marsico, “Dialogical interactions mediated by technology in mathematics education,” Dialogic Pedagogy: A Journal for Studies of Dialogic Education, vol. 10, pp. DT22–DT40, 2022, doi: 10.5195/dpj.2022.517.

P. Black and D. Wiliam, “Developing the theory of formative assessment,” Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 5–31, 2009, doi: 10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5.

M. Chen, R. Bos, M. Doorman, and P. Drijvers, “Exploring instrumental orchestration practices for formative assessment through digital technology,” International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 73–84, 2025, doi: 10.1564/tme_v32.2.02.

A. Cusi and F. Morselli, “The key-roles of the expert during classroom discussions aimed at fostering formative assessment processes through the use of digital technologies,” ZDM–Mathematics Education, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 741–755, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s11858-024-01572-0.

A. Cusi, F. Morselli, and C. Sabena, “Promoting formative assessment in a connected classroom environment: Design and implementation of digital resources,” ZDM Mathematics Education, vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 755–767, 2017, doi: 10.1007/s11858-017-0878-0.

P. Drijvers, M. Doorman, P. Boon, H. Reed, and K. Gravemeijer, “The teacher and the tool: Instrumental orchestrations in the technology-rich mathematics classroom,” Educational Studies in Mathematics, vol. 75, no. 2, pp. 213–234, 2010, doi: 10.1007/s10649-010-9254-5.

A. Eckert and P. Nilsson, “The emergence of the ‘FlexTech’ orchestration of inferential reasoning on pattern generalization,” Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1–26, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s40751-021-00098-4.

C. Giberti, F. Arzarello, S. Beltramino, and G. Bolondi, “Mathematical discussion in classrooms as a technologically-supported activity fostering participation and inclusion,” Educational Studies in Mathematics, vol. 118, no. 2, pp. 201–228, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s10649-024-10356-y.

C. Giberti, F. Arzarello, G. Bolondi, and H. Demo, “Exploring students’ mathematical discussions in a multi-level hybrid learning environment,” ZDM–Mathematics Education, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 403–418, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s11858-022-01364-4.

A. Haj-Yahya and S. Aegbaria, “Using interactive presentations to promote mathematical discourse,” European Journal of Mathematics and Science Education, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 2023, doi: 10.12973/ejmse.4.1.1.

J. Kim and C. Han, “How are AI-based mathematics classrooms orchestrated? An analysis of instrumental orchestration strategies in elementary lessons,” The Mathematical Education, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 671–690, 2025, doi: 10.63311/mathedu.25.64412.

G. Kinnear, P. Iannone, and B. Davies, “Student approaches to generating mathematical examples: Comparing e-assessment and paper-based tasks,” Educational Studies in Mathematics, vol. 119, no. 2, pp. 179–201, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s10649-024-10361-1.

K. Koile, A. Rubin, S. Chapman, M. Kliman, and L. Ko, “Using machine analysis to make elementary students’ mathematical thinking visible,” in Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge. Association for Computing Machinery, 2016, pp. 524–525, doi: 10.1145/2883851.2883922.

K. Moed-Abu Raya and S. Olsher, “Teachers’ formative assessment practices in their mathematics classroom using learning analytics visualizations,” Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 395–417, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s40751-024-00148-7.

K. Moed-Abu Raya and S. Olsher, “From data to insight: Teachers’ noticing of mathematical thinking through learning analytics,” Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, early access, 2026, doi: 10.1007/s10857-026-09755-0.

Y.-K. Noh and H.-J. Kim, “Exploring teachers’ instrumental orchestration and roles in high school mathematics classes using AI-based digital tools,” The Mathematical Education, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 309–335, 2026, doi: 10.63311/mathedu.26.6525.

M. J. Page et al., “The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews,” BMJ, vol. 372, Art. no. n71, 2021, doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71.

M. S. Smith and M. K. Stein, 5 Practices for Orchestrating Productive Mathematics Discussions. Reston, VA, USA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2011.

L. Trouche, “Managing the complexity of human/machine interactions in computerized learning environments: Guiding students’ command process through instrumental orchestrations,” International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 281–307, 2004, doi: 10.1007/s10758-004-3468-5.

K. VanLehn, H. Burkhardt, S. Cheema, S. Kang, D. Pead, A. Schoenfeld, and J. Wetzel, “Can an orchestration system increase collaborative, productive struggle in teaching-by-eliciting classrooms?” Interactive Learning Environments, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 987–1005, 2021, doi: 10.1080/10494820.2019.1616567.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.36987/jpms.v12i2.10036