Comparing the Effects of Concepts-First and Iterative Fraction Instruction Sequences

IF 1.2 4区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Kristina J. Running, Robin S. Codding, S. Varma, V. N. V. Rao, Alisha K. Wackerle-Hollman
{"title":"Comparing the Effects of Concepts-First and Iterative Fraction Instruction Sequences","authors":"Kristina J. Running, Robin S. Codding, S. Varma, V. N. V. Rao, Alisha K. Wackerle-Hollman","doi":"10.1086/725730","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Conceptual and procedural instruction order may affect students’ learning and generalization of math skills. This study compared two instruction sequences, concepts-first and iterative, and their effect on fraction performance through a class-wide intervention. Fourth-grade students (N = 114) were randomly assigned to the concepts-first, iterative, or control group. The primary conceptual assessment showed that the iterative and concepts-first groups performed similarly, demonstrating medium effect sizes compared with control. The primary procedural assessment again demonstrated that both intervention groups outperformed the control, this time with large to very large effects. In addition, the iterative group outscored the concepts-first group with a medium effect size, though it was not statistically significant. Generalization assessments measuring skill transfer found no differential effects. Overall, iterative instruction was at least as effective as a concepts-first sequence during a fraction intervention.","PeriodicalId":48010,"journal":{"name":"Elementary School Journal","volume":"124 1","pages":"85 - 108"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Elementary School Journal","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/725730","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Conceptual and procedural instruction order may affect students’ learning and generalization of math skills. This study compared two instruction sequences, concepts-first and iterative, and their effect on fraction performance through a class-wide intervention. Fourth-grade students (N = 114) were randomly assigned to the concepts-first, iterative, or control group. The primary conceptual assessment showed that the iterative and concepts-first groups performed similarly, demonstrating medium effect sizes compared with control. The primary procedural assessment again demonstrated that both intervention groups outperformed the control, this time with large to very large effects. In addition, the iterative group outscored the concepts-first group with a medium effect size, though it was not statistically significant. Generalization assessments measuring skill transfer found no differential effects. Overall, iterative instruction was at least as effective as a concepts-first sequence during a fraction intervention.
概念优先和迭代分数指令序列的效果比较
概念性和程序性教学顺序可能影响学生数学技能的学习和概括。本研究比较了概念先行和迭代两种指令序列,以及它们通过全班干预对分数表现的影响。四年级学生(N=114)被随机分配到概念第一组、迭代组或对照组。初步概念评估显示,迭代组和概念第一组的表现相似,与对照组相比,效果中等。初步程序评估再次表明,两个干预组的表现都优于对照组,这一次产生了很大到非常大的影响。此外,迭代组的得分超过了概念第一组,效果大小中等,尽管在统计上并不显著。衡量技能转移的一般化评估没有发现差异影响。总的来说,在分数干预期间,迭代教学至少与概念优先序列一样有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Elementary School Journal
Elementary School Journal EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
5.90%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: The Elementary School Journal has served researchers, teacher educators, and practitioners in the elementary and middle school education for over one hundred years. ESJ publishes peer-reviewed articles dealing with both education theory and research and their implications for teaching practice. In addition, ESJ presents articles that relate the latest research in child development, cognitive psychology, and sociology to school learning and teaching. ESJ prefers to publish original studies that contain data about school and classroom processes in elementary or middle schools while occasionally publishing integrative research reviews and in-depth conceptual analyses of schooling.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信