Does Comparing Informal and Formal Procedures Promote Mathematics Learning? The Benefits of Bridging Depend on Attitudes Toward Mathematics

Shanta Hattikudur, P. Sidney, M. Alibali
{"title":"Does Comparing Informal and Formal Procedures Promote Mathematics Learning? The Benefits of Bridging Depend on Attitudes Toward Mathematics","authors":"Shanta Hattikudur, P. Sidney, M. Alibali","doi":"10.7771/1932-6246.1180","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"1 Temple University, 2 University of Wisconsin—Madison Students benefit from learning multiple procedures for solving the same or related problems. However, past research on comparison instruction has focused on comparing multiple formal procedures. This study investigated whether the benefits of comparing procedures extend to comparisons that involve informal and formal procedures. We also examined how learner characteristics, including prior knowledge and attitudes toward mathematics, affect learning from comparing procedures. We addressed these issues in college students’ learning procedures for solving systems of equations problems in algebra. Learners who liked mathematics learned equally well whether they received comparison or sequential instruction. However, among learners who did not like mathematics, instruction that included support for comparisons between the formal and informal procedures led to greater gains in conceptual knowledge than did sequential instruction of the procedures. Correspondence: Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Shanta Hattikudur, via email to shanta.hattikudur@temple.edu.","PeriodicalId":90070,"journal":{"name":"The journal of problem solving","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"16","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The journal of problem solving","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7771/1932-6246.1180","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

Abstract

1 Temple University, 2 University of Wisconsin—Madison Students benefit from learning multiple procedures for solving the same or related problems. However, past research on comparison instruction has focused on comparing multiple formal procedures. This study investigated whether the benefits of comparing procedures extend to comparisons that involve informal and formal procedures. We also examined how learner characteristics, including prior knowledge and attitudes toward mathematics, affect learning from comparing procedures. We addressed these issues in college students’ learning procedures for solving systems of equations problems in algebra. Learners who liked mathematics learned equally well whether they received comparison or sequential instruction. However, among learners who did not like mathematics, instruction that included support for comparisons between the formal and informal procedures led to greater gains in conceptual knowledge than did sequential instruction of the procedures. Correspondence: Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Shanta Hattikudur, via email to shanta.hattikudur@temple.edu.
比较非正式程序和正式程序能促进数学学习吗?桥接的好处取决于对数学的态度
学生从学习解决相同或相关问题的多种方法中受益。然而,以往对比较教学的研究主要集中于对多种形式程序的比较。本研究调查了比较程序的好处是否延伸到涉及非正式和正式程序的比较。我们还研究了学习者的特征,包括先验知识和对数学的态度,如何影响比较过程中的学习。我们在大学生代数中求解方程组问题的学习过程中讨论了这些问题。喜欢数学的学习者无论接受比较教学还是顺序教学,都学得一样好。然而,在不喜欢数学的学习者中,支持比较正式和非正式程序的教学比顺序教学在概念知识方面的收获更大。通信:有关本文的通信应通过电子邮件发送给Shanta Hattikudur至shanta.hattikudur@temple.edu。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信