数学中程序性和概念性知识的获取:协作在哪里有帮助?

Dejana Diziol, N. Rummel, H. Spada
{"title":"数学中程序性和概念性知识的获取:协作在哪里有帮助?","authors":"Dejana Diziol, N. Rummel, H. Spada","doi":"10.3115/1600053.1600080","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While research has generally shown that collaboration may facilitate student learning in mathematics, such positive effects are not always found. We argue that the effectiveness of collaboration may depend on the type of knowledge the instruction targets: The interaction with a partner can slow down students and may thus decrease the amount of practice necessary for procedural skill fluency. On the other hand, collaboration could be particularly useful for conceptual knowledge acquisition, as here, the elaborative meaning-making activities ascribed to collaboration may facilitate learning. To evaluate the differential effects of collaborative learning, we compared four conditions: individual versus collaborative learning with procedural instruction, and individual versus collaborative learning with conceptual instruction. The study results support our hypotheses: Students who learned individually showed higher test scores in a procedural far transfer test. However, a combination test requiring both knowledge types revealed a positive impact of collaboration om stidents' conceptual knowledge acquisition.","PeriodicalId":120843,"journal":{"name":"International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning","volume":"49 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Procedural and conceptual knowledge acquisition in mathematics: where is collaboration helpful?\",\"authors\":\"Dejana Diziol, N. Rummel, H. Spada\",\"doi\":\"10.3115/1600053.1600080\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"While research has generally shown that collaboration may facilitate student learning in mathematics, such positive effects are not always found. We argue that the effectiveness of collaboration may depend on the type of knowledge the instruction targets: The interaction with a partner can slow down students and may thus decrease the amount of practice necessary for procedural skill fluency. On the other hand, collaboration could be particularly useful for conceptual knowledge acquisition, as here, the elaborative meaning-making activities ascribed to collaboration may facilitate learning. To evaluate the differential effects of collaborative learning, we compared four conditions: individual versus collaborative learning with procedural instruction, and individual versus collaborative learning with conceptual instruction. The study results support our hypotheses: Students who learned individually showed higher test scores in a procedural far transfer test. However, a combination test requiring both knowledge types revealed a positive impact of collaboration om stidents' conceptual knowledge acquisition.\",\"PeriodicalId\":120843,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning\",\"volume\":\"49 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-06-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3115/1600053.1600080\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3115/1600053.1600080","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

虽然研究普遍表明合作可以促进学生的数学学习,但这种积极影响并不总是被发现。我们认为,合作的有效性可能取决于教学目标的知识类型:与合作伙伴的互动可能会减慢学生的速度,从而可能减少程序技能流畅性所需的练习量。另一方面,协作可能对概念性知识的获取特别有用,因为在这里,归因于协作的详细的意义创造活动可能促进学习。为了评估协作学习的不同效果,我们比较了四种情况:程序性指导下的个体与协作学习,概念性指导下的个体与协作学习。研究结果支持我们的假设:单独学习的学生在程序性远迁移测试中表现出更高的测试分数。然而,需要两种知识类型的组合测试显示合作对学生概念知识获取的积极影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Procedural and conceptual knowledge acquisition in mathematics: where is collaboration helpful?
While research has generally shown that collaboration may facilitate student learning in mathematics, such positive effects are not always found. We argue that the effectiveness of collaboration may depend on the type of knowledge the instruction targets: The interaction with a partner can slow down students and may thus decrease the amount of practice necessary for procedural skill fluency. On the other hand, collaboration could be particularly useful for conceptual knowledge acquisition, as here, the elaborative meaning-making activities ascribed to collaboration may facilitate learning. To evaluate the differential effects of collaborative learning, we compared four conditions: individual versus collaborative learning with procedural instruction, and individual versus collaborative learning with conceptual instruction. The study results support our hypotheses: Students who learned individually showed higher test scores in a procedural far transfer test. However, a combination test requiring both knowledge types revealed a positive impact of collaboration om stidents' conceptual knowledge acquisition.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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