Personalization of mathematics word problems in Taiwan

Educational Technology Research and Development

Volumn 48, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 49-60

  Ku, Heng Yu ^a   Sullivan, Howard J ^a  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034355222     PISSN: 10421629     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/bf02319857     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Anand, P.G., & Ross, S.M. (1987). Using computer-assisted instruction to personalize arithmetic materials for elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(1), 72-78.
2. Brennan, A.D., & Dunlap, W.P. (1985). What are the prime factors of reading mathematics? Reading Improvement, 22(2), 152-159.
3. Choi, J-I, & Hannafin, M. (1997). The effects of instructional context and reasoning complexity on mathematics problem-solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(3), 43-55.
4. Cordova, D.I., & Lepper, M.R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4), 715-730.
5. Davis-Dorsey, J., Ross, S.M., & Morrison, G.R. (1991). The role of rewording and context personalization in the solving of mathematical word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 61-68.
6. De Corte, E., Verschaffel, L., & De Win, L. (1985). Influence of rewording verbal problems on children's problem representations and solutions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(4), 460-470.
7. Dwyer, H.J. (1996). Effect of personalization on reading comprehension. (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59, Z3810.
8. Ferguson, A.M., & Fairburn, J. (1985). Language experience for problem solving in mathematics. The Reading Teacher, 38(6), 504-507.
9. Grouws, D.A. (1995). In G. Cawelti (Ed.), Handbook of research on improving student achievement (pp. 97-101). Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
10. Hart, J.M. (1996). The effect of personalized word problems. Teaching Children Mathematics, 2(8), 504-505.
11. Herndon, J.N. (1987). Learner interests, achievement, and continuing motivation in instruction. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 11-14.
12. Jiang, B. (1998). Learner motivation and preference: effects of culture, gender and age. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, Arizona.
13. Knifong, J.D., & Burton, G.M. (1985). Understanding word problems. Arithmetic Teacher, 32(5), 13-17.
14. Lopez, C.L., & Sullivan, H.J. (1991). Effects of personalized math instruction for Hispanic students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16(1), 95-100.
15. Lopez, C.L., & Sullivan, H.J. (1992). Effect of personalization of instructional context on the achievement and attitudes of Hispanic students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(4), 5-13.
16. Mayer, R.E. (1982). Memory for algebra story problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(2), 199-216.
17. Mayer, R.E. (1998). Cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational aspects of problem solving. Instructional Science, 26(2), 49-63.
18. Miller, D.C., & Kulhavy, R.W. (1991). Personalizing sentences and text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16(3), 287-292.
19. Muth, K.D. (1984). Solving arithmetic word problems: Role of reading and computational skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(2), 205-210.
20. National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1992a). NAEP 1992 mathematics report card for the nation and the states. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Report No. 23-ST02.
21. National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1992b). NAEP 1992 school effects on educational achievement in mathematics and science. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Research and Development Report.
22. Riley, M.S., Greeno, J.G., & Heller, J.I. (1983). Development of children's problem-solving ability in arithmetic. In H.P. Ginsburg (Ed.), The development of mathematical thinking (pp. 153-192). New York: Academic Press.
23. Rosen, D.R. (1984). Students' schemata for algebra word problems. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
24. Ross, S.M. (1983). Increasing the meaningfulness of quantitative material by adapting context to student background. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(4), 519-529.
25. Ross, S.M., & Anand, P.G. (1987). A computer-based strategy for personalizing verbal problems in teaching mathematics. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 35(3), 151-162.
26. Ross, S.M., McCormick, D., & Krisak, N. (1986). Adapting the thematic context of mathematical problems to student interests: Individualized versus group-based strategies. Journal of Educational Research, 79(4), 245-252.
27. Ross, S.M., McCormick, D., Krisak, N., & Anand, P.G. (1985). Personalizing context in teaching mathematical concept: Teacher-managed and computer-assisted models. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 33(3), 169-178.
28. Stevenson, H.W., & Stigler, J.W. (1992). The learning gap: Why our schools are failing and what we can learn from Japanese and Chinese education. New York: Simon & Schuster.
29. U.S. Department of Commerce. (1999). Statistical abstract of the United States: The National Data Bank. Economics and Statistics Administration and U.S. Census Bureau.
30. Wright, J.P., & Wright, C.D. (1986). Personalized verbal problems: An application of the language experience approach. Journal of Educational Research, 79(6), 358-362.