Student performance and attitudes using personalized mathematics instruction

Educational Technology Research and Development

Volumn 50, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 21-34

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

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN COLORADO   (United States)

^b ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 25844491089     PISSN: 10421629     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/BF02504959     Document Type: Article

References (27)

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. Bransford, J.D., Sherwood, R.D., Hasselbring, T.S., Kinzer, C.K., & Williams, S.M. (1992). Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can help. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia (pp. 115-141). Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Brown, J.S., Collins, A.S., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
4. Cheng, S.-S., Chang, W.-H., Chiang, W.-H., & Guo, C.J. (1998). Development of a professional development program for science and matliematics teachers - An action research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Learning, San Diego, CA.
5. Choi, J.-I., & Hannafin, M. (1995). Situated cognition and learning environments: Roles, structures, and implications for design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(2), 53-69.
6. 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.
7. d'Ailly, H.H., Simpson, J., & MacKinnon, G.E. (1997). Where should "you" go in a math compare problem? Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 562-567.
8. 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.
9. Dwyer, H.J. (1996). Effect of personalization on reading comprehension. (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59, Z3810.
10. Enright, B.E., & Choate, J.S. (1993). Mathematical problem solving: The goal of mathematics. In J.S. Choate (Eds.), Successful mainstreaming: Proven ways to detect and correct special needs (pp. 283). MA: Allyn and Bacon.
11. Hart, J.M. (1996). The effect of personalized word problems. Teaching Children Mathematics, 2(8), 504-505.
12. Herndon, J.N. (1987). Learner interests, achievement, and continuing motivation in instruction. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 11-14.
13. Ku, H.-Y., & Sullivan, H.J. (2000). Personalization of mathematics word problems in Taiwan. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 49-59.
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. Ministry of Education. (1998). Blue books for education reform: Coherent curriculafrom grade 1 through grade 9. The Ministry of Education, Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C.
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. 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.
23. Ross, S.M. (1983). Increasing the meaningfulness of quantitative material by adapting context to student background. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(4), 519-529.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. Ross, S.M., McCormick, D., Krisak, N., & Anand, P.G. (1985). Personalizing context in teaching mathematical concepts: Teacher-managed and computer-assisted models. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 33(3), 169-178.
27. U.S. Department of Commerce. (1999). Statistical abstract of the United Stales: The National Data Bank. Economics and Statistics Administration and U.S. Census Bureau.