Effects of spatial ability and instructional program on geometry achievement

Journal of Educational Research

Volumn 101, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 148-157

  Hannafin, Robert D ^a   Truxaw, Mary P ^a   Vermillion, Jennifer R ^a   Liu, Yingjie ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT   (United States)

Author keywords

Computer based instruction; Dynamic geometry; Middle school mathemtics; Spatial ability

Indexed keywords

EID: 41849119829     PISSN: 00220671     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3200/JOER.101.3.148-157     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Battista, M. T. (2002). Learning geometry in a dynamic computer environment. Teaching Children Mathematics, 8, 333-339.
2. Battista, M. T. (2003). Computer technologies and teaching geometry through problem solving. In F. K. Lester, Jr. (Ed.), Teaching mathematics through problem solving: Prekindergarten-grade 6 (pp. 229-238). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
3. Battista, M. T., Clements, D. H., Arnoff, J., Battista, K., & Van Auken Borrow, C. (1998). Students' spatial structuring of 2D arrays of squares. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29, 503-532.
4. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42.
5. Clements, D. H., & Battista, M. T. (1992). Geometry and spatial reasoning. In D. Grous (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 420-464). New York: Macmillan.
6. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (CTGV). (1992). The Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 65-80.
7. Crown, W. D. (2003). Using technology to enhance a problem-based approach to teaching: What will work and what will not work. In F. K. Lester, Jr. (Ed.), Teaching mathematics through problem solving: Prekindergarten-grade 6 (pp. 217-228). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
8. Dick, W., & Carey, L. (2000). The systematic design of instruction. Glenview, IL: Longman.
9. Friedman, L. (1995). The space factor in mathematics: Gender differences. Review of Educational Research, 65, 22-50.
10. Gardner, J, E., Wissick, C. A., Schweder, W., & Canter, L. S. (2003). Enhancing interdisciplinary instruction in general and special education: Thematic units and technology. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 161-172.
11. Gonzalez, C., Thomas, R. P., & Vanyukov, P. (2005). The relationships between cognitive ability and dynamic decision making. Intelligence, 33, 169-186.
12. Hannafin, R. D. (2004). Achievement differences in structured versus unstructured instructional geometry programs. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(1), 19-32.
13. Hannafin, R. D., & Scott, B. N. (1998). Identifying critical learner traits in a dynamic computer-based geometry program. The Journal of Educational Research, 92, 3-12.
14. Hannafin, R. D., & Sullivan, H. J. (1996). Learner preferences and learner control over amount of instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 162-173.
15. Hollebrands, K. (2007). The role of a dynamic software program for geometry in the strategies high school mathematics students employ. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38, 164-192.
16. Huk, T. (2006).Who benefits from learning with 3D models? The case of spatial ability. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 392-404.
17. Isiksal, M., & Askar, P. (2005). The effect of spreadsheet and dynamic geometry software on the achievement and self-efficacy of 7th-grade students. Educational Research, 47, 333-350.
18. Key Curriculum Press. (1993). Geometer's Sketchpad [Computer program]. Berkeley, CA.
19. Knuth, E., & Hartman, C. E. (2005). Using technology to foster students' mathematical understandings and intuitions. In W. J. Masalaski (Ed.), Technology-supported mathematics learning environments: Sixty-seventh yearbook (pp. 151-164). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
20. Kozma, R. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(1), 7-19.
21. Kritch, K. M., & Bostow, D. E. (1998). Degree of constructed-response interaction in computer-based programmed instruction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 387-398.
22. Kulik, C., & Kulik, J. A. (1991). Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: An updated analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 75-94.
23. Kulik, J. (1994). Meta-analytic studies of findings on computer-based instruction. In E. L. Baker &. H. F. O'Neil Jr. (Eds.), Technology assessment in education and training (pp. 9-33). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
24. Kulik, J. (2003). Effects of using instructional technology in elementary and secondary schools: What controlled evaluation studies say. Arlington, VA: SRI International, http://www.sri.com/policy/csted/reports/sandt/ it/Kulik_ITinK-12_Main_Report.pdf
25. Kylonnen, P. C., Si Christal, R. E. (1990). Reasoning ability is (little more than) working memory capacity? Intelligence, 14, 389-422.
26. Land, S., & Hannafin, M. J. (1996). A conceptual framework for the development of theories in action with open learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(3), 37-53.
27. Liu, Y. (2006). Intro to geometry. An unpublished online geometry tutorial and support system.
28. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
29. Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling procedures: Issues and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30. Nickell, J. (2007, April). Useful online and teacher production tools of the Geometer's Sketchpad. Mathematics Teacher, 100, 565-567.
31. Pólya, G. (1954). Mathematics and plausible reasoning. Vol. 1 : Induction and analogy in mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
32. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E. & Duncan, R. G., et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 337-386.
33. Raven, J. C. (1938). Progressive matrices. London: Lewis.
34. Raven, J. C., Court, J. H., & Raven, J. (1986). Manual for Raven's progressive matrices and vocabulary scales. Section 2-Coloured progressive matrices (1986 ed., with U. S. norms). London: Lewis.
35. Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court J. H. (1998). Coloured progressive matrices. Oxford, England: Oxford Psychologists Press.
36. Rhode, T. E., Si Thompson, L. A. (2007). Predicting academic achievement with cognitive ability. Intelligence, 35, 83-92.
37. Sattler, J. M. (2001). Assessment of children: Cognitive applications (4th ed.). San Diego, CA: Author.
38. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., Si Lamon, M. (1994). The CSILE project: Trying to bring the classroom into World 3. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 201-228). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
39. Scher, D. (2005). Square or not? Assessing constructions in an interactive geometry software environment. In W J. Masalaski (Ed.), Technology-supported mathematics learning environments: Sixty-seventh yearbook (pp. 113-124). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
40. Shute, V. J. (1991). Who is likely to acquire programming skills? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 6, 1-24.
41. Sinclair, N., & Crespo, S. (2006). Learning mathematics in dynamic computer environments. Teaching Children Mathematics, 12, 436-444.
42. SPSS. (2002). SPSS 14 Windows. [Computer program]. Chicago: Author.
43. van Hiele, P. M. (1986). Structure and insight: A theory of mathematics education. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
44. Vincent, J. (2005). Interactive geometry software and mechanical linkages: Scaffolding students' deductive reasoning. In W. J. Masalaski (Ed.), Technology-supported mathematics learning environments: Sixty-seventh yearbook (pp. 93-112). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
45. Zheng, T. (2002). Do mathematics with interactive geometry software. Mathematics Teacher, 96, 492-497.