Are diagrams always helpful tools? Developmental and individual differences in the effect of presentation format on student problem solving

British Journal of Educational Psychology

Volumn 82, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 492-511

  Booth, Julie L ^a   Koedinger, Kenneth R ^b  

^a TEMPLE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACHIEVEMENT; ADOLESCENT; AGE; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; COMPREHENSION; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; INDIVIDUALITY; MATHEMATICS; METHODOLOGY; PROBLEM SOLVING; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; STUDENT; TEACHING; UNITED STATES;

ACHIEVEMENT; ADOLESCENT; AGE FACTORS; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; COMPREHENSION; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; INDIVIDUALITY; MATHEMATICS; MIDWESTERN UNITED STATES; PROBLEM SOLVING; STUDENTS; TEACHING;

EID: 84864608463     PISSN: 00070998     EISSN: 20448279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02041.x     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. Acevedo Nistal, A., Clarebout, G., Elen, J., Van Dooren, W., & Verschaffel, L. (2009). Conceptualising, investigating and stimulating representational flexibility in mathematical problem solving and learning: A critical review. ZDM-The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 41, 627-636.
2. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183-198.
3. Alibali, M. W., Knuth, E. J., Hattikudur, S., McNeil, N. M., & Stephens, A. C. (2007). A longitudinal examination of middle school students' understanding of the equal sign and equivalent equations. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 9, 221-246.
4. Beckmann, S. (2004). Solving algebra and other story problems with simple diagrams: A method demonstrated in grade 4-6 texts used in Singapore. The Mathematics Educator, 14, 42-46.
5. Bednarz, N., & Janvier, B. (1996). Emergence and development of algebra as a problem-solving tool. In N. Bednarz, C. Kieran, & L. Lee (Eds.), Approaches to algebra (pp. 115-145). Dordrecht, The Netherlands : Kluwer.
6. Berends, I. E., & Van Lieshout, E. (2009). The effect of illustrations in arithmetic problem-solving: Effects of increasing cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 19, 345-353.
7. Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC : National Academy Press.
8. Butcher, K. R. (2006). Learning from text with diagrams: Promoting mental model development and inference generation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 182-197.
9. Carnegie Learning (2009). Bridge to algebra. Retrieved from http://www.carnegielearning.com/AR2009
10. Carpenter, T. P., & Moser, J. M. (1984). The acquisition of addition and subtraction concepts in grades one through three. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 15, 179-202.
11. Chall, J. S. (1979). The great debate: Ten years later, with a modest proposal for reading stages. In L. B Resnick & P. A. Weaver (Eds.), Theory and practice of early reading (Vol. 1, pp. 29-55). Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293-332.
13. Cummins, D. D., Kintsch, W., Reusser, K., & Weimer, R. (1988). The role of understanding in solving algebra word problems. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 405-438.
14. Davenport, J., Yaron, D., Klahr, D., & Koedinger, K. (2008).When do diagrams enhance learning? A framework for designing relevant representations. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on the Learning Sciences (pp. 191-198). Mawah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
15. De Bock, D., Verschaffel, L., Janssens, D., Van Dooren, W., & Claes, K. (2003). Do realistic contexts and graphic representations always have a beneficial impact on students' performance? Negative evidence from a study on modelling non-linear geometry problems. Learning and Instruction, 13, 441-463.
16. De Corte, E., & Verschaffel, L. (1981). Children's solution processing in elementary arithmetic problems: Analysis and improvement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 765-779.
17. 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, 460-470.
18. diSessa, A. A., Hammer, D., Sherin, B., & Kolpakowski, T. (1991). Inventing graphing: meta-representational expertise in children. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 10, 117-160.
19. diSessa, A., & Sherin, B. (2000). Meta-representation: An introduction. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19, 385-398
20. Easterday, M., Aleven, V., & Scheines, R. (2007). 'Tis better to construct than to receive? The effects of diagramming tools on causal reasoning. In R. Luckin, K. Koedinger, & J. Greer (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 93-100). Amsterdam, The Netherlands : IOS Press.
21. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87, 215-251.
22. Fueyo, V., & Bushell, D. (1998). Using number-line procedures and peer tutoring to improve the mathematics computation of low-performing first graders. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 31, 417-430.
23. Goldstone, R. L., & Son, J. Y. (2005). The transfer of scientific principles using concrete and idealized simulations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 69-110.
24. Gravemeijer, K. (1994). Educational development and developmental research in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25, 443-471.
25. Greeno, J. G., & Hall, R. P. (1997). Practicing representation: Learning with and about representational forms. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 361-367.
26. Heffernan, N. T., & Koedinger, K. R. (1997). The composition effect in symbolizing: The role of symbol production vs. text comprehension. In Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 307-312). Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
27. Hembree, R. (1992). Experiments and relational studies in problem solving: A meta-analysis. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23, 242-273.
28. Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. P. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 65-97). New York : Macmillan.
29. Hoven, J., & Garelick, B. (2007). Singapore math: Simple or complex? Educational Leadership, 65, 28-31.
30. Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. New York, NY : Basic Books.
31. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1998). Levels of expertise and instructional design. Human Factors, 40, 1-17.
32. Kamii, C. (1974). Pedagogical principles derived from Piaget's theory: Relevance for educational practice. In M. Schwebel & J. Raph (Eds.), Piaget in the classroom (pp. 199-215). New York, NY : Basic Books.
33. Kennedy, L. M., & Tipps, S. (1994). Guiding children's learning of mathematics (7th ed.). Belmont, CA : Wadsworth.
34. Kintsch, W., & Greeno, J.G. (1985). Understanding and solving word arithmetic problems. Psychological Review, 92, 109-129.
35. Knuth, E., Alibali, M., McNeil, N., Weinberg, A., & Stephens, A. (2005). Middle school students' understanding of core algebraic concepts: Equality & variable. International Reviews on Mathematical Education, 37, 68-76.
36. Knuth, E., Stephens, A., McNeil, N., & Alibali, M. (2006). Does understanding the equal sign matter? Evidence from solving equations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(4), 297-312.
37. Koedinger, K. R., & Alibali, M. W. (1999). A developmental model of algebra problem solving. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association in Montreal, Quebec .
38. Koedinger, K. R., Alibali, M. W., & Nathan, M. J. (2008). Trade-Offs between grounded and abstract representations: Evidence from algebra problem solving. Cognitive Science, 32, 366-397.
39. Koedinger, K. R., & Anderson, J. R. (1998). Illustrating principled design: The early evolution of a cognitive tutor for algebra symbolization. Interactive Learning Environments, 5, 161-180.
40. Koedinger, K. R., & Nathan, M. J. (2004). The real story behind story problems: Effects of representations on quantitative reasoning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 129-164.
41. Koedinger, K. R., & Terao, A. (2002). A cognitive task analysis of using pictures to support pre-algebraic reasoning. In C.D. Schunn & W. Gray (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp.542-547). Mawah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
42. Kozma, R. (2003). Material and social affordances of multiple representations for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13, 205-226.
43. Lappan, G., Fey, J., Fitzgerald, W., Friel, S., & Phillips, E. (2002). Getting to know Connected Mathematics: An implementation guide. Glenview, IL : Prentice Hall.
44. Larkin, J., & Simon, H. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65-100.
45. Lee, K., Ng, E., & Ng, S. F. (2009). The contributions of working memory and executive functioning to problem representation and solution generation in algebraic word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 373-387.
46. Lewis, A. B., & Mayer, R. E. (1987). Students' misconceptions of relational statements in arithmetic word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 363-371.
47. Lowe, R.K. (2003). Animation and learning: Selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. Learning and Instruction, 13, 157-176.
48. Luciana, M., Conklin, H. M., Hooper, C.J., & Yarger, R. S. (2005). The development of nonverbal working memory and executive control processes in adolescents. Child Development, 76, 697-712.
49. Luna, B., Garver, K.E., Urban, T.A., Lazar, N.A., & Sweeney, J.A. (2004). Maturation of cognitive processes from late childhood to adulthood. Child Development, 75, 1357-1372.
50. Marini, Z., & Case, R. (1994). Development of abstract reasoning about the physical and social world. Child Development, 65, 147-159.
51. Mayer, R. E. (1989). Systematic thinking fostered by illustrations in scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 240-246.
52. Mayer, R. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 31-48). Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
53. Mayer, R. E. & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 715-726.
54. Mayer, R. E., Steinhoff, K., Bower, G., & Mars, R. (1995). A generative theory of textbook design: Using annotated illustrations to foster meaningful learning of science text. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43, 31-44.
55. Meyer, J. (2000). Performance with tables and graphs: Effects of training and a visual search model. Ergonomics, 43, 1840-1865.
56. Montague, M., Bos, C., & Doucette, M. (1991). Affective, cognitive, and metacognitive attributes of eighth-grade mathematical problem solvers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 6, 145-151.
57. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. C. (1999). Multimedia-supported metaphors for meaning making in mathematics. Cognition and Instruction, 17, 215-248.
58. Murata, A. (2004). Paths to learning ten-structured understanding of teen sums: Addition solution methods of Japanese grade 1 students. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 185-218.
59. Murata, A. (2008). Mathematics teaching and learning as a mediating process: The case of tape diagrams. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10, 374-406.
60. Narayanan, N. H., & Hegarty, M. (1998). On designing comprehensible interactive hypermedia manuals. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 48, 267-301.
61. Nathan, M.J., Kintsch, W., & Young, E. (1992). A theory of algebra-word-problem comprehension and its implications for the design of learning environments. Cognition & Instruction, 9, 329-389.
62. Nathan, M. J., & Koedinger, K. R. (2000). Moving beyond teachers' intuitive beliefs about algebra learning. Mathematics Teacher, 93, 218-223.
63. National Center for Education Statistics (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Washington, DC : Author.
64. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics.. Reston, VA : Author.
65. Nunes, T., Schliemann, A. D., & Carraher, D. W. (1993). Street mathematics and school mathematics. New York : Cambridge University Press.
66. Postigo, Y., & Pozo, J. I. (2004). On the road to graphicacy: The learning of graphical representation systems. Educational Psychology, 24, 623-644.
67. Rittle-Johnson, B., & Koedinger, K. (2001). Using cognitive models to guide instructional design: The case of fraction division. In J. Moore & K. Stenning (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 857-862). Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum.
68. Rittle-Johnson, B., & Koedinger, K. R. (2005). Designing knowledge scaffolds to support mathematical problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 313-349.
69. Romberg, T. A., & de Lange, J. (2001). Monitoring student progress. In T. A. Romberg & J. de Lange (Eds.), Insight stories: Assessing middle school mathematics. New York : Teachers College Press.
70. Schwartz, D., & Black, J. B. (1996). Shuttling between depictive models and abstract rules: Induction and fallback. Cognitive Science, 20, 457-497.
71. Sowell, E. J. (1989). Effect of manipulative materials in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 498-505.
72. Uttal, D. H., Liu, L. L., & DeLoache, J. S. (2006). Concreteness and symbolic development. In L. Balter & C. S. Tamis-LeMonda (Eds.), Child psychology: A handbook of contemporary issues (2nd ed., pp. 167-184). New York : Psychology Press.
73. Uttal, D. H., Scudder, K. V., & DeLoache, J. S. (1997). Manipulatives as symbols: A new perspective on the use of concrete objects to teach mathematics. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 18, 37-54.
74. Van Meter, P., & Garner, J. (2005). The promise and practice of learner-generated drawing: Literature review and synthesis. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 285-325.
75. Zawaiza, T. R. W., & Gerber, M. M (1993). Effects of explicit instruction on math word-problem solving by community college students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 64-79.