Supporting Algebraic Reasoning through Personalized Story Scenarios: How Situational Understanding Mediates Performance

Mathematical Thinking and Learning

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 89-120

  Walkington, Candace ^a   Petrosino, Anthony ^b   Sherman, Milan ^c  

^a SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^c PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84876027772     PISSN: 10986065     EISSN: 15327833     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10986065.2013.770717     Document Type: Article

References (94)

1. Ainley, M., Hidi, S. and Berndorff, D. 2002. Interest, learning, and the psychological processes that mediate their relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3): 545-561.
2. Anand, P. and Ross, S. 1987. Using computer-assisted instruction to personalize arithmetic materials for elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(1): 72-78.
3. Baker, R. S. J. D., Corbett, A. T. and Koedinger, K. R. 2007. The difficulty factors approach to the design of lessons in intelligent tutor curricula. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 17(4): 341-369.
4. Barab, S., Zuiker, S., Warren, S., Hickey, D., Ingram-Goble, A., Kwon, E., Kouper, I. and Herring, S. 2008. Situationally embodied curriculum: Relating formalisms and contexts. Science Education, 91(5): 750-782. &
5. Baranes, R., Perry, M. and Stigler, J. 1989. Activation of real-world knowledge in the solution of word problems. Cognition and Instruction, 6(4): 287-318. &
6. Bardini, C., Pierce, R. and Stacey, K. 2004. Teaching linear functions in context with graphics calculators: students' responses and the impact of the approach on their use of algebraic symbols. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2: 353-376.
7. Bates, D., & Maechler, M.2010lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375-35 http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4 (http://http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4)
8. Bates, E. and Wiest, L. 2004. The impact of personalization of mathematical word problems on student performance. The Mathematics Educator, 14(2): 17-26.
9. Boaler, J. 1994. When do girls prefer football to fashion? An analysis of female underachievement in relation to 'realistic' mathematics contexts. British Education Research Journal, 20(5): 551-564.
10. Cakir, O. and Simsek, N. 2010. A comparative analysis of computer and paper-based personalization on student achievement. Computers & Education, 55(4): 1524-1531.
11. Carnegie Learning.2008Cognitive Tutor Algebra I. Retrieved August 2008 from http://www.carnegielearning.com/secondary-curricula/algebra1/ (http://http://www.carnegielearning.com/secondary-curricula/algebra1/)
12. Carnegie Learning.2011Carnegie Learning Math Series: Carnegie Learning MATHia Software. Retrieved May 24, 2011 from http://mathseries.carnegielearning.com/product-info/software (http://http://mathseries.carnegielearning.com/product-info/software)
13. Carpenter, T., Fennema, E. and Franke, M. 1996. Cognitively guided instruction: A knowledge base for reform in primary mathematics instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 97(1): 3-20.
14. Carraher, T., Carraher, D. and Schliemann, A. 1987. Written and oral mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 18(2): 83-97.
15. Carraher, D., Schliemann, A., Brizuela, B. and Earnest, D. 2006. Arithmetic and algebra in early mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(2): 87-115.
16. Chazan, D. 2000. Beyond formulas in mathematics and teaching: Dynamics of the high school algebra classroom, New York: Teachers College Press.
17. Cogan, L., Schmidt, W. and Wiley, D. 2001. Who takes what math and in which track? Using TIMSS to characterize U.S. students' eighth-grade mathematics learning opportunities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(4): 323-341.
18. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. 1997. The Jasper Project: Lessons in Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment, and Professional Development, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
19. Collins, A. and Halverson, R. 2009. Rethinking Education in the Age of Technology: The Digital Revolution and Schooling in America, New York: Teachers College Press.
20. Common Core State Standards Initiative.2010Common Core State Standards (Mathematics Standards). Retrieved July 6, 2010 from http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards/mathematics (http://http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards/mathematics)
21. Cooper, B. and Dunne, M. 1998. Anyone for tennis? Social class differences in children's responses to national curriculum mathematics testing. Sociological Review, 46(1): 117-148.
22. Cooper, B. and Harries, T. 2005. Making sense of realistic word problems: Portraying working class "failure" on a division with remainder problem. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 28(2): 147-169.
23. Cooper, B. and Harries, T. 2009. "Realistic contexts, mathematics assessment, and social class". In Word and Worlds: Modelling Verbal Descriptions of Situations, Edited by: Greer, B., Verschaffel, L., Van Dooren, W. and Mukhopadhyay, S. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense. InEds.
24. Cordova, D. and Lepper, M. 1996. Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4): 715-730.
25. Davis-Dorsey, J., Ross, S. and Morrison, G. 1991. The role of rewording and context personalization in the solving of mathematical word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1): 61-68.
26. Dewey, J. 1916. Democracy and Education, New York: Free Press.
27. Durik, A. and Harackiewicz, J. 2007. Different strokes for different folks: How individual interest moderates effects of situational factors on task interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3): 597-610.
28. Ericsson, K. and Simon, H. 1998. How to study thinking in everyday life: Contrasting think-aloud protocols with descriptions and explanations of thinking. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 5(3): 178-186.
29. Filloy, E. and Rojano, T. 1989. Solving equations: The transition from arithmetic to algebra. For the Learning of Mathematics, 9(2): 19-25.
30. Fives, H. and Manning, D. 2005. Teachers' strategies for student engagement: Comparing research to demonstrated knowledge, Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Paper presented at 2005 Annual Meeting of
31. Flowerday, T., Schraw, G. and Stevens, J. 2004. The role of reader choice and interest in reader engagement. Journal of Experimental Education, 72(2): 93-114.
32. Gravemeijer, K. and Doorman, M. 1999. Context problems in realistic mathematics education: A calculus course as an example. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 39: 111-129.
33. Greer, B. 1997. Modelling reality in mathematics classrooms: The case of word problems. Learning and Instruction, 7(4): 293-307.
34. Hall, R., Kibler, D., Wenger, E. and Truxaw, C. 1989. Exploring the episodic structure of algebra story problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 6(3): 223-283.
35. Hattikudur, S., Prather, R. W., Asquith, P. S., Alibali, M. W., Knuth, E. J. and Nathan, M. 2012. Constructing graphical representations: Exploring middle schoolers' intuitions and developing knowledge about slope and intercept. School Science and Mathematics, 112(4): 230-240.
36. Heffernan, N. and Koedinger, K. R. 1998. "A developmental model for algebra symbolization: The results of a difficulty factors assessment". In Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Edited by: Gernsbacher, M. A. and Derry, S. J. 484-489. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. InEds.pp
37. Heilman, M., Collins, K., Eskenazi, M., Juffs, A. and Wilson, L. 2010. Personalization of reading passages improves vocabulary acquisition. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 20(1): 73-98.
38. Herscovics, N. and Linchevski, L. 1994. A cognitive gap between arithmetic and algebra. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27: 59-78.
39. Hidi, S. 1990. Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research, 60(4): 549-571.
40. Hidi, S. 1995. A reexamination of the role of attention in learning from text. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4): 323-350.
41. Hidi, S. and Renninger, K. 2006. The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2): 111-127.
42. Hulleman, C., Godes, O., Hendricks, B. and Harackiewicz, J. 2010. Enhancing interest and performance with a utility value intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4): 880-895.
43. Inoue, N. 2005. The realistic reasons behind unrealistic solutions: The role of interpretive activity in word problem solving. Learning and Instruction, 15(1): 69-83.
44. Johanning, D. 2004. Supporting the development of algebraic thinking in middle school: A closer look at students' informal strategies. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 23(4): 371-388.
45. Jonassen, D. 2003. Designing research-based instruction for story problems. Educational Psychology Review, 15(3): 267-296.
46. Kaput, J. J. 2000. Teaching and Learning a New Algebra With Understanding, Dartmouth, MA: National Center for Improving Student Learning and Achievement.
47. Kazemi, E. 2002. Exploring test performance in mathematics: The questions children's answers raise. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21(2): 203-224.
48. Kieran, C. 1988. "Two different approaches among algebra learners". In The Ideas of Algebra, K-12. 1988 Yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Edited by: Coxford, A. F. 91-96. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. InEd.pp
49. Kintsch, W. 1986. Learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 3(2): 87-108.
50. Kintsch, W. and Greeno, J. 1985. Understanding and solving arithmetic word problems. Psychological Review, 92(1): 109-129.
51. Koedinger, K., Alibali, M. and Nathan, M. 2008. Trade-offs between grounded and abstract representations: Evidence from algebra problem solving. Cognitive Science, 32(2): 366-397.
52. Koedinger, K. and McLaughlin, E. 2010. "Seeing language learning inside the math: Cognitive analysis yields transfer". In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Edited by: Ohlsson, S. and Catrambone, R. 471-476. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society. InEds.pp
53. Koedinger, K. and Nathan, M. 2004. The real story behind story problems: Effects of representations on quantitative reasoning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(2): 129-164.
54. Ladsen-Billings, G. 1995. "New directions for equity in mathematics education". In For Equity in Mathematics Education, Edited by: Secada, W. 126-145. New York: Cambridge: University Press. InEd.pp
55. Lampert, M. 2001. Teaching Problems and the Problems of Teaching, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
56. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, New York: Cambridge University Press.
57. Lesh, R., Cramer, K., Doerr, H., Post, T. and Zawojewksi, J. 2003. "Model development sequences". In Beyond Constructivism: A Models and Modeling Perspective on Mathematics Problem Solving, Learning and Teaching, Edited by: Lesh, R. and Doerr, H. M. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. InEds.
58. Lesh, R. and Harel, G. 2003. Problem solving, modeling, and local conceptual development. Mathematical Thinking and Learning: An International Journal, 5(2-3): 157-190.
59. Lesh, R. and Zawojewski, J. 2007. "Problem solving and modeling". In Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning, Edited by: Lester, F. 763-800. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. InEd.pp
60. Lopez, C. and Sullivan, H. 1992. Effects of personalization of instructional context on the achievement and attitudes of Hispanic students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(4): 5-13.
61. Loveless, T, Fennel, F., Williams, V., Ball, D.Banfield, M.2008Chapter 9: Report of the Subcommittee on the National Survey of Algebra I Teachers. In Foundations for Success: Report of the National Mathematics Advisory PanelOctober 14, 2010 from http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/report/nsat.pdf (http://http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/report/nsat.pdf)
62. Maas, C. and Hox, J. 2005. Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology, 1(3): 86-92.
63. Masingila, J., Davidenko, S. and Prus-Wisniowska, E. 1996. Mathematics learning and practice in and out of school: A framework for connecting these experiences. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 31: 175n200
64. McDaniel, M., Waddill, P., Finstad, K. and Bourg, T. 2000. The effects of text-based interest on attention and recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3): 492-502.
65. Mitchell, M. 1993. Situational interest: Its multifaceted structure in the secondary school mathematics classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3): 424-436.
66. Moses, R. and Cobb, C. 2001. Radical Equations: Math Literacy and Civil Rights, Boston: Beacon Press.
67. Nathan, M., Kintsch, W. and Young, E. 1992. A theory of algebra-word-problem comprehension and its implications for the design of learning environments. Cognition and Instruction, 9(4): 329-389.
68. Nathan, M. and Koedinger, K. 2000a. Teacher and researchers' beliefs about the development of algebraic understanding. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(2): 168-190.
69. Nathan, M. J. and Koedinger, K. R. 2000b. Moving beyond teachers' intuitive beliefs about algebra learning. Mathematics Teacher, 93: 218-223.
70. Nathan, M. J., Stephens, A. C., Masarik, D. K., Alibali, M. W. and Koedinger, K. R. 2002. Representational fluency in middle school: A classroom based study. In Proceedings of PME-NA XXXIII, The North American chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education,
71. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. 2000. Principles and Standards for School Mathematics, Reston, VA: Author.
72. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. 2006. Curriculum Focal Points for Prekindergarten Through Grade 8 Mathematics: A Quest for Coherence, Reston, VA: Author.
73. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. 2009. Executive Summary: Focus in High School Mathematics: Reasoning and Sense-making, Reston, VA: Author.
74. Palm, T. 2008. Impact of authenticity on sense making in word problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67: 37-58.
75. Palm, T. 2009. "Theory of authentic task situations". In Word and Worlds: Modelling Verbal Descriptions of Situations, Edited by: Greer, B., Verschaffel, L., Van Dooren, W. and Mukhopadhyay, S. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense. InEds.
76. Papert, S. 1980. Mindstorms: Children, Computers and Powerful Ideas, New York: Basic Books.
77. Papert, S. 1993. The Children's Machine, New York: Harper Collins.
78. Paterson, L. and Goldstein, H. 1991. New statistical methods for analyzing social structures: An introduction to multilevel models. British Educational Research Journal, 17(4): 387-393.
79. Reber, R., Hetland, H., Chen, W., Norman, E. and Kobbeltvedt, T. 2009. Effects of example choice on interest, control, and learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18: 509-548.
80. Renninger, K., Ewen, L. and Lasher, A. 2002. Individual interest as context is expository text and mathematical word problems. Learning and Instruction, 12(4): 467-491.
81. Renninger, K. and Wozinak, R. 1985. Effect of interest on attentional shift, recognition, and recall in young children. Developmental Psychology, 21(4): 624-632.
82. Reusser, K. and Stebler, R. 1997. Every word problem has a solution: The social rationality of mathematical modeling in schools. Learning and Instruction, 7(4): 309-327.
83. Rittle-Johnson, B. and Koedinger, K. 2005. Designing knowledge scaffolds to support mathematical problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 23(3): 313-349.
84. Roschelle, J., Kaput, J. and Stroup, W. 2000. "SimCalc: Accelerating students' engagement with the mathematics of change". In Innovations in Science and Mathematics Education: Advanced Designs for Technologies of Learning, Edited by: Jacobson, M. J. and Kozma, R. B. 47-75. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. InEds.pp
85. Roth, W. 1996. Where is the context in contextual word problems: Mathematical practices and products in grade 8 students' answers to story problems. Cognition and Instruction, 14(4): 487-527.
86. Saxe, G. 1988. Candy selling and math learning. Educational Researcher, 17(6): 14-21.
87. Schiefele, U. 1999. Interest and learning from text. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3(3): 257-279.
88. Schraw, G. and Lehman, S. 2001. Situational interest: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1): 23-52.
89. Snijders, T. and Bosker, R. 1999. Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling, Sage Publications.
90. Stacey, K. and MacGregor, M. 1999. Learning the algebraic method of solving problems. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18(2): 149-167.
91. Stein, M. K., Kaufman, J. H., Sherman, M. and Hillen, A. F. 2011. Algebra: A challenge at the crossroads of policy and practice. Review of Educational Research, 81(4): 453-492.
92. Walkington, C. in press. Using learned technologies to personalize instruction to student interests: The impact of relevant contexts of performance and learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology,
93. Walkington, C., Nathan, M., Wolfgram, M., Alibali, M., Srisurichan, R., Strobel, J., Purzer, S. and Cardella, Monica. in press. "Bridges and barriers to constructing conceptual cohesion across modalities and temporalities: Challenges of STEM integration in the precollege engineering classroom". In Engineering in PreCollege Settings: Research into Practice, Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense. InEds
94. Xin, Z. 2009. "Realistic problem solving in China". In Word and Worlds: Modelling Verbal Descriptions of Situations, Edited by: Greer, B., Verschaffel, L., Van Dooren, W. and Mukhopadhyay, S. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense. InEds.