An intervention including an online game to improve grade 6 students' performance in early algebra

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education

Volumn 44, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 510-549

  Kolovou, Angeliki ^a   Van Heuvel Panhuizen, Marja Den ^a   Koller, Olaf ^b  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF KIEL   (Germany)

Author keywords

5 8; Algebra; Gender issues; Instructional technology; Middle grades

Indexed keywords

EID: 84877772529     PISSN: 00218251     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5951/jresematheduc.44.3.0510     Document Type: Article

References (101)

1. Ainley, J. (1996). Purposeful contexts for formal notation in a spreadsheet environment. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15,405-422.
2. Beatty, R. A. (2010). Pattern rules, patterns, anagraphs: Analyzing grade 6 students'learning of linear functions through the processes of webbing, situated abstractions, and convergent conceptual change (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) University of Toronto, Canada. Retrieved from https:// tspace.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/26347
3. Blanton, M. L., & Kaput, J. J. (2004). Elementary grades students' capacity for functional thinking. In M. Jonsen, M.J. Haines, & A. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp.135-142). Bergen, Norway: PME
4. Blanton, M. L., & Kaput, J. J. (2005). Characterizing a classroom practice that promotes algebraic reasoning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36, 412-446. http://www.nctm.org/ publications/jrme.aspx (Pubitemid 41616867)
5. Blanton, M. L., & Kaput, J. J. (2011). Functional thinking as a route into algebra in the elementary grades. In J. Cai & E. Knuth (Eds.), Early algebraization: A global dialogue from multiple perspectives (pp. 5-23). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-17735-4-2
6. Blanton, M., Schifter, D., Inge, V., Lofgren, P., Willis, C, Davis, F., & Confrey, J. (2007). Early algebra. In V. J. Katz (Ed.), Algebra: Gateway to a technological future (pp 7-14). Washington, DC: The Mathematical Association of America
7. Cai, J., & Knuth, E. (Eds.). (2011). Early algebraization: A global dialogue from multiple perspectives Heidelberg, Germany: Springer
8. Cai, J., Moyer, J. C, Wang, N., & Nie, B. (2011). Examining students' algebraic thinking in a curricular context: A longitudinal study. In J. Cai & E. Knuth (Eds.), Early algebraization: A global dialoguefrom multiple perspectives (pp. 161-185). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. doi:10.1007/9783-642- 17735-4J1
9. Carr, M., Taasoobshirazi, G., Stroud, R., & Royer, J. M. (2011). Combined fluency and cognitive strategies instruction improves mathematics achievement in early elementary school. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36,323-333. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.04.002
10. Carraher, D. W., Martinez, M. V., & Schliemann, A. D. (2008). Early algebra and mathematical generalization ZDM, 40,3-22. doi:10.1007/sll858-007- 0067-7
11. Carraher, D. W., & Schliemann, A. D. (2007). Early algebra and algebraic reasoning. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp 669-705). Charlotte, NC: Information Age
12. Carraher, D. W., Schliemann, A. D., Brizuela, B. M., & Earnest, D. (2006). Arithmetic and algebra in early mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37, 87-115. http:// www.nctm.org/ publications/jrme.aspx (Pubitemid 43448539)
13. Colley, A., & Comber, C. (2003). Age and gender differences in computer use and attitudes among secondary school students: What has changed? Educational Research, 45, 155-165. doi:10.1080/0013188032000103235 (Pubitemid 36891717)
14. Confrey, J. (1998). What do we know about K-14 students' learning of algebra In F. Fennell, J. Gates, K. Johnston, & B. Wallace (Eds.), The nature and role of algebra in the K-14 curriculum: Proceedings of a national symposium May 27 and 28,1997 (pp. 37-40). Washington, DC: National Academy Press
15. Confrey, J., & Smith, E. (1991). A framework for functions: Prototypes, multiple representations and transformations. In R. G. Underhill (Ed.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of The International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 57-63). Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
16. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings Chicago, IL: Rand McNaIIy
17. Cooper, H. (1989). Homework White Plains, NY: Longman
18. De Jong, R., Westerhof, K. J., & Creemers, B. P. M. (2000). Homework and student math achievement in junior high schools. Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory and Practice, 6, 130-157. doi:10.1076/1380-3611(200006)6:2;l-E;F130
19. Durlak, J. A., & DuPre, E. P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 327-350. doi:10.1007/sl0464-008-9165-0
20. Elia, I., Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Kolovou, A. (2009). Exploring strategy use and strategy flexibility in non-routine problem solving by primary school high achievers in mathematics ZDM, 41, 605-618. doi:10.1007/sll858-009-0184-6
21. Ellis, A. B. (2011). Algebra in the middle school: Developing functional relationships through quantitative reasoning. In J. Cai & E. Knuth (Eds.), Early algebraization: A global dialogue from multiple perspectives (pp. 215-238). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-17735-4-13
22. Farrow, S., Tymms, P., & Henderson, B. (1999). Homework and attainment in primary schools British Educational Research Journal 25,323-341. doi:10.1080/0141192990250304
23. Forgasz, H. (2009). Are girls disadvantaged by the use of calculators and computers for mathematics learning Electronic Journal of Mathematics & Technology, 3, 285-300. https://php.radford. edu/ejmt/
24. Graham, J. W. (2009). Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 549-576. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58. 110405.085530
25. Gregory, R. J. (2011). Psychological testing: History, principles, and applications (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon
26. Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement New York, NY: Routledge
27. Herscovics, N., & Linchevski, L. (1994). A cognitive gap between arithmetic and algebra. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27, 59-78. doi: 10.1007/BF01284528
28. Hoyles, C, & Sutherland, R. (1989). Logo mathematics in the classroom London, England: Routledge
29. Hox, J. (2002). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
30. Hsu, C. L., & Lu, H.-P. (2004). Why do people play online games ?An extended TAM with social influences and flow experience. Information & Management, 41, 853-868. doi:10.1016/j. im.2003.08.014
31. lmhof, M., Vollmeyer, R., & Beierlein, C. (2007). Computer use and the gender gap: The issue of access, use, motivation, and performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 2823-2837. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2006.05.007
32. Janssen, J., & Engelen, R. (2002) Verantwoording van de toetsen Rekenen-Wiskunde 2002 [Account of the mathematics tests 2002], Arnhem, the Netherlands: Citogroep
33. Johanning, D. I. (2004). Supporting the development of algebraic thinking in middle school: A closer look at students'informal strategies. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 23,371-388. doi:10.1016/j. jmathb.2004.09.001
34. Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141-151. doi: 10.1177/001316446002000116
35. Kaput, J. J. (1998). Teaching and learning a new algebra with understanding Dartmouth, MA: National Center for Improving Student Learning and Achievement in Mathematics and Science
36. Kaput, J. J. (2008). What is algebra? What is algebraic reasoning? In J. J. Kaput, D. W Carraher, & M. L. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in the early grades (pp 5-18). New York, NY: Erlbaum
37. Katz, V. J. (Ed.). (2007). Algebra: Gateway to a technological future Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America
38. Ke, F. (2008a). A case study of computer gaming for math: Engaged learning from gameplay? Computers & Education, 51,1609-1620. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.03.003
39. Ke, F. (2008b). Computer games application within alternative classroom goal structures: Cognitive, metacognitive, and affective evaluation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 539-556. doi:10.1007/sl 1423-008-9086-5
40. Ke, F., & Grabowski, B. (2007). Gameplaying for maths learning: Cooperative or not? British Journal of Educational Technology, 38,249-259. doi:10.1111/j.l467-8535.2006.00593.x (Pubitemid 46325307)
41. Kebritchi, M., Hirumi, A., & Bai, H. (2010). The effects of modern mathematics computer games on mathematics achievement and class motivation. Computers & Education, 55, 427-443. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.007
42. Kieran, C. (1996). The changing face of school algebra. In C. Alsina, J. M. Alvarez, B. Hodgson, C. Laborde, & A. Pérez (Eds.), 8th International Congress on Mathematical Education: Selected lectures (pp. 271-290). Sevilla, Spain: S.A.E.M. "Thales"
43. Kieran, C. (2004). Algebraic thinking in the early grades: What is it? The Mathematics Educator, 8, 139-151. http://math.nie.edu.sg/ame/matheduc/tme/ tmeV8-l/Carolyn%20Kieran.pdf
44. Kieran, C. (2007). Learning and teaching of algebra at the middle school through college levels: Building meaning for symbols and their manipulation. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp 707-762). Charlotte, NC: Information Age
45. Kieran, C. (2011). Overall commentary on early algebraization: Perspectives for research and teaching. In J. Cai & E. Knuth (Eds.), Early algebraization: A global dialogue from multiple perspectives (pp. 557-593). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-17735-4-29
46. Kim, S., & Chang, M. (2010). Computer games for the math achievement of diverse students. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(2), 224-232. http://www.ifets.info
47. Klawe, M. M. (1998, June). When does the use of computer games and other interactive multimedia software help students learn mathematics Paper presented at Technology and Standards 2000 Conference, Arlington, VA. Retrieved from http://mathforum.org/technology/papers/papers/klawe. html
48. Kolovou, A., & Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2010). Online game-generated feedback as a way to support early algebraic reasoning. Internationaljournal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life-Long Learning, 20,224-238. doi:10.1504/IJCEELL.2010.036817
49. Kolovou, A.,Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Bakker, A. (2009). Non-routine problem solving tasks in primary school mathematics textbooks-A needle in a haystack. Mediterranean Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 8(2), 31-67.
50. Kulik, J. A. (2003, May). Effects of using instructional technology in elementary and secondary schools: What controlled evaluation studies say (Final Report, project number P 10446.001). Arlington, VA: SRI International. Retrieved from http://www.sri.com/policy/csted/reports/sandt/it/ KulikJTinK-12-Main- Report.pdf
51. Lannin, J. K. (2005). Generalization and justification: The challenge of introducing algebraic reasoning through patterning activities. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 7, 231-258. doi:10.1207/ sl5327833mtl0703-3
52. Li, Q., & Ma, X. (2010). A meta-analysis of the effects of computer technology on school students' mathematics learning. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 215-243. doi:10.1007/sl0648-0109125-8
53. MacGregor, M. (2004). Goals and content of an algebra curriculum for the compulsory years of schooling. In K. Stacey, H. Chick, & M. Kendal (Eds.), The future of teaching and learning of algebra: The 12th ICMI study (pp 313-328). Boston, MA: Kluwer
54. McFarlane, A., Sparrowhawk, A., & Heald, Y. (2002). Report on the educational use of games Cambridge, England: TEEM
55. Mendes-Bamett, S., & Ercikan, K. (2006). Examining sources of gender DIF in mathematics assessments using a confirmatory multidimensional model approach. Applied Measurement in Education, 19,289-304. doi:10.1207/sl 5324818amel904-4
56. Miles, J., & Shevlin, M. (2001) . Applying regression & correlation: A guide for students and researchers London, England: Sage
57. Mitchell, A., & Savill-Smith, C. (2004). The use of computer and video games for learning: A review of the literature London, England: Learning and Skills Development Agency
58. Moseley, D., Mearns, N., & Tse, H. (2001). Using computers at home and in the primary school: Where is the value added? Educational and Child Psychology, 18(3), 31-46. http://decp.bps.org. uk/decp/educational-and-child- psychology/educandchildpsych.cfrn (Pubitemid 33355284)
59. Moss, J., & Beatty, R. (2006). Knowledge building in mathematics: Supporting collaborative learning in pattern problems. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 441-166. doi:10.1007/sll412-006- 9003-z
60. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., & Foy, P. (2008). TIMSS 2007 international mathematics report: Findings from IEA 's Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study at the fourth and eighth grades Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College
61. Mumtaz, S. (2001). Children's enjoyment and perception of computer use in the home and the school. Computers & Education, 36, 347-362. doi:10.1016/S0360-1315(01)00023-9
62. Murphy, R. F., Penuel, W. R., Means, B., Korbak, C, Whaley, A., & Allen, J. E. (2002). E-DESK: A review of recent evidence of discrete educational software. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International Retrieved from http://ctl.sri.com/ publications/downloads/Task3-FinalReport3.pdf
63. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2010). Mplus: Statistical analysis with latent variables. User's guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén
64. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics Reston, VA: Author
65. National Research Council (2001). Adding it up: Helping children leant mathematics (J. Kilpatrick, J. Swafford, & B. Findell, Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press
66. Noss, R., Hoyles, C, Mavrikis, M., Geraniou, E., Gutierrez-Santos, S., & Pearce, D. (2009). Broadening the sense of 'dynamic': A microworld to support students' mathematical generalisation ZDM, 41,493-503. doi:10.1007/sll858-009-0182-8
67. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2004). Learning for tomorrows world: First results from PISA 2003 Paris, France: Author doi:10.1787/9789264006416-en
68. Oosterwegel, A., Littleton, K., & Light, P. (2004). Understanding computer-related attitudes through an idiographic analysis of gender- and self-representations. Learning and Instruction, 14,215-233. doi: 10.1016/S0959-4752(03)00093-8 (Pubitemid 38354782)
69. Parsons, H. M. (1974). What happened at Hawthorne Science, 53(4128), 922-932. doi:10.1126/ science.183.4128.922
70. RAND Mathematics Study Panel. (2003). Teaching and learning algebra in kindergarten through 12th grade. In Mathematical proficiency for all students: Toward a strategic research and development program in mathematics education. Arlington, VA: RAND. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/ pubs/monograph-reports/ MR 1643 .html
71. Randel, J. M., Morris, B. A., Wetzel, C. D., & Whitehall, B. V. (1992). The effectiveness of games for educational purposes: A review of recent research. Simulation & Gaming, 23, 261-276. doi: 10.1177/1046878192233001
72. Redfield, C. L., Gaither, D. L., & Redfield, N. M. (2009). COTS computer game effectiveness. In R. E. Ferdig (Ed.), Handbook of research on effective electronic gaming in education (Vol. 1 pp. 277-294). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference
73. Resnick, M., Eisenberg, M., Berg, R., Mikhak, B., & Willow, D. (2000). Learning with digital manipulates: New frameworks to help elementary-school students explore "advanced" mathematical and scientific concepts. Proposal to the National Science Foundation Retrieved July 6, 2012 from http://web.media. mit.edu/mres/papers/digital-manip/
74. Roschelle, J. M., Pea, R. D., Hoadley, C. M., Gordin, D. N., & Means, B. M. (2000). Changing how and what children leam in school with computer-based technologies. The Future of Children, 10(2), 76-101. doi: 10.2307/1602690
75. Rubin, D. B. (1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys New York, NY: Wiley. doi:10.1002/9780470316696
76. Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7,147-177. doi:10.1037//1082-989X.7.2. 147
77. Schliemann, A. D., Carraher, D. W., & Brizuela, B. M. (2001). When tables become function tables. In M. Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 145-152). Utrecht, the Netherlands: Freudenthal Institute
78. Schliemann, A. D., Carraher, D. W, Brizuela, B. M., Earnest, D., Goodrow, A., Lara-Roth, S., & Peled, I. (2003). Algebra in elementary school. In N. A. Pateman, B. J. Dougherty, & J. T. ZiIliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education Held Jointly with the 25th Conference of PME-NA (Vol. 4, pp. 127-134). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii
79. Schliemann, A. D., Carraher, D. W, Brizuela, B. M., & Jones, W. (1998). Solving algebra problems before algebra instruction. Paper presented at the Second Meeting of the Early Algebra Research Group, University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth & Tufts University, Medford, MA. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov
80. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1995). Report of Working Group 1. In C. B. Lacampagne, W. Blair, & J. Kaput (Eds.), The Algebra Initiative colloquium (Vol. 2, pp 11-18). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, and National Institute on Student Achievement, Curriculum, and Assessment
81. Sedighian, K., & Sedighian, A. (1996). Can educational computer games help educators learn about the psychology of learning mathematics in children? In E. Jakubowski, D. Watkins, & H. Biske (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 573-578) Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education
82. Slavin, R. E., & Lake, C. (2008). Effective programs in elementary mathematics: A best-evidence synthesis Review of Educational Research, 78,427-515. doi: 10.3102/0034654308317473
83. Slavin, R. E., Lake, C, & Groff, C. (2009). Effective programs in middle and high school mathematics: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 79, 839-911. doi: 10.3102/0034654308330968
84. Smith, E., (2008). Representational thinking as a framework for introducing functions in the elementary curriculum. J. J. Kaput, D. W. Carraher, & M. L. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in the early grades (pp 133-160). New York, NY: Erlbaum
85. Smith, J. P., Ill, & Thompson, R W (2008). Quantitative reasoning and the development of algebraic reasoning. In J. J. Kaput, D. W. Carraher, & M. L. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in the early grades (pp. 95-132). New York, NY: Erlbaum
86. Squire, K. D. (2003) Video games in education. Internationaljournal of Intelligent Games and Simulation, 2(1), 49-62. http://www.scit.wlv.ac.uk/cml822/ ijigs.htm
87. Stacey, K., Chick, H., & Kendal, M. (Eds.). (2004). New ICMI Study Series: Vol. 8. The future of teaching and learning of algebra: The 12th ICMI study Boston, MA: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/1-4020-8131 -6
88. Sutherland, R., & Rojano, T. (1993). A spreadsheet approach to solving algebra problems The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 12, 353-383.
89. Trautwein, U. (2007). The homework-achievement relation reconsidered: Differentiating homework time, homework frequency, and homework effort. Learning and Instruction, 17, 372-388. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.02.009
90. Trautwein, U., Koller, O. (2003). The relationship between homework and achievement-Still much of a mystery. Educational Psychology Review, 15,115-145. doi:10.1023/A:1023460414243 (Pubitemid 38103657)
91. Trautwein, U., Koller, O., Schmitz, B., & Baumert, J. (2002). Do homework assignments enhance achievement? A multilevel analysis in 7th-grade mathematics Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27,26-50. doi:10.1006/ceps. 2001.1084
92. Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Schnyder, I., & Niggli, A. (2006). Predicting homework effort: Support for a domain-specific, multilevel homework model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 438-456. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98. 2.438 (Pubitemid 43892978)
93. Usiskin, Z. (1999). Conceptions of school algebra and uses of variables. In B. Moses (Ed.), Algebraic thinking, grades K-12: Readings from NCTM's school-based journals and other publications (pp 7-13) Reston, VA: NCTM
94. Van Amerom, B. A. (2003). Focusing on informal strategies when linking arithmetic to early algebra. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 54,63-75. doi:10.1023/B:EDUC.0000005237.72281.bf
95. Vogel, J. J., Vogel, D. S., Cannon-Bowers, J., Bowers, C. A., Muse, K., & Wright, M. (2006). Computer gaming and interactive simulations for learning: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34,229-243. doi: 10.2190/FLHV-K4WA-WPVQ-HOYM
96. Volman, M., & Van Eck, E. (2001) . Gender equity and information technology in education: The second decade. Review of Educational Research, 71,613-634. doi: 10.3102/00346543071004613 (Pubitemid 33591833)
97. Warren, E. A., Cooper, T. J., & Lamb, J. T. (2006). Investigating functional thinking in the elementary classroom: Foundations of early algebraic reasoning. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 25, 208-223. doi: 10.1016/j.jmathb.2006.09.006 (Pubitemid 44801308)
98. What Works Clearinghouse. (2009a, March). CAN Learn®Pre-Algebra and Algebra WWC Intervention Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/ wwc/pdf/intervention-reports/wwc- icanlearn-031009.pdf
99. What Works Clearinghouse (2009b, July). Cognitive Tutor®Algebra I. WWC Intervention Report Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf7 intervention-reports/wwc-cogtutor-072809. pdf
100. Zbiek, R. M., Heid, M. K., Blume, G. W., & Dick, T. P. (2007). Research on technology in mathematics education: The perspective of constructs. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp 1169-1207). Charlotte, NC: Information Age
101. Zeller, M., & Barzel, B. (2010). Influences of CAS and GC in early algebra ZDM, 42, 775-788. doi: 10.1007/s 11858-010-0287-0