|
| Int'l Paper Session - Innovative Approaches to Mathematics Instruction |
| Sunday, May 29, 2005 |
| 3:00 PM–4:20 PM |
| Williford C (3rd floor) |
| Area: EDC |
| Chair: Joanne K. Robbins (Morningside Academy) |
| |
| Evaluating Progress in Talk Aloud Problem Solving: Recent Lessons Learned at Morningside Academy |
| Domain: Applied Research |
| JOANNE K. ROBBINS (Morningside Academy), April Heimlich (Headsprout) |
| |
| Abstract: An analytic scoring scale published by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics for use in mathematical problem solving is applied to a range of logic, reasoning, writing, and math problem solving activities completed by students in grade one through eight. We assess seven thinking skills as defined by Charles, Lester, & O'Daffer (1987) before and during phases of instruction that teach the Talk Aloud Problem Solving strategy. In addition, ongoing video assessments are filmed of our students. Pretest and posttest performance on matched problems designed by Krulik and Jesse A. Rudnick (1999) as well as problems designed by the authors are compared. Problem-solving Thinking Processes (Skills) and Objectives1. Understand/formulate the question in the problem. 2. Understand the conditions and variables in the problem. 3. Select/find data needed to solve the problem. 4. Formulate sub problems and select an appropriate solution strategy to pursue. 5. Correctly implement solution strategy and attain the sub goals. 6. Give an answer in terms of the data in the problem. 7. Evaluate the reasonableness of the answer. |
| |
| Training Fraction-Decimal Equivalence in School Students with a Respondent-Type Procedure |
| Domain: Basic Research |
| JULIAN C. LESLIE (University of Ulster), Diana Parker (University of Ulster) |
| |
| Abstract: Fraction-decimal equivalence relations were taught to 11 year-old West Belfast students using a respondent-type training procedure. In a pre-test, all failed to answer any questions correctly (0%). In Experiment 1, Condition 1, five boys were trained to form six, three-member equivalence relations (A1-B1-C1 etc.) and subsequently tested for a transfer of function. A stimuli were fractions, B stimuli were percentages, and C stimuli were decimals. In Experiment 1, Condition 2, transfer of function was assessed prior to testing for equivalence. During transfer training names were spoken in the presence of each of the B stimuli. During testing, subjects were asked to name the C. Three boys in Condition 1 demonstrated the predicted transfer of functions, as did all five boys in Condition 2. Three boys in Condition 1 and all in Condition 2 showed stimulus equivalence. Experiment 2 was a replication of Experiment 1 with 4-member equivalence classes. D stimuli were pictorial representations of fractions, and transfer of function to D stimuli was tested. All five boys in each condition showed transfer of function and four subjects in each condition demonstrated equivalence. At 3-month follow-up high test scores (mean=52%) were obtained. Implications for educational use of these procedures are discussed. |
| |
| Math Preference and Mastery Relationship in Middle School Students with Disabilities |
| Domain: Applied Research |
| DEVENDER BANDA (Kean University), James K. McAfee (Pennsylvania State University), John T. Neisworth (Pennsylvania State University) |
| |
| Abstract: We conducted this study to find the preference for math problems and its relationship to mastery in math with five middle school students with disabilities. Two experiments were conducted in this study. In Experiment 1, students were assessed for mastery in math addition problems. Based on the mastery assessment, participants were randomly assigned to six combinations of mastered vs. nonmastered and digits vs. word problem formats to determine their preferences. Similarly, in Experiment 2, the participants were administered a mastery assessment with subtraction problems and then preference assessments to determine their preferences.Group results indicate that students expressed a mixed pattern of preference for mastered vs. nonmastered tasks in Experiment 1. However, in Experiment 2, a majority of students expressed preference for mastered tasks over nonmastered tasks. Also, in Experiment 2, a majority of students expressed no preference for digits or words when similar accuracy tasks were presented simultaneously. Individual results indicate that mastery influenced preference in few of the participants in some of the formats in both experiments. Results are discussed within the context of several theories (matching, momentum, and Premack) and previous literature. Implications for preference assessments and interventions based on preference are also discussed. |
| |
|
| |