Advertisement

Multiple Solutions for Real-World Problems, Experience of Competence and Students’ Procedural and Conceptual Knowledge

  • Kay AchmetliEmail author
  • Stanislaw Schukajlow
  • Katrin Rakoczy
Article

Abstract

An effective way to improve students’ mathematical knowledge is to have them construct multiple solutions for real-world problems. Prior knowledge is a relevant prerequisite for learning outcomes, and the experience of competence is a basic need that has to be fulfilled to improve achievement. In the current experimental study (N = 307), we investigated how the construction of multiple solutions for real-world problems by applying multiple (two) mathematical procedures affected students’ procedural and conceptual knowledge and their experience of competence. Path analyses showed that constructing multiple solutions for real-world problems increased students’ feelings of competence and affected their procedural and conceptual knowledge indirectly through the experience of competence. Moreover, students’ prior knowledge affected their knowledge at posttest directly as well as indirectly via their experience of competence.

Keywords

Experience of competence Multiple solutions Procedural and conceptual knowledge Real-world problems Teaching methods 

Supplementary material

10763_2018_9936_MOESM1_ESM.docx (138 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 138 kb)

References

  1. Achmetli, K., Schukajlow, S., & Krug, A. (2014). Effects of prompting students to use multiple solution methods while solving real-world problems on students' self-regulation. In C. Nicol, S. Oesterle, P. Liljedahl, & D. Allan (Eds.), Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of PME 38 and PME-NA 36 (Vol. 2, pp. 1-8). Vancouver, Canada: PME.Google Scholar
  2. Bandura, A. (2003). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control (6. printing. ed.). New York, NY: Freeman, Self-Efficacy.Google Scholar
  3. Becker, J. P., & Shimada, S. (1997). The open-ended approach: A new proposal for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  4. Blum, W., & Leiss, D. (2007). How do students and teachers deal with mathematical modelling problems? The example sugarloaf and the DISUM project. In C. Haines, P. L. Galbraith, W. Blum, & S. Khan (Eds.), Mathematical modelling (ICTMA 12): Education, engineering and economics (pp. 222–231). Chichester, England: Horwood.Google Scholar
  5. Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspective on assessment and intervention. Applied Psychology, 54(2), 199–231.Google Scholar
  6. Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2001). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Canobi, K. H. (2009). Concept–procedure interactions in children’s addition and subtraction. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 102(2), 131–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–492). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Deci, E. L. (1998). The relation of interest to motivation and human needs: The self-determination theory viewpoint. In L. Hoffmann, A. Krapp, K. A. Renninger, & J. Baumert (Eds.), Interest and Learning Proceedings of the Seeon-conference on interest and gender (Vol. 1998, pp. 146–162). Kiel, Germany: IPN.Google Scholar
  10. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, A. M. (2000). The “what“ and “why“ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the selfdetermination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.Google Scholar
  11. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In R. A. Dienstbier (Ed.), Perspectives on motivation (Vol. 38, pp. 237–288). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  12. Fisher, W. P. (1992). Reliability statistics. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 6(3), 238.Google Scholar
  13. Goldin, G. A. (2014). Perspectives on emotion in mathematical engagement, learning, and problem solving. In R. Pekrun & L. Linnenbrink-Garcia (Eds.), International handbook of emotions in education (pp. 391–414). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Hänze, M., & Berger, R. (2007). Cooperative learning, motivational effects, and student characteristics: An experimental study comparing cooperative learning and direct instruction in 12th grade physics classes. Learning and Instruction, 17(1), 29–41.Google Scholar
  15. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning : A synthesis of meta-analyses relating to achievement. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Hattie, J., Biggs, J. B., & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills interventions on student learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 99–136.Google Scholar
  17. Heinze, A., Reiss, K., & Rudolph, F. (2005). Mathematics achievement and interest in mathematics from a differential perspective. ZDM Mathematics Education, 37(3), 212–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  19. Krapp, A. (2005). Basic needs and the development of interest and intrinsic motivational orientations. Learning and Instruction, 15, 381–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leikin, R., & Levav-Waynberg, A. (2007). Exploring mathematics teacher knowledge to explain the gap between theory-based recommendations and school practice in the use of connecting tasks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66(3), 349–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Levav-Waynberg, A., & Leikin, R. (2012). The role of multiple solution tasks in developing knowledge and creativity in geometry. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31, 73–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Miserandino, M. (1996). Children who do well in school: Individual differences in perceived competence and autonomy in above-average children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 203–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Muthén, B. O., & Satorra, A. (1995). Complex sample data in structural equation modeling. Sociological Methodology, 25, 267–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthe’n & Muthe’n.Google Scholar
  25. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  26. Neubrand, M. (2006). Multiple Lösungswege für Aufgaben: Bedeutung für Fach, Lernen, Unterricht und Leistungserfassung [Multiple procedures for problems: Importance for content, learning, teaching and measurement of performance]. In W. Blum, C. Drüke-Noe, R. Hartung, & O. Köller (Eds.), Bildungsstandards Mathematik: Konkret. Sekundarstufe I: Aufgabenbeispiele, Unterrichtsanregungen, Fortbildungsideen [Standards for school mathematics on the low-secondary level: Tasks, ideas for teaching and teacher training] (pp. 162–177). Berlin, Germany: Cornelsen.Google Scholar
  27. Niss, M., Blum, W., & Galbraith, P. L. (2007). Introduction. In W. Blum, P. L. Galbraith, H.-W. Henn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education: The 14th ICMI study (pp. 1–32). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., Barchfeld, P., & Perry, R. P. (2011). Measuring emotions in students’ learning and performance: The achievement emotions questionnaire (AEQ). Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 36–48.Google Scholar
  29. Pietsch, J., Walker, R., & Chapman, E. (2003). The relationship among self-concept, self-efficacy, and performance in mathematics during secondary school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3), 589–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rittle-Johnson, B., & Schneider, M. (2014). Developing conceptual and procedural knowledge of mathematics. In C. R. Kadosh & A. Dowker (Eds.), Oxford handbook of numerical cognition (pp. 1102–1118). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Rittle-Johnson, B., Schneider, M., & Star, J. R. (2015). Not a one-way street: Bidirectional relations between procedural and conceptual knowledge of mathematics. Educational Psychology Review, 27(4), 587–597.Google Scholar
  32. Rittle-Johnson, B., Siegler, R. S., & Alibali, M. W. (2001). Developing conceptual understanding and procedural skill in mathematics: An iterative process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 346–362.Google Scholar
  33. Rittle-Johnson, B., & Star, J. R. (2007). Does comparing solution methods facilitate conceptual and procedural knowledge? An experimental study on learning to solve equations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 561–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rittle-Johnson, B., & Star, J. R. (2009). Compared with what? The effects of different comparisons on conceptual knowledge and procedural flexibility for equation solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 529–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rittle-Johnson, B., Star, J. R., & Durkin, K. (2009). The importance of prior knowledge when comparing examples: Influences on conceptual and procedural knowledge of equation solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 836–852.Google Scholar
  36. Rupp, A. A., Templin, J., & Henson, R. A. (2010). Diagnostic measurement: Theory, methods, and applications (Vol. 1). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  37. Ryan, R. M. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes. Journal of Personality, 63(3), 397–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schukajlow, S., Leiss, D., Pekrun, R., Blum, W., Müller, M., & Messner, R. (2012). Teaching methods for modelling problems and students’ task-specific enjoyment, value, interest and self-efficacy expectations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79(2), 215-237. Google Scholar
  40. Schukajlow, S., & Krug, A. (2014). Do multiple solutions matter? Prompting multiple solutions, interest, competence, and autonomy. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 45(4), 497-533. Google Scholar
  41. Schukajlow, S., Krug, A., & Rakoczy, K. (2015). Effects of prompting multiple solutions for modelling problems on students’ performance. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 89(3), 393-417. Google Scholar
  42. Schukajlow, S., & Rakoczy, K. (2016). The power of emotions: Can enjoyment and boredom explain the impact of individual preconditions and teaching methods on interest and performance in mathematics? Learning and Instruction, 44, 117-127. Google Scholar
  43. Silver, E. A., Ghousseini, H., Gosen, D., Charalambous, C. Y., & Font Strawhun, B. T. (2005). Moving from rhetoric to praxis: Issues faced by teachers in having students consider multiple solutions for problems in the mathematics classroom. Mathematical Behavior, 24(3–4), 287–301.Google Scholar
  44. Spiro, R. J., Coulson, R. L., Feltovich, P. J., & Anderson, D. K. (1988). Cognitiv flexibility theory: Advanced knowledge aquisition in ill-structured domains. The tenth annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 375–383). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  45. Star, J. R. (2007). Foregrounding procedural knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38, 132–135.Google Scholar
  46. Star, J. R., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2008). Flexibility in problem solving: The case of equation solving. Learning and Instruction, 18, 565–579.Google Scholar
  47. Warm, T. A. (1989). Weighted likelihood estimation of ability in item response theory. Psychometrika, 54, 427–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wigfield, A., Battle, A., Keller, L. B., & Eccles, J. S. (2002). Sex differences in motivation, self-concept, career aspiration, and career choice: Implications for cognitive development. In R. De Lisi & a. McGillicuddy-De Lisi (Eds.), The development of sex differences in cognition (pp. 93–124). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
  49. Wu, M. L., Adams, R. J., & Wilson, M. R. (1998). ACER conquest. Melbourne, Australia: The Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kay Achmetli
    • 1
    Email author
  • Stanislaw Schukajlow
    • 1
  • Katrin Rakoczy
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of MathematicsUniversity of MünsterMünsterGermany
  2. 2.Center for Research on Educational Quality and EvaluationGerman Institute for International Educational ResearchFrankfurtGermany

Personalised recommendations