Cognitive Readiness for Solving Equations

Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

In this chapter we examine cognitive readiness for solving equations in the domain of pre-algebra. We describe the knowledge required to solve a multistep equation, and present a novel technique for developing assessment items and a novel assessment item format, designed to measure both the prerequisites of cognitive readiness for solving equations and the skills themselves. Assessment items were drawn from the solution path of a complex multistep equation. The items used a “next step” format, which asked students to write only the first step of their solution. Using a sample of 42 middle school students, data were gathered on item performance and how performance on the next step item compared to performance on the more traditional “solve for x” format. Unsurprisingly, students performed higher the simpler the equation was but large drops in performance occurred at steps that were essential to isolating a variable (i.e., applying the equality properties of addition and multiplication). Students performed higher on the traditional items compared to next step items and there was some evidence that performance on the next step item predicted performance on the traditional items. Assessment and instructional implications of this work include diagnosing precisely where in the solution path students have difficulty, which is tantamount to identifying students’ cognitive readiness for solving equations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The work reported herein was supported under the National Research and Development Centers Program, PR/Award Number R305C080015, as administered by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, and partially supported by a grant from the Office of Naval Research, Award Number N000140810126. The findings and opinions expressed in this chapter do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of the U.S. Department of Education or the Office of Naval Research. We would also like to thank Joanne Michiuye of UCLA/CRESST for review and editorial help with this manuscript.

References

  1. Baker, E. L. (1997). Model-based performance assessment. Theory Into Practice, 36, 247–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. California Department of Education (CDE). (2011). California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) result for Los Angeles Unified School District, 2010–2011 school year. Sacramento, CA: Author.Google Scholar
  4. California State University (CSU). (2011). Fall 2010 final regularly admitted first-time freshman remediation systemwide. Long Beach, CA: Author.Google Scholar
  5. 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 (2nd ed., pp. 669–704). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  6. Chazan, D., & Yerushalmy, M. (2003). On appreciating the cognitive complexity of school algebra: Research on algebra learning and directions of curricular change. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 123–135). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  7. Chung, G. K. W. K., Delacruz, G. C., Dionne, G. B., Baker, E. L., Lee, J. J., & Osmundson, E. (2007). Towards individualized instruction with technology-enabled tools and methods. In R. Perez (Chair), Rebooting the past: Leveraging advances in assessment, instruction, and technology to individualize instruction and learning. Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  8. Demby, A. (1997). Algebraic procedures used by 13–15 year-olds. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 33, 45–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Heritage, M., Kim, J., Vendlinski, T., & Herman, J. (2009). From evidence to action: A seamless process in formative assessment? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28, 24–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Herscovics, N., & Linchevski, L. (1994). A cognitive gap between arithmetic and algebra. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27, 59–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. IBM SPSS. (2009). PASW Statistics (version 18) [Computer software]. Armonk, NY: IBM.Google Scholar
  12. Kalyuga, S. (2006). Rapid cognitive assessment of learners’ knowledge structures. Learning and Instruction, 16, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2004). Measuring knowledge to optimize cognitive load factors during instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 558–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kieran, C. (2007). Learning and teaching algebra at the middle school through college levels. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (2nd ed., pp. 707–762). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  15. MacGregor, M., & Stacey, K. (1997). Students’ understanding of algebraic notation: 11–15. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 33, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. National Academy of Engineering (NAE), & Institute of Medicine (IOM), Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. (2006). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  17. National Academy of Sciences (NAS). (2005). National science and technology strategies in a global context: Report of an international symposium. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  18. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2010). The nation’s report card: Grade 12 reading and mathematics 2009 national and pilot state results. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  19. National Mathematics Advisory Panel (NMAP). (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  20. National Science Board. (2010). Science and engineering indicators, Volume 1 (Rep. No. NSB 10-02). Arlington, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  21. Pett, M. A. (1997). Nonparametric statistics for health care research: Statistics for small samples and unusual distributions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Pierce, R., & Stacey, K. (2007). Developing algebraic insight. Mathematics Teaching, 203, 12–16.Google Scholar
  23. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shepard, L. A. (2001). The role of classroom assessment in teaching and learning. In V. Richardson (Ed.), The handbook of research on teaching (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  25. Vlassis, J. (2002). Making sense of the minus sign or becoming flexible with “negativity”. Learning and Instruction, 14, 469–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wiliam, D., & Thompson, M. (2007). Integrating assessment with instruction: What will it take to make it work? In C. A. Dwyer (Ed.), The future of assessment: Shaping teaching and learning (pp. 53–82). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gregory K. W. K. Chung
    • 1
  • Girlie C. Delacruz
    • 1
  1. 1.National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST)/University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)Los AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations