Advertisement

Mathematical Skills and Learning by Invention in Small Groups

  • Michael Wiedmann
  • Ryan C. Leach
  • Nikol Rummel
  • Jennifer WileyEmail author
Part of the Education Innovation Series book series (EDIN)

Abstract

The purpose of the present research was to investigate how the effectiveness of learning-by-invention activities may be influenced by the composition of the small groups that engage in them in terms of the mathematical skills of their members. Undergraduates engaged in an “inventing standard deviation” activity. Groups that included both high- and low-skill members generated a broader range of solution attempts and more high-quality solution attempts during the activity. Both the range and quality of solution attempts that were generated related to better uptake of the standard deviation formula from a later lesson. These results suggest that the composition of the small groups that work together may have an impact on the effectiveness of learning-by-invention activities.

Keywords

Collaborative learning Collaborative problem solving Learning by invention Group composition Mathematical skill 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research and collaboration was supported by a Studienstiftung des Deutschen Volkes [German National Academic Foundation] Fellowship to Michael Wiedmann and by a Humboldt Research Fellowship to Jennifer Wiley. The data reported here were collected as part of a thesis project submitted by Michael Wiedmann in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Diploma in Psychology at the University of Freiburg. The authors thank Kelly Currier, Pat Cushen, Olga Goldenberg, Thomas Griffin, Robert Hickson, Allison Jaeger, and Andy Jarosz for their assistance with coding, data collection, and discussions on this project.

References

  1. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183–198. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 167–207. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls0402_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Belenky, D. M., & Nokes-Malach, T. J. (2012). Motivation and transfer: The role of mastery-approach goals in preparation for future learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21, 399–432. doi: 10.1080/10508406.2011.651232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Canham, M., Wiley, J., & Mayer, R. (2012). When diversity in training improves dyadic problem solving. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 421–430. doi: 10.1002/acp.1844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. DeCaro, M. S., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2012). Exploring mathematics problems prepares children to learn from instruction. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 113, 552–568. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2012.06.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DiSessa, A. A., Hammer, D., Sherin, B., & Kolpakowski, T. (1991). Inventing graphing: Meta-representational expertise in children. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 10, 117–160.Google Scholar
  7. Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 365–395). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Freudenthal, H. (1973). Mathematics as an educational task. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  9. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Karns, K. (1998). High-achieving students’ interactions and performance on complex mathematical tasks as a function of homogeneous and heterogeneous pairings. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 227–267. doi: 10.3102/00028312035002227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gijlers, H., & De Jong, T. (2005). The relation between prior knowledge and students’ collaborative discovery learning processes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 264–282. doi: 10.1002/tea.20056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goldenberg, O., & Wiley, J. (2011). Quality, conformity, and conflict: Questioning the assumptions of Osborn’s Brainstorming technique. Journal of Problem Solving, 3. Retrieved from http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/jps/vol3/iss2/5
  12. Gravemeijer, K., Lehrer, R., Van Oers, B., & Verschaffel, L. (Eds.). (2003). Symbolizing, modelling and tool use in mathematics education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Kapur, M. (2009). Productive failure in mathematical problem solving. Instructional Science, 38, 523–550. doi: 10.1007/s11251-009-9093-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kapur, M. (2012). Productive failure in learning the concept of variance. Instructional Science, 40, 651–672. doi: 10.1007/s11251-012-9209-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kapur, M., & Bielaczyc, K. (2011). Designing for productive failure. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 41, 45–83. doi: 10.1080/10508406.2011.591717.Google Scholar
  16. Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 233–265). New York: Oxford Press.Google Scholar
  17. Kroesbergen, E. H., Van Luit, J. E. H., & Maas, C. J. (2004). Effectiveness of explicit and constructivist mathematics instruction for low-achieving students in the Netherlands. The Elementary School Journal, 104, 233–251. doi: 10.1086/499751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. M. (2003). Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics teaching, learning, and problem solving. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Loibl, K., & Rummel, N. (2013). The impact of guidance during problem-solving prior to instruction on students’ inventions and learning outcomes. Instructional Science, 42, 305–326. doi: 10.1007/s11251-013-9282-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mayer, R. E., & Greeno, J. G. (1972). Structural differences between learning outcomes produced by different instructional methods. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 165–173. doi: 10.1037/h0032654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Paulus, P. (2000). Groups, teams and creativity: The creative potential of idea generating groups. International Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 237–262. doi: 10.1111/1464-0597.00013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 717–731. doi: 10.3758/BF03206553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891. doi: 10.3758/BRM.40.3.879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Roll, I. (2009). Structured invention activities to prepare students for future learning: Means, mechanisms, and cognitive processes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  25. Roll, I., Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. R. (2009). Helping students know ‘further’ – Increasing the flexibility of students’ knowledge using symbolic invention tasks. In N. A. Taatgen & H. van Rijn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 1169–1174). Austin: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  26. Roll, I., Holmes, N. G., Day, J., & Bonn, D. (2012). Evaluating metacognitive scaffolding in guided invention activities. Instructional Science, 40, 691–710. doi: 10.1007/s11251-012-9208-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  28. Schwartz, D. L. (1995). The emergence of abstract representations in dyad problem solving. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1, 321–354. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls0403_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schwartz, D. L., & Martin, T. (2004). Inventing to prepare for future learning: The hidden efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 129–184. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci2202_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stroebe, W., & Diehl, M. (1994). Why groups are less effective than their members: On productivity losses in idea-generating groups. European Review of Social Psychology, 5, 271–303. doi: 10.1080/14792779543000084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. VanLehn, K. (1988). Toward a theory of impasse-driven learning. In H. Mandl & A. Lesgold (Eds.), Learning issues for intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 19–41). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  33. Webb, N. M. (1980). A process-outcome analysis of learning in group and individual settings. Educational Psychologist, 15, 69–83. doi: 10.1080/00461528009529217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Westermann, K., & Rummel, N. (2012). Delaying instruction: Evidence from a study in a university relearning setting. Instructional Science, 40, 673–689. doi: 10.1007/s11251-012-9207-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wiedmann, M., Leach, R., Rummel, N., & Wiley, J. (2012). Does group composition affect learning by invention? Instructional Science, 40, 711–740. doi: 10.1007/s11251-012-9204-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wiley, J., & Jensen, M. (2006). When three heads are better than two. Proceedings of the twenty-eighth annual conference of the cognitive science society, Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  37. Wiley, J., & Jolly, C. (2003). When two heads are better than one expert. Proceedings of the twenty-fifth annual conference of the cognitive science society, Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  38. Wiley, J., Goldenberg, O., Jarosz, A. F., Wiedmann, M., & Rummel, N. (2013). Diversity, collaboration, and learning by invention. Proceedings of the 35th annual meeting of the cognitive science society, Austin: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  39. Wiley, J., Jarosz, A., Cushen, P., Jensen, M., & Griffin, T. D. (2009, November). The power of three: Why the third person matters. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the psychonomic society, Boston, MA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Wiedmann
    • 1
  • Ryan C. Leach
    • 2
  • Nikol Rummel
    • 1
  • Jennifer Wiley
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Institute of Educational ResearchRuhr-Universität BochumBochumGermany
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of IllinoisChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations