Effects of Computer-Mediated Versus Teacher-Mediated Instruction on the Mathematical Word Problem-Solving Performance of Third-Grade Students With Mathematical Difficulties
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online May, 2013
Effects of Computer-Mediated Versus Teacher-Mediated Instruction on the Mathematical Word Problem-Solving Performance of Third-Grade Students With Mathematical Difficulties
This study compared the effectiveness of computer-mediated instruction (CMI) and teacher-mediated instruction (TMI) on the word problem-solving performance of students struggling in mathematics. Both conditions integrated cognitive modeling that focused on the problem structure using visual representations with critical instructional elements specifically targeting the needs of at-risk students. Participants were 25 third-grade students with mathematics difficulties who were randomly assigned to either a TMI or a CMI condition. Results indicated no statistically significant between-condition differences at posttest and on a 4-week retention test of word problem-solving. Furthermore, there was no transfer of the word problem-solving skills to a school administered, standardized mathematics achievement test. Implications for educational practice are discussed.
AnderssonU. (2008). Mathematical competencies in children with different types of learning difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 48–66. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.48
2.
AnderssonU.LyxellB. (2007). Working memory deficit in children with mathematical difficulties: A general or specific deficit?Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 96, 197–228. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2006.10.001
3.
AshcraftM. H.KrauseJ. A.HopkoD. R. (2008). Is math anxiety a mathematical learning disability? In BerchD. B.MazzocoM. M. (Eds.), Why is math so hard for some children? The nature and origins of mathematical learning difficulties and disabilities (pp. 329–348). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
4.
BadianN. A. (1999). Persistent arithmetic, reading, or arithmetic and reading disability. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 43–70. doi:10.1007/s11881-999-0019-8
5.
BarbaresiW. J.KatusicS. K.ColliganR. C.WeaverA. L.JacobsenS. J. (2005). Math learning disorder: Incidence in a population-based birth cohort, 1976-1982, Rochester, Minn. Ambulatory Pediatrics, 5, 281–289.
6.
ChangK. E.SungY. T.LinS. F. (2006). Computer-assisted learning for mathematical problem solving. Computers & Education, 46, 140–151. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2004.08.002
7.
ChenC. J.LiuP. L. (2007). Personalized computer-assisted mathematics problem-solving programs and its impact on Taiwanese students. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26, 105–121.
8.
CoyneM. D.KameenuiE. J.CarnineD. W. (2007). Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
9.
DynarskiM.AgodiniR.HeavisideS.NovakT.CareyN.CampuzanoL.SussexW. (2007). Effectiveness of reading and mathematics software products: Findings from the first student cohort. Mathematica Report. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20074005/
10.
FitzgeraldG.KouryK.MitchemK. (2008). Research on computer-mediated instruction for students with high incidence disabilities. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38, 201–233.
11.
FoutsJ. T. (2000). Research on computers and education: Past, present and future (A report to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation). Seattle, WA: Seattle Pacific University. Retrieved from http://pcfly.info/doc/Computers/34.pdf
12.
FuchsL. S.GearyD. C.ComptonD. L.FuchsD.HamlettC. L.SeethalerP. M.SchatschneiderC. (2010). Do different types of school mathematics development depend on different constellations of numerical versus general cognitive abilities?Developmental Psychology, 46, 1731–1746. doi:10.1037/a0020662
13.
GearyD. C.HamsonC. O.HoardM. K. (2000). Numerical and arithmetical cognition: A longitudinal study of process and concept deficits in children with learning disability. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 77, 236–263. doi:10.1006/jecp.2000.2561
14.
GearyD. C.HoardM. K.Byrd-CravenJ.NugentL.NumteeC. (2007). Cognitive mechanisms underlying achievement deficits in children with mathematical learning disability. Child Development, 78, 1343–1359. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01069.x
15.
GerstenR.BeckmanS.ClarkeB.FoegenA.MarshL.StarJ.WitzelB. (2009). Assisting students struggling with mathematics: Response to intervention (RtI) for elementary and middle school (Institute of Education Science National Center of Educational Evaluation & Regional Assistance). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
16.
GerstenR.ChardD. J.JayanthiM.BakerS. K.MorphyP.FlojoJ. (2009). Mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of instructional components. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1202–1242. doi:10.3102/0034654309334431
17.
GleasonM.CarnineD.BorieroD. (1990). Improving CAI effectiveness with attention to instructional design in teaching story problems to mildly handicapped students. Journal of Special Education Technology, 10, 129–136.
HasselbringT. S.GoinL. I.BransfordJ. D. (1988). Developing math automaticity in learning handicapped children: The role of computerized drill and practice. Focus on Exceptional Children, 20, 1–7.
20.
HegedusS. J.ArmellaL. M. (2009). Intersecting representation and communication infrastructures. ZDM Mathematics Education, 41, 399–412. doi:1007/s11858-009-0191-7
21.
HuangW.HuangW.DiefesD. H.ImbrieP. K. (2006). A preliminary validation of attention, relevance, confidence and satisfaction model-based instructional material motivational survey in a computer-based tutorial setting. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37, 243–259. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00582.x
22.
JackiwN.SinclairN. (2009). Sounds and pictures: Dynamism and dualism in dynamic geometry. ZDM Mathematics Education, 41, 413–426. doi:10.1007/s11858-009-0196-2
23.
JaspersM. W. M.Van LieshoutE. C. D. M. (1994). A CAI program for instructing text analysis and modelling of word problems to educable mentally retarded children. Instructional Science, 22, 115–136. doi:10.1007/BF00892160
24.
JitendraA. K. (2007). Solving math word problems: Teaching students with learning disabilities using schema-based instruction. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
25.
JitendraA. K.GriffinC.HariaP.LehJ. M.AdamsA.KaduvetoorA. (2007). A comparison of single and multiple strategy instruction on third grade students’ mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 115–127. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.115
26.
JordanN. C.HanichL. B.KaplanD. (2003). Arithmetic fact mastery in young children: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 85, 103–119. doi:10.1016/S0022-0965(03)00032-8
27.
KeF. (2008). Computer games application within alternative classroom goal structures: Cognitive, metacognitive, and affective evaluation. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 56, 539–556. doi:10.1007/s11423-008-9086-5
28.
KellerJ. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of motivational design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2–10.
29.
KlimanM.RussellS. J.WrightT.MokrosJ. (2006). Investigations in number, data, and space, introduction: Mathematical thinking at Grade 3. Glenview, IL: Pearson.
30.
LouY.AbramiP. C.D’ApolloniaS. (2001). Small group and individual learning with technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71, 449–521. doi:10.3102/00346543071003449
31.
MarzocchiG. M.LucangeliD.De MeoT.FiniF.CornoldiC. (2002). The disturbing effect of irrelevant information on arithmetic problem solving in inattentive children. Developmental Neuropsychology, 21, 73–92. Retrieved from https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1207/S15326942DN2101_4
32.
MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. E.ShiahR. (1997). Can computers teach problem-solving strategies to students with mild mental retardation?Remedial and Special Education, 18, 157–163. doi:10.1177/074193259701800304
33.
MazzoccoM. M. M. (2007). Defining and differentiating mathematical learning disabilities and difficulties. In BerchD. B.MazzoccoM. M. M. (Eds.), Why is math so hard for some children: The nature and origins of mathematical learning difficulties and disabilities (pp. 7–28). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
34.
McNeilN. M.UttalD. H.JarvinL.SternbergR. J. (2009). Should you show me the money? Concrete objects both hurt and help performance on mathematics problems. Learning and Instruction, 19, 171–184. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc .2008.03.005
35.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/index.html
36.
National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. KilpatrickJ.SwaffordJ.FindellB.(Eds.). Mathematics Learning Study Committee, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy.
37.
NobleT.NemirovskyR.WrightT.TierneyC. (2001). Experiencing change: The mathematics of change in multiple environments. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(1), 85–108.
38.
RoschelleJ.KaputJ. J.StroupW. (2000). SIMCALC: Accelerating students’ engagement with the mathematics of change. In JacobsonM. J.KozmaR. B. (Eds.), Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced designs for technologies of learning (pp. 47–75). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
39.
RosenY. (2009). The effects of an animation-based on-line learning environment on transfer of knowledge and on motivation for science and technology learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 40, 451–467.
40.
RowandC. (2000). Teacher use of computers and Internet in public schools. Education Statistics Quarterly: Elementary and Secondary Education, United States Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/2000090.pdf
41.
ScheiterK.GerjetsP. (2010). Cognitive and socio-motivational aspects in learning with animations: There is more to it than “do they aid learning or not.”Instructional Science, 38, 435–440.
42.
ScheiterK.GerjetsP.SchuhJ. (2010). The acquisition of problem-solving skills in mathematics: How animations can aid understanding of structural problem features and solution procedures. Instructional Science, 38, 487–502. doi:10.1007/s11251-009-9114-9
43.
SeoY. J.BryantD. P. (2009). Analysis of studies of the effects of computer-assisted instruction on the mathematics performance of students with learning disabilities. Computers & Education, 53, 913–928. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.002
44.
SeoY. J.WooH. (2010). The identification, implementation, and evaluation of critical user interface design features of computer-assisted instruction programs in mathematics for students with learning disabilities. Computers & Education, 55, 363–377. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.002.002
45.
ShalevR. S.AuerbachJ.ManorO.Gross-TsurV. (2000). Developmental dyscalculia: Prevalence and prognosis. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 9(Suppl. 2), S58-S64.
46.
ShiahR. L.MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. E.FulkJ. M. (1994-1995). The effects of computer-assisted instruction on the mathematical problem solving of students with learning disabilities. Exceptionality, 5, 131–161.
47.
SlavinR. E.LakeC. (2008). Effective programs in elementary mathematics: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 78, 427–515. doi:10.3102/0034654308317473
48.
SmithK. S.GellerC. (2004). Essential principles of effective mathematics instruction: Methods to reach all students. Preventing School Failure, 48(4), 22–29.
49.
StellingwerfB. P.Van LieshoutE. C. D. M. (1999). Manipulatives and number sentences in computer-aided arithmetic word problem solving. Instructional Science, 27, 459–476. doi:10.1023/A:1003647807868
50.
SwansonH. L.JermanO.ZhengX. (2008). Growth in working memory and mathematical problem solving in children at risk and not at risk for serious math difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 343–379. doi:10.1037/002-0663.100.2.343
51.
SymingtonL.StrangerC. (2000). Math = success: New inclusionary software programs add up to a brighter future. Teaching Exceptional Children, 32, 28–33.
52.
Tom Snyder Productions. (2005). GO Solve Word Problems. Watertown, MA: Author.
53.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Technology Administration. (2002). Visions 2020: Transforming education and training through advanced technologies. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.technology.gov/reports/TechPolicy/2020Visions.pdf
54.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010). National educational technology plan 2010. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010
55.
Van de WalleJ. A.KarpK. S.Bay-WilliamsJ. M. (2010). Elementary and middle school mathematics (7th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
56.
VerschaffelL.GreerB.DecorteE. (2007). Whole number concepts and operation. In LesterF. K.Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 557–628). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
57.
WilsonR.MajsterekD.SimmonsD. (1996). The effects of computer-assisted versus teacher-directed instruction on the multiplication performance of elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 382–390.
58.
WoodwardJ. (2011). The role of motivation in secondary mathematics instruction: Implications for RTI. In GerstenR.Newman-GoncharR. (Eds.), Understanding RTI in mathematics: Proven methods and applications (pp. 187–203). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
