Person:

Star, Jon

This study investigated the effectiveness of an instructional program (schema-based instruction, SBI) designed to teach 7th graders how to comprehend and solve proportion problems involving ratios/rates, scale drawings, and percents. The SBI program emphasized the underlying mathematical structure of problems via schematic diagrams, focused on a 4-step procedure to support and monitor problem solving, and addressed the flexible use of alternative solution strategies based on the problem situation. Blocking by teacher at three middle schools, the authors randomly assigned the 21 classrooms to one of two conditions: SBI and control. Classroom teachers provided the instruction. Results of multilevel modeling used to test for treatment effects after accounting for pretests and other characteristics (gender, ethnicity) revealed the direct effects of SBI on mathematical problem solving at posttest. However, the improved problem solving skills were not maintained a month later when SBI was no longer in effect nor did the skills transfer to solving problems in new domain-level content.

The present study evaluated the effectiveness of an instructional intervention (schema-based instruction, SBI) that was designed to meet the diverse needs of middle school students by addressing the research literatures from both special education and mathematics education. Specifically, SBI emphasizes the role of the mathematical structure of problems and also provides students with a heuristic to aid and self-monitor problem solving. Further, SBI addresses well-articulated problem solving strategies and supports flexible use of the strategies based on the problem situation. One hundred forty eight seventh-grade students and their teachers participated in a 10-day intervention on learning to solve ratio and proportion word problems, with classrooms randomly assigned to SBI or a control condition. Results suggested that students in SBI treatment classes outperformed students in control classes on a problem solving measure, both at posttest and on a delayed posttest administered 4 months later. However, the two groups' performance was comparable on a state standardized mathematics achievement test.

In this paper we explore a new way to think about the use of group work in mathematics instruction through what we refer to as strategic interruptions. Strategic interruptions involve frequent and often rapid transitions between whole class and small group instruction. Through analyses of video of Algebra I teaching, we identify patterns in the frequency, timing, rationale, and instructional practices related to the use of and switching between whole class and small group instructional formats. We postulate that use of strategic interruptions has the potential to be a powerful and easily implementable form of group work that may be especially appropriate in secondary classrooms.

Researchers in both cognitive science and mathematics education emphasize the importance of comparison for learning and transfer. However, surprisingly little is known about the advantages and disadvantages of what types of things are being compared. In this experimental study, 162 7th- and 8th-grade students learned to solve equations by comparing equivalent problems solved with the same solution method, by comparing different problem types solved with the same solution method, or by comparing different solution methods to the same problem. Students' conceptual knowledge and procedural flexibility were best supported by comparing solution methods, and to a lesser extent by comparing problem types. The benefits of comparison are augmented when examples differ on relevant features, and contrasting methods may be particularly useful in mathematics learning.

Comparing and contrasting examples is a core cognitive process that supports learning in children and adults across a variety of topics. In this experimental study, we evaluated the benefits of supporting comparison in a classroom context for children learning about computational estimation. Fifth- and sixth-grade students (n = 157) learned about estimation either by comparing alternative solution strategies or by reflecting on the strategies one at a time. At posttest and retention test, students who compared were more flexible problem solvers on a variety of measures. Comparison also supported greater conceptual knowledge, but only for students who already knew some estimation strategies. These findings indicate that comparison is an effective learning and instructional practice in a domain with multiple acceptable answers.

The ability to flexibly solve problems is considered an important outcome for school mathematics and is the focus of this paper. The paper describes the impact of a three-week summer course for students who struggle with algebra. During the course, students regularly compared and contrasted worked examples of algebra problems in order to promote flexible use of solution strategies. Assessments were designed to capture both knowledge and use of multiple strategies. The students were interviewed in order to understand their rationales for choosing particular strategies, as well as their attitudes toward instruction that emphasized multiple strategies. Findings suggest that students gained both knowledge of and appreciation for multiple strategies, but they did not always use alternate strategies. Familiarity, understandability, efficiency, and form of the problem were all considerations for strategy choice. Practical and theoretical implications are discussed.

Largely absent from the emerging literature on flexibility is a consideration of experts' flexibility. Do experts exhibit strategy flexibility, as one might assume? If so, how do experts perceive that this capacity developed in themselves? Do experts feel that flexibility is an important instructional outcome in school mathematics? In this paper, we describe results from several interviews with experts to explore strategy flexibility for solving equations. We conducted interviews with eight content experts, where we asked a number of questions about flexibility and also engaged the experts in problem solving. Our analysis indicates that the experts that were interviewed did exhibit strategy flexibility in the domain of linear equation solving, but they did not consistently select the most efficient method for solving a given equation. However, regardless of whether these experts used the best method on a given problem, they nevertheless showed an awareness of and an appreciation of efficient and elegant problem solutions. The experts that we spoke to were capable of making subtle judgments about the most appropriate strategy for a given problem, based on factors including mental and rapid testing of strategies, the problem solver's goals (e.g., efficiency, error-free execution, elegance) and familiarity with a given problem type. Implications for future research on flexibility and on mathematics instruction are discussed.

Taking early action may be key to helping students struggling with mathematics. The eight recommendations in this guide are designed to help teachers, principals, and administrators use Response to Intervention for the early detection, prevention, and support of students struggling with mathematics.

The objective of this guide is to provide teachers with specific recommendations that can be carried out in the classroom without requiring systemic change. Other school personnel having direct contact with students, such as coaches, counselors, and principals, will also find the guide useful.