The Role of Comparison in Mathematics Learning

The Role of Comparison in Mathematics Learning Shanta Hattikudur (hattikudur@wisc.edu) Department of Psychology, 1202 W. Johnson Street Madison, WI 53706 USA Martha W. Alibali (mwalibali@wisc.edu) Department of Psychology, 1202 W. Johnson Street Madison, WI 53706 USA Abstract Effects on Procedural and Conceptual Learning To better understand how comparison can be effectively used in mathematics instruction, we reviewed research in psychology and education, with the aim of identifying types of comparison that take place in mathematics learning, and considering the effects of comparison on procedural and conceptual understanding. We identified three types of comparison that are commonly utilized in mathematics instruction and learning: problem-to-problem comparisons, (2) step-to-step comparisons, and (3) item-to- abstraction comparisons. Of these three types, only the effects of problem-to-problem comparisons on learning have been well documented. This paper therefore highlights the need for further research to elucidate the unique contributions of different types of comparison in mathematics learning. Keywords: comparison; mathematics; learning; instruction Students often have difficulty learning both mathematical procedures and their conceptual underpinnings (e.g., Kamii & Dominick, 1997; Pesek & Kirshner, 2000). In order to improve students’ procedural and conceptual understanding, it is important to understand the cognitive processes involved in mathematics learning. In an effort to support student learning, teachers often make connections between problems or concepts by comparing them, but they sometimes fail to provide students with the cognitive support needed to help students benefit from these comparisons (Richland, Zur, & Holyoak, 2007). How can comparison be used to effectively promote mathematics learning? Several techniques utilized in mathematics education involve comparison, but the effects of different types of comparison are not well understood. This paper reviews research in psychology and education in order to (1) identify what types of comparison take place in mathematics learning, and (2) consider the effects of comparison on procedural and conceptual understanding of mathematics. Three Types of Comparison We identified three types of comparison that are commonly utilized in mathematics instruction and learning: (1) problem- to-problem comparison, (2) step-to-step comparison, and (3) item-to-abstraction comparison. Later sections of this paper define each type of comparison and document its effects on learning. The effects of comparison on mathematical learning could be measured in myriad ways. In this paper, we focus on two critical aspects of mathematical knowledge: procedural and conceptual knowledge (Hiebert, 1986). Procedural knowledge refers to the ability to execute action sequences for solving problems (including the ability to adapt procedures for new problems) (Rittle-Johnson & Alibali, 1999) and conceptual knowledge refers to explicit or implicit understanding of principles that govern a domain and of interrelations among aspects of mathematical knowledge (Rittle-Johnson & Alibali, 1999; Tennyson & Cocchiarella, Examining the effects of comparison on procedural and conceptual understanding is a primary goal of this paper. However, in reviewing this literature, it quickly became clear that few studies have sought to determine the unique effects of comparison on procedural and conceptual knowledge. Many studies have investigated how comparison affects procedural knowledge, but few studies have addressed the effects of comparison on conceptual knowledge. In the domain of math, gains in procedural and conceptual knowledge are often difficult to assess separately. The two forms of knowledge are tightly linked, with procedural knowledge affecting conceptual knowledge and conceptual knowledge informing procedures (Gelman & Gallistel, 1978; Siegler & Crowley, 1994; Rittle-Johnson & Alibali, 1999). Many studies measure only procedural gains, which seems to imply that procedural knowledge is the most important measure of learning. This review will highlight the need for studies investigating the effects of comparison on conceptual knowledge, and will emphasize the unique and interrelated importance of both types of knowledge. Inclusion Criteria The studies included in this review were limited to those pertaining to students’ mathematical learning found in the psychology and education literatures. The keywords ―math*‖, ―student‖, and ―learn*‖ were used in combination to search the databases PsycINFO, ERIC, and Web of Knowledge for relevant empirical articles and book chapters. Although this may not be a complete sample of studies, we have tried to include a representative sample of relevant

[1]  James Hiebert.  Missing Links@@@Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge: The Case of Mathematics , 1987 .

[2]  D. Dellarosa.  Role of analogical reasoning in the induction of problem categories. , 1992 .

[3]  John Sweller,et al.  Translating words into equations: a cognitive load theory approach , 2005 .

[4]  Laura R. Novick,et al.  To Matrix, Network, or Hierarchy: That Is the Question , 2001, Cognitive Psychology.

[5]  R. Catrambone.  Generalizing Solution Procedures Learned From Examples , 1996 .

[6]  Edward A. Silver,et al.  Recall of Mathematical Problem Information: Solving Related Problems. , 1981 .

[7]  Jill L. Quilici,et al.  Teaching students to recognize structural similarities between statistics word problems , 2002 .

[8]  B. Ross.  This is like that: The use of earlier problems and the separation of similarity effects. , 1987 .

[9]  Richard Catrambone,et al.  Making the abstract concrete: Visualizing mathematical solution procedures , 2006, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[10]  Evelyne Cauzinille-Marmèche,et al.  Eliciting self-explanations improves problem solving : What processes are involved ? , 1997 .

[11]  D. Gentner.  Structure‐Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy* , 1983 .

[12]  L. R. Novick.  Representational Transfer in Problem Solving , 1990 .

[13]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  A time for telling , 1998 .

[14]  Robert D. Tennyson,et al.  An Empirically Based Instructional Design Theory for Teaching Concepts , 1986 .

[15]  Jon R. Star,et al.  Spurious Correlations in Mathematical Thinking , 2001 .

[16]  Yair Neuman,et al.  Patterns of Verbal Mediation During Problem Solving: A Sequential Analysis of Self-Explanation , 2000 .

[17]  David Kirshner,et al.  Interference of Instrumental Instruction in Subsequent Relational Learning , 2000 .

[18]  N. Granott,et al.  Microdevelopment: Transition Processes in Development and Learning , 2009 .

[19]  B. Rittle-Johnson,et al.  Does comparing solution methods facilitate conceptual and procedural knowledge? An experimental study on learning to solve equations. , 2007 .

[20]  Sean M. Hurley,et al.  Evidence for abstract, schematic knowledge of three spatial diagram representations , 1999, Memory & cognition.

[21]  B. Ross.  Distinguishing Types of Superficial Similarities: Different Effects on the Access and Use of Earlier Problems , 1989 .

[22]  Keith J. Holyoak,et al.  The Pragmatics of Analogical Transfer , 1985 .

[23]  B. Rittle-Johnson,et al.  Promoting transfer: effects of self-explanation and direct instruction. , 2006, Child development.

[24]  Constance Kamii,et al.  To teach or not to teach algorithms , 1997 .

[25]  R. Catrambone,et al.  Can learning from molar and modular worked examples be enhanced by providing instructional explanations and prompting self-explanations? * , 2006 .

[26]  W. Kintsch,et al.  STRATEGIES TO PROMOTE ACTIVE LEARNING FROM TEXT: INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES INBACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE , 1995 .

[27]  J. Sweller,et al.  Learning to Solve Compare Word Problems: The Effect of Example Format and Generating Self-Explanations , 1998 .

[28]  Cristina Conati,et al.  Toward Computer-Based Support of Meta-Cognitive Skills: a Computational Framework to Coach Self-Explanation , 2000 .

[29]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Interdomain Transfer Between Isomorphic Topics in Algebra and Physics , 1989 .

[30]  Alexander Renkl,et al.  Finding and fixing errors in worked examples: Can this foster learning outcomes? ☆ , 2007 .

[31]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Mathematical problem solving by analogy. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[32]  Stephen K. Reed,et al.  Usefulness of analogous solutions for solving algebra word problems. , 1985 .

[33]  Stephen K. Reed.  Constraints on the abstraction of solutions , 1989 .

[34]  Cornelia S. Große,et al.  Effects of multiple solution methods in mathematics learning , 2006 .

[35]  L. R. Novick,et al.  Transferring symbolic representations across nonisomorphic problems. , 1994 .

[36]  Jill L. Quilici,et al.  Role of examples in how students learn to categorize statistics word problems. , 1996 .

[37]  Colleen M. Seifert,et al.  Learning “How” Versus Learning “When”: Improving Transfer of Problem-Solving Principles , 1994 .

[38]  D. Herrmann,et al.  Problem perception and knowledge structure in expert and novice mathematical problem solvers. , 1982 .

[39]  B. Rittle-Johnson,et al.  Flexibility in Problem Solving: The Case of Equation Solving. , 2008 .

[40]  M. Alibali,et al.  Learning about the equal sign: does comparing with inequality symbols help? , 2010, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[41]  R. A. Tarmizi,et al.  Guidance during Mathematical Problem Solving. , 1988 .

[42]  B. Rittle-Johnson,et al.  Conceptual and procedural knowledge of mathematics: Does one lead to the other? , 1999 .

[43]  M C Lovett,et al.  Effects of solving related proofs on memory and transfer in geometry problem solving. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[44]  B. Tversky,et al.  Cognitive constraints on ordering operations: the case of geometric analogies. , 1987, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[45]  Vincent Aleven,et al.  An effective metacognitive strategy: learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based Cognitive Tutor , 2002, Cogn. Sci..

[46]  Michelene T. H. Chi,et al.  Self-Explanations: How Students Study and Use Examples in Learning To Solve Problems. Technical Report No. 9. , 1987 .

[47]  Allan B. I. Bernardo.  Analogical Problem Construction and Transfer in Mathematical Problem Solving , 2001 .

[48]  J. Sweller,et al.  The Use of Worked Examples as a Substitute for Problem Solving in Learning Algebra , 1985 .

[49]  B. Ross,et al.  Generalizing from the use of earlier examples in problem solving , 1990 .

[50]  Brian H. Ross,et al.  Effects of principle explanation and superficial similarity on analogical mapping in problem solving. , 1997 .

[51]  Richard M. Young,et al.  Proceedings of the European Cognitive Science conference , 2003 .

[52]  Stephen K. Reed,et al.  Selecting analogous problems: Similarity versus inclusiveness , 1990, Memory & cognition.

[53]  Alexander Renkl,et al.  Learning from Worked-Out-Examples: A Study on Individual Differences , 1997, Cogn. Sci..

[54]  Susan B. Empson,et al.  A longitudinal study of invention and understanding in children's multidigit addition and subtraction , 1998 .

[55]  R. Atkinson,et al.  Transitioning From Studying Examples to Solving Problems: Effects of Self-Explanation Prompts and Fading Worked-Out Steps. , 2003 .

[56]  Danielle S. McNamara,et al.  Improving Adolescent Students' Reading Comprehension with Istart , 2006 .

[57]  J. Hiebert.  Conceptual and procedural knowledge : the case of mathematics , 1987 .

[58]  B. Rittle-Johnson,et al.  It pays to compare: an experimental study on computational estimation. , 2009, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[59]  Stephen K. Reed,et al.  A structure-mapping model for word problems. , 1987 .

[60]  Regina M. F. Wong,et al.  The Effects of Self-Explanation Training on Students' Problem Solving in High-School Mathematics. , 2002 .

[61]  James Hiebert,et al.  A Cognitive Approach to Meaningful Mathematics Instruction: Testing a Local Theory Using Decimal Numbers. , 1988 .

[62]  M. Gick,et al.  Do contrasting examples facilitate schema acquisition and analogical transfer , 1992 .

[63]  Cornelia S. Große,et al.  How Fading Worked Solution Steps Works – A Cognitive Load Perspective , 2004 .

[64]  H. Mandl,et al.  Learning from Worked-Out Examples: The Effects of Example Variability and Elicited Self-Explanations , 1998, Contemporary educational psychology.

[65]  Alexander Renkl,et al.  Computer-supported example-based learning: When instructional explanations reduce self-explanations , 2006, Comput. Educ..

[66]  K. Crowley,et al.  Constraints On Learning in Nonprivileged Domains , 1994, Cognitive Psychology.

[67]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Cognitive Supports for Analogies in the Mathematics Classroom , 2007, Science.

[68]  R. Siegler.  Microgenetic Studies of Self-Explanation , 2002 .

[69]  M. Bassok.  Transfer of domain-specific problem-solving procedures , 1990 .

[70]  Laura R. Novick,et al.  Context and structure: The nature of students' knowledge about three spatial diagram representations , 2006 .