Achievement differences in structured versus unstructured instructional geometry programs

This study investigated the effect of students' ability and type of instructional program, structured and unstructured, on easy and difficult posttest items. Seventh-grade students worked through 14 instructional activities in The Geometer Sketchpad, a dynamic geometry program, and accessed a Geometry tutorial developed to parallel the state geometry standards. Low-ability students scored higher in the less structured program, whereas high- and medium-ability learners performed better in the structured program. High- and medium-ability students outscored low-ability learners by a greater margin on the difficult items than on the easy items. Although their overall performance was poor in both programs, that low-ability learners performed relatively better in the less structured, less traditional, mathematics activities is an encouraging finding for mathematics educators and designers of open-ended learning environments.

[1]  Robert D. Hannafin,et al.  Identifying Critical Learner Traits in a Dynamic Computer-Based Geometry Program , 1998 .

[2]  R. Evans,et al.  Reliability of the "Draw-a-Man" test. , 1975 .

[3]  Allen Munro,et al.  Productivity tools for simulation-centered training development , 1992 .

[4]  M. Hannafin,et al.  Situated cognition and learning environments: Roles, structures, and implications for design , 1995 .

[5]  Susan M. Land,et al.  A conceptual framework for the development of theories-in-action with open-ended learning environments , 1996 .

[6]  M. Scardamalia,et al.  The CSILE project: Trying to bring the classroom into World 3. , 1994 .

[7]  Marlene Scardamalia,et al.  Computer-Supported Intentional Learning Environments , 1989 .

[8]  Charlotte W. Farr,et al.  Matching Media, Methods, and Objectives in Distance Education. , 1993 .

[9]  Robert D. Hannafin,et al.  Learning With Dynamic Geometry Programs: Perspectives of Teachers and Learners , 2001 .

[10]  Vivian C. Healy,et al.  The effects of advance organizer and prerequisite knowledge passages on the learning and retention of science concepts , 1989 .

[11]  A. Collins,et al.  Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning , 1989 .

[12]  S. Ross,et al.  Learner control versus program control as adaptive strategies for selection of instructional support on math rules. , 1981 .

[13]  James O. Carey,et al.  The systematic design of instruction , 1978 .

[14]  R. Kozma.  Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate , 1994 .

[15]  H. Simon,et al.  Situated Learning and Education1 , 1996 .

[16]  M. Scardamalia.  Knowledge telling and knowledge transforming in written composition , 1987 .

[17]  Richard Lehrer,et al.  Designing learning environments for developing understanding of geometry and space , 1998 .

[18]  Kevin Oliver,et al.  Developing and refining mental models in open-ended learning environments: A case study , 2001 .

[19]  Lloyd P. Rieber,et al.  Computer-based microworlds: A bridge between constructivism and direct instruction , 1992 .

[20]  L. Cronbach,et al.  Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions , 1977 .

[21]  H. Simon,et al.  Applications and Misapplications of Cognitive Psychology to Mathematics Education , 2000 .

[22]  Michael F. Young,et al.  Instructional design for situated learning , 1993 .

[23]  H. Simon,et al.  Applications and Misapplications of Cognitive Psychology to Mathematics Instruction. , 1999 .

[24]  Richard E. Clark,et al.  When researchers swim upstream: reflections on an unpopular argument about learning from media , 1991 .

[25]  Valerie J. Shute,et al.  A Comparison of Learning Environments: All That Glitters , 1992 .

[26]  B. Bloom.  Human Characteristics and School Learning , 1979 .