Using constructivist theories as a framework, this study tested the effects of prior knowledge and two models (structured problem solving, SPS, and guided generation, GG) of anchored instruction on student mathematical problem solving and transfer to an analogous task. Two groups (N = 50) of randomly assigned students to treatments were taught by 2 teachers for 15 days, using tasks in the Jasper Woodbury Problem Solving Series. ANOVA and t tests showed a significant main effect for prior knowledge, significant differences on transfer to analogous tasks, a significant difference between groups on transfer favoring the GG model, and a significant interaction between low priors and the GG treatment on transfer. In particular, findings showing learning success in mathematics problem solving with low prior achievers support the notion of encouraging and expanding this line of research with at-risk learners.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in education (Vol. 24, pp. 61-100). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
2.
Bransford, J. D., Sherwood, R. S., Hasselbring, T. S., Kinzer, C. K., & Williams, S. M. (1990). Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can help. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education, and multi-media: Exploration ideas in high technology (pp. 115-141). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3.
Brown, S. I., & Walter, N. I. (1993). Problem posing: Reflections and applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4.
Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & Wood, T. (1992). A constructivist alternative to the representational view of mind in mathematics education. Journal for Research Mathematics Education, 23(1), 2-33.
5.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1993). Anchored instruction and situated cognition revisited. Educational Technology, 33(3), 52-70.
6.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (2000). Adventures in anchored instruction: Lessons from beyond the ivory tower. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Volume V, pp. 35-100). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
DeLange, J. (1993). Assessment in problem-oriented curricula. In N. L. Webb & A. F. Coxford (Eds.), Assessment in the mathematics classroom (pp. 197-208). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
8.
Gabrys, G., Weiner, A., & Lesgold, A. (1993). Learning problem solving in a coached apprenticeship system. In M. Rabinowitz (Ed.), Cognitive science foundations of instruction (pp. 199-147). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9.
Gardner, H. (1993). Education for understanding. The American School Board Journal, 180(7), 21-24.
10.
Garfield, J. B. (1993). An authentic assessment of students' statistical knowledge. In N. Webb & A. Coxford (Eds.), Assessment in the mathematics classroom (pp. 187-196). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
11.
Goldman, S. R., Pellegrino, J. W., & Bransford, J. D. (1994). Assessing programs that invite thinking. In E. Baker & H. F. O'Neill Jr., (Eds.), Technology assessment in education and training (pp. 199-230). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12.
Gronlund, N. E. (1977). Constructing achievement tests (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
13.
Iowa Test of Basic Skills. (1985). Itasca, IL: Riverside.
14.
Kerlinger, F., & Pedhazur, E. J. (1973). Multiple regression in behavioral science. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
15.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1995). Can students do mathematical problem solving? Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics.
16.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
17.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1990). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
18.
National Council of Teachers of Math Standards. (1995). Assessment standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
19.
National Research Council (1990). Reshaping school mathematics: A philosophy and framework for curriculum. Washington, DC: Author.
20.
New Jersey Mathematics Curriculum Framework. (1998).
21.
Perkins, D. N. (1992). Smart schools: From training memories to educating minds. New York: Macmillan.
22.
Resnick, L. B., & Klopfer, L. E. (Eds.). (1989). Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research. Alexandria, VA: Assocation of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
23.
Resnick, L. B., & Resnick, D. P. (1991). Changing assessments: Alternative views of aptitude achievement, and instruction. Norwell, MA: Klurver.
24.
Shure, M. (1963). Psychological ecology of a nursing school. Child Development, 34, 979-992.
25.
Webb, N. L., & Coxford, A. F. (Eds.). (1993). Assessment in the mathematics classroom. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
26.
Young, M. F. (1993). Instructional design for situated learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(1), 43-58.
