This study examined the effects of computer-assisted, schema-based instruction on the problem-solving skills of fifth grade students with below average problem-solving skills. In a randomized controlled study, 16 students were given a 12-week intervention, and 16 control students received state test preparation review in their regular classroom. Results demonstrated that the computer-assisted, schema-based instruction group showed greater gains relative to the control group on items from the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System and greater rates of growth on biweekly examiner-made probes. However, no difference in gain scores between the groups was observed on the Process and Application subtest from the Group Mathematics Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation. Implications for intervention and future research are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AnandP. G.RossS. M. (1987). Using computer-assisted instruction to personalize arithmetic materials for elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 72–78.
2.
AydinE. (2005). The use of computers in mathematics education: A paradigm shift from “computer assisted instruction” towards “students programming.”The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 4, 79–83.
3.
BabbittB. C.MillerP. S. (1996). Using hypermedia to improve the mathematics problem-solving skills of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 391–401.
4.
BottgeB. A.HasselbringT. S. (1993). A comparison of two approaches for teaching complex, authentic mathematics problems to adolescents in remedial math classes. Exceptional Children, 59, 556–566.
5.
BottgeB.HeinrichsM.ChanS.MehtaZ.WatsonE. (2003). Effects of video-based and applied problems on the procedural math skills of average and low achieving adolescents. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18(2), 5–22.
6.
BrownJ. S.CollinsA.DuguidP. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32–42.
7.
BryantD. P.BryantB. (1998). Using assistive technology adaptations to include students with learning disabilities in cooperative learning activities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 41–54.
8.
CharlesR.CrownW.FennellF. (2005). Mathematics. Saddle River, NJ: Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley.
9.
ChenC.LiuP. (2007). Personalized computer-assisted mathematics problem-solving program and its impact on Taiwanese students. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26, 105–121.
10.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt University. (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19, 2–10.
11.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavior sciences. Hillside, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum.
12.
CooperG.SwellerJ. (1987). Effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on mathematical problem-solving transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 347–362.
13.
Davis-DorseyJ.RossS. M.MorrisonG. R. (1991). The role of rewording and context personalization in the solving of mathematical word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 61–68.
14.
Deatline-BuchmanA.JitendraA. K.XinY. P. (2005). Effects of mathematical word problem-solving instruction on middle school students with learning problems. Journal of Special Education, 39, 181–192.
15.
DiezmannC. M.EnglishL. D. (2001). Promoting the use of diagrams as tools for thinking. In CuocoA. A.CurcioF. R. (Eds.), The roles of representation in school mathematics: 2001 yearbook (pp. 77–89). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
16.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2005). Enhancing mathematical problem-solving for students with disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16, 85–95.
17.
FusonK. C.WillisG. B. (1989). Second graders' use of schematic drawings in solving addition and subtraction word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 514–520.
18.
GerstenR.BakerS.LloydJ. W. (2000). Designing high-quality research in special education: Group experimental designs. Journal of Special Education Research, 34, 2–19.
19.
GoldmanS. R.PellegrinoJ. W.BransfordJ. (1994). Assessing programs that invite thinking. In BakerE. L.O'NealH. F. (Eds.), Technology assessment in education and training (pp. 199–230). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20.
GoodR. H.KaminskiR. A. (2002). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills. Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement.
21.
HolmS. (1979). A simple sequential rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6, 65–70.
22.
JitendraA. K.HoffK. (1996). The effect of schema-based instruction on mathematical word problem-solving performance of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 422–431.
23.
KuH-Y.SullivanH. J. (2000). Personalization of mathematics word problems in Taiwan. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48, 49–59.
24.
LaneK. L.Beebe-FrankenbergerM. (2004). School based interventions: The tools you need to succeed. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
25.
LemkeM.SenA.PahlkeE.PartelowL.MillerD.WilliamsT. (2004). International outcomes of learning in mathematics literacy and problem solving: PISA 2003 results from the U.S. perspective (NCES 2005-003). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
26.
Massachusetts Department of Education. (2009). School/district profiles. Retrieved from http://profiles.doe.mass.edu.
27.
MayerR. E. (1984). Aids to text comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 19, 30–42.
28.
MontagueM.DietzS. (2009). Evaluating the evidence base for cognitive strategy instruction and mathematical problem solving. Exceptional Children, 75, 285–302.
29.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). The Nation's Report Card: Mathematics 2011 (NCES 2 012-458). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
30.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). International outcomes of learning in mathematics literacy and problem solving: PISA 2003 results from the U.S. Perspectives. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
31.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Retrieved from http://standards.nctm.org.
32.
National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. In KilpatrickJ.SwaffordJ.FindellB. (Eds.), Mathematics Learning Study Committee, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education (pp. 187–189). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
33.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat.1425 (2002).
34.
OkoloC. M. (1992). The effect of computer-assisted instruction format and initial attitude on the arithmetic facts proficiency and continuing motivation of students with learning disabilities. Exceptionality, 3, 195–211.
35.
PellegrinoJ. W.BrophyS. (2008). From cognitive theory to instructional practice: Technology and the evolution of anchored instruction. In IfenthalerD.Pirnay-DummerP.SpectorJ. M. (Eds.), Understanding models for learning and instruction (pp. 277–303). Boston, MA: Springer US.
36.
RAND Mathematics Panel. (2003). Mathematical proficiency for all students: Towards a strategic research and development program in mathematics education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
37.
SeoY.BryantD. (2009). Analysis of studies of the effects of computer-assisted instruction on the mathematics performance of students with learning disabilities. Computers and Education, 53, 913–928.
38.
ShigematsuK.SowderL. (1994). Drawings for story problems: Practices in Japan and the United States, The Arithmetic Teacher, 41, 544–547.
39.
SlavinR.LakeC.GroffC. (2009). Effective programs in middle and high school mathematics a best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 79, 839–911.
40.
SnyderT. (2005). GO Solve Word Problems: Using graphic organizers to understand and solve word problems. Position statement. Watertown, MA: Tom Snyder Productions.
41.
TrifilettiJ. J.FrithG. H.ArmstrongS. (1984). Microcomputers versus resource rooms for LD students. A preliminary investigation of the effects on math skills. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 7, 69–76.
van GarderenD. (2006a). Teaching visual representation for mathematics problem-solving. In MontagueM.JitendraA. K. (Eds.), Teaching mathematics to middle school students with learning difficulties (pp. 72–88). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
44.
van GarderenD. (2006b). Spatial visualization, visual imagery, and mathematical problem solving of students with varying abilities, Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 496–506.
45.
WilliamsK. T. (2004a). GMADE Group Mathematics Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation. Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation. Technical Manual. Circe Pines, MN: AGS Publishing.
46.
WilliamsK. T. (2004b). GMADE Group Mathematics Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation. Teacher's manual. Circe Pines, MN: AGS Publishing.
47.
XinY. P.JitendraA. K., (2006). Teaching problem-solving skills to middle school students with learning difficulties: Schema-based strategy instruction. In MontagueM.JitendraA. K. (Eds.), Teaching mathematics to middle school students with learning difficulties (pp. 51–71). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
48.
XinY. P.JitendraA. K.Deatline-BuchmanA. (2005). Effects of mathematical word problem-solving instruction on middle school students with learning problems. Journal of Special Education, 39, 181–192.
