Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2014-5
The Effect of Explicit and Direct Generative Strategy Training and Working Memory on Word Problem-Solving Accuracy in Children at Risk for Math Difficulties
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of explicit, direct, and generative strategy training and working memory capacity (WMC) on mathematical word problem-solving accuracy in elementary schoolchildren. In this study, children in third grade (N = 82) identified as at risk for math difficulties (MD) were randomly assigned (within classrooms) to one of three treatment conditions that explicitly directed students’ attention to different propositions within word problems—paraphrase question propositions (Restate), paraphrase relevant propositions (Relevant), and paraphrase all propositions (Complete)—or an untreated control condition. A significant treatment by covariate design indicated that generative strategy outcomes were conditional on the level of pretest WMC. A clear advantage in posttest problem-solving accuracy and solution planning was found for the complete generative condition relative to the control condition, but this advantage was conditional on setting WMC to a high level. Although no significant treatment advantages were found for solution accuracy when WMC was set to a low level, treatment advantages relative to the control condition were found for measures of schema activation. The results indicated that the effectiveness of generative strategies among children at risk for MD was directly dependent on the level of WMC.
AckermanP. L. (1988). Determinants of individual differences in skill acquisition: Cognitive abilities and information processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 299–318. doi:10.1037//0096-3445.117.3.288
2.
BrownV. L.CroninM. E.McIntireE. (1994). Test of Mathematical Abilities. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
3.
BrownV. L.HammillD.WeiderholtL. (1995). Test of Reading Comprehension. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
4.
CarpenterT. P.AnsellE.FrankeM. L.FennemaE.WeisbeckL. (1993). Models of problem solving: A study of kindergarten children’s problem-solving processes. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 24, 428–441. doi:10.2307/749152
5.
ConnollyA. J. (1998). KeyMath revised/normative update. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance.
6.
CookJ. L.RieserJ. J. (2005). Finding the critical facts: Children’s visual scan patterns when solving story problems that contain irrelevant information. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 224–234. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.224
7.
CornoldiC.DrusiS.TencatiC.GiofrèD.MirandolaC. (2012). Problem solving and working memory updating difficulties in a group of poor comprehenders. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 11, 39–44. doi:10.1891/1945-8959.11.1.39
8.
FletcherJ. M.EpsyK. A.FrancisP. J.DavidsonK. C.RourkeB. P.ShaywitzS. E. (1989). Comparison of cutoff and regression-based definitions of reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 334–338. doi:10.1177/002221948902200603
9.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.PrenticeK.HamlettC. L.BurchM.HamlettC. L.. . . JaneckD. (2003). Enhancing third-grade student’s mathematical problem solving with self-regulated learning strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 293–304.
10.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.StuebingK.FletcherJ. M.HamlettC. L.LambertW. (2008). Problem solving and computational skill: Are they shared or distinct aspects of mathematical cognition?Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 30–47. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.30
11.
FuchsL. S.ZumetaR. O.SchumacherR. F.PowellS. R.SeethalerP. M.HamlettC. L.FuchsD. (2010). The effects of schema-broadening instruction on second graders’ word-problem performance and their ability to represent word problems with algebraic equations: A randomized control study. The Elementary School Journal, 110, 446–463. doi:10.1086/651191
12.
GearyD. C. (2010). Mathematical disabilities: Reflections on cognitive, neuropsychological, and genetic components. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 130–133. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2009.10.008
13.
GerstenR.ChardD. J.JayanthiM.BakerS. K.MorphyP.FlojoJ. (2009). Mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of instructional components. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1202–1242. doi:10.3102/0034654309334431
14.
HegartyM.MayerR. E.MonkC. A. (1995). Comprehension of arithmetic word problems: A comparison of successful and unsuccessful problem solvers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 18–32. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.87.1.18
JitendraA.XinY. P. (1997). Mathematical word-problem-solving instruction for students with mild disabilities and students at risk for math failure: A research synthesis. Journal of Special Education, 30, 412–438. doi:10.1177/002246699703000404
17.
JuddC. M.McClellandG. H.SmithE. R. (1996). Testing treatment by covariate interactions when treatment varies within subjects. Psychological Methods, 1, 366–378.
18.
KillipS.MahfoudZ.PearceK. (2004). What is an intracluster correlation coefficient?Annals of Family Medicine, 2, 204–208. doi:10.1370/afm.141
19.
KolloffelB.EysinkT.de JongT.WilhelmP. (2009). The effects of representation format on learning combinatories from an interactive computer. Instructional Science, 37, 503–515. doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9056-7
20.
LewisA. B.MayerR. E. (1987). Students’ miscomprehension of relational statements in arithmetic word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 363–371. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.79.4.363
21.
Macmillan McGraw-Hill. (2009). Mathematics: Concepts, skills, and problem solving 3rd grade. Columbus, OH: Author.
22.
MayerR. E. (1985). Mathematical ability. In SternbergR. J. (Ed.), Human abilities: An information processing approach (pp. 127–159). New York, NY: Freeman.
23.
MayerR. E.HegartyM. (1996). The process of understanding mathematical problem solving. In SternbergR. J.Ben-ZeevT. (Eds.), The nature of mathematical thinking (pp. 29–54). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
24.
MayerR. E.LewisA. B.HegartyM. (1992). Mathematical misunderstandings: Qualitative reasoning about quantitative problems. In CampbellJ. I. D. (Ed.), The nature and origins of mathematical skills (pp. 137–154). Amsterdam, Netherlands: North-Holland.
25.
MontagueM. (2008). Self-regulation strategies to improve mathematical problem solving for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31, 37–44.
26.
PassolunghiM. C.CornoldiC.De LibertoS. (2001). Working memory and intrusions of irrelevant information in a group of specific poor problem solvers. Memory & Cognition, 27, 779–790.
27.
PassolunghiM. C.MarzocchiG. M.FiorilloF. (2005). Selective effect of inhibition of literal or numerical irrelevant information in children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) or Arithmetic Learning Disorder (ALD). Developmental Neuropsychology, 28, 731–753. doi:10.1207/s15326942dn2803_1
28.
PlassJ. L.ChunD. M.MayerR. E.LeutnerD. (1998). Supporting visual and verbal learning preferences in a second-language multimedia learning environment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 25–36. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.90.1.25
29.
PowellS. R. (2011). Solving word problems using schemas: A review of literature. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 26, 94–108. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2011.00329.x
RavenJ. C. (1976). Colored Progressive Matrices Test. London, England: H. K. Lewis.
32.
SAS Institute Inc. (2008). SAS/STAT user’s guide. Cary, NC: Author.
33.
SAS Institute Inc. (2010). SAS/STAT user’s guide. Cary, NC: Author.
34.
SchwambornA.MayerR. E.ThillmannH.LeopoldC.LeutnerD. (2010). Drawing as a generative activity and drawing as a prognostic activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 872–879. doi:10.1037/a0019640
35.
SiegelL. S.RyanE. B. (1989). The development of working memory in normally achieving and subtypes of learning disabled. Child Development, 60, 973–980. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1989.tb03528.x
36.
SwansonH. L. (1995). S-Cognitive Processing Test (S-CPT): A dynamic assessment measure. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
37.
SwansonH. L.Beebe-FrankenbergerM. (2004). The relationship between working memory and mathematical problem solving in children at risk and not a risk for serious math difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 471–491. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.471
38.
SwansonH. L.CooneyJ. B.BrockS. (1993). The influence of working memory and classification ability on children’s word problem solution. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 55, 374–395. doi:10.1006/jecp.1993.1021
39.
SwansonH. L.JermanO.ZhengX. (2008). Growth in working memory and mathematical problem solving in children at risk and not at risk for serious math difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 343–379. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.343
40.
SwellerJ. (2005). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In MayerR. (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 19–30). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
41.
Van GarderenD. (2007). Teaching students with LD to use diagrams to solve mathematical word problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 540–553. doi:10.1177/00222194070400060501
42.
WilkinsonG. S. (1993). The Wide Range Achievement Test. Wilmington, DE: Wide Range.
43.
WittrockM. C. (1991). Generative teaching of comprehension. The Elementary School Journal, 92, 169–184. doi:10.1086/461686
XinY. P. (2008). The effect of schema-based instruction in solving mathematics word problems: An emphasis on prealgebraic conceptualization of multiplicative relations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39, 526–551.
