Abstract

Mathematical representations are an essential tool in the study of mathematics and problem solving. They are also used in word problems to facilitate the transformation from textual to symbolic information. We proposed a stepwise, blocked, structured state transition graph (STG) based on the principles of instructional message design. In this study, we adopted a posttest-only non-equivalent group design to compare the performance of students who used either STG or matrix-like tables to learn to solve word problems via transition matrices. We also took into account the student’s previous learning achievements in mathematics. The participants included four classes of senior students in a vocational high school, with two classes randomly designated as the experiment (STG) group and two designated as the control (Table) group. High-achieving students taught using STG outperformed their counterparts who were taught using matrix-like tables. The performance of low-achieving students appeared to be unaffected by the instructional method. These findings suggest that STG provides a clear representation of the relationships used in matrix calculation, which makes it easier to select and organize information. Nonetheless, alternative methods will be required to improve the performance of low-achieving students.

Highlights

  • K-12 students must learn to apply mathematical skills when solving everyday problems (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010; Mullis & Martin, 2013; OECD, 2016)

  • The performance of low-achieving students appeared to be unaffected by the instructional method. These findings suggest that state transition graph (STG) provides a clear representation of the relationships used in matrix calculation, which makes it easier to select and organize information

  • We argue that state transition graphs are superior to tables in resolving transition matrix problems, among high-achieving students

Read more

Summary

Introduction

K-12 students must learn to apply mathematical skills when solving everyday problems (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010; Mullis & Martin, 2013; OECD, 2016). The complexities involved of solving word problems were detailed by Pólya (1945) This process can be broken down as follows: understand the problem, devise a plan, carry out the plan, and review the work. Students must be able to identify the type of problem based on the information given to them (Lewis, 1989; Llinares & Roig, 2006). Due to their prior knowledge and learning topics they have already covered, students can often correspond the current problem with a previous solving pattern, leading them to find an appropriate solving strategy.

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call