008 |
|
111004s2009 miua fs 000 0 eng |
020 |
|
|a9781109560084
|
035 |
|
|a(UMI)AAI3388933
|
040 |
|
|aUMI|beng|cUMI|dTMUE|eAACR2
|
100 |
1
|
|aCullen, Craig J.
|
245 |
12
|
|aA comparative analysis: Two representational models for units of length.|h[electronic resource]
|
260 |
|
|aAnn Arbor, Mich.|bUMI|c2009
|
300 |
|
|a132 p.
|
500 |
|
|aSource: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 71-01, Section: A, page: 0125.
|
502 |
|
|aThesis (Ph.D.)--Illinois State University, 2009.
|
520 |
|
|aMany students struggle to develop a solid foundation in understanding basic measurement concepts. This study addressed a gap in the research on technological instructional environments by comparing the effects of presenting students with computer and non-computer treatments (Battista, 2007) focused on developing a coordination between the markings on a ruler and the iteration of a unit of length.
|
520 |
|
|aThis study set out to answer two questions. Is a treatment presented through GSP more effective than a paper and pencil environment in helping students develop a coordination between the markings on a ruler and the iteration of a unit of length? Which of the treatments presentation modes, if either, is effective at increasing students' ability level in measurement as described by a domain specific learning progression?
|
520 |
|
|aStudents' ability levels were measured using a domain specific developmental progression (Clements & Sarama, 2007b) and change was tracked by following the microgenetic method (Siegler & Svetina, 2006). Thirty-six kindergarten and second grade students were administered a pre-, post-, and delayed post-test. The treatments were administered over six weekly sessions with three trials in each session. The correctness of responses as well as the strategy used for each of the 18 trials was recorded.
|
520 |
|
|aThe pre-, post-, and delayed post-test scores were compared using paired samples tests to verify if any student growth took place during the study. The correctness and strategy data was compiled to display the changes over trial and session for each of the two treatment groups and the one comparison group. These graphical displays were used to compare the rate at which the different groups changed, the overall growth experienced.
|
520 |
|
|aThere was no significant difference between the treatment modes of presentation for students' learning or growth. The two treatment groups outperformed the comparison in several ways and specific strategies were identified in the microgenetic analysis that has implications for instruction. Further study of student abstraction of intervals of length, as well as developing GSP displays for teaching measurement, should be explored.
|
590 |
|
|aSchool code: 0092.
|
650 |
4
|
|aEducation, Mathematics.
|
650 |
4
|
|aEducation, Early Childhood.
|
650 |
4
|
|aEducation, Educational Psychology.
|
690 |
|
|a0280
|
690 |
|
|a0518
|
690 |
|
|a0525
|
710 |
2
|
|aIllinois State University.
|
773 |
0
|
|g71-01A.|tDissertation Abstracts International
|
790 |
|
|a0092
|
791 |
|
|aPh.D.
|
792 |
|
|a2009
|
856 |
40
|
|uhttp://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3388933
|