Creative and algorithmic reasoning – the role of strategy choices in practice and test
Abstract
This study is based on a framework of algorithmic and creative mathematical reasoning and focuses on students’ strategy choices in both practice and test. Previous research indicates that students that practice mathematics with tasks with given solution methods are outperformed in later test by students that have to construct solution methods during practice. Video recordings, students’ written solutions, and student interviews from ten university students provides data on strategy choices. The analysis was carried out to capture students’ strategy choices and reasons for these choices. The results showed that there was no real difference in how the students solved the tasks in the test. Regardless of practice condition, more or less the same solution strategies were used in the test situation.
References
Andrews, P., Sunde, P. B., Nosrati, M., Petersson, J., Rosenqvist, E. et al. (2021). Computational estimation and mathematics education: a narrative literature review. Journal of Mathematics Education, 14 (1), 6-27. https://doi.org/10.26711/007577152790061
Bergqvist, E. (2007). Types of reasoning required in university exams in mathematics. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 26 (4), 348-370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2007.11.001
Bergqvist, T., Lithner, J. & Sumpter, L. (2008). Upper secondary students' task reasoning. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 39 (1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207390701464675
Bergqvist, T. & Lithner, J. (2012): Mathematical reasoning in teachers' presentations. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31 (2), 252-269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2011.12.002
Bertilsson, F., Wiklund-Hörnqvist, C., Stenlund, T. & Jonsson, B. (2017). The testing effect and its relation to working memory capacity and personality characteristics. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 16, 241-259. https://doi.org/10.1891/1945-8959.16.3.241
Bjork, E. L. & Bjork, R. A. (2011). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. In M. A. Gernsbacher, R. W. Pew, L. M. Hough & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.), Psychology and the real world: essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society (pp. 56-64). Worth Publishers.
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In H. E. Cooper, P. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. E. Rindskopf & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology. Vol 2: Research designs: quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (pp. 57-71). American Psychological Association.
Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics. Kluwer Academic.
Fan, L. & Bokhove, C. (2014). Rethinking the role of algorithms in school mathematics: a conceptual model with focus on cognitive development. ZDM, 46, 481- 492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-014-0590-2
Fyfe, E. R. & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2017). Mathematics practice without feedback: a desirable difficulty in a classroom setting. Instructional Science, 45 (2), 177-194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9401-1
Granberg, C. & Olsson, J. (2015). ICT-supported problem solving and collaborative creative reasoning: exploring linear functions using dynamic mathematics software. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 37, 48-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2014.11.001
Hiebert, J. (2003). What research says about the NCTM standards. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to Principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 5-23). NCTM.
Hiebert, J. & Grouws, D. A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students' learning. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 371-404). Information Age.
Jonsson, B., Kulaksiz, Y. C. & Lithner, J. (2016). Creative and algorithmic mathematical reasoning: effects of transfer-appropriate processing and effortful struggle. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 47 (8), 1206-1225. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2016.1192232
Jonsson, B., Norqvist, M., Liljekvist, Y. & Lithner, J. (2014). Learning mathematics through algorithmic and creative reasoning. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 36, 20-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2014.08.003
Jäder, J., Lithner, J. & Sidenvall, J. (2020). Mathematical problem solving in textbooks from twelve countries. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 51 (7), 1120-1136. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2019.1656826
Kapur, M. (2010). Productive failure in mathematical problem solving. Instructional Science: An International Journal of the Learning Sciences, 38 (6), 523-550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-009-9093-x
Karlsson Wirebring, L., Lithner, J., Jonsson, B., Liljekvist, Y., Norqvist, M. & Nyberg, L. (2015). Learning mathematics without a suggested solution method: durable effects on performance and brain activity. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 4 (1-2), 6-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2015.03.002
Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J. & Findell, B. (2001). Adding it up: helping children learn mathematics. National Academy Press.
Liljekvist, Y. (2014). Lärande i matematik: om resonemang och matematikuppgifters egenskaper [Learning mathematics: on the features of reasoning and mathematical tasks] (Ph. D. thesis). Karlstad University.
Lithner, J. (2003). Students' mathematical reasoning in university textbook exercises. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52 (1), 29-55. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023683716659
Lithner, J. (2008). A research framework for creative and imitative reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67 (3), 255-276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-007-9104-2
Lithner, J. (2017). Principles for designing mathematical tasks that enhance imitative and creative reasoning. ZDM, 49, 937-949. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0867-3
NCTM (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
NCTM (2011). Common core state standards for mathematics. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Newton, D. & Newton, L. (2007). Could elementary mathematics textbooks help give attention to reasons in the classroom? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 64 (1), 69-84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-005-9015-z
Niss, M. & Jensen, T. H. (2002). Kompetencer og matematiklaering [Competencies and mathematical learning]. Undervisningsministeriet.
Niss, M. (2003). Mathematical competencies and the learning of mathematics: the Danish KOM project. In A. Gagtsis & Papastavridis (Eds.), Third Mediterranean conference on mathematical education, 3-5 january 2003, Athens, Greece (pp. 115-124). The Hellenic mathematical society.
Niss, M. (2007). Reactions on the state and trends in research on mathematics teaching and learning. From here to Utopia. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 1293-1312). Information Age.
Norqvist, M. (2018). The effect of explanations on mathematical reasoning tasks. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 49 (1), 15-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2017.1340679
Norqvist, M., Jonsson, B., Lithner, J., Qwillbard, T. & Holm, L. (2019). Investigating algorithmic and creative reasoning strategies by eye tracking. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 55, 100701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2019.03.008
Norqvist, M., Jonsson, B. & Lithner, J. (2019). Eye-tracking data and mathematical tasks with focus on mathematical reasoning. Data in Brief, 25, 104216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2019.104216
Olsson, J. (2017). GeoGebra, enhancing creative mathematical reasoning (Ph. D. thesis). Umeå University.
Olsson, J. & Granberg, C. (2019). Dynamic software, task solving with or without guidelines, and learning outcomes. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 24, 419-436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9352-5
Pólya, G. (1945). How to solve it. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400828678
Pyc, M. A. & Rawson, K. A. (2009). Testing the retrieval effort hypothesis: Does greater difficulty correctly recalling information lead to higher levels of memory? Journal of Memory and Language, 60 (4), 437-447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.01.004
Schoenfeld, A. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Academic Press.
Shield, M. & Dole, S. (2013). Assessing the potential of mathematics textbooks to promote deep learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 82 (2), 183-199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9415-9
Sidenvall, J., Lithner, J. & Jäder, J. (2015). Students' reasoning in mathematics textbook task-solving. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 46 (4), 533-552. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2014.992986
Skolverket. (2011a). Curriculum for the compulsary school, preschool class and school-age educare 2011. Skolverket.
Skolverket. (2011b). Curriculum for the upper secondary school 2011. Skolverket.
Wiklund-Hornqvist, C., Jonsson, B. & Nyberg, L. (2014). Strengthening concept learning by repeated testing. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 55 (1), 10-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12093
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
