Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Collaborative epistemic writing and writing-to-learn in mathematics: can it foster mathematical argumentation competence? Cover

Collaborative epistemic writing and writing-to-learn in mathematics: can it foster mathematical argumentation competence?

Open Access
|Jul 2022

References

  1. Abedi, J. (2006). Language issues in item-development. In S. M. Downing & T. M. Haladyna (Eds.), Handbook of test development (pp. 377–398). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
  2. Applebee, A. N. (1984). Writing and Reasoning. Review of Educational Research, 54(4), 557-596. doi:10.3102/00346543054004577
  3. Arnold, K. M., Umanath, S., Thio, K., Reilly, W. B., McDaniel, M. A., & Marsh, E. J. (2017). Understanding the cognitive process involved in writing to learn. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 23(2), 115-127. doi:10.1037/xap0000119
  4. Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Hurley, M. M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 29-58. doi:10.3102/00346543074001029
  5. Bell, E. S., & Bell, E. N. (1985). Writing and mathematical problem solving: arguments in favor of synthesis. School Science and Mathematics, 85(3), 210-221. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.1985.tb09614.x
  6. Bereiter, C. (1980). Development in writing. In L. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 73-93). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  7. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  8. Boero, P. (1999). Argumentation and mathematical proof: a complex, productive, unavoidable relationship in mathematics and mathematics education. Intrenational Newsletter on the Teaching and Learning of Mathematical Proof, 7(8).
  9. Casa, T. M., Firmender, J. M., Cahill, J., Cardetti, F., Choppin, J. M., Cohen, J. A., . . . Zawodniak, R. (2016). Types of and purposes for elementary mathematical writing: task force recommendations.
  10. Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) (2017). Common core standards for mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Practice/#CCSS.Math.Practice.MP1
  11. Cross, D., I. (2009). Creating optimal mathematics learning anvironments: combining argumentation and writing to enhance achievement. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(5), 905-930. doi:10.1007/s10763-008-9144-9
  12. Daroczy, G., Wolska, M., Meurers, W. D., & Nuerk, H. C. (2015). Word problems: a review of linguistic and numerical factors contributing to their difficulty. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 348. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00348
  13. Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28, 122-128. doi:10.2307/356095
  14. Galbraith, D. (1999). Writing as a knowledge-constituing process. In D. Galbraith & M. Torrance (Eds.), Knowing what to write (pp. 137-157). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
  15. Glogger, I., Holzäpfel, L., Schwonke, R., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2009). Activation of learning stategies in writing learning journals. The specifity of prompts matters. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie (German Journal of Educational Psychology), 23(2), 95-104. doi:10.1024/1010-0652.23.2.95
  16. Glogger, I., Schwonke, R., Holzäpfel, L., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2012). Learning strategies assessed by jpurnal writing: prediction of learning outcomes by quantity, quality, and combinations of learning strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(2), 452-468. doi:10.1037/a0026683
  17. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3-30). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  18. Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (1998). Justifying and proving in school mathematics (technical report). London: Institute of Education, University of London.
  19. Hilbert, T. S., Renkl, A., Kessler, S., & Reiss, K. (2008). Learning to prove in geometry: Learning from heuristic examples and how it can be supported. Learning and Instruction, 18(1), 54–65. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.10.008
  20. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) (2013). TIMSS 2015 assessment frameworks. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.
  21. Keys, C. W. (1994). The development of scientific reasoning skills in conjunction with collaborative writing assignments: an interpretive study of six ninth-grade students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 1003-1022. doi:10.1002/tea.3660310912
  22. Keys, C. W. (1999). Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science. Science Education, 83(2), 115-130. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199903)83:2<;115::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-Q
  23. Kintsch, W., & Greeno, J. G. (1985). Understanding and solving word arithmetic problems. Psychological Review, 92(1), 109-129.10.1037/0033-295X.92.1.109
  24. Kultusministerkonferenz (KMK) (2015). Bildungsstandards im Fach Mathematik für die Allgemeine Hochschulreife. Köln: Wolters Kluwer.
  25. Koedinger, K. R. (1999). Conjecturing and argumentation in high-school geometry students. In R. Lehrer & D. Chatan (Eds.), Designing learning environmentsfor developing understanding of geometry and space (pp. 319-347). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
  26. Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (2006). Collaboration scripts - a conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 18(2), 159-185. doi:10.1007/s10648-006-9007-2
  27. Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Slotta, J. D. (2007). Internal and external scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 708-721. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.021
  28. Kollar, I., Ufer, S., Reichersdorfer, E., Vogel, F., Fischer, F., & Reiss, K. (2014). Effects of collaboration scripts and heuristic worked examples on the acquisition of mathematical argumentation skills of teacher students with different levels of prior achievement. Learning and Instruction, 32, 22–36. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.01.003
  29. Kosko, K. W. (2016). Making use of what’s given: childrens detailing in mathematical argumentative writing. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 41, 68-86. doi:10.1016/j.jmathb.2015.11.002
  30. Kosko, K. W., & Zimmermann, B. S. (2017). Emergence of argument in children’s mathematical writing. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 0(0), 1-25. doi:10.1177/1468798417712065
  31. Leiss, D., Schukajlow, S., Blum, W., Messner, R., & Pekrun, R. (2010). The role of the situation model in Mathematical Modelling - task analyses, student competencies, and teacher interventions. Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik, 31(1), 119-141. doi:10.1007/s13138-010-0006-y
  32. Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43, 332-360. doi:10.1159/000022695
  33. McCutchen, D. (1996). A capacity theory of writing: working memory in composition. Educational Psychology Review, 8(3), 299-325. doi:10.1007/BF01464076
  34. Mendez, B., & Taube, S. R. (1997). Mathematics and writing: linking problem solving and composing strategies. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 28(3), 108-118. doi:10.1080/10790195.1997.10850041
  35. Miller, D. M., Scott, C. E., & McTigue, E. M. (2016). Writing in the secondary-level disciplines: a systematic review of context, cognition, and content. Educational Psychology Review, 1-38. doi:10.1007/s10648-016-9393-z
  36. Nesher, P., & Teubal, E. (1975). Verbal cues as an interfering factor in verbal problem solving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 6, 41-51. doi:10.1007/BF590023
  37. Nückles, M., Hübner, S., Dümer, S., & Renkl, A. (2010). Expertise reversal effects in writing-to-learn. Instructional Science, 38, 237-258. doi:10.1007/s11251-009-9106-9
  38. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2016). PISA 2015 assessment and analytical framework: science, reading, mathematic and financial literacy. Paris: PISA, OECD Publishing.
  39. Ottinger, S., Kollar, I., & Ufer, S. (2016). Content and form - all the same or different qualities of mathematical arguments? In C. Csíkos, A. Rausch, & J. Szitáni (Eds.), Proceedings of the 40th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 4 (pp. 219-226), Szeged: PME.
  40. Pohl, T., & Steinhoff, T. (2010). Textformen als Lernformen. In T. Pohl & T. Steinhoff (Eds.), Textformen als Lernformen (pp. 5-26). Duisburg: Gilles & Francke.
  41. Pólya, G. (1945). How to solve it. Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400828678
  42. Powell, S. R., Hebert, M. A., Cohen, J. A., Casa, T. M., & Firmender, J. M. (2017). A synthesis of mathematics writing: assesments, interventions, and surveys. Journal of Writing research, 8(3), 493-526. doi:10.17239/jowr-2017.08.03.04
  43. Prediger, S. (2018). Comparing and combining research approaches to empirically inform the design of subject-matter interventions: the case of fostering language learners’ strategies for word problems. RISTAL, 1, 4-18. doi:10.23770/rt1808
  44. Prediger, S., Wilhelm, N., Büchter, A., Gürsoy, E., & Benholz, C. (2018). Language Proficiency and Mathematics Achievement. Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik. doi:10.1007/s13138-018-0126-3
  45. Pugalee, D. K. (2001). Writing, mathematics, and metacognition: looking for connections through students’ work in mathematical problem solving. School Science and Mathematics, 101(5), 236-245. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2001.tb18026.x
  46. Reiss, K., Heinze, A., Renkl, A., & Groß, C. (2008). Reasoning and proof in geometry: Effects of a learning environment based on heuristic worked-out examples. ZDM, 40(3), 455–467. doi:10.1007/s11858-008-0105-0
  47. Reiss, K., & Renkl, A. (2002). Learning to prove: The idea of heuristic examples. Zeitschrift für Mathematikdidaktik, 34(1), 29–35. doi:10.1007/BF02655690
  48. Reiss, K., & Ufer, S. (2009). Was macht mathematisches Arbeiten aus?: Empirische Ergebnisse zum Argumentieren, Begründen und Beweisen. Jahresbericht der DMV, 111(4), 155–177.
  49. Renkl, A. (2002). Worked-out examples: instructional explanations support learning by self-explanations. Learning and Instruction, 12, 529–556. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00030-5
  50. Renkl, A., Hilbert, T., & Schworm, S. (2009). Example-Based Learning in Heuristic Domains: A Cognitive Load Theory Account. Educational Psychology Review, 21(1), 67–78. doi:10.1007/s10648-008-9093-4
  51. Schwaighofer, M., Vogel, F., Kollar, I., Ufer, S., Strohmaier, A., Terwedow, I., . . . Fischer, F. (2017). How to combine collaboration scripts and heuristic worked examples to foster mathematical argumentation - when working memory matters. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(3). doi:10.1007/s11412-017-9260-z
  52. Schworm, S., & Renkl, A. (2007). Learning argumentation skills through the use of prompts for self-explaining examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 285–296. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.285
  53. Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 123-138. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9128-5
  54. Thurston, W. P. (1994). On proof and progress in mathematics. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 30(2), 161-177. doi:10.1090/S0273-0979-1994-00502-6
  55. Tynjälä, P., Mason, L., & Lonka, K. (2001). Writing as a learning tool: an introduction. In P. Tynjälä, L. Mason, & K. Lonka (Eds.), Writing as a learning tool. Integrating theory and practice (pp. 7-22). Dorbrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.10.1007/978-94-010-0740-5
  56. Vogel, F., Kollar, I., Ufer, S., Reichersdorfer, E., Reiss, K., & Fischer, F. (2016). Developing argumentation skills in mathematics through computer-supported collaborative learning: the role of transactivity. Instructional Science, 44(5), 477-500. doi:10.1007/s11251-016-9380-2
  57. Vogel, F., Wecker, C., Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (2017). Socio-cognitive scaffolding with computer-supported collaboration scripts: a meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 29(3), 477-511. doi:10.1007/s10648-016-9361-7
DOI: https://doi.org/10.23770/rt1817 | Journal eISSN: 2616-7697
Language: English
Page range: 133 - 147
Published on: Jul 11, 2022
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

© 2022 Anselm Strohmaier, Freydis Vogel, Kristina M. Reiss, published by Gesellschaft für Fachdidaktik (GfD e.V.)
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License.