IMPROVE: A Multidimensional Method for Teaching Mathematics in Heterogeneous Classrooms

Mevarech, Zemira R.; Kramarski, Bracha

doi:10.2307/1163362

Cited by 42 publications

(81 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In particular, the study shows the contribution of the metacognitive training on students' cognitivemetacognitive behaviours, including information processing, social-cognitive interaction, and ability to detect errors. These findings are in line with a recent study showing the effects of metacognitive training on mathematical achievement and reasoning (Mevarech & Kramarski, 1997~). Consistent with previous research (Lehrer & Littlefield, 1993) a significant difference between treatments was not found in students' ability to detect errors in the Logo program.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…On the top of each page a student's claim was printed followed by a request to construct two graphs representing each situation. We asked students to represent each situation by two graphs (e.g., a line graph and a bar graph) because quite often students' alternative conceptions of graphing were reflected when they were required to construct multiple graphs (Mevarech & Kramarski, 1997). Students could construct the graphs with rulers or free-hand, but were not allowed to use advanced technology for constructing the graphs.…”

Section: Measurement and Assessment Procedures Graph Construction Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cognitive‐metacognitive training within a problem‐solving based Logo environment

Kramarski

Mevarech

1997

Brit J of Edu Psychol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. The present study investigated the effects of metacognitive training implemented within a problem‐solving based Logo environment on students' ability to construct graphs and reflect on their learning. Aims. (1) To compare achievement outcomes of students who learned to construct graphs within a problem‐solving based Logo environment that was either embedded with or with no metacognitive training; and (2) To examine the differences in students' cognitive‐metacognitive behaviours under the different conditions. Samples. Participants were 68 students who studied in four computer classrooms. Methods. Intact classrooms were randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups: one was exposed to a problem‐solving based Logo environment with metacognitive training (N=34) and the other to the same Logo environment with no metacognitive training (N=34). All students were examined at the beginning and at the end of the study on the Graph Construction Examination. In addition, at the end of the study students were interviewed to assess their cognitive‐metacognitive behaviours. Furthermore, to examine possible differences (if any exist) between the two conditions prior to the beginning of the study, students were administered the Raven Advanced Matrices Examination, and the Graph Interpretation Test. Results. Although no significant differences were found between groups prior to the beginning of the study on all pretreatment measures, at the end of the study the students who were exposed to the metacognitive treatment tended to construct graphs better than their counterparts who were not exposed to such treatment. The metacognitive group was also better able to reflect on their learning than their counterparts who were not exposed to such training. In addition, structured interviews indicated the positive effects of the metacognitive training on students' information processing, social‐cognitive interaction, and error detection. Conclusions. Being exposed to metacognitive training exerts positive effects on students' achievement outcomes and cognitive‐metacognitive behaviours.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Measurement and Assessment Procedures Graph Construction Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive‐metacognitive training within a problem‐solving based Logo environment

Kramarski

Mevarech

1997

Brit J of Edu Psychol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In Mevarech and Kramarski's (1997) metacognitive questioning method, teachers give the groups questions to answer in order to enhance mathematical reasoning. Comprehension questions ('What is the problem/task all about?')…”

Section: Explanation Promptsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The teacher's role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom

Webb¹

2009

Brit J of Edu Psychol

390

285

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review uncovered multiple dimensions of the teacher's role in fostering beneficial group dialogue, including preparing students for collaborative work, forming groups, structuring the group-work task, and influencing student interaction through teachers' discourse with small groups and with the class. Common threads through the research are the importance of students explaining their thinking, and teacher strategies and practices that may promote student elaboration of ideas.

show abstract

“…This was based on the IMPROVE technique suggested by Mevarech & Kramarski (1997a). The metacognitive instruction used a series of four self-addressed metacognitive questions: comprehension questions, connection questions, strategic questions and reflection questions.…”

Section: Metacognitive Instructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The metacognitive questions focus on: (a) comprehending the problem/task; (b) making connections between previous knowledge and the problem/task at hand; (c) applying strategies; and (d) reflecting on the solution processes. Mevarech & Kramarski (1997a) reported the positive effects of IMPROVE on mathematical problem solving, and in particular on the ability to explain mathematical reasoning. Yet, a detailed analysis of these findings indicated that these studies focused only on face-to-face interaction implemented in cooperative settings or in the whole classrooms as well as with using computer programs (Kramarski & Mevarech, 1997;Kramarski, 1999;Kramarski & Zeichner, 2001).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of metacognition and email interactions on learning graphing

Kramarski

Ritkof

2002

Computer Assisted Learning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was twofold: First, to investigate the effects of metacognition and email interaction between teacher‐student on learning to interpret and construct graphs. Second, to describe the email interaction on three levels of interaction: tutorial, metacognitive and life. Participants were 50 ninth‐grade students (boys and girls) who studied graphs in two classes. One class (n = 25) was exposed to EXCEL software embedded within email interaction (EMAIL) and the other class (n = 25) was exposed to EXCEL software embedded within email interaction and metacognitive instruction (EMAIL + META). Results indicated that the EMAIL + META students significantly outperformed the EMAIL students on graph interpretation and graph construction. In particular the effects were observed on students' ability to explain mathematical reasoning and on reducing misconceptions regarding graphs. Furthermore, qualitative analysis of the EMAIL messages indicated that the EMAIL + META students frequently used different levels of interaction in their email interactions than the EMAIL students.

show abstract

IMPROVE: A Multidimensional Method for Teaching Mathematics in Heterogeneous Classrooms

Cited by 42 publications

References 15 publications

Cognitive‐metacognitive training within a problem‐solving based Logo environment

Cognitive‐metacognitive training within a problem‐solving based Logo environment

The teacher's role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom

The effects of metacognition and email interactions on learning graphing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About