Teaching the Conceptual Structure of Mathematics

Educational Psychologist (Impact Factor: 3.29). 07/2012; 47(3):189-203. DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2012.667065

ABSTRACT This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Download full-text


Available from: Lindsey Engle Richland, Aug 13, 2015
  • Source
    • "We use problem solving more generally to refer to any process of working from an initial problem state to a solution state. Practice is often incorporated into instruction in math and science classes in the form of problem-solving activities (Richland et al. 2012). Practice is a common pedagogical feature built into most disciplines for the development of expertise (Brown et al. 1989), and there is a very large literature on practice in the cognitive and educational sciences (Chi and Ohlsson 2005; Ericsson et al. 1993; Newell and Rosenbloom 1981; VanLehn 1996). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Robust knowledge serves as a common instructional target in academic settings. Past research identifying characteristics of experts’ knowledge across many domains can help clarify the features of robust knowledge as well as ways of assessing it. We review the expertise literature and identify three key features of robust knowledge (deep, connected, and coherent) and four means of assessing these features (perception, memory, problem solving, and transfer). Focusing on the domains of math and science learning, we examine how four instructional techniques—practice, worked examples, analogical comparison, and self-explanation—can promote key features of robust knowledge and how those features can be assessed. We conclude by discussing the implications of this framework for theory and practice.
    Educational Psychology Review 03/2014; 27(1). DOI:10.1007/s10648-014-9268-0 · 2.40 Impact Factor
  • Journal of the Learning Sciences 07/2012; 21(3):347-352. DOI:10.1080/10508406.2012.707994 · 2.00 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Understanding how to get learners to transfer their knowledge to new situations is a topic of both theoretical and practical importance. Theoretically, it touches on core issues in knowledge representation, analogical reasoning, generalization, embodied cognition, and concept formation. Practically, learning without transfer of what has been learned is almost always unproductive and inefficient. Although schools often measure the efficiency of learning in terms of speed and retention of knowledge, a relatively neglected and subtler component of efficiency is the generality and applicability of the acquired knowledge. This special issue of Educational Psychologist collects together new approaches toward understanding and fostering appropriate transfer in learners. Three themes that emerge from the collected articles are (a) the importance of the perspective/stance of the learner for achieving robust transfer, (b) the neglected role of motivation in determining transfer, and (c) the existence of specific, validated techniques for teaching with an eye toward facilitating students’ transfer of their learning.
    Educational Psychologist 07/2012; 47(3):149-152. DOI:10.1080/00461520.2012.695710 · 3.29 Impact Factor
Show more