 | |  |  | 

This study analyzes the
procedural explanations written by remedial college mathematics students.
Relevant literatures suggest that six communication activities might be key
in effective procedural explanations in mathematics writing: (a) orienting
the learner, (b) providing kernels or definitions of concepts and procedures,
(c) using exemplars or worked examples, (d) providing descriptions of the
process or procedure, (e) solidifying learner understanding, and (f) facilitating
linguistic control of mathematical terms. Using this framework, 18 practices
or types of difficulties were discovered in students' written explanations.
Independent experts consistently evaluated student explanations more highly
when the explanations contained arithmetic or algebraic exemplars, described
specific actions and their meanings, linked new with prior knowledge, and
used descriptive language; experts evaluated student explanations more negatively
when students displayed difficulties reasoning with kernels, reasoning with
exemplars, or with describing processes. View all 26 works published by Written Communication |
 Procedural Explanations in Mathematics Writing: A Framework for Understanding College Students' Effective Communication Practices http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741088308322343
access restricted (by the publisher) to members/subscribers/customers only
peer-reviewed
Kline, Susan L. and Drew K. Ishii Written Communication 2008
Abstract: This study analyzes the
procedural explanations written by remedial college mathematics students.
Relevant literatures suggest that six communication activities might be key
in effective procedural explanations in mathematics writing: (a) orienting
the learner, (b) providing kernels or definitions of concepts and procedures,
(c) using exemplars or worked examples, (d) providing descriptions of the
process or procedure, (e) solidifying learner understanding, and (f) facilitating
linguistic control of mathematical terms. Using this framework, 18 practices
or types of difficulties were discovered in students' written explanations.
Independent experts consistently evaluated student explanations more highly
when the explanations contained arithmetic or algebraic exemplars, described
specific actions and their meanings, linked new with prior knowledge, and
used descriptive language; experts evaluated student explanations more negatively
when students displayed difficulties reasoning with kernels, reasoning with
exemplars, or with describing processes.
|
 |
 |  |