Abstract
The issue of mathematics underachievement among students has been an increasing international concern over the last few decades. Research suggests that academic success can be achieved by focusing on both the individual and social aspects of learning. Within the area of mathematics education, the development of metacognitive skills and the incorporation of discourse in classroom instruction has resulted in students having deeper conceptual understandings of the content and increased mathematical achievement. However, studies in this field tend to focus on the effects of these practices separately, making research that seeks to harness the potential of both quite rare. This paper reports on a study that was aimed at addressing this gap in the literature by examining the effects of writing and argumentation on achievement. Two hundred and eleven students and five teachers participated in this multimethod study that investigated the effects of three treatment conditions on mathematical achievement. These conditions were writing alone, argumentation alone, and writing and argumentation combined. Analysis of covariance revealed significant differences between the groups, and tests of the contrasts showed that students who engaged in both argumentation and writing had greater knowledge gains than students who engaged in argumentation alone or neither activity.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Boe, E. & Shin, S. (2005). Is the United States really losing the international horse race in academic achievement? Phi Delta Kappan, 86(9), 688–695.
Brown, A. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. Weinert & R. Klume (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation and understanding. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Case, R. (1996). Changing views of knowledge and their impact on educational research and practice. In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), The handbook of education and human development: New models of learning, teaching and schooling (pp. 75–99). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development. Educational Researcher, 23, 13–20.
Cobb, P., Yackel, E., Wood, T., Nicholls, J., Wheatley, G. & Trigatti, B. (1991). Assessment of a problem-centered second-grade mathematics project. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(1), 3–29.
Cornoldi, C. & Lucangeli, D. (1997). Mathematics and metacognition: What is the nature of the relationship? Mathematical Cognition, 3(2), 121–139.
Cross, D. (2007). Creating optimal mathematics learning environments: Combining argumentation and writing to enhance achievement. Unpublished dissertation. University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
Cross, D., Taasoobshirazi, G., Hendricks, S. & Hickey, D. (2008). Argumentation: A strategy for enhancing achievement and improving scientific identities. International Journal of Science Education, 30(6), 837–861.
Flower, L. & Hayes, J. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In L. Gregg & E. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31–50. ) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Forman, E. (1989). The role of peer interaction in the social construction of mathematical knowledge. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 55–70.
Forman, E., Larreamendy-Joerns, J., Stein, M. K. & Brown, C. (1998). "You’re going to want to find out which and prove it’: Collective argumentation in a mathematics classroom. Learning and Instruction, 8(6), 527–548.
Garii, B. (2002). That ‘aha’ experience: Meta-cognition and student understanding of learning and knowledge. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Hatano, G. & Inagaki, K. (2003). When is conceptual change intended? A cognitive sociocultural view. In G. Sinatra & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional conceptual change (pp. 407–427.) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Hayes, J. & Flower, L. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. Gregg & E. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive Processes in Writing (pp. 3–30.) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Inagaki, K., Hatano, G. & Morita, E. (1998). Construction of mathematical knowledge through whole-class discussion. Learning and Instruction, 8(6), 503–526.
Keys, C. (2000). Investigating the thinking processes of eighth grade writers during the composition of a scientific laboratory report. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 676–690.
Kramarski, B., Mevarech, Z. & Arami, M. (2002). The effects of metacognitive instruction on solving mathematical authentic tasks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49, 225–250.
Leonard, J. (2000). Let’s talk about the weather: lessons learned in facilitating mathematical discourse. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 5(8), 518–523.
Lesh, R., Doerr, H., Carmona, G. & Hjalmarson, M. (2003). Beyond constructivism. Mathematical Thinking & Learning, 5(2/3) 211–233.
Mayer, R. (1998). Cognitive, metacognitive and motivational aspects of problem solving. Instructional Science 26, 49–63.
McClain, K. & Cobb, P. (2001). An analysis of development of sociomathematical norms in one first-grade classroom. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 32(3), 236–266.
McClain, K., McGatha, M. & Hodge, L. (2000). Improving data analysis through discourse. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 5(8), 548–553.
Nasir, N. (2005). Individual cognitive structuring and the sociocultural context: strategy shifts in the game of dominoes. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(1), 5–34.
NCES (2003). National assessment of educational progress report. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.
Pontecorvo, C. (1993). Social interaction in the acquisition of knowledge. Educational Psychology Review, 5(3), 293–310.
Prawat, R. S. (1996). Constructivisms, modern and postmodern. Educational Psychologists, 31, 215–225.
Rittenhouse, P. (1998). The teacher’s role in mathematical conversation: stepping in and stepping out. In M. Lampert & M. Blunk (Eds.), Talking mathematics in school: Studies of teaching and learning (pp. 163–189.) Cambridge: University Press.
Rivard, L. & Straw, S. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: an exploratory study. Science Education, 85(5), 566–593.
Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity in three planes: participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1986). Research on written composition. In M. Wittrock (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 778–803.) New York: MacMillan.
Schmidt, W., Wang, H. & McKnight, C. (2005). Curriculum coherence: an examination of US mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(5), 525–559.
Schoenfeld, A. (1987). What’s all the fuss about metacognition? In A. Schoenfeld (Eds.), Cognitive Science and Mathematics Education (pp. 189–215.) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Schoenfeld, A. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. In D. Grouws (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching and mathematics learning. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Silver, E. A. (1987). Foundations of cognitive theory and research for mathematics problem-solving instruction. In A. Schoenfeld (Eds.), Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp. 33–60.) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stein, M. (2001). Mathematical argumentation: putting umph into classroom discussions. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 7(2), 110–112.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Yackel, E. & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458–477.
Zan, R. (2000). A metacognitive intervention in mathematics at the university level. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 31(1), 143–150.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cross, D.I. CREATING OPTIMAL MATHEMATICS LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS: COMBINING ARGUMENTATION AND WRITING TO ENHANCE ACHIEVEMENT. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 7, 905–930 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-008-9144-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-008-9144-9