référence suivante
Article de revue: Clé de citation BibTeX:  Cai2000
Cai, J. (2000). Understanding and representing the arithmetic averaging algorithm: an analysis and comparison of u.s. and chinese students' responses. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 31(6), pp. 839–855.
Ajoutée par: Lynda Taabane 2007-12-05 20:00:24    Dernièrement modifiée par: Lynda Taabane 2008-01-06 19:59:57
 B  
Catégories: Moyenne
Auteurs: Cai
Collection: International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology

Nombre de vues:  291
Popularité:  26.43%

 
Résumé
Analysing the responses of 311 sixth-grade Chinese students and 232 sixth-grade US students to two problems involving arithmetic average, this study explored students' understanding and representation of the averaging algorithm from a cross-national perspective. Results of the study show that Chinese students were more successful than US students in obtaining correct numerical answers to each of the problems, but US and Chinese students had similar cognitive difficulties in solving the second task. The difficulties were not due to their lack of procedural knowledge of the averaging algorithm, rather due to their lack of conceptual understanding of the algorithm. There were significant differences between the US and Chinese students in their solution representations of the two average problems. Chinese students were more likely to use algebraic representations than US students; while US students were more likely to use pictorial or verbal representations. US and Chinese students' use of representations are related to their mathematical problem-solving performance. Students who used more advanced representations were better problem solvers. The findings of the study suggest that Chinese students' superior performance on the averaging problems is partly due to their use of advanced representations (e.g. algebraic).
Ajoutée par: Lynda Taabane    Dernièrement modifiée par: Lynda Taabane

 
wikindx  v3.8.2 ©2007     |     Total Resources:  1609     |     Database queries:  25     |     Script execution:  6.4693 secs