Students are far more inclined to use conceptual and textual representational tools than arithmetical ones, and collaboration does not stimulate arithmetical tool use¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2011 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? About 50% of students provided with a conceptual or textual tool used it, versus about 20% of those provided with the arithmetical tool; the difference between conditions is significant. → Kolloffel 2011 q3 i? The hypothesis that collaboration would stimulate use of the arithmetical tool was not confirmed; tool-use percentages did not differ between individual and collaborative settings for any format. → Kolloffel 2011

Evidence¶

Kolloffel 2011¶

Kolloffel, B., Eysink, T. H. S., & de Jong, T. (2011). Comparing the effects of representational tools in collaborative and individual inquiry learning. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6, 223–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-011-9110-3

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Chi-square analyses of tool-use percentages across the 61 dyads and 95 individuals showed format affected inclination to construct a representation; conceptual vs textual use did not differ (X2(1, N=107)=0.09, n.s.).

"A Chi-Square analysis showed that these differences between conditions are significant, X2(2, N=156)=10.58, p<.01. Compared to students in the Arithmetical condition, students in the Conceptual condition used their tool more often (X2(1, N=104)=9.30, p<.01) and so did students with a textual tool ( X2(1, N=101)=7.49, p<.05)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Target strategy use did not vary by instructional support condition for any of the three fraction comparison tasks — related
• Situational knowledge is fostered by collaboration, tool format, and tool-use, with arithmetical format outperforming textual — related
• Awareness prompts stimulated discourse about more concepts but did not improve shared drawing quality in elementary dyads — related