Do connectives improve the level of understandability in mathematical reality-based tasks?

Lena Dammann; Lena Heine; Dominik Leiss; Timo Ehmke

doi:10.29333/iejme/15080

Full Text (PDF)

Lena Dammann ¹ ^* , Lena Heine ² , Dominik Leiss ¹ , Timo Ehmke ¹

More Detail

¹ Leuphana University Lueneburg, Lüneburg, GERMANY² University of Bochum, Bochum, GERMANY^* Corresponding Author

Abstract

Previous studies suggest that sentence-linking elements, like connectives, enhance text comprehension since they help produce a context of meaning. However, there is no evidence yet on whether connectives influence the understanding and solving of reality-based mathematical tasks. In this study, reality-based tasks were varied to create two versions with identical content, differing only in whether coherence relations were expressed explicitly by connectives or implicitly. The investigation aimed to determine if this variation affected students’ ability to comprehend the described situation and solve mathematical tasks based on the provided information. Initial results indicate that connectives do increase the rate of correct answers to comprehension questions, particularly for students with lower linguistic skills. Nevertheless, the use of connectives did not significantly influence mathematical task performance. This suggests that while connectives aid in understanding and organizing information, they may not contribute to students translating this advantage into improved mathematical task outcomes.

Keywords

language and mathematics
modelling tasks
coherence
connectives
comprehension
linguistic features

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Type: Research Article

INT ELECT J MATH ED, Volume 19, Issue 4, November 2024, Article No: em0791

https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/15080

Publication date: 01 Oct 2024

Online publication date: 05 Sep 2024

Article Views: 286

Article Downloads: 108

Open Access References How to cite this article

References

Alhamdu, A. (2016). Interest and reading motivation. Psikis Jurnal Psikologi Islami, 1(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.19109/psikis.v1i1.552
Bates, D., Mächler, M., & Dai, B. (2011). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/lme4.pdf
Becker, A. & Musan, R. (2014). Leseverstehen von Sachtexten: Wie Schüler Kohärenzrelationen erkennen [Reading comprehension of non-fiction texts: How students recognize coherence relations]. In M. Averintseva-Klisch, & C. Peschel (Eds.), Aspekte der Informationsstruktur für die Schule. Thema Sprache–Wissenschaft Für Den Unterricht 12 (pp. 129-155). Schneider Hohengehren.
Blum, W., & Leiß, D. (2007). How do students and teachers deal with modelling problems? In C. Haines, P. Galbraith, W. Blum, & S. Khan (Eds.), Mathematical modelling (ICTMA 12): Education, engineering and economics (pp. 222-231). Horwood. https://doi.org/10.1533/9780857099419.5.221
Crible, L. (2021). Negation cancels discourse-level processing differences: Evidence from reading times in concession and result relations. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 50(6), 1283-1308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-021-09802-2
Cummins, D. D., Kintsch, W., Reusser, K., & Weimer, R. (1988). The role of understanding in solving word problems. Cognitive Psychology, 20(4), 405-438. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(88)90011-4
De Boeck, P., Bakker, M., Zwitser, R., Nivard, M., Hofman, A., Tuerlinckx, F., & Partchev, I. (2011). The estimation of item response models with the lmer function from the lme4 package in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 39(12), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v039.i12
De Boeck, P., Cho, S.-J., & Wilson, M. (2016). Explanatory item response models. In A. A. Rupp, & J. P. Leighton (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of cognition and assessment: Frameworks, methodologies, and applications (pp. 247-266). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118956588.ch11
Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Louwerse, M. M. (2003). What do readers need to learn in order to process coherence relations in narrative and expository text. In A. P. Sweet, & C. E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 82-98). Guilford Press.
Grotjahn, R. (Ed.) (2014). Der C-test: Beiträge aus der aktuellen Forschung [The C-test: Contributions from current research]. Peter Lang Verlag.
Harsch, C., & Hartig, J. (2016). Comparing C-tests and yes/no vocabulary size tests as predictors of receptive language skills. Language Testing, 33(4), 555-575. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532215594642
Johnston, P., & Pearson, P. D. (2014). Prior knowledge, connectivity, and the assessment of reading comprehension. https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/items/17750/bitstreams/63721/data.pdf
Kamalski, J. (2007). Coherence marking, comprehension and persuasion: On the processing and representation of discourse. LOT.
Kamalski, J., Sanders, T., & Lentz, L. (2008). Coherence marking, prior knowledge, and comprehension of informative and persuasive texts: Sorting things out. Discourse Processes, 45(4-5), 323-345. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530802145486
Kehler, A. (2022). Coherence establishment as a source of explanation in linguistic theory. Annual Review of Linguistics, 8(1), 123-142. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011619-030357
Kintsch, W. (2009). Learning and constructivism. In S. Tobias, & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 223-241). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Kleijn, S., Pander Maat, H. L. W., & Sanders, T. J. M. (2019). Comprehension effects of connectives across texts, readers, and coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 56(5-6), 447-464. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2019.1605257
Köhne-Fuetterer, J., Drenhaus, H., Delogu, F., & Demberg, V. (2021). The online processing of causal and concessive discourse connectives. Linguistics, 59(2), 417-448. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2021-0011
Leiner, D. J. (2019). SoSci survey (version 3.1.06). https://www.soscisurvey.de
Leiss, D., Ehmke, T., & Heine, L. (2024). Reality-based tasks for competency-based education: The need for an integrated analysis of subject-specific, linguistic, and contextual task features. Learning and Individual Differences, 114, Article 102518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2024.102518
Leiss, D., Plath, J., & Schwippert, K. (2019). Language and mathematics–Key factors influencing the comprehension process in reality-based tasks. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 21(2), 131-153. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2019.1570835
Meulders, M., & Xie, Y. (2004). Person-by-item predictors. In P. De Boeck, & M. Wilson (Eds.), Explanatory item response models (pp. 213-240). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-3990-9_7
Missing, C. C. (2017). Kohärenz und Komplexität [Coherence and complexity]. University Press. https://doi.org/10.19211/KUP9783737603355
Moritz, B. (2011). Markierung von Kohärenzrelationen in Sachtexten–Auswirkung auf das Leseverstehen von Schülern [Marking coherence relations in non-fiction texts–Impact on students’ reading comprehension]. Convivium. Germanistisches Jahrbuch Polen, 389-412. https://doi.org/10.18778/2196-8403.2011.18
O’reilly, T., & Mcnamara, D. S. (2007). Reversing the reverse cohesion effect: Good texts can be better for strategic, high-knowledge readers. Discourse Processes, 43(2), 121-152. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530709336895
Prediger, S. (2010). Aber wie sag ich es mathematisch? Empirische Befunde und Konsequenzen zum Lernen von Mathematik als Mittel zur Beschreibung von Welt [But how do I say it mathematically? Empirical findings and consequences for learning mathematics as a means of describing the world]. In D. Höttecke (Ed.), Entwicklung naturwissenschaftlichen Denkens zwischen Phänomen und Systematik. Jahrestagung in Dresden 2009 (pp. 6-20). Lit Verl.
Rellensmann, J., Schukajlow, S., & Leopold, C. (2020). Measuring and investigating strategic knowledge about drawing to solve geometry modelling problems. ZDM, 52(1), 97-110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01085-1
Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. E. (2022). Interest development, self-related information processing, and practice. Theory into Practice, 61(1), 23-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2021.1932159
Sanders, T. J. M., & Noordman, L. G. M. (2000). The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes, 29(1), 37-60. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950dp2901_3
Sato, E., Rabinowitz, S., Gallagher, C., & Huang, C. W. (2010). Accommodations for English language learner students: The effect of linguistic modification of math test item sets. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Schiefele, U. (1999). Interest and learning from text. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3(3), 257-279. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0303_4
Schmitz, A. (2016). Verständlichkeit von Sachtexten [Comprehensibility of factual texts]. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-12016-0
Schukajlow, S., Leiss, D., Pekrun, R., Blum, W., Müller, M., & Messner, R. (2012). Teaching methods for modelling problems and students’ task-specific enjoyment, value, interest and self-efficacy expectations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79(2), 215-237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-011-9341-2
Schütz, G., & Wößmann, L. (2005). Chancengleichheit im Schulsystem: Internationale deskriptive Evidenz und mögliche Bestimmungsfaktoren [Equal opportunities in the school system: International descriptive evidence and possible determinants]. ifo Institute–Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich. https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ces:ifowps:_no.17
Van Dijk, T. A. , & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. Academic Press.
Verschaffel, L., Greer, B., & de Corte, E. (2000). Making sense of word problems. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 42, 211-213. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004190927303
Wilson, M., De Boeck, P., & Carstensen, C. (2006). Explanatory item response models: A brief introduction. In J. Hartig, E. Klieme, & D. Leutner (Eds.), Assessment of competencies in educational contexts (pp. 91-120). Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.

How to cite this article

APA

Dammann, L., Heine, L., Leiss, D., & Ehmke, T. (2024). Do connectives improve the level of understandability in mathematical reality-based tasks?. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 19(4), em0791. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/15080

Vancouver

Dammann L, Heine L, Leiss D, Ehmke T. Do connectives improve the level of understandability in mathematical reality-based tasks?. INT ELECT J MATH ED. 2024;19(4):em0791. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/15080

AMA

Dammann L, Heine L, Leiss D, Ehmke T. Do connectives improve the level of understandability in mathematical reality-based tasks?. INT ELECT J MATH ED. 2024;19(4), em0791. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/15080

Chicago

Dammann, Lena, Lena Heine, Dominik Leiss, and Timo Ehmke. "Do connectives improve the level of understandability in mathematical reality-based tasks?". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education 2024 19 no. 4 (2024): em0791. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/15080

Harvard

Dammann, L., Heine, L., Leiss, D., and Ehmke, T. (2024). Do connectives improve the level of understandability in mathematical reality-based tasks?. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 19(4), em0791. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/15080

MLA

Dammann, Lena et al. "Do connectives improve the level of understandability in mathematical reality-based tasks?". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, vol. 19, no. 4, 2024, em0791. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/15080