Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Teachers College Educational ...

Derived Facts 0 1
Quick 88** 164**
Note. The strategies are listed in the order of typical development.
**significant at p < .001
Table 2: Strategy Use by Condition for Low Block (n = 23)
Looking at the participants’ strategy use helps indicate why they are less accurate. Participants in the lowblock
multiple-character condition are more likely to be using an advanced strategy (see Table 2). Given
that they use an advanced strategy, they are not more likely to be accurate, but they are more likely to be
near the answer on their first or second attempt (see Table 3).
Score
Exact Answer
(on first attempt)
Near Answer
(+ or – 1 on first attempt)
3
Near on either attempt
Single Multiple Single Multiple Single Multiple
0 841 877 830* 831* 815* 813*
1 148 178 159* 224* 174* 242*
Note. A score of 1 indicates both use of an advanced strategy and meeting the column
criteria, whereas 0 indicates a non-advanced strategy and/or not meeting the column criteria.
* significant at p < .05
Table 3: Effective Use of Advanced Strategies by Condition for Low Block (n = 23)
Discussion
Improved performance on addition tasks should not be judged based on accuracy alone. A careful
analysis of strategy use in conjunction with exact accurate and near accurate answers gives a more
complete picture of children’s development. Looking at accuracy alone, the hypothesis that multiple
characters improve addition performance would be rejected, especially for lower performing students. Yet
also analyzing strategy and near accuracy reveals that multiple characters may be helping these lower
performing students to take more risks and try out new, more advanced strategies. More research is
needed to determine if taking risks in trying out new strategies helps students to become more accurate
over time and to investigate why the multiple characters encourage these risks.
References
Baylor, A. L., & Ebbers, S. (2003). The pedagogical agent split-persona effect: When two agents are
better than one. ED-MEDIA (pp. 1-5). Honululu, Hawaii.
Carpenter, T. P., & Moser, J. M. (1984). The acquisition of addition and subtraction concepts in grades
one through three. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 15(3), 179-202.
Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., Spires, H. A., & Lester, J. C. (2001). The case for social agency in computerbased
teaching: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical
agents? Cognition and Instruction, 19(2), 177-213.
Piaget, J. (1929). Introduction: Problems and Methods. The Childʼs Conception of the World. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Siegler, R. S. (1987). The Perils of Averaging Data Over Strategies : An Example From Children's
Addition. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 116(3).
White, B. Y., Shimoda, T. A., & Fredericksen, J. R. (2000). Facilitating students inquiry learning and
metacognitive development through modifiable software advisers. In S. Lajoie (Ed.), Computers as
cognitive tools vol 2: No more walls (pp. 97-132). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.