ArticleCurrent psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.)2022
Higher-order thinking word problem-solving errors made by low-performing pupils: Comparative case study across school types in Malaysia.
Article in Current psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The achievement gaps existed among the three types of Malaysian elementary schools with different instruction mediums. Thus, this study sought to compare the types of errors made by the low-performing students from different school types in solving word problems involving higher-order thinking skills by conducting a multiple case study. The study involved 18 low-performing students from a National Primary School (NPS), National-Type Chinese Primary School (NTCPS), and National-Type Tamil Primary School (NTTPS) in Malaysia. The students' errors in solving eight word problems were identified qualitatively through conducting four sessions of diagnostic interviews, followed by the Newman's Error Analysis. Then, a cross-case analysis was conducted. The findings indicated that the participants of the three school types made reading, comprehension, transformation, process skills and encoding errors. However, the NPS and NTTPS low-performing students made more process skills errors and encoding errors, as compared to the NTCPS low-performing students. The findings imply the need to enhance the procedural fluency of NPS and NTTPS low-performing students for reducing the achievement gaps among the school types.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.