### Abstract

Purpose of Study: The purpose of this study was to assess student preference for procedural (formula-driven) versus conceptual (concept-driven) approaches to solve mathematical problems. Additionally, we evaluated differences in preferences among students who performed above average and those who performed at or below average on simple arithmetic problems. Methods/Design and Sample: We used a single-factor (Instructional Approach: conceptual vs. procedural) between-subjects experiment. Instructional approach was manipulated using short embedded instructional videos. Students evaluated each approach on a five-point scale. Results: We found that students (above-average and average/below-average) preferred the procedural approach to the conceptual approach. Interestingly, however, although students preferred the procedural approach when first introduced to it, above-average students evaluated the conceptual approach more positively if they were unable to solve a problem correctly and were presented with additional conceptual instruction. On the other hand, there was no change in the evaluation of the procedural approach. Value to Marketing Educators: The findings of this study indicate that students develop mathematical knowledge and understanding differently. Faculty who teach courses with a high degree of mathematics concepts should work to provide multiple experiences that include both procedural and conceptual techniques to develop a holistic understanding of mathematics.

Original language | English |
---|---|

Pages (from-to) | 15-24 |

Number of pages | 10 |

Journal | Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education |

Volume | 25 |

Issue number | Special Issue |

State | Published - 1 Jan 2017 |

### Fingerprint

### Keywords

- Conceptual knowledge
- Critical thinking
- Mathematics
- Problem solving
- Procedural knowledge

### Cite this

*Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education*,

*25*(Special Issue), 15-24.

}

*Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education*, vol. 25, no. Special Issue, pp. 15-24.

**Give me a formula not the concept! student preference to mathematical problem solving.** / Mann, Manveer; Enderson, Mary C.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Give me a formula not the concept! student preference to mathematical problem solving

AU - Mann, Manveer

AU - Enderson, Mary C.

PY - 2017/1/1

Y1 - 2017/1/1

N2 - Purpose of Study: The purpose of this study was to assess student preference for procedural (formula-driven) versus conceptual (concept-driven) approaches to solve mathematical problems. Additionally, we evaluated differences in preferences among students who performed above average and those who performed at or below average on simple arithmetic problems. Methods/Design and Sample: We used a single-factor (Instructional Approach: conceptual vs. procedural) between-subjects experiment. Instructional approach was manipulated using short embedded instructional videos. Students evaluated each approach on a five-point scale. Results: We found that students (above-average and average/below-average) preferred the procedural approach to the conceptual approach. Interestingly, however, although students preferred the procedural approach when first introduced to it, above-average students evaluated the conceptual approach more positively if they were unable to solve a problem correctly and were presented with additional conceptual instruction. On the other hand, there was no change in the evaluation of the procedural approach. Value to Marketing Educators: The findings of this study indicate that students develop mathematical knowledge and understanding differently. Faculty who teach courses with a high degree of mathematics concepts should work to provide multiple experiences that include both procedural and conceptual techniques to develop a holistic understanding of mathematics.

AB - Purpose of Study: The purpose of this study was to assess student preference for procedural (formula-driven) versus conceptual (concept-driven) approaches to solve mathematical problems. Additionally, we evaluated differences in preferences among students who performed above average and those who performed at or below average on simple arithmetic problems. Methods/Design and Sample: We used a single-factor (Instructional Approach: conceptual vs. procedural) between-subjects experiment. Instructional approach was manipulated using short embedded instructional videos. Students evaluated each approach on a five-point scale. Results: We found that students (above-average and average/below-average) preferred the procedural approach to the conceptual approach. Interestingly, however, although students preferred the procedural approach when first introduced to it, above-average students evaluated the conceptual approach more positively if they were unable to solve a problem correctly and were presented with additional conceptual instruction. On the other hand, there was no change in the evaluation of the procedural approach. Value to Marketing Educators: The findings of this study indicate that students develop mathematical knowledge and understanding differently. Faculty who teach courses with a high degree of mathematics concepts should work to provide multiple experiences that include both procedural and conceptual techniques to develop a holistic understanding of mathematics.

KW - Conceptual knowledge

KW - Critical thinking

KW - Mathematics

KW - Problem solving

KW - Procedural knowledge

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85020105224&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85020105224

VL - 25

SP - 15

EP - 24

JO - Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education

JF - Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education

SN - 1537-5137

IS - Special Issue

ER -