TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

Title Page i

I INTRODUCTION 1

Background of the Study 1

Statement of the Problem 4

Significance of the Study 5

Scope and Delimitation of the Study 6

II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 8

Related Literature 8

Conceptual Framework 23

Hypotheses 26

Definition of Terms 26

III METHODOLOGY 28

Research Design 28

The Sample 29
The Instruments 31

Intervention 37

Data Collection Procedure 37

Data Analysis Procedure 37

Affective-Metacognitive-Analytic Scaffolding: Effects on Socio-Emotional Learning, Critical-

Reflective Thinking and Problem-Solving in Mathematics

An Outline Paper

In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements in the Course EDUC 400

Submitted by:

BRYANPETE R. TABADA

Student

Submitted to:

MARIA NYMPHA B. JOAQUIN, Ph.D.

Adviser
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

Over time many different definitions of scaffolding have been formulated. Maybin,

Mercer and Stierer (1992) defined it as a help which will enable a learner to accomplish a task

which they would not have been quite able to manage on their own and bring the learner

closer to a state of competence which will enable them eventually to complete such a task on

their own. Gibbons (2002) defined it as temporary, intentional, responsive support that assists

learners to move towards new skills, concepts or levels of understanding. Stone (1998) saw it as

the joint but necessarily unequal engagement in a valued activity, with a gradual shift in

responsibility. Central to this image are the notions of affective engagement, intersubjectivity

or shared understandings, graduated assistance and transfer of responsibility.

Intersubjectivity has the very specific meaning of partial sharing of perspectives. Which of these

should be considered defining characteristics depends on the context in which the concept is

used.

Within educational research, the concept of scaffolding has gained popularity over the

past decades. One of its attractions is that the concept hints at what is considered good

teaching, namely the active and sensitive involvement of a teacher in students’ learning

(Mercer & Littleton, 2007). Where it initially referred to live interaction between tutor and

tutee, the concept has been broadened to include collaborative learning (Rojas-Drummond &

Mercer, 2003), peer scaffolding (Fernandez, Wegerif, Mercer & Rojas-Drummond, 2001), and
whole-class settings (Cazden, 1979; Puntambekar & Hubscher, 2005; Smit, Van Eerde, & Bakker,

2013). The importance of design has also come into the picture, and supporting artefacts have

become conceptualized as scaffolds (Davis & Miyake, 2004). Although originating in the context

of problem solving, that is, building a pyramid, it took some time for the concept of scaffolding

to find its place in mathematics studies.

Most studies emphasize what Williams and Baxter (1996) call analytic scaffolding. This

includes generally formulated content such as problem solving, mathematical thinking, inquiry

and modelling, but also more specific learning goals such as arithmetic, algebra, geometry,

probability, statistics, calculus and number theory (Bakker, Smit, Wegerif, 2015). Mathematical

language also serves as the goal of scaffolding (Cohrssen et al., 2014; Esquinca, 2011; Prediger

& Pohler, 2015; Smit et al., 2013).

Some studies focus on social scaffolding, the support of norm development required for

productive classroom interaction (Makar et al., 2015; Roll et al., 2012). Kazak and colleagues

(2015) combine both analytic and social scaffolding, and make the link between dialogic and

social scaffolding by highlighting scaffolding dialogic talk for conceptual breakthrough. Another

way to combine social and analytic scaffolding is by focusing on promoting participation in

mathematical practices (Marshman & Brown, 2014; Moschkovich, 2015), because the social is

an intrinsic part of such practices. Schukajlow et al. (2012), found positive effects of an

operative strategic scaffolding strategy on enjoyment, value, interest and self-efficacy. Toh and

others (2014) studied both students’ dispositions and mathematical problem solving skills.

Watson and de Geest (2012) included confidence in their observations.

 In this study, a teaching intervention wherein delivered to them (Slamecka and Graf,

1978). Research has also shown that students remember more when they learn to handle

information at the higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy (i.e., application, analysis, synthesis, and

evaluation) because more reflection and elaboration is required of them (Huitt, 1992).

Meanwhile, metacognition, often loosely described as thinking about thinking, is a key

aspect of problem solving skills (Flavell, 1979, 1987; Schoenfeld, 1992). Although metacognition

is essential for the learning of critical thinking and problem solving skills (van Gelder, 2005;

Scruggs, 1985), it is not always clear how best to enhance metacognitive thinking in students.

Various methods have been used, such as providing prompts, providing feedback, reflective

practice, peer tutoring and self-questioning strategies (Kwon and Jonassen, 2011). Kwon and

Jonassen point out some of the drawbacks and deficiencies of these attempts, including student

failure to use prompts or feedback or self-questioning. However, Wismath and colleagues

(2011) designed a course built explicitly around the objective of developing students’ problem

solving, critical thinking and metacognitive skills. They found that the metacognitve reflection

demonstrated by students in their course is valid evidence of their learning of essential problem

solving and critical thinking skills.

Studies by Moreno and colleagues did not include an explicit instruction on how to

analyze an abstract diagram. In addition, there was no demonstration done in implementing

those diagrams in actual electrical circuit. Furthermore, development of metacognitive skills or

reflection was not considered in problem solving near transfer. In this research an instructional

intervention (i.e., active-metacognitive multimodal-representation) wherein abstract and

concrete visual logic representations and hands-on experiment on its electrical and logic
equivalent circuit with metacognitive skill enhancer in solving logical problems will be examined

in teaching Boolean algebra to college students. Its effect on students’ visual-spatial ability (i.e.,

metavisualization), reflective learning (i.e., metacognitive reflection) and problem solving (i.e.,

far transfer) will also be studied. Metavisualization according to Gobert (2007) is the use of

metacognition in the processes of visualization. He asserts its prevalent role of metavisual skills

in the learning of science. Metacognitive reflection involves reflection of knowledge,

experience, and regulation (Wismath et al., 2011). Far transfer is the solution to problems with

a different underlying structure than the training problems or problem-solving with realistic

objects in natural settings (Moreno et al., 2011).

Statement of the Problem

This research aims to investigate the effect of explicit instruction on combined concrete

and abstract visual representations with circuit implementation on students’ metavisualization,

metacognitive reflection and logic problem solving.

Specifically, this study seeks to answer the following questions:

1. Does instructional intervention affect students’ metavisualization, metacognitive

reflection, and logic problem-solving transfer?

2. Is there correlation between: metavisualization and logic problem solving;

metacognitive reflection and logic problem solving; and metavisualization and

metacognitive reflection?

3. Does production of visual-schematic representation and relational processing affect

logic problem solving transfer?

4. Is there correlation between metavisualization and metacognitive reflection?

 5. Do knowledge, experience, and regulation affect logic problem solving transfer?

6. Does logical-mathematical reasoning and prior knowledge affect logic problem solving

transfer?

Significance of the Study

Results of the study are beneficial for teachers, teacher trainers, and educators that

they may: appreciate and embrace the importance of multiple representations like concrete

and visual representations in teaching mathematics; emphasize hands-on experiment or

learning by doing and real-life illustration; promote reflective learning by monitoring, evaluating

and regulating one’s cognition, experience and feelings; train teachers to alternative teaching

methods; and encourage teachers and teacher trainers to try active learning where students

are engage in meaningful activities. These can be done by using concrete materials as

manipulative like wooden blocks, pick-up sticks, etc. in representing the abstract concept and

operations of algebra like numbers, plus signs and the like. In addition, teaching Boolean

algebra or propositional logic is much easier if done with concrete visual representations like

voltage supply, switches and lamps.

In addition, for curriculum developers and textbook writers that they may: provide

multiple modes of representation or perspectives on content; contextualize abstract concept

and relate it to real-life experience; include experiments in their presentation of concepts;

develop books in mathematics that promotes mitavisual skills, visual-spatial abilities and

metacognition by reflection in solving problems.

Furthermore, for officials of school, division, region, and central office that they may:

support the instructional intervention for implementation; encourage their teachers to

incorporate this intervention in their lesson plan; advocate the role of visual representations for

enhancing problem solving skills, reflective learning and metacognitive skills; upgrade or keep

abreast of the issues and trends in teaching and learning mathematics.

Lastly, for policy makers that they may: support active learning, discovery learning,

constructivism, and multiple representations; provide technical and financial assistance in

sending teachers to seminars and trainings for upgrading their pedagogical knowledge; and

create projects for faculty development program.

Scope and Delimitation of the Study

This research is a combination of classroom-based and institution-based. A three-month

period for data collection is projected on school year, 2014-2015 at Siquijor State College, BIT-

International School, Quezon Memorial Institute and TESDA Siquijor Province. Forty second

year college level students in each school will be involved and the topics to be covered will be

propositional logic, truth table, Boolean expressions and Boolean algebra. One topic per week

will be tackled and experimented.

 CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Related Literature

This chapter discusses the relevant literature and conceptual framework of the study.

This also states the research hypotheses and operational definition of terms. The related

literature for the role of visual representations and hands-on to visualization, reflection and

problem solving is being subdivided.

Role of Multimodal Representations and Hands-on in Problem Solving

The design of the visual representations in past studies was based on the typical

diagrams used in college engineering textbooks, which mostly represent electrical engineering

problems with abstract diagrams. An abstract diagram provides a schematic depiction of an

engineering problem and uses standard engineering symbols (Alexander &Sadiku, 2004; Irwin

&Nelms, 2005), such as the zigzag symbol to represent a light bulb. In contrast, Moreno and

colleagues (2011) define concrete electrical engineering diagrams as those that provide realistic

illustrations of the real-life electrical elements described in the word problems (e.g., the image

of a light bulb), instead of the standard symbols used by engineers. Their present research

investigated whether representing engineering problems with abstract, concrete, or a

combination of abstract and concrete diagrams would affect students’ problem solving practice,

near transfer, problem representations, and learning perceptions.

Several studies have compared how students learn from schematic versus realistic

representations of science diagrams (Butcher, 2006; Dwyer, 1968, 1969; Joseph & Dwyer, 1984)

and science simulations (Goldstone & Sakamoto, 2003; Goldstone & Son, 2005; Scheiter,
Gerjets, Huk, Imhof, &Kammerer, 2009). In addition, past research has compared learning from

different problem representations, such as diagrams versus verbal descriptions of math and

physics problems (Larkin & Simon, 1987), electricity diagrams versus equations (Cheng, 2002),

graphics versus sentential representations of logical reasoning (Stenning, Cox, &Oberlander,

1995), or grounded (e.g., story problems) versus symbolic (e.g., equations) representations of

algebra (Koedinger, Alibali, & Nathan, 2008; Koedinger& Nathan, 2004).

In a recent preliminary study conducted with gifted high-school students, students who

learned about electrical circuit analysis with abstract diagrams produced higher transfer scores

and better problem representations after instruction than those who learned with diagrams

that included lifelike images of the circuit elements (Moreno, Reisslein, &Ozogul, 2009). They

extended this preliminary study by including high-school students in regular classrooms and

college students as participants and by adding an instructional treatment in which abstract and

concrete visual problem representations were combined (Moreno, Reisslein, &Ozogul, 2011).

Studies have documented the central role that the problem representation step plays in

redescribing problems in terms of concepts and principles learned (Chi, Feltovich, & Glaser,

1981), reducing the difficulty of the problem-solving process (Newell & Simon, 1972; Simon &

Hayes, 1976), and promoting the solution of problems (Brenner et al., 1997; Collins & Ferguson,

1993; Mayer &Hegarty, 1996; Rittle-Johnson, Siegler, &Alibali, 2001; Zhang, 1997).

Furthermore, expertise studies in a variety of domains have shown that visual representations

are a fundamental tool to support the reasoning and problem solving of experts (Ericsson &

Smith, 1991; Knorr-Cetina&Amann, 1990; Kozma, Chin, Russell, & Marx, 2000; Lynch, 1995;

Lynch &Woolgar, 1990; Roth, Bowen, &McGinn, 1999). After conducting a set of naturalistic
studies about the representational expertise of chemists, Kozma (2003) concluded, “The first

thing we noticed was that representations were everywhere in these laboratories. Structural

diagrams and equations were written on flasks and vials filled with compounds being heated,

filtered, or waiting for reactions. They were written on glass hoods and white boards

throughout the lab. And they were in notebooks and reference books, and in journal articles

and advertisements on bookshelves and bench tops.

In line with these findings, Schank (1994) identified the use of visual representations as

one of the seven essential skills of professional biologists. The way in which visual

representations are designed in instruction can play an important role in the lived experience of

students and in their associated appropriation of effective graphing practices (Collins &

Ferguson, 1993; Day, 1988; Kirshner, 1989; Zhang, 1997). Although diagrams have been shown

to support reasoning and problem solving (Glasgow, Narayanan, & Chan- drasekaran, 1995), the

evidence that not all visual representations are equally helpful to all students suggests that

their level of concreteness may have an effect on learning (Butcher, 2006).

Research on how individuals learn suggests that when students are novices in a domain,

their early encounters with new concepts and principles to be learned should be designed to

activate and build on their existing knowledge (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000; Collins,

Brown, & Newman, 1989; Donovan &Bransford, 2005). In a concrete electrical engineering

problem representation, the electrical components of a circuit (i.e., light- bulbs, batteries)

illustrated in diagrams are literally from the students’ everyday lives. These iconic

representations can be used as the foundation to construct a meaningful model of the problem
scenario. Once this meaning is established, then students should find it easier to advance

toward thinking about how the electrical principles learned can be used to solve the specific

problem (Sharp & Adams, 2002). Moreover, it has been argued that realistic graphics may

promote higher motivation because they are more interesting and evocative, a reason put

forward in support of the design of virtual reality learning environments (Goldstone & Son,

2005; Grady, 1998; Heim, 2000).

The Case for Concrete Visual Representations

Concrete visual representations are those that illustrate the real- life objects

corresponding to a problem’s cover story. For example, the middle part of Figure 1 illustrates

the battery and light bulbs of the following concrete problem: “Consider two light bulbs with

resistance values R1 = 6 and R2 = 12 connected in parallel to a V = 9 V batteries. Find the total

resistance of this circuit.” Educators and cognitive scientists have frequently noted the value of

concrete representations in education. In one study, 84% of secondary math teachers reported

believing that concrete representations can facilitate learning significantly (Perry, Howard, &

Tracey, 1999). The main thesis underlying this position is that even if the instructional goal is to

develop abstract knowledge in a domain, abstractions can be most effectively learned through

ex- perience with perceptually rich, concrete knowledge representa- tions (Goldstone &

Sakamoto, 2003). More specifically, realistic rendering of objects within a representation may

benefit students by making a problem more readily accessible in long-term mem- ory (DiFonzo,

Hantula, & Bordia, 1998; Koedinger& Nathan, 2004). Realistic diagrams depict a close

correspondence between diagrams and the concrete objects that they represent; therefore,

realistic diagrams rely less on knowledge conventions for their interpretations. According to this
view, the usefulness of abstract diagrams is limited because students must be able to

understand and make use of abstract visual conventions to correctly interpret the problem

representation (Hegarty, Carpenter, & Just, 1991).

The Case for Abstract Visual Representation

Abstract visual representations are those that use conventional symbols to represent

the relevant elements of a problem’s cover story. For example, the top portion of Figure 1

(Moreno, Reisslein, &Ozogul, 2011) illustrates the conventional circuit symbols of the following

problem: “Consider two resistors with resistance values R1 = 6 and R2 = 12 connected in

parallel to a voltage source with V = 9 V. Find the total resistance of this circuit.” Although

concrete visual representations may have the cognitive advantage of relying less on knowledge

conventions and the motivational advantage of being more interesting than more abstract

ones, they have limited referential flexibility. Specifically, the knowledge contained in more

realistic representations is found to have limited portability and transfer (Bassok&Holyoak,

1989; Sloutsky, Kaminski, & Heckler, 2005).

In addition, a strong argument supporting the use of abstract visual representations is

that concrete visual representations divert novice students’ attention to irrelevant problem

information. For instance, Dwyer (1968, 1969; Joseph & Dwyer, 1984) were able to conclude

from their investigations about learning with realistic versus diagrammatic science

representations that the realistic cues of concrete representations acted as a cognitive

distraction. Several other studies have found that more realistic visual representations un-

intentionally focus students’ attention on superficial information at the expense of information

that is necessary to accomplish the learning objectives (Gianutsos, 1994; Hegarty&Kozhevnikov,

1999; Sloutsky, Kaminski, & Heckler, 2005).

Figure 1. Abstract visual representation (top), concrete visual representation (middle), and
concrete and abstract visual representation (bottom)

As noted by several researchers (DeLoache, 2000; DeLoache&Marzolf, 1992; Goldstone

& Son, 2005; Markman&Gentner, 1993), individuals are more likely to respond on the basis of

superficial object attributes as the richness of the objects in visual representations increases. By

leaving out the details of concrete objects, abstract visual representations help students focus

on the relevant structural characteristics of the problem (Colin, Chauvet, &Viennot, 2002; Elia,

Gagatsis, &Demetriou, 2007). In the few studies that found an advantage for learning with

concrete representations, the concrete information conveyed by the instructional materials was

relevant to the learning objectives of the lesson (Goldstone & Sakamoto, 2003).
 An additional argument in support of abstract visual representations is that they put

fewer demands on working memory during problem solving (Koedinger, Alibali, & Nathan,

2008). Specifically, abstract visual representations do not require students to keep track of their

referents while solving the problem, which allows students to more easily imagine

manipulations of quantitative relations.

The Case for Combined Abstract and Concrete Visual Representation

The previous discussions pointed out advantages and disadvantages to both concrete

and abstract visual problem representations. Moreno and others (2011) hypothesized that

instruction which includes simultaneous concrete and abstract visual representations will more

effectively promote students’ problem solving than learning with abstract or concrete

representations alone. Combined abstract and concrete visual representations are those that

both illustrate the real-life objects corresponding to a problem’s cover story and use

conventional symbols to represent the relevant elements of a problem’s cover story. It can be

argued that students who learn with both representations benefit from the perceptual

scaffolding, schema activation, and motivational benefits that concrete visual representations

offer while at the same time they are provided with a tool to generalize the common underlying

structure of problems that are superficially dissimilar.

Recent studies have examined the simultaneous combination of abstract and concrete

visual representations for problem solving in a well-defined domain, such as engineering

(Moreno, Reisslein&Ozogul, 2011) and other research have manipulated the order in which

students learn with schematic (abstract) and realistic (concrete) simulations. In one study
(Scheiter et al., 2009), students who watched a realistic simulation followed by a second

realistic simulation showed significantly lower learning outcomes than those who learned with

two successive schematic simulations: a realistic simulation followed by a schematic simulation

or a schematic simulation followed by a realistic one. Another study compared the amount of

transfer between two simulations that were governed by the same principle, with the

simulation elements remaining concrete, remaining abstract, or switching from concrete to

abstract and vice versa (Goldstone & Son, 2005). The findings showed that the best transfer

was observed when concrete elements became abstracted at a later stage.

One of the most important and common aims of doing hands-on experiments in science

education is to promote genuine learning and thinking the subject matter through interaction

with the real world. That is so-called learning by doing (Xingkai et al., 1990). Hippel and Tyre

(1993) found the role of learning by doing which allows one to understand why it would be very

difficult to eliminate doing and still learn the same important things. They also suggests that

typically one can’t get it right the first time when introducing new product or process to the

field, and that it would be valuable to adapt the innovation process accordingly.

Role of Multimodal Representations and Hands-on in Metavisualization

A step-wise scale which shows the progressive development and display of

representational competence has been suggested for university students of chemistry (Kosma

2005). However, it is not yet clear whether such a scale has widespread applicability across

different age groups or across the sciences. However, this does suggest that systematically
addressing these skills in teaching should yield an improved realization of, or the development

of metavisualization.

A number of general pedagogic techniques for the promotion of the skills of

visualization have emerged in recent years (Cams Hill Science Consortium, 2010). This extended

action research project has developed as series of successful teaching strategies for use with

students throughout the age range of 5 to 16 years. These are to: have students work in a

project mode on problems that they find interesting and this has enhanced student

engagement and lead to sustained learning; arrange classes so that students work in small

teams and the value of peer teaching has become apparent; encourage student to evaluate

their personal attainment and to set their own future learning goals and a sense of ownership

of education was widely observed; and require students to manage their own work and hence

learning (Gilbert, 2010).

Role of Multimodal Representations and Hands-on in Metacognitive Reflection

According to Rudnicki (2008), combining science with hands-on is fun and effective. An

algebra teacher once illustrated the idea of variables and functions by having students count

the number of times per minute that a goldfish flapped its gills in lukewarm water. Then, cold

water was gradually added. Each time, the students counted gill movement for a minute;

he/she then recorded the number in a table. Finally, they graphed the results to see how

coldness affected activity.

 John Dewey created an active intellectual learning environment in his laboratory school,

which existed between 1896 and 1904 (Kliebard, 1992). Neuroscience now supports the sort of

active learning Dewey fostered as the way people naturally learn.Active learning conditionalizes

knowledge through experiential learning. Smith (1997) writes that John Dewey believed

education must engage with and expand experience; those methods used to educate must

provide for exploration, thinking, and reflection; and that interaction with the environment is

necessary for learning; also, that democracy should be upheld in the educational process.

Dewey advocates the learning process of experiential learning through real life experience to

construct and conditionalize knowledge, which is consistent with the constructivists.

Correlations Between Visualization and Problem-Solving

Visualization has been described as the creation of a mental image of a given concept

(Kosslyn, 1996) and its activity of seeing differently is not a self-evident, innate process, but

something created and learned (Whiteley, 2000; Hoffmann, 1998). As cognitive science

suggests, we learn to see; we create what we see; visual reasoning or seeing to think is learned,

it can also be taught and it is important to teach it (Whiteley, 2004, p. 3; Hoffmann, 1998).

Thus, teachers who have learned and became skillful in the use of visualization and seeing to

think would be able to reinforce mathematical concepts and improve the learning process in

the classroom.

The findings of a study conducted at two mid-western high schools that used

visualization combined with problem-based learning revealed that students made meaningful

connections between math and science data, connections between math and science language,
and connections between math, science and daily life experience (National Commission on

Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century, 2000).

Correlations Between Reflection and Problem Solving

Mason and Singh (2008) found a positive correlation between final exam score and the

number of problems with diagrams or scratchworks for each group. But they are unaware of

any previous studies showing a positive correlation between the final exam score and the

number of diagrams drawn when answering multiple-choice questions when there is no partial

credit for it. The correlation between number of diagrams drawn and the final exam score is

identical for quantitative and conceptual questions. The correlation between number of

diagram and amount of scratchworks drawn and the final exam score is stronger for the peer

reflection group than for the traditional group.

On multiple-choice questions where there was no partial credit, the peer-reflection

group drew more diagrams. The diagrams drawn by the peer-reflection group explain more of

the final exam performance (higher correlation). For group independent effect, there was a

positive correlation between how often students wrote scratchworks or drew diagrams &

students’ final exam scores. Students in both groups were also more likely to draw diagrams or

write scratchworks for quantitative problems than for conceptual problems. Chi et al. (2000)

suggest that students are likely to improve their approach to problem solving and learn

effectively from an intervention if two criteria are met: first, if the students compare artifacts,

e.g., an expert solution and their own solution, and realize that there are omissions in their
mental model; second, if the students receive guidance to understand why the expert solution

is better and how they can improve on their approaches.

Correlations Between Visualization and Reflection

Hines III and others (2008) analyzed the metacognitive and cognitive mathematical

problem solving skills and results showed somewhat low metacognitve prediction and

metacognitive evaluation skills. The students also showed lower performances on multi-

sentence word problems (simple linguistic sentences (L), contextual information (C), relevant

information selection (R), and mental visualization (V) than simple sentence computational

word problems (number system knowledge (K), number sense estimation (N) , symbol

operation (S), numerical information (NR), and procedural calculation (P). They concluded that

these students should receive needs-specific math instruction on multi-sentence word

problems and recommended from a metacognitive perspective, that teachers must also

develop the students’ ability to predict and reflect on chosen strategies for solving word

problems. Such intensive instruction could enhance students’ problem solving and overall

mathematical skills.

Visual-Schematic Representation and Relational Processing on Problem-solving

Several studies have compared how students learn from schematic versus realistic

representations of science diagrams (Butcher, 2006; Dwyer, 1968, 1969; Joseph & Dwyer, 1984)

and science simulations (Goldstone & Sakamoto, 2003; Goldstone & Son, 2005; Scheiter,

Gerjets, Huk, Imhof, &Kammerer, 2009). In addition, past research has compared learning from

different prob- lem representations, such as diagrams versus verbal descriptions of math and
physics problems (Larkin & Simon, 1987), electricity diagrams versus equations (Cheng, 2002),

graphics versus senten- tial representations of logical reasoning (Stenning, Cox, &Ober- lander,

1995), or grounded (e.g., story problems) versus symbolic (e.g., equations) representations of

algebra (Koedinger, Alibali, & Nathan, 2008; Koedinger& Nathan, 2004). In one study, 84% of

secondary math teachers reported believing that concrete representations can facilitate

learning significantly (Perry, Howard, & Tracey, 1999). The main thesis underlying this position

is that even if the instructional goal is to develop abstract knowledge in a domain, abstractions

can be most effectively learned through experience with perceptually rich, concrete knowledge

representations (Goldstone & Sakamoto, 2003). More specifically, realistic rendering of objects

within a representation may benefit students by making a problem more readily accessible in

long-term memory (DiFonzo, Hantula, & Bordia, 1998; Koedinger& Nathan, 2004).

Realistic diagrams depict a close correspondence between diagrams and the concrete

objects that they represent; therefore, realistic diagrams rely less on knowledge conventions

for their interpretations. According to this view, the usefulness of abstract diagrams is limited

because students must be able to understand and make use of abstract visual conventions to

correctly interpret the problem representation (Hegarty, Carpenter, & Just, 1991) while

relational processing makes it possible to represent the correct relations in a visual-schematic

representation.

Garlick et.al. (2011) conducted a study on attributional and relational processing in

pigeons. Six pigeons were trained using a matching-to-sample procedure where sample and

rewarded comparisons matched on both attributional (color) and relational (horizontal or

vertical orientation) dimensions. Probes then evaluated the pigeons’ preference to comparisons

that varied in these dimensions. A strong preference was found for the attribute of color. The

discrimination was not found to transfer to novel colors, however, suggesting that a general

color rule had not been learned. Further, when color could not be used to guide responding,

some influence of other attributional cues such as shape, but not relational cues, was found.

They conclude that pigeons based their performance on attributional properties of but not on

relational properties between elements in their matching-to-sample procedure. They

recommend that future studies should look at examining other attributes to compare

attributional versus relational processing.

Metacognition and Problem Solving

Metacognition is the active process of reflecting, explicitly, on one’s own cognitive

activity (Brown, 1978; Dunlosky& Metcalfe, 2009; Kluwe, 1982; Schoenfeld, 1987). While

problem-solving, this is manifested in monitoring one’s own progress, evaluating that progress,

and regulating future activity (Zimmerman &Campillo, 2003; Winne&Hadwin, 1998). It is also a

process which allows for the creation of new knowledge, as monitoring and evaluating can lead

one to notice important deficits in knowledge, leading one to address that deficit by taking

steps like consulting examples or self-explaining (Chi, 2000).

Several researchers offer evidence that metacognition is teachable (Cross & Paris, 1988;

Dignath et al., 2008; Haller etal., 1988; Hennessey, 1999; Kramarski&Mevarech, 2003). For

example, Cross and Paris (1988) describe an intervention targeted at improving the

metacognitive skills and reading comprehension of students in third and fifth grades. Children
were exposed to a curriculum designed to increase their awareness and use of effective reading

strategies. During instruction, students received strategy training that included explicit

attention to declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge about reading strategies.

Students in both grades made significant gains relative to comparison students with regard to

awareness about reading in three areas—evaluation of task difficulty and one’s own abilities,

planning to reach a goal, and monitoring progress towards the goal.

Researchers have recommended a number of specific instructional approaches to

teaching metacognition. For example, many researchers have noted the importance of

providing explicit instruction in both cognitive knowledge and cognitive regulation. Cross and

Paris (1988) recommended an explicit instruction in declarative, procedural, and conditional

knowledge. Similarly, Schraw et al. (2006) and Schraw (1998) urge educators to provide explicit

instruction in cognitive and metacognitive strategies. Further, Schraw emphasizes that such

strategy training needs to emphasize how to use strategies, when to use them, and why they

are beneficial.

Finally, Kramarski and Mevarech (2003) report the results of a study investigating the

effects of metacognitive training on the mathematical reasoning and metacognitive skills of

eighth-grade students. They found that students exposed to metacognitive instruction in either

cooperative or individualized learning environments outperformed comparison students with

respect to the ability to interpret graphs, fluency and flexibility of correct mathematical

explanations, use of logical arguments to support math reasoning, performance on transfer

tasks, and level of domain-specific metacognitive knowledge, such as strategies for

representing math concepts in multiple ways and specific mathematical strategies for

interpreting graphs.

Logical-Mathematical Reasoning and Prior Knowledge in Problem Solving

Some of the difficulty in reasoning is due to the abstract nature of the materials. When

children have to learn concepts and principles of different levels of abstraction and to use them

according to instructions, more errors are made on the more abstract problems (Long & Welch

1942; Welch & Long 1940). As objects of thought, to be retained and processed in immediate

memory despite interference from other objects of thought, classes are more difficult than

perceived objects, and implications of propositions are more elusive than perceived relations.

Serafino and colleagues (2003) tested the effects of prior knowledge and two

instructional models--structured problem solving and guided generation (GG)--on mathematical

problem solving and transfer to an analogous task. Data on students with high and low prior

knowledge highlighted significant main effects for prior knowledge, significant differences on

transfer to analogous tasks, significant between-group differences on favoring the GG model,

and significant interaction between low priors and GG treatment on transfer.

Based on the related literature being searched so far, teaching simultaneously with

concrete and abstract visual representation with explicit instruction and hands-on experiment

has not been tried yet as to its effect on metavisualization, metacognitive reflection, and

problem solving far transfer, and hence, this research. In addition, subvariables under

metavisualization: production of visual-schematic representation and relational processing will

be examined on its effect to logical problem solving transfer. Furthermore, subvariables under

metacognitive reflection: knowledge, experience and regulation will also be investigated

whether it enhances problem solving transfer skills. Other independent variables to be

examined that may affect logical problem solving far transfer are: logical-mathematical

reasoning and prior knowledge.

Conceptual Framework

Figure 2 shows the conceptual framework of the study. Causal relationships and

interrelatedness between variables and sub-variables are illustrated.

Instructional
Intervention

Metavisualization Metacognitive Reflection

Visual-Schematic Knowledge
Representation Experience
Relational Processing Regulation

Logic Problem Solving

Far Transfer

Figure 2. Conceptual Framework

 The intervention is a simultaneous concrete and abstract visual representation of

Boolean algebra with explicit instruction on how to interpret an abstract diagram supported by

hands-on experiment on its logic circuit equivalent. It is argued that the teaching approach has

a positive effect to students’ metavisual skills, metacognitive reflection, and logic problem

solving far transfer because of the combined cognitive advantages that concrete and abstract

visual representations offer (Moreno, Reisslein, &Ozogul, 2011) and that learning by doing

conditionalizes knowledge ( Kliebard, 1992).

Metavisualization is the use of metacognition in the processes of visualization (Gilbert,

2005). He asserts its prevalent role of metavisual skills in the learning of science. This research

tests its relevance to mathematics. It is hypothesized that this skill promotes better logic

problem solving (Boonen et al., 2011) and has a positive effect on students’ production of

visual-schematic representation and relational processing. In addition, production of visual-

schematic representation and relational processing are positively correlated to metacognitive

reflection.

Knowledge, experience, and regulation are the three main aspects of metacognitive

reflection. It is a crucial aspect of both problem solving and critical thinking (Wismath et al.,

2011). Mason and Singh (2008) found a stronger correlation between number of diagram and

amount of scratchworks drawn and the final exam score for the peer reflection group than for

the traditional group. It is predicted that metacognitive reflection has a positive effect on logic

problem solving transfer. It can foster problem solving in logic because of the monitoring,

evaluating and regulating of cognition and experience.

 According to Chi (2000) monitoring and evaluating can lead one to notice important

deficits in knowledge, leading one to address that deficit by taking steps like consulting

examples or self-explaining and thus creating new knowledge. While problem-solving,

metacognitive reflection is manifested in monitoring one’s own progress, evaluating that

progress, and regulating future activity (Zimmerman &Campillo, 2003; Winne&Hadwin, 1998).

In Figure 3, other variable that may affect problem solving far transfer is examined. It is

argued that students’ logical-mathematical reasoning and prior knowledge also affects logic

problem solving. Literature shows that logical-mathematical reasoning enhances word problem

solving performance and from the constructivist point of view, prior knowledge is needed for a

construction of new knowledge. It is hypothesized that this kind of reasoning positively affects

logic problem solving far transfer and prior knowledge relates closely to near transfer.

Logic Problem
Solving

Logical-mathematical Prior Knowledge

Reasoning

Figure 3. Another variable for problem solving performance

Finally, it is predicted that students who learn with combined hands-on and abstract

concrete visual representations with hands-on experiment will outperform their counterparts

on logic problem solving transfer.

Hypotheses

The research hypotheses of the study are:

1. The instructional intervention significantly affects students’ metavisualization,

metacognitive reflection, and logic problem-solving.

2. There is significant correlation between: metavisualization and logic problem solving;

metacognitive reflection and logic problem solving; and metavisualization and

metacognitive reflection.

3. Production of visual-schematic representation and relational processing significantly

affects logic problem solving transfer.

4. There is significant correlation between metavisualization and metacognitive reflection.

5. Knowledge, experience, and regulation significantly affects logic problem solving

transfer.

6. Logical-mathematical reasoning and prior knowledge significantly affects logic problem

solving transfer.

Definition of Terms

The following terms are defined as used in the study:

Concrete cover story – A situation or problem given wherein the elements are realistic

Abstract cover story – A situation or problem given wherein the elements are abstract

Concrete visual representations - Are those that illustrate the real-life objects corresponding to

a problem’s cover story

Concrete visual representation – A schematic diagram depiction with realistic symbols

Abstract visual representations - Are those that use conventional symbols to represent the
relevant elements of a problem’s cover story

Metavisualization – Use of metacognition in the process of visualization

Metacognitive-affective reflection – Reflection beyond cognition and feelings

Logic problem solving – Solving problems using propositional logic, Boolean algebra, and logic

circuit

Student performance – Score in the problem solving far transfer

Far transfer - Solution to problems with a different underlying structure than the training

problems or problem-solving with realistic objects in natural settings

Near transfer – Solution to problems with the same underlying structure but different surface

characteristics than the training problems

Engagement – The time spent in the hands-on experiment

Spatial ability – Skill that is good in graphic representation, visualization and imagination

Visual-schematic representation – A schematic diagram depiction or visual illustration

Relational process – An abstraction between mathematical expressions such as equality,

inequality or logic symbols

Logic circuit design – Making an electrical circuit using logic gates

 CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

A pretest-posttest control group research design will be used in this study wherein forty

college students are randomly selected from among those who will enrol in discrete

mathematics and logical structure course. Twenty students are assigned to the experimental

group while the other twenty are assigned to the comparison group. The experimental group

will be taught using the intervention and the comparison group will be taught using traditional

method. Before the treatment, all students are pretested; shortly after the treatment is over

the students are posttested. The dependent variable in the experiment is the mean gain score

between the pretest score and posttest score. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) will be used to

analyze the data with pretest score as the covariate. Figure 6 shows the research design

diagram.

Comparison Group Traditional Method

Pretest Posttest
Experimental Group Intervention or Treatment

Figure 4. The pretest-posttest research design

The Sample

Forty second year information and computer technology students from the three

different schools in Siquijor Province, namely: Siquijor State College (SSC), BaliteInstitue of
Technology (BIT), and Quezon Memorial Institute of Siquijor (QMIS) will be the subjects of this

research. The students will be selected randomly by a draw lots with their names written on a

small sheet of paper. The first name, third, fifth, and so on until thirty-nine will be on the

experimental group while the second, fourth, sixth, and so on until forty will be on the

comparison group.

SSC is located at Larena, Siquijor which is ten kilometres away from BIT and QMIS both

at Siquijor, Siquijor. SSC, BIT and QMIS are institutions of higher learning. SSC offers a four-year

BS in Information Technology while BIT and QMIS offers a two-year course in Computer

Technology.

The Instruments

All instruments except the metacognitive reflection questionnaire will be made by the

researcher. A pretest instrument (Appendix A) to assess prior knowledge is a two-type test: a 6-

item multiple-choice; and a 2-item Boolean expression simplification. At Appendix B is a 2-item

practice test questionnaire that asked for the construction of a truth table and the value of

Boolean expression using logic gates.

A 4-item posttest questionnaire composed of 2-item near transfer test (Appendix C) and

2-item far transfer test (Appendix D). A metavisualization questionnaire with 2 items that asked

for a representation of Boolean expression by logic gates is at Appendix E. A 26-item

questionnaire for metacognitive reflection is at Appendix F. A 5-point Likert scale is used. Table

1 presents the table of specifications for the researcher-made questionnaire. Every instruments

will be content-validated through logical analysis of the content by experts in research and by

an electronics and computer engineer. Pilot testing will be administered to the instructors and
students who had undergone Boolean algebra.

Table 2. Table of Specifications

Subject Instructional Objective Learning Outcome

Motor Declarative Procedural Strategic Total

Skills Knowledge Knowledge Knowledge Points
Pretest Recall concepts in Pencil-paper Pencil-paper 8
logic test: test:
Multiple Problem-
Construct a truth table Choice Solving
for the Boolean
expression (6 pts) (2 pts)
Practice Construct a truth table Pencil-paper Pencil-paper 16
for the Boolean test: test:
expression Problem- Problem-
Solving Solving
Determine the value
of Boolean expression
using logic gates
(8 pts) (8 pts)

Near Transfer Construct a truth table Pencil-paper Pencil-paper 16

for the Boolean test: test:
expression Problem- Problem-
Solving Solving
Determine the value
of Boolean expression
using logic gates
(8 pts) (8 pts)

Far Transfer Determine the value Pencil-paper Pencil-paper 16

of Boolean expression test: test:
using logic principles Problem- Problem-
Solving Solving
Represent the
Boolean expression
using logic gates
(8 pts) (8 pts)

Metavisualization Represent the Pencil-paper Pencil-paper 13

Boolean expression test: test:
using logic gates Problem- Problem-
Represent the Solving Solving
absorption law using (8 pts) (5 pts)
relations processing
Active-Metacognitive Multimodal Representation

This intervention employs explicit instruction strategy and learning by doing with

combined concrete and abstract visual representation in teaching logic and Boolean algebra. A

combinational logic circuit will be used as the task domain and test bed. To this end, the effects

of learning with both types of visual representations with experiment on students’ problem-

solving practice, transfer, metavisual representations, and reflective learning will be addressed.

Visual representations will be presented in the form of electrical circuit diagrams and

combinational logic gates. These will be implemented with live circuitry by the instructor and a

return demonstration by the students will follow immediately.

Figure 5 illustrates the sample lesson on how the Boolean expression x=a +bwill be

represented in: (a) electrical abstract diagram, (b) logic OR gates abstract symbol, (c) concrete

visual diagram. Figures (5a) and (5b) are the abstract visual representation and (5c) is the

concrete visual representation. Each letter in the Boolean expression represents logic concepts.

Letters a and b stands for the input variable with a value of either logic 1 or logic 0 but not

both. Letter x represents the output variable with a value of either logic 1 or logic 0 but not

both. The “+” sign stands for the logic OR, or disjunction in propositional calculus. A proposition

is a statement that is either True or False but not both. The three most common compound

propositions are: conjunction, disjunction, and negation. This has equivalent relations to logic

circuits. Conjunction is equivalent to logic AND, disjunction is logic OR, and negation is logic

INVERTER. Each type has its own truth value which can be depicted in a table called truth table

presented in Table 2. In this table, logic 1 represents True and logic 0, False.
 a
V x
b

(a) (b)

b
V

(c)

Figure 5. The multimodal representation of the Boolean expression, x=a +b

As seen in Table 2, notice that logic OR has an output of 1 whenever there is an input

value of 1, otherwise 0. However, logic AND has an output of 0 whenever there is an input

value of 0, otherwise 1. While, the logic INVERTER has an output which is always opposite to

the input.
 Both the experimental and comparison group will go through the lesson proper but in

the representation of Boolean expressions, the comparison group will not be provided with the

concrete visual diagram and will not be demonstrated by the instructor on circuit

implementation.

Table 2. The truth value for logic OR, AND, and INVERTER

Output Variable

Input Variable logic OR logic AND logic INVERTER

a b x=a +b y=a ∙b z=a

0 0 0 0 1

0 1 1 0 1

1 0 1 0 0

1 1 1 1 0

On the other hand, the experimental group will be demonstrated and they will be given

time to have a return demonstration. The demonstration will be the wiring of the concrete

visual diagram seen in Figure 5c following the values of the input variable in Table 1. In the

circuit, input 1 stands for switch ON and input 0, for switch OFF. At the output variable, 1 stands

for light is ON while 0, light is OFF. That is only for logic OR. Another hands-on will be done for

logic AND but this time the experimental group will be the one to make a concrete visual

diagram. Table 2 shows the comparison of sample lesson plans for experimental and

comparison groups.
 There will be three experimental studies to be conducted. In Experiment 1; the

traditional method, participants learned with abstract cover stories and abstract visual

representations (diagrams) of the problems (Comparison Group); and Experiment 2; the

intervention, participants learned with abstract and concrete cover stories and a combination

of abstract and concrete visual representations of the problems with hands-on (Experimental

Group). Experiment 3 will be identical and at the same time different to the first and second

study except that the type of diagrams that students spontaneously produced when solving

new problems after instruction will be examined.

The instructional conditions that will be tested in this study correspond to those found

in typical precollege and college instructional materials. Learning will be measured with a

paper-and-pencil near and far transfer test in which students will be asked to solve Boolean

expression simplification using three methods: (a) abstract visual representation using logic

gates; (b) truth table construction; and (c) Boolean algebraic manipulation applying the logic

principles learned. The first two methods will measure students’ near transfer while the third,

far transfer. The third method of simplification was not taught during the practice test to

ensure far transfer in problem solving.

Metavisualization will be assessed based on the combinational logic diagrams drawn

wherein visual-schematic representation and relational processing can be analyzed.

Metacognitive reflection will be given before the session, during problem solving and after the

transfer test with an open-ended question for qualitative analysis.

 Table 2. Sample lesson plan comparison

Topic Group Teaching Learning Teaching- Time

Strategy Activities Learning Alloted
Materials
Boolean Expression Comparison Chalk and Talk Listening Abstract Visual 20 min
Diagram
Simplification Group Question and Note-
Answer taking Abstract Cover
Story
Problem-
solving
practice
Experimental Chalk and Talk Listening Concrete and 40 min
Abstract Visual
Group Demonstration Note- Diagram
taking
Metacognitive Abstract Cover
Prompt Problem- Story
solving
practice Demonstration
Materials
Hands-on

The learning materials will include the following sections: (a) a demographic survey, (b)

a pretest, (c) a conceptual overview of propositional logic, Boolean algebra and combinational

logic circuit with a corresponding worked-out problem (as discussed above), (d) a problem-

solving practice session, and (e) a metacognitive questionnaire and interview in which students

will be asked to describe why they solve it that way.

The first section of the program will be a questionnaire in which students will be asked

to report their gender, age, and math grade to measure logical-mathematical ability. The
second section of the program will be a pretest aimed at assessing students’ prior knowledge in

the domain.

The third section of the program will include a lesson about the meanings of

propositional logic and its relationship to Boolean algebra, Boolean identities, combinational

logic gates to represent the propositional logic. Work-out example will follow showing how to

use Boolean identities to simplify or find the value of a Boolean expression, how to represent

such expression and how to construct a truth table. The worked example is a three problem-

solving steps: (a) construction of a truth table; (b) representing the Boolean expression by logic

gates; and (c) justifying the solution of the Boolean expression using Boolean identities.

The fourth section of the program will be a problem solving practice session. Two logic

circuit problems in which students will be asked to find the output of a combinational circuit by

applying the principles they had learned in the conceptual portion of the program.

The fifth session will be for metacognitive reflection assessment. An interview will be

conducted by the instructor regarding their justification to their solutions to problem solving. A

qualitative analysis will be done regarding their answers. After the interview, a reflection

questionnaire will also follow.

The transfer test will be identical in all conditions, and no time limit was imposed on the

participants.
Data Collection Procedure

A letter addressed to each dean of the three institutions asking permission to conduct

experiment to their students will be sought. Another letter of consent and arrangements

address to the teacher’s concerned asking permission to administer the instruments will also be

made. In addition, a letter informing the students about the purpose of the study and its

confidentiality will also be given.

Instruments will be administered by the researcher on June 2014 within a 3-month

period. A one-month experiment will be done per school such that each week will have one

topic covering all the four topics. Every start and end of the treatment, a researcher-made

instrument for pretest and posttest will be given respectively and data will be collected right

after and then analyzed. The instruments are at the Appendix section.

Data Analysis

The answers to the multiple-choice pretest will be recorded and scored by the

instructor. One point will be given for each correct answer given in the pretest, and one point

will be given for each correct solution step produced during the problem-solving practice

session. On the basis of these data, a total pretest and practice score will be computed by

adding the number of correct solutions produced in each task. The maximum score students

could attain in both the pretest and the practice session will be twenty four.
 To score the transfer test, we developed a scoring rubric in which students will be given

one point for correctly representing the Boolean expression, determining its value by logic

gates and by Boolean identities. Students will receive up to eight points for each one of the four

transfer problems, leading to a potential maximum transfer score of thirty two points; sixteen

points for near transfer and sixteen points for far transfer.

To score the metavisualization test, a coding rubric for scoring the quality of the circuit

diagrams produced by the participants during the transfer test. The rubric included a list of the

elements that encompass a complete representation of the logic circuit elements and variables

necessary to solve the logic problem. In particular, one point will be given for drawing each of

the following: a complete logic gates, a correct labelling of input and output variables, a correct

usage of logic gates and appropriate numerical values for the input and output. On the basis of

this rubric, the maximum diagram score that participants will achieve for the metavisualization

test is thirteen; eight for the production of visual-schematic representation and five for

relational processing.

For metacognitive reflection, a 26-item questionnaire will be given with a 5-point Likert

scale. In addition, an interview will be conducted regarding their justification to their solution in

problem solving far transfer and to validate their answer to the questionnaire.
Appendix A

Pretest Questionnaire

This questionnaire measures students’ prior knowledge in propositional logic and

Boolean algebra.

I. Multiple Choice: Encircle the letter of the correct answer.

1. What does 0 stands for in propositional logic?

a. True b. False c. Inverter d. Nothing

2. What does 1 stands for in propositional logic?

a. True b. False c. Inverter d. Nothing

3. What is the meaning of “+” sign in Boolean expression?

a. logic OR b. Logic AND c. Inverter d. Conjunction

4. What is the meaning of “∙” sign in Boolean expression?

a. logic OR b. Logic AND c. Inverter d. Conjunction

5. What is the truth value for the Boolean expression 1+0?

a. True b. False c. Either True or False d. Neither True Nor False

6. What is the truth value for the Boolean expression 1 ∙0 ?

a. True b. False c. Either True or False d. Neither True Nor False

II. Boolean Expression Simplification: Simplify the following Boolean expressions and

find its value by constructing a truth table.

1. y=x ¿)

2. z=ab+a 1
Appendix B

Practice Test Questionnaire

Direction: Show all your solutions on the vacant space provided.

1. Construct a truth table for the Boolean expression y=a ¿).

2. Find the value of the Boolean equation c= ( a+1 ) ( b+0 ) using logic gates.
Appendix C

Posttest Questionnaire

Directions: Show all your solutions on the space provided.

I. Near Transfer Test

3. Construct a truth table for the Boolean expression y=a ¿).

4. Find the value of the Boolean equation c= ( a 1 )+ ( b+0 ) using logic gates.
Appendix D

Posttest Questionnaire

II. Far Transfer Test

Direction: Justify each step of your solution.

1. Find the value of the absorption law x ¿) using the Boolean identities and

logic principles learned.

2. Represent the Boolean expression y=(a+ b)+ a b using logic gates.

Appendix E

MetaVisualization Questionnaire

This questionnaire measures the production of visual-schematic representation (item a),

and relational processing (item b).

Direction: Draw a schematic diagram or construct a truth table on the papers provided.

1. Represent the value of 1 ∙0+(0+1) using logic gates.

2. Represent the absorption law x (x + y) using logic gates.

Appendix F

Metacognitive Reflection Questionnaire (Cooper, Urena, & Stevens, 2008)

1. I read the statement of a problem carefully to fully understand it and determine what the
goal is.

2. When I do assigned problems, I try to learn more about the concepts so that I can apply this
knowledge to test problems.

3. I sort the information in the statement and determine what is relevant.

4. Once a result is obtained, I check to see that it agrees with what I expected.

5. I try to relate unfamiliar problems with previous situations or problems solved.

6. I try to determine the form in which the answer or product will be expressed.

7. If a problem involves several calculations, I make those calculations separately and check the
intermediate results.

8. I clearly identify the goal of a problem (the unknown variable to solve for or the concept to
be defined) before attempting a solution.

9. I consider what information needed might not be given in the statement of the problem.

10. I try to double-check everything: my understanding of the problem, calculations, units, etc.

11. I use graphic organizers (diagrams, flow-charts, etc) to better understand problems.

12. I experience moments of insight or creativity while solving problems.

13. I jot down things I know that might help me solve a problem, before attempting a solution.

14. I find important relations amongst the quantities, factors or concepts involved before trying
a solution.

15. I make sure that my solution actually answers the question.

16. I plan how to solve a problem before I actually start solving it (even if it is a brief mental
plan).

17. I reflect upon things I know that are relevant to a problem.

18. I analyze the steps of my plan and the appropriateness of each step.
19. I attempt to break down the problem to find the starting point.

20. I spend little time on problems for which I do not already have a set of solving rules or that I
have not been taught before.

21. When I solve problems, I omit thinking of concepts before attempting a solution.

22. Once I know how to solve a type of problem, I put no more time in understanding the
concepts involved.

23.I do not check that the answer makes sense.

24.If I do not know exactly how to solve a problem, I immediately try to guess the answer.

25.I start solving problems without having to read all the details of the statement.

26.I spend little time on problems I am not sure I can solve.

27.When practising, if a problem takes several attempts and I cannot get it right, I get someone
to do it for me and I try to memorize the procedure.
References

Alexander, C. K., &Sadiku, M. (2004). Fundamentals of electric circuits (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill. Retrieved from http://www.imarkswebs.com

Anderson, J. R. (1993). Problem solving and learning.American Psychol- ogist, 48, 35–44.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.48.1.35

Atkinson, R. K., Derry, S. J., Renkl, A., &Wortham, D. W. (2000). Learning from examples:
Instructional principles from the worked ex- amples research. Review of Educational Research,
70, 181–214. Retrieved from eric.ed.gov

Bassok, M., &Holyoak, K. J. (1989).Interdomain transfer between iso- morphic topics in algebra
and physics. Journal of Experimental Psy- chology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 153–
166. doi:10.1037/ 0278-7393.15.1.153

Be´trancourt, M., &Tversky, B. (2000). Effect of computer animation on users’ performance: A

review. Le Travail Humain, 63, 311–329. Retrieved from
www.tc.columbia.edu/academics/index.htm?facid=bt2158

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind,
experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved from
www.weteachwelearn.org/2010/05/

Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999).Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple
implications. In A. Iran-Nejad& P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in education (Vol. 24,
pp. 61–100). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Retrieved from
artstart2011.pbworks.com

Bransford, J. D., & Stein, B. S. (1984).The IDEAL problem solver. New York, NY: Freeman.
Retrieved from www.tc.umn.edu/

Brenner, M. E., Mayer, R. E., Moseley, B., Brar, T., Dura´n, R., Reed, B. S., & Webb, D. (1997).
Learning by understanding: The role of multiple representations in learning algebra. American
Educational Research Journal, 34, 663–689. Retrieved from www.education.ucsb.edu/Faculty-
Research/vitae/marybrenner.pdf

Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., Norby, M., &Ronning, R. (2004). Cognitive psychology and
instruction (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice- Hall. Retrieved from cehs15.unl.edu/

Butcher, R. K. (2006). Learning from text with diagrams: Promoting mental model development
and inference generation. Journal of Edu- cational Psychology, 98, 182–197. doi:10.1037/0022-
0663.98.1.182 Cheng, P. C. H. (2002). Electrifying diagrams for learning: Principles for complex
representational systems. Cognitive Science, 26, 685–736. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2606_1
Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981).Categorization andrepresentation of physics
problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152.
doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0502_2

Clements, D. H., &McMillen, S. (1996). Rethinking “concrete” manipu- latives.Teaching Children

Mathematics, 2, 270–279.

Colin, P., Chauvet, F., &Viennot, L. (2002). Reading images in optics: Students’ difficulties and
teachers’ views. International Journal of Sci- ence Education, 24, 313–
332.doi:10.1080/09500690110078923

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprentice- ship: Teaching the craft
of reading, writing and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction:
Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Collins, A., & Ferguson, W. (1993). Epistemic forms and epistemic games: Structures and
strategies to guide inquiry. Educational Psychologist, 28, 25–42.
doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2801_3

Day, R. S. (1988). Alternative representations. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning

and motivation (Vol. 22, pp. 261–305). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

DeLoache, J. S. (2000). Dual representation and young children’s use of scale models. Child
Development, 71, 329–338. doi:10.1111/1467- 8624.00148

DeLoache, J. S., &Marzolf, D. P. (1992).When a picture is not worth a thousand words: Young
children’s understanding of pictures and mod- els. Cognitive Development, 7, 317–329.
doi:10.1016/0885- 2014(92)90019-N

DiFonzo, N., Hantula, D. A., & Bordia, P. (1998).Microworlds for experimental research: Having
your (control and collections) cake and realism too. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments,
and Computers, 30, 278–286.

Donovan, M. S., &Bransford, J. D. (Eds.). (2005). How students learn: History, mathematics, and
science in the classroom. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Dwyer, F. M. (1968). The effectiveness of visual illustrations used to complement programmed

instruction. Journal of Psychology, 70, 157– 162.

Dwyer, F. M. (1969). The effect of varying the amount of realistic detail in visual illustrations
designed to complement programmed instruction.Programmed Learning, 6, 147–153.

Edens, K., & Potter, E. (2007). The relationship of drawing and mathematical problem solving:
Draw for Math tasks. Studies in Art Education, 48, 282–298.
Edens, K., & Potter, E. (2008). How students “unpack” the structure of a word problem: Graphic
representations and problem solving. School Science and Mathematics, 108, 184 –196.
doi:10.1111/j.1949- 8594.2008.tb17827.x

Elia, I., Gagatsis, A., &Demetriou, A. (2007).The effects of different modes of representation on
the solution of one-step additive problems. Learning and Instruction, 17, 658 – 672.
doi:10.1016/j.learnin- struc.2007.09.011

Ericsson, K. A., & Smith, J. (1991). Toward a general theory of expertise.Cambridge, MA:
Cambridge University Press.

Gianutsos, R. (1994). Driving advisement with the elemental driving simulator (EDS): When less
suffices.Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 26, 183–186.

Gick, M. L. (1986). Problem-solving strategies. Educational Psychologist, 21, 99–120.

doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2101&2_6

Glasgow, J. I., Narayanan, H., &Chandrasekaran, C. (Eds.).(1995). Diagrammatic reasoning.

Cambridge, MA: AAAI/MIT Press.

Gobert, J.D. (2007). Metavisualization: an important role in the learning of chemistry. Retrieved
from www.academia.edu/1598848

Goldstone, R. L., & Sakamoto, Y. (2003).The transfer of abstract princi- ples governing complex
adaptive systems. Cognitive Psychology, 46, 414–466. doi:10.1016/S0010-0285(02)00519-4

Goldstone, R. L., & Son, J. Y. (2005).The transfer of scientific principles using concrete and
idealized simulations.Journal of the Learning Sci- ences, 14,
69–110.doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1401_4

Grady, S. M. (1998). Virtual reality: Computers mimic the physical world.New York, NY: Facts on
File.

Hayes, J. R. (1988). The complete problem solver (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hegarty, M., Carpenter, P. A., & Just, M. A. (1991).Diagrams in the comprehension of scientific
texts. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading
research (Vol. 2, pp. 641–668). New York, NY: Longman.

Hegarty, M., &Kozhevnikov, M. (1999).Types of visual–spatial representations and

mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 684–689.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.4.684
Heim, M. (2000).Virtual realism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Irwin, D., &Nelms, M. R. (2005). Basic engineering circuit analysis (8th ed.). New York, NY:
Wiley.

Jordan, Miller, & Mercer (1998).The concrete-pictorial-abstract approach. Retrieved from

www.loganschools.org/mathframework/CPA.pdf

Joseph, J. H., & Dwyer, F. M. (1984).Effects of prior knowledge, presen- tation mode, and visual
realism on student achievement. Journal of Experimental Education, 52, 110–121.

Kirshner, D. (1989). The visual syntax of algebra. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 20, 274–287. doi:10.2307/749516

Knorr-Cetina, K. D., &Amann, K. (1990).Image dissection in natural scientific inquiry.Science,

Technology, and Human Values, 15, 259– 283.doi:10.1177/016224399001500301

Koedinger, K. R., &Aleven, V. (2007).Exploring the assistance dilemma in experiments with

cognitive tutors. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 239–264. doi:10.1007/s10648-007-9049-0

Koedinger, K. R., Alibali, M. W., & Nathan, M. J. (2008). Trade-offs between grounded and
abstract representations: Evidence from algebra problems. Cognitive Science, 32, 366–397.
doi:10.1080/03640210701863933

Koedinger, K. R., & Anderson, J. R. (1998).Illustrating principled design: The early evolution of a
cognitive tutor for algebra symbolization.

Interactive Learning Environments, 5, 161–179. doi:10.1080/ 1049482980050111

Koedinger, K. R., & Nathan, M. J. (2004). The real story behind story problems: Effects of
representations on quantitative reasoning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 129–164.
doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1302_1

Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and
social affordances for science understanding. Learn- ing and Instruction, 13, 205–226.
doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00021-X

Kozma, R., Chin, E., Russell, J., & Marx, N. (2000).The roles of repre- sentations and tools in the
chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry learning. Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 9, 105–143.doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0902_1

Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to
different representations of chemical phenom- ena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
34, 949–968. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199711)34:9 949::AID-TEA7 3.0.CO;2-U Larkin, J. H.,
& Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive
Science, 11, 65–100. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6708.1987.tb00863.x

Lynch, M. (1995). Laboratory space and the technological complex: An investigation of topical
contextures. In S. L. Star (Ed.), Ecologies of knowledge: Work and politics in science and
technology (pp. 226–256). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Lynch, M., &Woolgar, S. (Eds.). (1990). Representation in scientific practice. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.

Markman, A. B., &Gentner, D. (1993).Structural alignment during similarity

comparisons.Cognitive Psychology, 25, 431– 467.doi: 10.1006/cogp.1993.1011

Mayer, R. E., &Hegarty, M. (1996).The process of understanding math- ematical problems. In R.

J. Sternberg & T. Ben-Zeev (Eds.), The nature of mathematical thinking (pp. 29–53). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.

Meece, J. L. (2002). Child and adolescent development for educators (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.

Miller, P. (2002). Theories of developmental psychology (4th ed.). New York, NY: Worth.

Moreno, R., Reisslein, M., &Delgoda, G. M. (2006). Toward a fundamental understanding of

worked example instruction: Impact of means– ends practice, backward/forward fading, and
adaptivity. In A. Gates, M. Piket-May, & E. Eschenbach, (Eds.), Proceedings of IEEE/ASEE Fron-
tiers in Education Conference (pp. S3D-5–S3D-10). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.

Moreno, R., Reisslein, M., &Ozogul, G. (2009a). Optimizing worked- example instruction in
electrical engineering: The role of fading and feedback during problem-solving practice. Journal
of Engineering Ed- ucation, 98, 83–92.

Moreno, R., Reisslein, M., &Ozogul, G. (2009b). Pre-college electrical engineering instruction:
Do abstract or contextualized representations promote better learning? In R. A. Layton, M.
Mina, M., & D. Cordes (Eds.), Proceedings of IEEE/ASEE Frontiers in Education Conference

(pp. M4J-1–M4J-6). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.

Nathan, M. J. (1998). Knowledge and situational feedback in a learning environment for algebra
story problem solving. Interactive Learning Environments, 5, 135–159.
doi:10.1080/1049482980050110

Nathan, M. J., Kintsch, W., & Young, E. (1992).A theory of algebra word problem
comprehension and its implications for the design of computer learning environments.
Cognition and Instruction, 9, 329–389. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci0904_2
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972).Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Orsak, G. C., Wood, S. L., Douglas, S. C., Munson, D. C., Treichler, J. R., Jr., Athale, R., & Yoder,
M. A. (2004).Engineering our digital future. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Perry, B., Howard, P., & Tracey, D. (1999).Head mathematics teachers’ beliefs about the
learning and teaching of mathematics. Mathematics Education Journal, 11, 39–53.

Petre, M., & Green, T. R. G. (1993).Learning to read graphics: Some evidence that “seeing” an
information display is an acquired skill.

Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 4, 55–70. doi:10.1006/ jvlc.1993.1004

Renkl, A. (2005). The worked-out-example principle in multimedia learn- ing. In R. E. Mayer

(Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning

(pp. 229–245). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Renkl, A., & Atkinson, R. K.
(2003). Structuring the transition from

example study to problem solving in cognitive skills acquisition: A cognitive load perspective.
Educational Psychologist, 38, 15–22. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3801_3

Ritter, S., Anderson, J., Koedinger, K., & Corbett, A. (2007). Cognitive Tutor®: Applied research in
mathematics education. PsychonomicBul- letin and Review, 14, 249–255.

Rittle-Johnson, B., Siegler, S., &Alibali, M. (2001).Developing concep- tual understanding and
procedural skill in mathematics: An iterative process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93,
346–362. doi:10.1037/ 0022-0663.93.2.346

Roth, W., Bowen, J. M., &McGinn, M. K. (1999). Differences in graph- related practices between
high school biology textbooks and scientific ecology journals. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 36, 977– 1019.doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199911)36:9 977::AID-TEA3 3.0.CO;2-V

Schank, R. C. (1994). Goal-based scenarios: A radical look at education.

Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 429 – 453. doi:10.1207/ s15327809jls0304_5

Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., Huk, T., Imhof, B., &Kammerer, Y. (2009).The effects of realism in
learning with dynamic visualizations. Learning and Instruction, 19, 481–494.
doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.08.001

Sharp, J., & Adams, B. (2002).Children’s constructions of knowledge for fraction division after
solving realistic problems. Journal of Educational Research, 95, 333–347.
doi:10.1080/00220670209596608
Simon, H. A., & Hayes, J. R. (1976). The understanding process: Problem isomorphs. Cognitive
Psychology, 8, 165–190. doi:10.1016/0010- 0285(76)90022-0

Sloutsky, V. M., Kaminski, J. A., & Heckler, A. F. (2005).The advantage of simple symbols for
learning and transfer.Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12, 508–513.

Sousa, D. (2007). How the brain learns from mathematics. Corwin Press. Retrieved from
http://www.loganschools.org/mathframework/CPA.pdf

Stenning, K., Cox, R., &Oberlander, J. (1995).Contrasting the cognitive effects of graphical and
sentential logic teaching: Reasoning, represen- tation and individual differences. Language and
Cognitive Processes, 10, 333–354. doi:10.1080/01690969508407099

Tulving, E., & Osler, S. (1968). Effectiveness of retrieval cues in memory for words. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 77, 593–601. doi: 10.1037/h0026069

Uttal, D. H., Liu, L. L., &DeLoache, J. S. (1999). Taking a hard look atconcreteness: Do concrete
objects help young children learn symbolic relations? In C. S. Tamis-LeMonda (Ed.), Child
psychology: A hand- book of contemporary issues (pp. 177–192). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology
Press.

vanGarderen, D., & Montague, M. (2003). Visual–spatial representation, mathematical problem

solving, and students of varying abilities. Learn- ing Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 246–
254. doi:10.1111/1540- 5826.00079

Witzel, B., Mercer, D., & Miller, F. (2003). Metacognition: student reflection on Problem Solving.
Retrieved from swift.auburn.wednet.edu/

Zhang, J. (1997). The nature of external representations in problem solv- ing. Cognitive Science,
21, 179–217. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2102_3