Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

The accessing of geometry schemas by high school students

  • 113 Accesses

  • 3 Citations

Abstract

In this study I examine the question, what is the nature of prior mathematical knowledge that facilitates the construction of useful problem representations in the domain of geometry? The quality of prior knowledge is analysed in terms ofschemas that provide a measure of the degree of organisation of prior knowledge. Problem-solving performance and schema activation of a group of high- and low-achieving students were compared. As expected, the high achievers produced more correct answers than the low achievers. More significantly, schema comparison indicated that the high achievers accessed more problem-relevant schemas than the low achievers. In a related task which focused on the problem diagram, both groups accessed almost equal numbers of geometry schemas. The results are interpreted as suggesting that high achievers build schemas that are qualitatively more sophisticated than low achievers which in turn helps them construct representations that are conducive to understanding the structure of geometry problems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Alexander, P., & Judy, J. (1988). The interaction of domain-specific and strategic knowledge in academic performance.Review of Educational Research, 58, 375–404.

  2. Anderson, J. R. (1983).The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  3. Anderson, J. R. (1995).Cognitive psychology and its implications (4th ed.). New York, NY: Freeman.

  4. Bassock, M. (1990). Transfer of domain-specific problem-solving procedures.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 16, 522–533.

  5. Chi, M. T. H. (1985). Interactive roles of knowledge and strategies in the development of organised sorting and recall. In S. F. Chipman, J. W. Segal, & R. Glaser (Eds.),Thinking and learning skills: Research and open questions (pp. 457–483). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  6. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices.Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152.

  7. Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 1, pp. 7–76). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  8. Chinnappan, M. (in press). Schema and mental models in geometry problem solving.Educational Studies in Mathematics.

  9. Chinnappan, M., & Lawson, M. (1996). The effects of training in use of executive strategies in geometry problem solving.Learning and Instruction, 6, 1–17.

  10. Cooper, G., & Sweller, J. (1987). Effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on mathematical problem-solving transfer.Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 347–362.

  11. English, L. (1997). The development of fifth-grade children’s problem-posing abilities.Educational Studies in Mathematics, 34, 183–217.

  12. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1984).Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  13. Frederiksen, N. (1984). Implications of cognitive theory for instruction in problem solving.Review of Educational Research, 54, 363–407.

  14. Glaser, R. (1984). Education and thinking: The role of knowledge.American Psychologist, 39, 93–104.

  15. Hayes, J. R., & Simon, H. A. (1977). Psychological differences among problem isomorphs. In N. J. Castellan, D. B. Pisoni & G. R. Potts (Eds.),Cognitive theory (Vol. 2, pp. 21–42). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  16. International Commission on Mathematical Instruction (1995). Perspectives on the teaching of geometry for the 21st century.Educational Studies in Mathematics, 28, 91–98.

  17. Lawson, M. J. (1991). Testing for transfer following strategy training. In G. Evans (Ed.),Learning and teaching cognitive skills (pp. 208–228). Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

  18. Marshall, S. P. (1995).Schemas in problem solving. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

  19. Mayer, R. E. (1992). The psychology of mathematical problem solving. In F. K. Lester & J. Garofalo (Eds.),Mathematical problem solving: Issues in research (pp. 1–13). Philadelphia, PA: The Franklin Institute Press.

  20. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989).Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

  21. Newell, A. (1990)Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

  22. Nesher, P., & Hershkovitz, S. (1994). The role of schemes in two-step problems: Analysis and research findings.Educational Studies in Mathematics, 26, 1–23.

  23. Owen, E., & Sweller, J. (1985). What do students learn while solving mathematics problems?Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 272–284.

  24. Owen, E., & Sweller, J. (1989). Should problem solving be used as a learning device in mathematics?Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 322–328.

  25. Prawat, R. (1989). Promoting access to knowledge, strategy and disposition in students.Review of Educational Research, 59, 1–42.

  26. Pressley, M. (1986). The relevance of the Good Strategy User model to the teaching of mathematics.Educational Psychologist, 21, 139–161.

  27. Rumelhart, D., & Ortony, A. (1977). The representation of knowledge in memory. In R. Anderson, R. Spiro & W. Montague (Eds.),Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge (pp. 99–135). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  28. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1987). On having and using geometric knowledge. In J. Hiebert (Ed.),Conceptual and procedural knowledge (pp 225–264). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  29. Sweller, J. (1992). Cognitive theories and their implications for mathematics instruction. In G. C. Leder (Ed.),Assessment and learning of mathematics (pp. 46–62). Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

  30. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design.Learning and Instruction, 4, 295–312.

  31. Winne, P. H. (1997). Experimenting to bootstrap self-regulated learning.Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 397–410.

Download references

Author information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chinnappan, M. The accessing of geometry schemas by high school students. Math Ed Res J 10, 27–45 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217341

Download citation

Keywords

  • Content Knowledge
  • Mathematical Knowledge
  • High Achiever
  • Target Problem
  • Geometric Knowledge