Abstract
The current paper explores the effects of providing people with schema training at the outset of learning (compared to at later stages) on mathematical word problems modeled after problems from the Graduate Record Examination. Additionally, the ratio of worked examples to problem-solving practice was manipulated. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions and were tested on near and far transfer problems. Participants provided schema training at the outset of learning outperformed those provided schema training after problem-solving practice, particularly on far transfer problems. Likewise, participants provided with a higher ratio of worked examples to problem-solving practice demonstrated better performance during testing than those provided with more problem-solving practice and fewer worked examples. These findings extend the worked example effect to far transfer problems and suggest that providing schema training prior to learning solution strategies may be effective in improving mathematical problem solving.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The pattern of results did not change if this covariate was excluded.
References
Balota, D. A., & Neely, J. H. (1980). Test-expectancy and word-frequency effects in recall and recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 576–587. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.6.5.576.
Brenner, M., Mayer, R., Moseley, B., Brar, T., Durán, R., Reed, B., et al. (1997). Learning by understanding: The role of multiple representations in learning algebra. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 663–689. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312034004663.
Chechile, R., & Soraci, S. (1999). Evidence for a multiple-process account of the generation effect. Memory, 7, 483–508. https://doi.org/10.1080/741944921.
Cooper, G., & Sweller, J. (1987). Effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on mathematical problem-solving transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 347–362. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.79.4.347.
Corral, D., & Jones, M. (2014). The effects of relational structure on analogical learning. Cognition, 132, 280–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.04.007.
Doumas, L. A. A., Hummel, J. E., & Sandhofer, C. M. (2008). A theory of the discovery and predication of relational concepts. Psychological Review, 115, 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.115.1.1.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.41.10.1040.
Educational Testing Service (1996). GRE: Practicing to take the general test: Big book. New Jersey: Educational Testing Service.
Educational Testing Service (2001). GRE: Practicing to take the GRE general test 10th ed. New Jersey: Educational Testing Service.
Educational Testing Service (2010). The Official Guide to the GRE Revised General Test. New Jersey: Educational Testing Service.
Ericsson, K. A., Chase, W., & Faloon, S. (1980). Acquisition of a memory skill. Science, 208, 1181–1182. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7375930.
Evans, J. (1999). Building bridges: Reflections on the problem of transfer of learning in mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 39, 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1003755611058.
Fyfe, E. R., DeCaro, M. S., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2014). An alternative time for telling: When conceptual instruction prior to problem solving improves mathematical knowledge. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 502–519. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12035.
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155–170. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0702_3.
Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(83)90002-6.
Healy, A. F., Wohldmann, E. L., Sutton, E. M., & Bourne, L. E. Jr. (2006). Specificity effects in training and transfer of speeded responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 534–546. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.32.3.534.
Holyoak, K. J., & Koh, K. (1987). Surface and structural similarity in analogical transfer. Memory and Cognition, 15, 332–340. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03197035.
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., Tuovinen, J., & Sweller, J. (2001). When problem solving is superior to studying worked examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 579–588. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.93.3.579.
Keating, D. P., & Crane, L. L. (1990). Domain-general and domain-specific processes in proportional reasoning: A commentary on the merrill-palmer quarterly special issue on cognitive development. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 36, 411–424.
Keppel, G., & Underwood, B. J. (1962). Proactive inhibition in short-term retention of single items. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 1, 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5371(62)80023-1.
Lewandowsky, S., Kalish, M., & Griffiths, T. L. (2000). Competing strategies in categorization: expediency and resistance to knowledge restructuring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 1666–1684. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.26.6.1666.
Lewandowsky, S., Kalish, M., & Ngang, S. K. (2002). Simplified learning in complex situations: Knowledge partitioning in function learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 163–193. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-3445.131.2.163.
Lewandowsky, S., & Kirsner, K. (2000). Knowledge partitioning: Context-dependent use of expertise. Memory and Cognition, 28, 295–305. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03213807.
Lewis, A., & Mayer, R. (1987). Students’ miscomprehension of relational statements in arithmetic word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 363–371. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.79.4.363.
Mayer, R. (1974). Acquisition processes and resilience under varying testing conditions for structurally different problem-solving procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 644–656. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037482.
Mayer, R. (1975). Information processing variables in learning to solve problems. Review of Educational Research, 45, 525–541. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543045004525.
Mayer, R. (1976a). Integration of information during problem solving due to a meaningful context of learning. Memory and Cognition, 4, 603–608. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03213224.
Mayer, R. (1976b). Comprehension as affected by structure of problem representation. Memory and Cognition, 4, 249–255. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03213171.
Mayer, R. (1982a). Memory for algebra story problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 199–216. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.74.2.199.
Mayer, R. (1982b). Different problem-solving strategies for algebra word and equation problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 8, 448–462. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.8.5.448.
Mayer, R. (1998). Cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational aspects of problem solving. Instructional Science, 26, 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1003088013286.
Mayer, R., & Greeno, J. (1975). Effects of meaningfulness and organization on problem solving and computability judgments. Memory and Cognition, 3, 356–362. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03212924.
Melby-Lervåg, M., & Hulme, C. (2013). Is working memory training effective? A meta-analytic review. Developmental Psychology, 49, 270–291. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028228.
Novick, L. R. (1988). Analogical transfer, problem similarity, and expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 510–520. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.14.3.510.
Penn, D. C., Holyoak, K. J., & Povinelli, D. J. (2008). Darwin’s mistake: Explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31, 109–178. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x08003543.
Quilici, J., & Mayer, R. (2002). Teaching students to recognize structural similarities between statistics word problems. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 325–342. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.796.
Rebello, S., & Cui, L. (2008). Retention and transfer of learning from math to physics to engineering. Paper presented at 2008 Annual Conference and Exposition, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Reed, S. (1989). Constraints on the abstraction of solutions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 532–540. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.81.4.532.
Rittle-Johnson, B. (2006). Promoting transfer: Effects of self-explanation and direct instruction. Child Development, 77, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00852.x.
Rittle-Johnson, B., & Alibali, M. W. (1999). Conceptual and procedural knowledge of mathematics: Does one lead to the other? Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 175–189. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.91.1.175.
Rittle-Johnson, B., Siegler, R. S., & Alibali, M. W. (2001). Developing conceptual understanding and procedural skill in mathematics: An iterative process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 346–362. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.93.2.346.
Rittle-Johnson, B., Star, J., & Durkin, K. (2009). The importance of prior knowledge when comparing examples: Influences on conceptual and procedural knowledge of equation solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 836–852. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016026.
Simon, R. (1970). Encoding effects on complex problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 83, 227–231. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028574.
Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1997). Understanding and improving classroom mathematics instruction: an overview of the TIMSS video study. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 14–21.
Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (2009). Closing the teaching gap. Phi Delta Kappan, 91, 32–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170909100307.
Sweller, J., & Cooper, G. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 59–89. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0201_3.
Sweller, J., Mawer, R., & Ward, M. (1983). Development of expertise in mathematical problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 112, 639–661. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-3445.112.4.639.
Sweller, J., & Sweller, S. (2006). Natural information processing systems. Evolutionary Psychology, 4, 4434–4458. https://doi.org/10.1177/147470490600400135.
Tomlinson, T. D., Huber, D. E., Rieth, C. A., & Davelaar, E. J. (2009). An interference account of cue-independent forgetting in the no-think paradigm. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106, 15588–15593. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0813370106.
Tuovinen, J., & Sweller, J. (1999). A comparison of cognitive load associated with discovery learning and worked examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 334–341. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.91.2.334.
Ward, M., & Sweller, J. (1990). Structuring effective worked examples. Cognition and Instruction, 7, 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0701_1.
Weaver, C., & Kintsch, W. (1992). Enhancing students’ comprehension of the conceptual structure of algebra word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 419–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.419.
Yamauchi, T., & Markman, A. B. (2000). Inference using categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 26. 776–795. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.26.3.776.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical standards
This study was approved by the institutional review board at California State University Northridge and all participants provided their informed consent prior to participating in this study.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix A
Sample of work-ratio test problems
Near transfer
Cassie is able to write 20 book pages in 6 h; while Amber can write 20 book pages in 7 h. How long would it take both Cassie and Amber working together to write 20 book pages?
-
a.
\(\frac{42}{13 }\)of an hour
-
b.
\(\frac{50}{10}\)of an hour
-
c.
\(\frac{65}{9}\)of an hour
-
d.
\(\frac{72}{8}\)of an hour
-
e.
\(\frac{77}{12}\)of an hour
Far transfer
A pool filter is able to filter out \(\frac{5}{6}\) of the pool’s water in 2 h. How long, in minutes will it take the pool filter to filter all of the water in the pool?
-
a)
125 min
-
b)
133 min
-
c)
138 min
-
d)
144 min
-
e)
152 min
Sample of distance-ratio test problems
Near transfer
Brian runs from Academy High School to the local library at an average speed of 15 mph. Tina walks from Academy High school to the local library at an average speed of 3 mph. It takes Brian 3 min to arrive at the library. How long does it take Tina to arrive at the library?
-
a)
10 min
-
b)
11 min
-
c)
13 min
-
d)
14 min
-
e)
15 min
Far transfer
During the first 2 h of a marathon, Madelyn is running at 9 mph. She runs at 6 mph for the remaining 24 miles of the race. What was Madelyn’s average speed for the entire marathon?
-
a)
6.5 mph
-
b)
7 mph
-
c)
7.5 mph
-
d)
8 mph
-
e)
8.5 mph
Sample of percent test problems
Near transfer
At noon, the stock for Arlene’s company decreased from $40 to $25 a share. At the close of the market, the stock had increased to $45 a share, by what percent (from $25) did the stock increase?
-
a)
75%
-
b)
80%
-
c)
84%
-
d)
88%
-
e)
90%
Far transfer
Earlier in the month, a leather jacket was on sale at a department store’s outlet center and was priced at $70. Today the leather jacket was moved from the outlet center to the actual department store, where the price on the leather jacket increased by 80%. What price was the leather jacket increased to?
-
a)
$105
-
b)
$117
-
c)
$126
-
d)
$131
-
e)
$137
Appendix B
Example of schema training materials
Sample description of a problem type
Work rate problems
Work rate problems typically ask us to figure out how much work will get done in a specified amount of time if we combine the work rates at which two or more rates are operating at. For example:
Bob takes 5 h to make an X number of car parts, while it takes Sam 3 h to make the same number of car parts. How long would it take both Bob and Sam to complete this job if they worked together?
Sample categorization question
Please select the correct problem-type below:
James and Brandon are both race car drivers. James drives at an average of 135 mph, while Brandon drives at average of 180 mph. It takes James 4 min to complete a lap around their current race course, how long does it take Brandon to complete a lap in the same lap course?
-
Distance rate problem
-
Work rate problem
-
Percent problem
-
None of the above
Example problem including problem states and goals
Work rate problems
Bob takes 6 h to make an X number of car parts, while it takes Sam 3 h to make the same number of car parts. How long would it take both Bob and Sam to complete this job an X number of parts if they worked together?
Current State (known information): it takes Bob 6 h to produce an X number of car parts and Sam 3 h to produce an X number of car parts.
Problem Goal (what we’re asked for/unknown information): how long it would take Bob and Sam working together to produce an X number of identical car parts.
Example problem state and goal exercise
James and Brandon are both race car drivers. James drives at an average of 135 mph, while Brandon drives at an average of 180 mph. It takes James 4 min to complete a lap around their current race course, how long does it take Brandon to complete a lap in the same lap course?
Problem type:
Current state:
Goals:
Appendix C
Sample worked example
Work rate problems
Bob takes 6 h to make an X number of car parts, while it takes Sam 3 h to make the same number of car parts. How long would it take both Bob and Sam to complete this job if they worked together?
Solution
It takes Bob 6 h to complete an X number of car parts. Thus, Bob can do \(\frac{1}{6}\) of the job in 1 h → \(\frac{1}{6}\) + \(\frac{1}{6}\) + \(\frac{1}{6}\) + \(\frac{1}{6}\) + \(\frac{1}{6}\) + \(\frac{1}{6}\) = \(\frac{6}{6}\) = Xcar parts. While Sam can do \(\frac{1}{3}\) of the job in 1 h.
→ \(\frac{1}{3}\) + \(\frac{1}{3}\) + \(\frac{1}{3}\) = \(\frac{3}{3}\) = X car parts. Next, allow x to stand for the total number of hours it would take Bob and Sam to work together to complete X car parts. Bob and Sam can complete \(\frac{1}{x}\) of the car parts in 1 h. Note: it is necessary to take the proportion of car parts that can be completed in 1 h and then add them together. Equation: →
Note
x represents the amount of time it takes both A and B to complete the job working together.
\(\frac{1}{6}+\frac{1}{3}= \frac{1}{x}\)→ \(\frac{1}{6}+\frac{2}{6}=\frac{1}{x}\)→ \(\frac{3}{6}=\frac{1}{x}\) → x = \(\frac{6}{3}\) = 2. Thus, working together, it takes Bob and Sam 2 h to complete X parts.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Corral, D., Quilici, J.L. & Rutchick, A.M. The effects of early schema acquisition on mathematical problem solving. Psychological Research 84, 1495–1506 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01164-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01164-8