Running head: THREE-DIMENSIONAL PROBLEM-SOLVING

THREE-DIMENSIONAL PROBLEM-SOLVING INDEPENDENT EXPLORATION EDCI 53400 CYNTHIA DAVIES PURDUE UNIVERSITY APRIL 2, 2013

Abstract

This research is based on that done by Battista and Clements (1996) evaluating 3rd and 5 grade students understanding of three-dimensional figures. This current study expands the student group to 1st to 7th grade in a small private school with unusually small class sizes and relatively high ability students. Topics investigated include changes in student thinking strategies related to problem difficulty and whether there is evidence of developmental change from grade level to grade level.
th

Three Dimensional Problem Solving Independent Exploration

Three dimensional figures are difficult for many students to evaluate and understand. The fact that they are, of necessity, represented as two-dimensional figures exacerbates the difficulty. Earlier research by Battista and Clements (1996) evaluated groups of 3rd grade and 5th grade students assessing their understanding of five three dimensional figures given twodimensional horizontally viewed diagrams, three of which had physical models for students to handle. This research utilizes the same task as was given the students in the Battista-Clements research, but is expanded to include grades 1 to 7. The import of this study is to examine the student strategies as the difficulty increases and to determine whether there is a developmental aspect to understanding three-dimensional figures. The original Battista (1996) research consisted of five problems in three-dimensional figures. The first two were designated as 1a and 1b as they were the same type of figure, but with different dimensions. The student task labeled 1a consisted of a building of linking cubes, 2 x 4 x 2, while the task labeled 1b was a similar building with dimensions 4 x 4 x 3 (see Appendix A). The students were given an individual cube to identify the basic unit of construction, a physical model of each of these buildings and horizontally represented diagrams of each. In the original research the thinking processes of the students were identified and broken down into specific strategies (see Appendix). The A strategies were the three various ways the students conceptualized the building as a rectangular array of layers of cubes. They could be multiplied by layers (A1), added or skip-counted (A2) or counted individually (A3), but showed evidence and understood the building consisted of layers that were being multiplied (or added, or skip-counted). The B strategies involved an understanding of the cubes filling the space but did not correctly enumerate the number of cubes or used a less organized or structured process of grouping. Category C strategies resulted when students organized cubes by their faces

rather than the amount of space filled. These strategies are described in the Student Task in the appendix. Generally, A and B strategies exemplified student understanding of the threedimensionality of the figure given and the calculation of the volume. The B strategies involved error but showed evidence of the three dimensional thinking process. Category C strategies were designated when the student focused on visible faces, rather than the space filling internal structure, and strategies D and E were misunderstandings of L x W x H and expressing an inability to solve the figure, respectively. The students evaluated for the current research were those attending Coram Deo Academy, a private, Christian classical K-12 school located in an affluent suburb of Indianapolis, IN. The class sizes are very small as represented in the results tables, with the largest class being the 1st and 7th, each with 10 students, and the other classes ranging between 4 and 10. The students are generally from affluent families of which 92% of parents have college degrees and some 30% holding a graduate degree. The individual teachers have noted the high ability level of some of their classes, specifically the 1st, 5th and 6th grades. The table of results for the 1st grade are shown in the following table: Number of Students Using Each Strategy by Grade Level -- 1st Grade Strategy 1a 1b Student Task 2 3 4

A1 A2 A3 A Total B1 B2 4 4 2 3 2 3 1 4 40% 1 1 10% 1 10% 1 1 1 10% 0

B3 B4 B Total C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C Total D Total E Total 3 30% 2 20% 1 1 2 5 50% 4 40% 2 1 3 4 40% 4 40% 2 20% 1

4 40%

2 20% 5

2 1 1 1 5 50% 7 70% 1 1

1 10%

The fact that 80% of the 1st grade students conceptualized the initial task ( a 2 x 4 x 2 building) as space-filling was surprising and corroborated their teachers evaluation of the high ability of the class. Only two of the ten students did not attempt solutions by layers or grouping. The four students who calculated erroneously had trouble because several attempted the operation of skipcounting or multiplying when they had not mastered the skill! This was more obvious in the 1b building that had 48 cubes (4 x 4 x 3) where several had not yet become proficient in double digit addition. The fact that some could was pretty impressive! One student had the correct result, and four others were close, having trouble with 32 + 16 or 16 x 3. Even in this larger structure, 50% were able to identify the layering system, with one student getting the correct result of 48. The other 50% relied on the visible faces of the structure and miscounted. One important result was that two of the 1st grade students who could identify the layered structure of

the first building, switched their strategy of organization in the larger building to the less organized C strategy, relying on visible faces, than the 3-dimensional structure. This tendency to digress to a less organized strategy when confronted with a more challenging structure was noticeable at all grade levels. Consider the results for the 2nd grade:

Number of Students Using Each Strategy by Grade Level -- 2nd Grade Strategy 1a 1b Student Task 2 3 4

A1 A2 A3 A Total B1 B2 B3 B4 B Total C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C Total D Total

2 2 2

1 1 1

4 100%

2 50%

3 75%

2 1

1 25%

3 75%

1 25% 3

1 1 25%

1 1 25% 3 75%

E Total

1 25%

Though all the students could correctly identify 1a, in 1b, a larger more complicated structure, only half could. Another student used a B space filling strategy, but one switched to a C strategy. In task 2, which was even more complicated, none of the students could identify the number of cubes in the structure, though three students used a layering strategy to reason, with one stating they didnt know. Task 3 was essentially the same as Task 1b, recognized by all of the students, including one student who changed from a B strategy to an A strategy the second time. The last task, # 4, proved the most difficult as the building was represented in a horizontal representation along with orthogonal views of the front, the right side and the top. Organizing these views into one cohesive structure proved a challenge for students at every level. As evident in the table above, only one 2nd grade student could even visualize this in a layering context, while 75% moved to working with visible faces. Other grade levels showed a similar digression. The exception to this generalization was the sixth grade class, in which only one student resorted to the C strategy in task 2 and 4. This class was identified by their teacher as a very talented class, and three of the students are involved in an extra-curricular math team. Looking at the data as presented would seem to give some evidence to the idea that understanding three dimensional figures has a developmental component. While the 1st grade could not all correctly identify figure 1a, the 2nd grade and older could, except one fourth grade student who made a calculation error. The table for the results of all student strategies for task 1b would seem to support developmental processes, but task 2 and task 4 do not follow the same progression.

Student Task 2 A Strategy: Comparison by Grade Level % 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10% 0% 0% 25% 67% 60% 83% 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th

In the table above for task 2, which was a harder task as it had only a partially filled in box for the students to finish filling in the number of cubes, the percentage of successful type A strategies increases for 4th, 5th and 6th, but then decreases for 7th. The small class sizes interviewed for this study in the 2nd through 6th grades, combined with the anecdotal evidence of high ability by their teachers would disqualify this data as not representative of all students. The 7th grade, though still small at ten students does have a wider diversity in ability than the 6th grade, but is composed primarily of students of average ability or higher. This research seems to indicate a common tendency among students to resort to a less effective strategy of evaluating three dimensional structures when confronted with a more complicated two-dimensional representation. Task 2 which showed only one column of blocks for each dimension (height, width and length), was more difficult for students, and those switching to a type C strategy (using the visible faces rather than 3 dimensional layering)

increased. Though the length, width and length were each represented by a line of cubes, many students did not use these to find the volume. Thus when attempting to fill in the box with cubes, they did not fill in the blank parts of the box. Students could fill in the boxes on the left, back and floor by counting, but not the missing space above the floor. They did not recognize the generalization that the volume of rectangular solids was the product of length, width and height. The most difficult task for most students was task 4 with orthogonal representations of the three dimensional figure. More students relied on C type strategies on this task than with the other tasks. However, some students did recognize the invariant characteristic of volume being the product of length, width and height, and quickly gave the total number of cubes by multiplying these for each of the tasks. Another problem in this last task was recognizing the relationships in the orthogonal representations of the sides. Many students could not organize the three sides together and understand that one block would incorporate more than one view. One or two students recognized this as they were being interviewed, and corrected their answers. In conclusion, despite the small class sizes and the fact that this group of students was not representative of students as a whole, the research did verify that students, even those with relatively high abilities, often resort to less strategic means to evaluate three-dimensional figures as they increase in difficulty. Students who recognized invariants, such as volume as the product of the three dimensions, were more successful, as were students who recognized the relationships between the different orthogonal views and the figure given. However, when confronted with a more challenging assignment, those who could generalize these geometric relationships were the most successful, incorporating all orthogonal views into one correct evaluation of the given figure.

10

The small class sizes and lack of diversity in ability levels of this study would preclude making any assumptions regarding developmental characteristics in understanding threedimensional figures. Though there is much literature that purports that the visual spatial ability necessary in three dimensional problem solving is not developmental, a larger sample with a broader base of ability levels would be a better means to study this than this current study provides.

References Battista, M. T., Clements, D. H. (1996), Students understanding of three-dimensional rectangular arrays of cubes. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(3), 258-292. Ben-Chaim, D., Lappan, G, and Houang R. T., (1985). Visualizing rectangular solids made of small cubes: analyzing and effecting students performance. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 16(4), 389-409.

investigating Three Dimensional Figures

12

Independent Exploration -- Student Task

1.

a. This is a picture of a unit cube. How many unit cubes will it take to make the building below. The building is completely filled in with unit cubes, there are no empty spaces.

14

b. [Show a multi-link cube] This is a cube, and this is how it is drawn. [point to the drawing at the right]. How many cubes does it take to make the building below? It is completely filled with cubes, with no empty spaces inside.
1.

16

2.

If you completely fill the box below with cubes [ point to the outer box], how many cubes will be in the box?

3. [Show a multilink cube building that is four by four on

the bottom and three high. Place it in an open box, with one face untaped, with one face untaped.] These cubes completely fill the paper box. How many cubes are there? [Take the cube building out of the box. Students can touch the cubes of the box, but can take neither apart.]

18

4. Suppose we completely fill the rectangular box below with a rectangular cube building. The box is transparent, so you can see the building through the boxs sides.

After we fill the box we look straight at the building from its FRONT, TOP and RIGHT SIDE [indicate orthogonal viewing lines with A pencil.] From the FRONT, it looks like this: [ Indicate the figure above and at the left.] From the RIGHT SIDE, it looks like this: [Indicate the figure above at the upper right.]

20 A. The student conceptualizes the set of cubes as forming a rectangular array

organized into layers. Layer multiplying: Student computes or counts the number of cubes in one layer (vertical or horizontal) and multiplies by the number of layers. 2. Layer adding/iteration: Student computes the number of cubes in one layer (vertical or horizontal) and uses addition or skip counting (pointing to successive layers) to get total. 3. Counting subunits of layers: Students counting of cubes is organized by layers, but the student counts by ones or skip counts by a number that does not equal the number of cubes in a layer. For example, the students counts the top layer by ones, then counts on from the result, again pointing to each cube in the top layer, for each of the two remaining layers.
1. B. The student conceptualizes the set of cubes as space-filling but does not utilize

layers. Column/row iteration: Student counts the number of cubes in one row or column and uses skip-counting (pointing to successive rows or columns) to get total. 2. Counting subunits of columns or rows: Students counting of cubes is organized by row or column, but the student counts by ones or skip counts by a number that does not equal the number of cubes in a row or column. For example, the student counts by twos or ones, pointing successively to columns of four. 3. Systematic counting: Student counts cubes systematically, attempting to count both inside and outside cubes. He or she might, for instance, count the cubes on all the outside faces, then attempt to determine how many are in the center. 4. Unsystematic counting: Student counts cubes in a random manner often omitting or double-counting cubes, but clearly tries to account for inside cubes.
1. C. The student conceptualizes the set of cubes in terms of its faces.

Counting subset of visible cubes: Student counts all or a subset of , cubes on the front, right side, and top.those that are visible in the picture. 2. Counting all outside cubes: Student counts outside cubes on all six faces of the prism. 3. Counting some outside cubes: Student counts outside cubes on some visible and some hidden faces but does not count cubes on all six faces of the prism. 4. Counting front-layer cubes: Student counts outside cubes in front layer. 5. Counting outside cubes but not organized by faces.
1. D. The student uses the formula L x W x H

Student explicitly says he or she is using the formula, or implies it by saying, Multiply this times this times this: [pointing to relevant dimensions]. There is no indication of understanding in terms of layers. (If students used the formula, they were asked, Why did you multiply these numbers together? Why does this work?). E. Other (p. 263) Student uses a strategy other than those described in A-D, such as multiplying the Number of squares on one face times the number on another face. * The strategy was used, and cubes on some edges were double-counted.

Running head: THREE-DIMENSIONAL PROBLEM-SOLVING

Independent Exploration - Student Data (Sample)

NAME

GRAD E

TASK # 1a

TASK # 1b

TASK # 2

TASK #3

TASK #4

1 1

2 1

3 1

22

Running head: THREE-DIMENSIONAL PROBLEM-SOLVING

4 1

5 1

6 1

7 1

23

Running head: THREE-DIMENSIONAL PROBLEM-SOLVING

8 1

9 1

10 1

24

Running head: THREE-DIMENSIONAL PROBLEM-SOLVING

Notes:

25

Running head: THREE-DIMENSIONAL PROBLEM-SOLVING

26

Running head: THREE-DIMENSIONAL PROBLEM-SOLVING

Independent Exploration - Student Response Data 1st Grade Response Strategy STUDENT GRAD E Task 1a Task 1b Task 2 Task 3 Task 4

MA LG AK EK JK KM AR NS NY BZ

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

B2 C3 A2* B2 C4 B2 A2* A3* B2 A2*

B2 C5 C2 B2 C5 C3 B2 A3* B2 C2

B2 E# E# C3 C1 C3 A2 B2 E# C3

B2 C3 C2 B2 C4 C5 B2 A3* B3 C2

C3 E# C1 C1 C4 C1 B2 B2 C1 C1

*denotes correct answer # guessed or didnt answer Number of Students Using Each Strategy by Grade Level -- 1st Grade Strategy 1a 1b Student Task 2 3 4

A1 A2 A3 A Total B1 B2 4 4
27

3 1 4 40% 1 1 10%

1 1 1 10% 1 10% 0

Running head: THREE-DIMENSIONAL PROBLEM-SOLVING

B3 B4 B Total C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C Total D Total E Total 3 30% 2 20% 1 1 2 5 50% 4 40% 2 1 3 4 40% 4 40% 2 20% 1

4 40%

2 20% 5

2 1 1 1 5 50% 7 70% 1 1

1 10%

2nd Grade Response Strategy STUDENT GRAD E Task 1a Task 1b Task 2 Task 3 Task 4

EB NG AO MR

2 2 2 2

A1* A2* A1* A2*

A2* A2* B2 C5

B2 B2 B3 E

A1* A2* A3* C5

B2 C1 C1 C1

*correct answer # guesses or doesnt answer Number of Students Using Each Strategy by Grade Level -- 2nd Grade Strategy 1a 1b
28

Student Task 2 3 4

Running head: THREE-DIMENSIONAL PROBLEM-SOLVING

A1 A2 A3 A Total B1 B2 B3 B4 B Total C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C Total D Total E Total

2 2 2

1 1 1

4 100%

2 50%

3 75%

2 1

1 25%

3 75%

1 25% 3

1 1 25%

1 1 25% 3 75%

1 25%

3rd Grade Response Strategy STUDENT GRAD E Task 1a Task 1b Task 2 Task 3 Task 4

29

Running head: THREE-DIMENSIONAL PROBLEM-SOLVING

MA SB (absent) TK AR MZ

A2*

B2

B3

B2

B3

3 3 3

A1* A2* A1*

A1* B2 A1*

B2 C3 B4

A1* A2* A1*

B3 C1 A1*

*correct answer # guesses or doesnt answer Number of Students Using Each Strategy by Grade Level -- 3rd Grade Strategy 1a 1b Student Task 2 3 4

A1 A2 A3 A Total B1 B2 B3 B4 B Total C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C Total

2 2

2 1

4 100%

2 50%

3 75%

1 25%

2 50%

1 1 1 3 75%

1 2

1 25%

2 50% 1

1 25%

1 25%

30

Running head: THREE-DIMENSIONAL PROBLEM-SOLVING

D Total E Total

4th

Grade Response Strategy GRAD E Task 1a Task 1b Task 2 Task 3 Task 4

STUDENT

JC DJ KK CL CO (absent)

4 4 4 4 4

A1* A1* B1* A1*

B2 A1* B2 A1*

C3 B4 C3 A1*

B2 A1* B2 A1*

C3 C2 C3 A1*

*correct answer # guesses or doesnt answer Number of Students Using Each Strategy by Grade Level -- 4th Grade Strategy 1a 1b Student Task 2 3 4

A1 A2 A3

31

Running head: THREE-DIMENSIONAL PROBLEM-SOLVING

A Total B1 B2 B3 B4 B Total C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C Total D Total E Total

3 75% 1

2 50%

1 25%

2 50%

1 25%

1 1 25% 2 50% 1 25% 2 50%

1 2 2

2 50%

3 75%

5th Grade Response Strategy STUDENT GRAD E Task 1a Task 1b Task 2 Task 3 Task 4

GB SK CM HR (absent)

5 5 5 5

A1* A1* A1*

A1* A1* A1*

B2 A1* A1*

A1* A1* A1*

A1* A1* A1*

32

Running head: THREE-DIMENSIONAL PROBLEM-SOLVING

*correct answer # guesses or doesnt answer Number of Students Using Each Strategy by Grade Level -- 5th Grade Strategy 1a 1b Student Task 2 3 4

A1 A2 A3 A Total B1 B2 B3 B4 B Total C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C Total D Total E Total

3 100%

3 100%

2 67%

100%

100%

1 33%

33

Running head: THREE-DIMENSIONAL PROBLEM-SOLVING

6th Grade Response Strategy STUDENT GRAD E Task 1a Task 1b Task 2 Task 3 Task 4

NH JH JM (absent) ER LWb LWl MY

6 6 6 6 6 6 6

A1* A1*

A1* A1*

A1* A1*

A1* A1*

A1* A1*

A1* A1* A1* A1*

A1* A1* A1* A1*

A1* B4 A1* A1*

A1* A1* A1* A1*

A1* C1 A1* A1*

*correct answer # guesses or doesnt answer Number of Students Using Each Strategy by Grade Level -- 6th Grade Strategy 1a 1b Student Task 2 3 4

A1 A2 A3 A Total B1 B2 B3

6 100%

6 100%

5 83%

6 100%

5 83%

34

Running head: THREE-DIMENSIONAL PROBLEM-SOLVING

B4 B Total C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C Total D Total E Total

1 1 17%

1 1 17%

7th Grade Response Strategy STUDENT GRAD E Task 1a Task 1b Task 2 Task 3 Task 4

EB AC AH JK ZR WRd WRs ES JW BW

7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

A1* A1* A1* A1* A1* A1* A1* A1* A1* A1*

A1* A1* A1* A1* A1* A1* A1* A1* A2* A1*

A1* B4 A1* B2 A1* B3 A1* A1* B3 A1*

A1* A1* A1* A1* A1* A1* A1* A1* A1* A1*

B2 B4 A1* B3 A1* C1 A1* B2 C2 A1*

35

Running head: THREE-DIMENSIONAL PROBLEM-SOLVING

*correct answer # guesses or doesnt answer Number of Students Using Each Strategy by Grade Level -- 7th Grade Strategy 1a 1b Student Task 2 3 4

A1 A2 A3 A Total B1 B2 B3 B4 B Total C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C Total D Total E Total

10

9 1

10

100%

1005

6 60%

100%

4 40% 0

1 2 1 4 40%

2 1 1 4 40% 1 1

2 20%

Number of Students Using Each Strategy TOTAL of all Grade Levels

36

Running head: THREE-DIMENSIONAL PROBLEM-SOLVING

(41 students) Strategy 1a 1b Student Task 2 3 4

A1 A2 A3 A Total B1 B2 B3 B4 B Total C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C Total D Total E Total

26 7 1 34 1 4

22 3 1 26

14 1

24 2 1

14

15

27 1

14

7 4 4 6 1 8

5 3 1 9 11 2 2 3 1

15 1

2 1 1 3 2 6 7 1 6

1 1 2 6

17

Student Task 1a A - Strategy Comparison by Grade Level % 100 1st 2nd 100% 3rd 100%
37

4th

5th 100%

6th 100%

7th 100%

Running head: THREE-DIMENSIONAL PROBLEM-SOLVING

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 40% 75%

Student Task 1b A Strategy: Comparison by Grade Level % 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10% 50% 50% 50% 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 100% 6th 7th

Student Task 1b B Strategy: Comparison by Grade Level % 100

38

1st

2nd

3rd

4th

5th

6th

7th

Running head: THREE-DIMENSIONAL PROBLEM-SOLVING

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 25% 0% 0% 0% 40% 50% 50%

Student Task 2 A Strategy: Comparison by Grade Level % 100 90 80 70 60 50 67% 60% 83% 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th

39

Running head: THREE-DIMENSIONAL PROBLEM-SOLVING

40 30 20 10 10% 0% 0% 25%

Student Task 2 B Strategy: Comparison by Grade Level % 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 20% 25% 17% 33% 40% 75% 75% 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th

Student Task 2 CStrategy: Comparison by Grade Level % 100 90 80 70 60 50 50% 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th

40

Running head: THREE-DIMENSIONAL PROBLEM-SOLVING

40 30 20 10

40%

25% 0% 0% 0%

Student Task 2 D/E Strategy: Comparison by Grade Level % 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 30% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th

Student Task 4 A Strategy: Comparison by Grade Level % 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 40% 83% 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 100% 6th 7th

41

Running head: THREE-DIMENSIONAL PROBLEM-SOLVING

30 20 10 0% 0% 25% 25%

Student Task 4 BStrategy: Comparison by Grade Level % 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 20% 25% 0% 0% 17% 50% 40% 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th

Student Task 4 CStrategy: Comparison by Grade Level

42

Running head: THREE-DIMENSIONAL PROBLEM-SOLVING

% 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

1st

2nd

3rd

4th

5th

6th

7th

70%

75%

75%

25% 0%

20%

Student Task 4 D/EStrategy: Comparison by Grade Level % 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th

43