6 views

Uploaded by Ham FG

1

- MTSS Readiness Instrument
- Mississippi State the New Science of Learning 2017
- Schema Theory and ESL Reading Pedagogy
- 74133159 Donald Schon Design Studio Higher Education
- Lecture w2
- 8 Benefit of English Languange Learning
- Coaching
- how to teach your child maths
- copy of report card for web assignment
- Lesson Plan
- Language and Cognitive Development
- Feinstein 2004 The Engaged Brain
- KAI6034 Analisis Bermain
- Jean Piaget Theory
- sc2a assess1
- Shared Mental Models—Linking Team Cognition and Performance
- Dos
- 20323 mae mangaoil be 1251 final project report 895695 999975383
- 86
- heykoop finalsynthesis

You are on page 1of 108

Author(s)

learning geometry

Hui, See-ming;

Citation

Issued Date

URL

Rights

2015

http://hdl.handle.net/10722/223648

and the right to use in future works.

learning geometry

!

By!

!

Hui!See!Ming!

!

!

This!work!is!submitted!to!

Faculty!of!Education!of!The!University!of!Hong!Kong!

In!partial!fulfillment!of!the!requirements!for!

The!Master!of!Education!(Mathematics!Education)!

!

August!2015!

!

Supervisor:!Mr.!Arthur!Lee!

Declaration+

!

I,!Hui!See!Ming,!declare!that!this!dissertation!represents!my!own!work!and!that!it!

has!not!been!submitted!to!this!or!other!institution!in!application!for!a!degree,!

diploma!or!any!other!qualifications.!

I, Hui See Ming, also declare that I have read and understand the guideline on What

is plagiarism? published by The University of Hong Kong (available at

http://www.hku.hk/plagiarism/) and that all parts of this work complies with the

guideline.

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Candidate:!Hui!See!Ming!

!

!

!

Signature:!_______________________________________!

!

Date:!30!August!2015!

ii!

Acknowledgement

I would like to express my sincere thanks to my supervisor, Mr Arthur Lee for his

guidance throughout my study. From time to time he gives clear direction and

support for me to move ahead and explore different areas in the study. His invaluable

advices are very important to me in completing this dissertation.

Moreover, I would like to thanks Dr Ida Mok, Prof Frederick Leung and Mr Wong Ka

Lok for their excellent instructions throughout the master programme.

Their

teachings and sharing give solid foundation and inspiration to my work. It is a really

pleasant and exciting journey to pursue the study and complete the dissertation here.

iii!

learning geometry

For the degree of Master of Education (Mathematics Education)

At The University of Hong Kong in August 2015

The aim of this paper is to investigate the role of schema and cognitive models in

teaching and learning geometry. Differences in schema structure and problem solving

behavior for different ability levels will be analyzed. In this study I will also introduce

some instructional design strategies based on the findings. There are three parts in

this paper: The pre-test, the instructional design and the post-test. In the pre-test there

are two groups of higher secondary school students high achievers group and low

achievers group participating in a test with different kinds of geometric problem

about properties of circle. Questions are designed to test language ability, cognitive

loads, problem solving style and generative ability in problem solving. An openended question is set to investigate the schema difference for high and low achievers

through an analysis by solution path diagram. Results show that high achievers

organize their knowledge with structured schema and demonstrate a higher generative

ability. In the instructional design part I will present some strategies such as diagram!

iv!

text integrated teaching to help students overcoming limits of cognitive loads. In the

post-test part, low achievers show significant improvements in solving geometric

problems after attending the class that is carefully designed with strategies mentioned

in the previous part. The effectiveness of instructional design will be evaluated.

v!

Table of Content

Introduction

Literature Review

22

25

Geometry

Methodology

26

32

40

47

48

59

Conclusion

64

Appendix

70

Reference

98

vi!

Introduction

As an interdisciplinary study of human mind and thinking, cognitive science

contributes a lot to the understanding of learning processes.

from traditional classroom instructional design. For example, the idea of schema

(Bartlett, 1932; DiMaggio 1997, Chinnappan, 1998) provided a very useful structure

for how our students organized their knowledge and how to make use of them in

solving problem. Sweller (1988) proposed the cognitive load theory that bridges

cognitive psychology and instructional design.

The role of schema in teaching and learning geometry

Everything we experience in this world affect how we build up our knowledge, and

our knowledge are not simply stored in our memory, but organized and associated

with each other in a meaningful way. This organization is called schema, which was

first introduced by Piaget (Piaget, 1952) as a cohesive, repeatable action sequence

possessing component actions that are tightly interconnected and governed by a core

meaning. This guides us in the process of retrieving information, and also affects how

we process and accept new information.

A schema is an organized pattern of thought that contains categories of information

and relationship between them (DiMaggio, 1997). It influences the processing and

utilization of knowledge, also it influences attention and absorption of new

knowledge.

When things fit into their schema, people are more likely to pay attention to and

notice them.

In problem solving, a schema can provide a shortcut to solution.

1!

concepts, principles, and procedures, they organize these into schemas that provide

the knowledge base for further mathematical activity.

For example, a student can associate the words centre with different theorems like

angles at a point, angle at centre twice angle at circumference, radius, isosceles

triangles etc. We can call this a centre schema.

+

+

+

+

Angles!at!a!point!

Isosceles!

Triangle!

+

+

Angle!at!centre!twice!angle!

at!circumference!

Centre!

Radius!

+

Figure+1:+Centre+Schema+

Even a single theorem in geometry can be considered as a schema. For example like

Angle at centre twice angle at circumference, one do not just store the name in his

mind. The theorem name is connected with different patterns of diagrams, properties

like subtended by the same arc and also some non-examples.

2!

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Angles!subtended!

+

by!an!arc!

+

+

+

Name:!Angle!at!centre!twice!

angle!at!circumference!

If!both!angles!are!at!centre!or!

circumference,!other!schemas!can!be!

activated!

+

+

+

+

+

NonTexamples!

Figure+2:+Angle+at+centre+twice+angle+at+circumference+Schema+

+

!

The organization quality of these schema and the extent to which they connected with

each other, determines the quality of schema structure and how well a student can

solve problems, how well he can retrieve and use information, and how well he can

accept new information.

3!

Another aspects affecting students learning is about our memory system. Human

memory system can be separated into short term and long term memory. The limited

capacity of working memory is used in our conscious thinking and is critical for

information processing. In solving geometric problems, students often need to tackle

a lot of information that leads to retrieval of related theorems from long-term memory.

Structure of knowledge in long-term memory determines the effective processing and

retrieval of such information.

schema in students mind is very critical, which determines the problem solving

ability in future. Moreover, since working memory is very limited, teachers should

pay efforts to reduce the loading. Cognitive load theory is proposed by Sweller (1988)

which provides a framework in understanding these kinds of working memory

loading.

Cognitive load theory suggests that cognitive load occurs in learning and information

processing. Among the various types of cognitive loads, extraneous cognitive load is

under the control of instructional designer (Sweller, 1988).

of information.

statements and steps with the diagram is a technique to reduce such loads.

4!

In this paper, I will focus on understanding the role of schema and some cognitive

models including the cognitive load theory in teaching and learning geometry. By

analyzing the results, I will also propose some instructional strategies in geometry

with the consideration of certain cognitive models. For example: demonstration of

geometric theorems by visualized analogy to overcome working memory limitation, a

schema approach with mastery learning to build up students conceptual model for

solving geometric problems, mistakes tempting as a correction process for schema

building, the inspiration of cognitive load theory in the teaching process, expanding

schema and enhancing creativity by the use of open-ended questions. Pre-test and

post-test will be carried out by asking a sample of secondary schools students to solve

a set of geometry problems. By interviewing these students about their thinking

during the process of solving an open-ended question, association and elaboration of

schema in their mind will be analyzed. I will propose a special method Solution

Path Analysis to unfold students deep-level thinking in their problem-solving

process.

5!

Literature Review

PROBLEM SOLVING PROCESS

In the problem solving process, the solver forms representations of the problem,

which consist of information that is active in working memory and some external

representations such as a diagram on paper. These representations activate knowledge

of word problems stored in long-term memory, which in turn invokes associated

solution process in the current situation. In this process, the solver will search the

problem space, which consists of the initial, intermediate and goal states. Finally the

success of the solution is evaluated. (George, Ellen D., 1993)

However, processing of information occurs within our working memory that is very

limited (Baddeley, 1992). Very few information can be processed at one time. To

overcome this limitation during instruction, we should try to reduce cognitive load

during instruction and also build up effective schema for learners.

SCHEMA

Schema was first introduced by Bartlett (1932). He described the changes in memory

over a period of time as tending to be more approximate to the familiar. Previous

experience acted to organize further experiences. DiMaggio (1997) suggested a more

recent definition of schema. He defined schema to be an organized pattern of thought

that contains categories of information and the relationships among them. Schema is

also defined as a cognitive construct through which one treats multiple sub-elements

of information as a single one, categorized in a manner that it will be used (Kalyuga

et.al., 1998) It has two main functions: first, learnt information can be stored in longterm memory in a categorized way for easy retrieval; second, it reduces the loads on

working memory by treating multiple elements as a single one.

6!

structures that permit us to perceive, think, and solve problems," but not a group of

rote learned facts. We are able to treat multiple elements as a single one by these

structures, known as schemas, which are the cognitive structures that build up the

knowledge base. Through a lifetime of learning, we build up our schemas that may

contain also other schemas.

Expert and novice are very different in the way of their use of schema. Learning

requires a change in the schema and memory. Through the change, performance can

progress from clumsy, error-prone, slow and difficult to smooth and effortless. The

performance change is due to the fact that someone becomes increasingly familiar

with the material, the schema associated with the material are then altered in a way

that it can be handled more efficiently by working memory.

In solving a problem, schema can be retrieved from long-term memory either in

automated form or with conscious consideration of elements and their relations. In

the automated form, since it makes limited demands on working memory resources,

therefore more resources can be allocated to search for a possible problem solution.

To a further extent, if there exists an automated schema incorporating the problem

solution in long-term memory, it can be transferred to working memory and provide

the solution easily and smoothly.

Another understanding of it is a mental structure of preconceived ideas. It can

influence attention and the absorption of new knowledge. When things fit into their

schema, people are more likely to pay attention to and notice them. People have a

tendency to maintain the schema unchanged. When contradictions appear, people

tend to re-interpret and distort them to fit into the schema.

7!

shortcut to solution. New perceptions can be organized into schemata quickly, which

is automatic. DiMaggio (1997) suggested that people are more likely to perceive

information that is germane to existing schemata, recall schematically embedded

information more quickly and accurately, but on the other hand may falsely recall

schematically embedded events that did not occur.

In mathematics learning, schema affects directly the organizational quality of students

prior knowledge and the use of that knowledge during problem solving. As organised

knowledge structures, schemas guide both information acceptance and retrieval, and

their subsequent use. When students acquire mathematical concepts, principles, and

procedures, they organise these into schemas which provide the knowledge base for

further mathematical activity such as problem exploration and classification

(Chinnappan M., 1998). Resnick and Ford (1981) pointed out that failure to activate

and apply prior knowledge is due to the poor quality of their mathematical knowledge

base, which can be constructed as a consequence of teacher and other interventions. A

knowledge base, which in my term here referring the schema, that is well-organized

or integrated can facilitate the access of relevant information and also deploying of

those information in the search for a problem solution. Similar ideas were raised by

Nesher and Herschkovitz (1994) in their research on students tackling word problems.

In Chinnappan M. (1998) research on the mental models in geometry problem solving,

he shared the same viewpoint that organizational quality of the knowledge in the

long-term memory could either enhance or impede the activation of that knowledge

during performance.

students. The way he visualized geometric schemas was to look for key concepts that

anchor other concepts. Organisation and spread are the two key characteristics he

8!

connections between ideas, and spread refers to the extent of those connections. A

high degree of organisation and spread can mean a sophisticate schema.

The aims of his study was first to identify the geometric schemas that students bring

to a problem-solving task, second to determine the frequency with which these are

activated, and third to generate a description about the nature of the mental models

students construct during the course of problem solution. How these knowledge

components differed between low- and high-achieving students were examined. The

hypothesis was that the high-achievers would be more likely to activate more

sophisticated geometric schemas, access these more frequently, and would generate

mental models which indicate a high degree of structural understanding of the given

problem than students from the low-achieving group. The results provided support

for the hypothesis.

In another research conducted by Lawson and Cinnappan (Lawson M.J., Chinnappan

M., 1994), they compared the problem-solving performance in solving geometry

problems for groups of high achievers and low achievers. They found that high

achievers not only can access a greater body of geometrical knowledge, but also use

that knowledge more effectively. They can also activate more task-related knowledge.

Low achievers can access a relatively smaller body of functionally available

knowledge and less effective in activating knowledge that can develop a solution.

Concerning about more difficult problems, high achievers also generate more

information and further use them to access further relevant knowledge.

9!

Chandler and Sweller (1992) points out the split-attention effect in instructional

design. As a result of poor instructional design, learners are sometimes forced to split

their attention between multiple sources of information, therefore a heavy extraneous

cognitive load is imposed and hinder the learning process. To reduce the working

memory load, some integration of information sources may be desirable.

CONCEPTRUAL VS PROCEDURAL

Byrnes & Wasik (1991) defined conceptual knowledge as the core concepts for a

domain and their interrelations. It can be characterized as using several different

constructs such as semantic nets, hierarchies, and mental models. Procedural

knowledge is the knowledge of the steps required to attain various goals. It can be

characterized as using constructs such as skills, strategies, productions, and

interiorized actions. They suggested the dynamic interaction view that conceptual

knowledge is both necessary and sufficient for correct use of procedures.

For

correctly. On another hand, if level of conceptual knowledge is low, procedures will

be performed incorrectly.

Anderson's (1983) ACT theory suggested that new procedures are learned in the

following ways. Firstly, a rich conceptual knowledge base and examples together with

general problem-solving heuristics, new procedures for a specific task are developed.

Then it comes to the discrimination and generalization processes. Feedback from the

environment is taken into accounts in reducing the incidence of over- or undergeneralization. Then a process known as "proceduralization" takes place. In this

10!

process procedures become fluid and automatic. Expertise will be the result. Initially

conceptual knowledge will not be retrieved as it would be inefficient to do so.

Inhelder and Piaget (1980) suggested that conceptual and procedural knowledge

affect each other diachronically, not synchronically. Although conceptual knowledge

constructs new procedural knowledge, the application of procedures sometimes

produces outcomes that need to be explained.

Proposed by Sweller (1988), the cognitive load theory suggests that learning happens

best under conditions that are aligned with human cognitive architecture. Recognizing

Miller's (1956) information processing research showing that short term memory is

limited in the number of elements it can contain simultaneously, Sweller (1988)

builds a theory that treats schemas, or combinations of elements, as the cognitive

structures that make up an individual's knowledge base.

working memory and maximize the acquisition of automated schemas.

From an instructional perspective, information contained in instructional material

must first be processed by working memory. For schema acquisition to occur,

instruction should be designed to reduce working memory load. Cognitive load theory

is concerned with techniques for reducing working memory load in order to facilitate

the changes in long term memory associated with schema acquisition.

Related to the design of instructional material, there are several points to note. It is

11!

suggested that problem solving methods should avoid means-ends approaches that

impose a heavy working memory load. Problem solving methods by using goal-free

problems or worked examples are encouraged. Moreover, working memory load

associated with having to mentally integrate several sources of information should be

eliminated.

auditory as well as visual information under conditions where both sources of

information are essential to understanding can also increase working memory

efficiency.

John Swellers paper Implications of Cognitive Load Theory for Multimedia

Learning describes the human cognitive architecture. Instructional design principles

should be applied according to our knowledge of the brain and memory. Sweller

describes the different types of memory and how they are interrelated. Schema is the

central executive that directly affects the manner in which information is

synthesized in working memory. If schemas are absent, instructors must provide a

way for learners to develop their own schemas.

Sweller suggests three types of cognitive load, namely extraneous cognitive load,

intrinsic cognitive load and germane cognitive load.

A. Intrinsic cognitive load

First described by Chandler and Sweller, intrinsic cognitive load is the idea that all

instruction has an inherent difficulty associated with it. Instructor may not be able to

alter this inherent difficulty. However through breaking down schemas into individual

subschemas and taught separately, they can be brought back together and described

as a combined whole in later stage.

B. Extraneous cognitive load

12!

Extraneous

cognitive

load,

by

contrast,

is

controllable

by

instructional

presented to learners. For example, in teaching the relationship between arcs and

angles, instructors can describe the relationship verbally or simply draw a diagram.

Undoubtedly the former one imposes difficulties for the learner as there exist

extraneous and unnecessary information.

C. Germane cognitive load

Germane load is a third kind of cognitive load that should be promoted. Germane

load is the load dedicated to the processing, construction and automation of schemas.

It is suggested that instructional designers should limit extraneous load and promote

germane load.

Extraneous cognitive load and intrinsic cognitive load come from inappropriate

instructional designs and complexity of information. On another hand, germane

cognitive load is effective cognitive load for successful schema construction. These

loads are additive. To free up working memory, instructional designers should reduce

extraneous cognitive load and focus on helping students to construct proper schemas.

Magical Number 7 plus or minus 2 the number of elements we can remember. An

element can be a digit, a letter, a word etc. Without good organization, our memory

system is poor (Miller, 1956). Working memory, or sometimes call short-term

memory, is our conscious thinking and is very limited. Unless we are able to refresh

them by rehearsal and put them in long-time memory, they will remain for only a few

seconds. Processing information may involve contrasting, comparing, combining,

relating or working on elements in some ways.

13!

While students are facing new rules, theorems or equations in topics like geometry,

they may understand the rules by traditional instruction, but to help them to solve a

problem efficiently, both the rules and the characteristics of problem must be held and

manipulated in working memory. With a limitation of working memory, mechanisms

to circumvent it are necessary.

Long term memory has no consciousness. We only aware of those things stored in

the long term memory only if they are brought down into working memory. However

it is not a passive store. In the game of chess, chess master (Groot, 1966) seems able

to look ahead more moves than less capable players, but actually the finding is not.

His skills come from the cognitive change by accumulating many general board

configurations with appropriate moves associated with each configuration. He can

store as many as 100000 board configurations.

novices lies in their knowledge of problem states. Long term memory is not simply a

repository of rote learning facts. It contains sophisticated structures that permit us to

perceive, think and solve problems.

In the paper by Leron and Hazzan (1996), they try to apply cognitive psychology

model to help interpreting empirical results from mathematics education. The theory

under study is the Dual-process theory our Cognition and behavior work in parallel

in two different modes, namely System 1 (S1) and System 2 (S2), which are

corresponding to something like intuitive and analytical thinking. They operate in

different ways and are activated by different parts of the brain. Properties of S1 are

14!

addition to perception. Properties of S2 are slow, conscious, effortful and relatively

flexible. In many cases, S1 and S2 work together, but there are situations in which S1

produces quick automatic non-normative responses, while S2 may or may not

intervene in its role as monitor and critic.

The research is done by case studies referring to 2 past research results. One is the

Students-and-professors problem (Clement etal. ,1981), another one is the case of

Lagranges Theorem (Hazzan and Leron, 1996). Clement explained the performance

of students using the failure of S1-S2 system. He concluded that the Dual-process

theory in Cognitive Psychology is to add value in tightening, refining and

operationalizing the distinction between intuitive and analytical thinking in

mathematics education.

because the settings of mathematics tasks are very different from psychology research

setting. Typically mathematics tasks are abstract and complex, the content usually has

been previously taught formally to the students, always given in an examination or

problem-solving situation. Therefore, S2 system is expected to elicit in most cases.

mathematics education has always been trying to do and should be encouraged.

However, errors are typically combined failures of both S1 and S2.

operate while they are doing problem-solving.

monitor not only the S1 but also the S1/S2 interaction is important.

15!

OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS

What are open-ended questions? Cooney, Sanchez, Leatha & Mewborn (2004)

suggested that open-ended questions should include the following features. First, they

involves a significant concept in a related field. Second, there should be multiple

answers to open-ended questions. Third, open-ended questions need to communicate

the reasoning process. Fourth, open-ended questions should be stated clearly. Fifth,

open-ended questions must have a scoring rubric; partial credit should be given to the

answer to why whenever it has a value.

Klavir and Hershkovitz (2008) stated that:

that importance of open-ended problems lies first and foremost in the fact

that they break the stereotype that every problem has one correct solution.

They also enable each student to work on the same problem according to his

or her abilities. However, the primary importance of problems of this kind lies

in the fact that they can be used to learn various strategies and thus deepen the

students' mathematical knowledge and develop their creative mathematical

thinking.

In his paper, an open-ended problem was designed. This could serve as an example

that is relevant to my study in this paper. Also it gave a way for teachers to evaluate

the work of their students when dealing with problems of this kind.

Here is his

example.

16!

The!question!is!targeted!at!fifthTgrade!students.!The!question!is!asking!which!of!a!

group!of!five!numbers!does!not!belong.!!Each!of!these!numbers!actually!can!be!

selected!with!different!reasons!why!it!does!not!belong.!!They!make!reference!to!

types!of!knowledge,!levels!of!complexity!in!mathematical!thinking!and!levels!of!

creative!thinking!in!its!various!dimensions.!!

In!analyzing!students!solution,!4!categories!are!distinguished:!Correct!solutions,!

incorrect!solutions,!inappropriate!solutions!and!unintelligible!solutions.!!Most!of!

students!fall!into!the!category!of!inappropriate!solutions,!in!which!solutions!do!

not!meet!the!requirement!of!assignment!to!find!which!number!does!not!belong.!

Students! demonstrate! two! kinds! of! capabilities! in! his! paper:! active! level! of!

mathematical! knowledge,! creative! capabilities! that! stimulate! their! imagination!

and!enable!them!to!find!more!and!more!solutions.!!

Concerning mathematical knowledge revealed in correct solutions by students, there

are five categories: Iconic explanations, reasons based on a mathematical property

(most students demonstrate this knowledge, which shows that more students choose

to use the types of knowledge that are more available to them), reasons based on a

mathematical manipulation applied to the numbers, reasons based on a combination

of properties and/or manipulations, and other reasons. Further analysis of the solution

involves indices of creativity, which is categorized into 4 levels Fluency, flexibility,

elaboration and originality. A further challenge assignment on the problem is to be set

to motivate students in two dimensions: to try and find more reasons for not

belonging (fluency) and to look for reasons that belong to different mathematical

categories (flexibility). I give a more detailed review of this paper because the

example inspires me a lot for analyzing and designing open-ended question.

17!

In!another!study,!Husain,!Bais,!Hussain!and!Samad!(2012)!studied!the!questions!

in! the! examination! papers! in! engineering! program! offered! in! Malaysia.! ! The!

examination!paper!needs!to!test!students'!critical!and!analytical!thinking!skills.!!

Students!should!demonstrate!their!ability!to!respond!with!extensive!arguments!

to!support!their!views!and!lead!to!the!ability!to!make!decisions.!!They!also!need!

to!demonstrate!their!creativity!and!inTdepth!understanding!what!they!learnt!in!

classroom.! ! Therefore! openTended! questions! are! included! in! the! paper.! In! this!

paper,!the!author!tried!to!define!openTended!questions,!how!to!formulate!them!

and! set! the! percentage! of! this! type! of! questions! to! be! asked! in! the! final!

examinations.!!!

The!author!also!identified!the!challenges!faced!in!the!construction!of!openTended!

questions.!!Firstly,!if!the!question!is!not!properly!constructed!and!administered!it!

can!confuse!the!students.!!Secondly,!vague!and!unclear!questions!and!time!limit!

to!formulate!an!answer!provide!a!negative!stimulus!to!students.!!Thirdly,!extra!

workload!for!grading!provides!a!negative!stimulus!to!teachers.!!

Education & Manpower Bureau of Hong Kong (2003) also suggests that when using

open-ended questions to assess student's performance, three points need attention:

stress communication, apply skills in practical context and evaluate at suitable times.

Methods to create open-ended questions include adapting a question from tests or

homework, generalizing a problem and making the context, style and the result open.

Education & Manpower Bureau of Hong Kong (2003, p.5) also suggests some

questions/statements to make questions open-ended, such as:

Describe or explain how you find your answers.

18!

Do you agree with the solution? Explain why you think this is correct.

Use the information to show how you obtain your answer.

Explain your answer and give examples.

Multiple-choice question and open-ended question are very different, especially in the

cognitive perspective. Multiple-choice questions are product-oriented tests, while

open-ended questions are process-oriented tests (Collis, 1992). The basic format of

open-ended questions should be set by a series of propositional statements followed

by a question (s) to which the student is required to make response. The test,

however, is largely based on exemplary teachers experience and intuitive ideas. He

also discussed different models about students cognitive task in problem solving,

which indicates how cognitive science can help the development of curriculum in

future.

Grouws! and! Meier (1992) reviewed the California Assessment Program (CAP)

achievement test.

After compiling results and studying the information obtained, the CAP

recommended that open-ended questions should become a regular portion of the grade

12 mathematics test. This leads other states in US to develop assessment methods to

replace multiple-choice standardized achievement tests. While the state-wide

Missouri Mathematics Achievement Test (MMAT) still employed multiple-choice

question, it incorporate the use of calculators to decrease the emphasis on

19!

computation.

How to enhance divergent thinking in these kinds of open-ended question? Kwon

O.N. ,Park and Park(2006) developed a program to enhance divergent thinking in

mathematics by open-ended problems.

participated in the study. They use pre-testing and post-testing to measure diverging

skills through open-ended problems.

In the study, a total of twenty sessions of teachers guidelines and students

worksheets were designed. They were composed of various types of open-ended

problems. The worksheets cover as wide a range as possible in the curriculum. They

were also made to encourage students to produce as many answers as they could in

order to observe their fluency. Not only to observe students flexibility by introducing

various types of responses, the worksheets also determined their originality by

encouraging them to produce responses different from each other. Moreover, there

was one class every week consisting of both individual learning and small-group

cooperative learning. Following types of open-ended problems are designed:

overcoming fixations, multiple answers, multiple strategies, strategy investigation,

problem posing, active inquiry tasks, and logical thinking.

The results of the study shows that treatment group students performed better on each

component of diverging thinking skills. This research gives a good ground for

cultivating student divergent thinking of problem solving.

Adopting open-ended question in Mathematics education seems to be a norm, but

actually are there any drawbacks? Wu (1993) suggested that open-ended problems

can bring mathematics education closer to real mathematics. However, there are

20!

misinformed about the very nature of mathematics itself. He selected three questions

to illustrate the possibilities. The first question is about application of isoperimetric

inequality to an application problem, while the students did not have knowledge about

isoperimetric inequality, meaning that the complete solution is not assessable to them.

One of the concerns in mathematics is to discover general laws that govern disparate

phenomena. Most students find they have difficulties in answering that question,

some of them just make wild guess based on incomplete logic. For this problem,

instead of not mentioning anything about the knowledge of isoperimetric inequality,

teacher should clearly state the knowledge, explain what it is about and how it bears

on the particular problem. The sequence of teaching in mathematics is not necessary

to be linearly ordered.

something that is proven or borrowed from the future without risk of circular

reasoning. Another solution is to narrow down the scope of the problem to an extent

that solution can be completely accessible to students. In Problem II and Problem III,

students make use of unwarranted assumptions to derive the solution. Similarly

solution like Problem I should be taken.

Traditional problems insist on one and only one correct answer can threaten students

and too rigid to allow them to show what they know. Open-ended problems should

be introduced so that all students can work at their own level. Being not insisting on

one correct answer, this give students confidence to solve new problems. However,

in real life, these problems in some cases are synonymous with partial answers or

unjustified guesses.

21!

In this study, I will focus mainly on three research questions:

1. How does the schema model help students to solve geometric problems?

2. What are the differences in schema structure for high and low achievers?

3. By taking into account of certain cognitive models and theories, how can we

redesign the instruction for teaching geometry?

4. Can students be benefited from the redesigned class? If so, in what ways?

There are three stages in this study: understanding, instructional design and evaluation.

The topic to be investigated is geometry about circle and tangent of higher secondary

school level.

students mind in geometric problem solving using some cognitive models and

inspiring the instructional design in teaching geometry.

!

!

SUBJECTS:

There! are! ten! students! participated! in! this! research,! five! of! them! are! high!

achievers,! five! of! them! are! low! achievers.! The! five! high! achievers! have!

participated! in! the! past! year! Hong! Kong! Diploma! of! Secondary! Education!

Examination!(HKDSE)!and!obtained!the!highest!levels!of!standard!!T!level!5*!to!

5**! which! are! the! highest! standard! in! Hong! Kong! examination! system.! ! ! About!

the!low!achievers,!there!are!also!five!students!who!have!also!participated!in!the!

past!year!HKDSE!and!obtained!a!relatively!poor!to!average!levels!of!standard!!T!

!

22!

level! 1! to! 5! (Lowest! level! is! level! 1).! ! They! are! repeaters! this! year! and!

mathematics!is!one!of!the!subjects!they!will!retake.!All!ten!students!are!all!from!

different! secondary! schools.! ! The! reason! to! select! repeaters! instead! of! current!

dayTschool! students! as! subject! is! to! ensure! that! they! have! similar! background,!

and! also! my! tutorial! course! is! the! only! mathematics! class! the! low! achievers!

attend!this!year!and!throughout!the!research!period.!!!Therefore!I!can!ensure!a!

better!control!of!their!study!progress!during!the!research!period.!!!

!

!

Phase!1:!

Understanding!

Phase!2:!

Instructional!

Design!

Phase!3:!

Evaluation!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Figure+3:+Design+of+research+

!

!

!

23!

Phase 1 is about the understanding of the role of schema and some other cognitive

models in learning geometry. This part actually is a main part of my study. Here I

will have 10 students participating in a test, they are divided into two groups high

achievers group and low achievers group. I would like to find out the ways and

patterns they solve problems, which reflect their mental processes and structure.

In phase 2, the low achievers group will attend my class, I will introduce in later part

of this paper the lesson design strategy and how to make use of the schema model to

make it more effective.

Phase 3 is the evaluation part. The low achievers group took a post-test after a month

and the results will be analyzed. This part is to evaluate the effectiveness of the

lesson design.

In this paper, Part 1 - Understanding the role of cognitive models in learning

Geometry refers to the phase 1 of the research. For phase 2 and 3, they will be

discussed in part 2: Instructional Design and Evaluation part.

24!

Geometry

25!

METHODOLOGY

In the first part, the objective is to understand more about how psychological factors

affect their problem solving procedures and their difficulties in learning Geometry. I

try to find the root cause for their difficulties in learning. A written test consisted of

six parts was given to the participants out of class time. They all have learnt the

topics already at school. Total duration of test was 1 hour 15 minutes. The main part

of the test is the part 6 (Detailed question set please see appendix 6): open-ended

question part, in which students are asked to think aloud their thinking process in

solving an open-ended question. Dialogues were audio-recorded and analyzed in the

solution path analysis. Full sample of test is attached in the appendix 1 of this paper.

Following are the description and some samples of the six parts of the test:

The Open-ended Question

This! part! aims! at! understanding! the! role! of! schema! model! in! solving! geometry!

problems.! In! this! part,! students! are! asked! to! solve! an! openTended! question! by!

finding!as!many!angles!as!they!can!from!the!problem.!!A!total!of!26!angles!can!be!

found.!!!Students!are!encouraged!to!think!aloud!their!working!procedures!during!

the!process.!!The!process!is!audioTrecorded.!!!

My! hypothesis! is! that! students! with! higher! ability! tend! to! use! a! schema! more!

frequent!and!a!more!variety!of!schemas!are!activated.!!!

Coding:!!

A! schema! is! identified! as! being! activated! when! a! student! mentions! a! correct!

theorem!when!finding!an!angle.!!A!total!of!twelve!schemas!are!identified.!!Simply!

minus! an! included! angle! from! another! is! not! identified! as! a! schema! activation.!!

26!

False! activation! is! identified! when! a! student! apply! a! theorem! incorrectly.! ! The!

number!of!correct!angle!found!is!also!counted!for!each!student.!!!

!

The!Question:!

!

Given!that:!

!

1.!

PQ!is!the!diameter!of!semiTcircle!PBQ!and!tangent!of!circle!ABC!at!O!

2.!

O!is!the!center!of!semiTcircle!PBQ!

3.!

Find!as!many!angles!as!you!can!

[

1.

:!

PQ!

!PBQ!

!ABC!

2.!

O!

!PBQ!

3.!

BPQ = 20 ! !!

D(

!

!O!

!

E(

F(

ABP = 50 !

]! !

!Figure+4:+The+open>ended+question+

!

!

!

!

!

!

27!

!

Pre>test!1:+Theorem+test+(For detailed question set, please see appendix 1)+

This! part! aims! at! testing! the! ability! to! recall! theorems.! ! Students! are! asked! to!

solve! 6! very! simple! geometry! problems! with! an! explanation! by! theorems.!

Correct! theorems! identified! by! student! are! counted.! ! ! Correct! theorems! do! not!

necessarily! mean! exact! wordings.! ! A! student! who! is! able! to! describe! the! key!

concept! of! the! theorem! will! be! counted! as! correct.! ! Following! is! one! of! the!

question:!!

!

O!is!the!centre!of!circle!ABC.!!Write!down!the!value!of!x!with!reason.!

[O!

!ABC!

!x!

]!

C(

O(

A(

B(

!

Figure+5:+Sample+question+in+the+theorem+name+test+

2&3)+

This part aims at investigating how cognitive loads and working memory limitation

affect the problem solving procedures.! ! In! part! 2,! students! are! asked! to! solve! 5!

28!

multipleTchoice!questions!without!written!procedures,!which!means!that!students

are not allowed to write down any steps or number on paper.! ! Questions! are!

designed!to!be!solvable!by!just!three!to!four!steps!that!should!be!within!human!

working!memory!limitation.!Some questions require students to draw line, meaning

that they need to mentally form an image instead of writing them down in the problem

solving procedures. !Test!3!is!a!similar!test!that!allows!students!to!write!the!steps!

on! paper.! ! This! test! acts! as! a! control! and! reference! of! their! ability.! ! In! my!

hypothesis,!high!achiever!with!an!organized!knowledge!structure!should!be!able!

to! minimize! the! cognitive! load! in! solving! geometric! problem.! ! Correct! answers!

found!by!student!are!counted!and!recorded.!

!

Sample!Question:!

In!the!figure,!CD!is!the!diameter!of!the!circle!ABCD.!CD!and!BA!are!produced!to!

!

BCA = 42 !

CD!

!ABCD!

!BA!=!BC

CD!

! CEB

!BA!

!E

]!

!

!

A.!

26 !

B.!

36 !

C.!

42 !

D.!

48 !

C(

(

D(

E(

A(

B(

!

Figure+6:+Sample+question+in+the+MC+Test+

29!

+

Pre>test!4:+Conventional+question+(For detailed question set, please see appendix

4)+

In! this! part,! students! are! asked! to! solve! 5! conventional! questions.! ! They! are!

required!to!show!their!steps!and!explanation!formally.!!This!part!is!to!investigate!

their!overall!problem!solving!ability!and!the!difference!between!solving!multiple!

choice!question!and!conventional!question.!!Difference!in!problem!solving!style!

is!one!of!the!aspects!to!study.!

!

Sample!Question:!

In!the!figure,! AB : BC : CA = 1: 3: 5 .!D!is!a!point!on!AC!such!that! BD AC .!

!

Find! DBA .!

DBA

! BD AC

AB : BC : CA = 1: 3: 5 D! !AC!

]!!

!

!

!

A(

D(

!

!

B(

C(

!

!

Figure+7:+Sample+question+in+the+conventional+question+test+

!

!

30!

!

Pre>test!5:+Word>only+Problems+(For detailed question set, please see appendix 5)+

!

In!this!part,!students!are!asked!to!solve!3!geometry!problems!without!diagram!

given.!!They!are!required!to!draw!the!diagram!themselves!from!the!description!

in!the!question.!!This!part!aims!at!investigating the role of visualization in problem

solving and any difficulty in transforming a word-only problem into diagram.!In!my!

hypothesis,!high!achievers!should!be!able!to!convert!precisely!all!characteristics!

and! relationship! as! mentioned! in! words.! ! Mathematics! language! is! one! of! the!

aspects!they!master!better!than!the!lower!achiever.!

!

Sample!Question:!

!

O!is!the!centre!of!the!circle!and!AP!is!the!tangent!to!the!circle!at!P.!If!AOB!is!a!

!

straight!line!and!AP!=!BP,!find! PBO .!

[O!

PBO

!AP!

!P!

!AOB!

!AP!=!BP

]!

!

!

31!

A!schema!is!identified!as!activated!once!the!student!find!an!angle!correctly!by!the!

correct! theorem.! ! The! number! of! activations! for! each! schema! is! recorded.! ! A!

student!can!activate!a!schema!more!than!once.!!For!each!schema,!the!numbers!of!

activations!by!the!two!groups!are!recorded!as!follows:!

Schema'

High'achievers' Low'achievers'

Adjacent!angle!on!straight!line!

34!

14!

Vertical!opposite!angle!

12!

2!

Angle!sum!of!triangle!

35!

17!

Exterior!angle!of!triangle!

2!

1!

Angle!sum!of!polygon!

2!

2!

Base!angle!isos!triangle!(RADII)!

7!

4!

Angle!in!semiEcircle!

5!

4!

Angles!in!same!segment!

9!

7!

Angle!at!centre!twice!angle!at!circumference!

4!

4!

Opposite!angle!cyclic!quad.!

8!

4!

Exterior!angle!cyclic!quad.!

1!

0!

Angles!in!alt!segment!

7!

4!

Number'of'schema'activated'

126'

63'

Total'Angles'found'successfully'

125'

72'

1(Corrected)'

2'

Frequency'of'false'activation'

Table(1:(Total(Number(of(schema(activated(by(the(5(high(achievers(and(5(low(

achievers+

32!

Frequency+of+activation+&+False+activation+

We!can!see!from!the!result!that!the!frequency!of!activation!of!different!schema!

for! high! achiever! group! is! significantly! higher! than! that! of! low! achiever! group.!!!

They! can! retrieve! schema! effectively! that! is! related! to! solve! the! problems.!!

Moreover,!it!occurs!that!a!high!achiever!activates!a!schema!incorrectly!but!after!

some!cross!checking!he!is!able!to!correct!it.!!In!contrast,!the!low!achievers!fail!to!

selfTcorrect!their!false!activation.!!!

Such!a!difference!in!frequency!can!show!that!high!achievers!have!a!higher!ability!

to! search! for! related! knowledge,! but! the! reason! behind! this! result! is! not! yet!

known.! ! I! would! like! to! further! analyze! the! solving! process! of! each! individual!

student! to! unfold! his! thinking.! ! Therefore! I! further! carry! on! another! analysis! !

Solution!Path!Analysis.!

!

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

33!

Solution+path+analysis+

To!trace!the!student!solution!path,!I!represent!each!angle!of!the!problem!with!a1,!

a2,!a3!There!are!altogether!26!angles.!!!

!

Figure+8:+Angles+notation+in+open>ended+question+

On! the! solution! path! diagram,! an! angle! found! without! predecessor! box! means!

that!the!student!is!using!given!information!in!question!to!find!the!angle.!!!

All!angles!lining!up!in!the!same!arrow!mean!that!they!follow!one!from!each!other.!!

It!means!that!the!student!finds!one!angle,!then!generates!a!new!angle!using!the!

one! he! found.! Of! course! he! may! also! need! to! use! some! other! angles! found!

previously,!however!if!the!angles!are!on!the!same!arrow,!they!can!be!considered!

as!follow!through!from!the!one!before!because!it!provide!the!critical!information!

to!generate!the!new!angle.!!It!reflects!the!ability!to!generate!new!information.!!!

When!a!student!needs!to!look!back!to!those!angles!he!found!before!and!use!it!to!

find!another!angle,!a!separate!arrow!will!be!used.!!!

The!sequence!of!correct!angles!found!is!in!the!order!of!left!to!right.!!!

34!

Following!is!a!demonstration!of!how!to!visualize!the!solving!process!through!the!

solution!path!diagram:!

Example+

+

a4!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

a3!

a2!

a6!

a5!

Figure+9:+A+sample+solution+path+diagram+

Explanation+of+the+diagram+

Using!the!information!angle!BPQ=20o!as!given!in!the!question,!a!student!derive!

a4!with!the!following!step:!

!4 = 40!(Angle!at!centre!twice!angle!at!circumference)!

[Using(given(information:(Diagram(representation((no(previous(box](

(

!3 = !2 = 70!(Base!angles,!isos!triangle)!

[Followed( from( a4,( the( student( can( generate( the( base( angles( in( triangle( BOQ:(

Diagram(representation((arrow(follow(through(from(a4(to(a3(and(a2](

(

!6 = 180 40 = 140!(Adjacent!angles!on!straight!line)!

[At(this(time,(the(student(traced(back(to(a4(and(the(find(a6(by(the(fact(that(they(are(

adjacent(angles.((Diagram(representation:((a6(can(be(considered(as(followed(from(

a4(with(a(separate(arrow.((Since(a6(is(found(after(a2,(the(box(of(a6(is(located(on(the(

right(hand(side(of(a2.](

(

!5 = 180 140 20 = 20!(Angle!sum!of!triangle)!

35!

[With(a6(successfully(found,(a5(can(be(easily(obtained(through(angle(sum(of(

triangle.(Diagram(representation:(arrow(from(a6(to(a5.](

+

Solution+path+diagrams+of+some+high+achievers+and+low+achievers+

!

!

a1!

a22!

a9!

a10!

a2!

a3!

a5!

a6!

a7!

a24!

a26!

a19!

a18!

a20!

a8!

a15!

!

a16! a11! a12! a15! a13! a21! a17!

!

!

a23!

a25!

!

Figure+10:+High+achiever+solution+path+sample+(H1)+

!

!

!

a15! a17! a21! a20!

a7!

a18!

a19!

a26!

a25!

!

!

a9!

a22!

!

a23! a24! a12! a10! a12! a13! a14!

Figure+11:+High+achiever+solution+path+sample+(H2)+

!

36!

For! high! achiever! H2,! there! is! a! special! box! highlighted! with! dotted! lines!

representing! he! wrongly! calculate! some! angles.! ! However! he! is! able! to! self!

correct!through!finding!some!other!angles!and!then!review!those!mistakes.!

!

a1! a2!

a4!

a3!

a5!

a6!

a9!

a22!

a7!

a19!

a18! a20!

a8!

a14! a15!

Figure+13:+Low+achiever+solution+path++

a11! a13!

sample+(L1)+(L1+is+the+only+one+successfully++

a16!

found+almost+all+angles.++)+

a23! a26!

!

!

a1!

a2!

!

!

!

a4!

a6!

a5!

a3!

a7! a18!

!

!

!

!

a9! a22!

a19!

a20!

a8!

a21! a17!

Figure+14:+Low+achiever+solution+path++

sample+(L4)+

a10! a15!

37!

Through! the! solution! path! diagram,! we! can! see! some! significant! differences!

between!high!and!low!achievers.!!For!other!participants!solution!path!diagram,!

please! refer! to! appendix! 1.! ! Following! findings! are! consistent! among! other!

participants.!

!

Long+sequence+of+solution+path+

High! achiever! has! a! clear! solution! path! with! longer! sequence! of! information!

generation.!!They!generally!show!a!smooth!and!clear!solution!path,!i.e.!they!can!

find! a! new! angle! from! the! previous! answer! one! by! one! with! a! clear! logic.!!

However! for! low! achievers! they! generally! jump! from! one! angle! to! another!

without!a!clear!logical!relationship.!!This!shows!that!their!knowledge!structure!

may!be!more!fragmented.!!Moreover,!low!achievers!tend!to!give!up!and!stop!once!

they! are! stuck! after! finding! an! angle,! while! high! achiever! shows! a! more!

persistent!attitude!to!search!for!solution!related!to!what!he!found.!!!

!

Multiple+uses+of+single+data+

High!achiever!is!able!to!generate!new!information!by!the!multiple!use!of!a!single!

data.(For!some!data!like!PQ,!it!can!be!used!as!a!diameter!to!find!a!right!angle,!a!

tangent!to!find! BAO and!also!split!into!radii!to!find!an!isosceles!triangle.!!High!

achievers!are!able!to!perform!multiple!use!of!this!single!source!of!data!but!low!

achievers!generally!only!use!it!once!or!twice.(

!

Multiple+schema+activated+

High! achiever! shows! an! ability! to! activate! multiple! schema! when! solving! an!

angle.!!For!example,!when!high!achiever!H1!solve!angle!BOQ!he!mentioned:!

!

38!

because!this!is!angle!at!centre!twice!angle!at!circumference,!at!the!same!time!

this!can!be!solved!by!isosceles!triangle!

Related!schemas!are!connected!to!each!other!in!an!organized!way!that!provide!

an!effective!access!channel.!!!

!

Schema+activation+speed+

High! achiever! has! a! higher! schema! activation! speed,! which! reflects! a! higher!

quality! of! knowledge! structure.( ( For! activation! of! schema! that! is! relatively!

indirect,!for!example!using!angle!in!alternate!segment!to!find! BAO requires!a!

student!to!shift!the!focus!from!the!semiTcircle!to!the!whole!circle.!!High!achievers!

can!activate!the!schema!faster!than!low!achievers.!!Only!3!out!of!5!low!achievers!

can! activate! angle! in! alternate! segment! while! all! 5! high! achievers! can! do! so.!!

Moreover!there!is!a!significantly!long!time!lag!(For!example,!although!L1!can!also!

find! all! angles,! he! takes! more! than! 20! seconds! to! apply! angle! in! alternate!

segment!to!find!that!particular!angle)!for!low!achievers!to!activate!that!schema.!!

(

Range+of+geometric+schema+

High!achiever!tends!to!use!a!greater!range!of!geometric!schemas.!!To!solve!the!

problem,!high!achievers!make!use!of!9!to!11!different!schema.!!For!low!achievers,!

except!a!relatively!capable!student!who!use!11!different!schema,!others!only!can!

activate!3!!9!different!schema.!!(

!

Self+correction+

High!achiever!(H2)!shows!a!selfTcorrection!process.!!He!finds!some!other!angles!

to!cross!check!the!mistakes!he!made!and!corrected!them.!!It!happens!that!a!low!

!

39!

achiever! (L3)! also! made! some! mistakes,! but! he! chooses! to! give! up! solving! the!

problem!instead!of!finding!ways!to!correct!them.!

!

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (PRE-TEST: Other parts of test)

Pre>test+1:+Theorem+test++

!

Theorems''

High'achievers'

Low'achievers'

1!

5!

4!

2!

5!

2!

3!

5!

3!

4!

5!

2!

5!

5!

5!

6!

5!

0!

30!

16!

TOTAL!

+

Table+2:+Number+of+correct+theorems+identified+

!

In!this!test,!all!high!achievers!successfully!recall!and!identify!all!theorems,!while!

low!achievers!show!some!errors!and!failure!in!identifying!the!theorem.!!Some!of!

them! actually! know! how! to! apply! the! theorem! but! cannot! recall! the! theorem.!!

This! is! because! most! low! achievers! remember! the! theorems! by! rote!

memorization!while!high!achievers!memorize!by!the!meaning!of!theorems.!!!

For! low! achievers,! all! of! them! mix! up! the! properties! of! arc! and! chord.! ! Some!

students! even! write! the! theorem! name! Angle! at! centre! is! proportional! to!

40!

chords.! ! They! also! do! not! have! clear! concept! of! certain! terms! like! segment! of!

circle.! ! One! of! the! low! achiever! mention! the! theorem! :! Alternative! angle! of!

tangent!instead!of!Angle!in!alternate!segment.!!!

!+

Pre>test+2+&+3:+Cognitive+Load+test+

Question!!

High!achievers!

Low!achievers!

1!

5!

3!

2!

4!

2!

3!

5!

3!

4!

5!

3!

5!

4!

4!

23!

15!

(

(

(

TOTAL!

(

(

(

(

Table+3:+Number+of+correct+answers+in+Test+2+(Without+written+procedure)+

Question!!

High!achievers!

Low!achievers!

!

1!

4!

4!

2!

4!

4!

3!

5!

3!

4!

4!

2!

5!

4!

5! (

21!

18! (

TOTAL!

!

!

(

(

!

Table+4:+Number+of+correct+answers+in+Test+3(With+written+procedure)+

!

41!

High! achievers! perform! significantly! better! and! faster! in! the! without! written!

procedure! test! but! the! difference! become! much! smaller! in! the! with! written!

procedure! test.! ! Proper! schema! can! be! activated! and! the! cognitive! load! in!

solving! the! problems! is! reduced.! ! Schemas! are! organized! in! a! way! such! that!

shortTterm!memory!can!be!used!effectively!for!solving!the!problems.!

There!are!also!some!interesting!comments!from!a!high!achiever:!

o H1((TEST(2):(Its(tired(to(solve(the(problem(without(writing(on(

paper!

o H1((TEST(2):(This(can(be(an(effective(training!

o H1((TEST(3):(Its(much(easier(than(the(previous(test(

High! achievers! perceive! the! difficulty! to! finish! the! problem! as! a! training!

opportunities.! ! ! ! They! have! a! high! motivation! to! solve! problem! and! overcome!

difficulty.!

+

42!

Pre>test+4:+Conventional+question+

+

Figure+15:+A+typical+conventional+problem+solving+style+

We!want!to!see!the!solving!style!of!students!in!this!part!of!test.!!All!students!solve!

the! problems! by! directly! writing! angles! on! diagram! in! a! way! similar! to! solve! a!

MC!problem.!!After!they!find!the!angles,!they!present!the!formal!steps!separately.!!

It! appears! that! the! problem! solving! style! of! MC! questions! is! more! natural! than!

presenting! the! arguments! step! by! step.! ! This! inspires! the! instructional! design!

SplitTattention!effect!which!is!consistent!with!usual!problem!solving!behavior.!!!

Some!low!achievers!cannot!present!the!steps!correctly!and!logically.!!Some!only!

shows!one!or!two!statements!that!are!explicitly!mentioned!in!the!questions.!!!

!

!

+

+

43!

Pre>test+5:+Word>only+Problems++

!

Figure+16:+Low+achiever+(L1)+success+in+drawing+the+diagram+but+fail+to+

solve+the+problem+

Figure+17:+High+achiever+(H4)+draw+the+diagram+and+solve+the+problem+

successfully+

!

44!

!

Figure+18:+Low+achiever+(L4)+fail+to+put+the+information+in+problem+into+the+

diagram+

!

!

Figure+19:+High+achiever+(H1)+inserts+all+information+into+diagram+

correctly+with+problem+solved+with+logical+steps.+

!

45!

All! questions! provide! adequate! information! to! draw! a! unique! diagram.! ! As! we!

can! see,! all! high! achievers! are! able! to! draw! the! diagrams! and! solve! the! angles!

directly,! while! 4! out! of! 5! Low! achievers! make! mistake! in! drawing! the! diagram,!

showing!that!there!is!a!language!issue!which!need!our!attention.!!Most!of!them!

overlook! certain! condition! mentioned! in! the! question! or! misunderstand! the!

information.! ! ! Moreover,! high! achievers! succeed! in! solving! the! problem! after!

drawing! the! diagram,! while! most! of! the! low! achievers! stopped! attempting! to!

solve!the!problem!after!a!short!thinking!period.!!One!part!of!schema!the!students!

need! to! build! up! is! the! relationship! between! the! visual! representation! and! the!

verbal!statements.!!!

46!

47!

In the design part, here I will present an instructional design to teach geometry with

the use of some cognitive models. The design will focus on overcoming certain

cognitive barriers in learning and facilitating students formation of schema.

Class structure

There are around 40 students participated in the class. I am both the researcher and

teacher in class. Since the class is a tutorial class instead of day-school class, the

class duration is very limited. There are only 3 lessons in total, with each lesson 70

minutes, to cover all the theories in the chapter about circle and tangent properties.

Most of the class time is the demonstration of worked example by instructor, whereas

the remaining time is the practice time for students.

questions, and the final lesson focus on structural questions. All questions format are

based on Hong Kong public examination standard. Students are not expected to do

much work at home, therefore the efficiency of class is highly dependent on the

presentation of instructor. Following are the strategies used in the presentation and

instruction.

Problem Solving Ability Enhancement Strategies

Solving geometry problem always involve a seeing process with several successive

phases from physical-neural ones to higher cognitive processes (Gal et.al. 2010).

Duval (1998) defines such phases as three functions: visualization, construction and

reasoning. Gal et.al. (2010) point out that visualization starts with the visual

perception process that focuses on the figural properties of a diagram. This is the

initial focus in solving geometry problem, which in his term called the perceptionbased knowledge representation(VPR).

!

48!

However, another researcher Marr (1982) suggests some limitations in such visual

image formation. He suggests that a particular visual representation can make certain

information explicit while pushing other information into the background that become

hard to recover. Presmeg (1997) also suggests that this can prevent mathematical

generalization that results in difficulties in solving geometry problems.

In the design I am going to present, I will focus on building up schema through

visualization strategy, how to generalize such representation and minimize the

mistakes to be made. The design of the lesson is different from traditional drilling

approach. Following are the strategies to be used:

1. Avoiding the Split-attention effect

In traditional class, diagram and text are usually separated. Sweller (1992)

suggests that this can result in heavy cognitive load to shift attention from

diagram and text. To reduce the extrinsic cognitive load, diagram-text

integration is adopted in class instead of traditional method of separating

the statements from the diagrams. In this way students can focus on

learning the relationship between different schemas without the needs to

shift attention from the diagram to statement and the other way round. The

demonstration will also make use of visual aids such as using numbering

on diagram to show the logic and sequence in applying theorems to solve

the problems instead of verbal description. Efforts will be put on

promoting germane cognitive load.

Following is an example of teaching a problem in traditional way,

where text and diagram are separated.

49!

A!

B!

C!

!"# = 20(Alt%angles,%OB//AC)

!"# = 40(Angle'at'centre'twice'angle'at'circumference)

The$required$angle = 20 + 40 = 60(Exterior)angle)of)triangle)

Figure 20: Traditional presentation in classroom teaching

Here is an example of how to use diagram-text integration to avoid splitattention effect:

50!

Students can focus on learning the logic and forming schema by paying

full attention to the diagram and relationship between angles.

Students often find that it is difficult to follow, pay attention and

remember what the teachers said due to the limitation of working memory.

We should be aware that instead of deducing the solution from tedious

geometric theorems, the first focus of solving a geometric problem should

be the visual perception (Gal et.al., 2010). Teachers should focus on how

to make use of visual perception to facilitate learning process instead of

focusing on words and sentences in the first phase of instruction in

geometry.

A special presentation method on this topic will be used visualized

analogy prototype with features added. For example, after explaining the

characteristics of the theorem of angles in the same segment, it will be

presented as butterfly, with the features that the four angles lying on

circumference and each pairs are equal. In explaining every question

related to this theorem in class, the term will be used.

This can

significantly shorten the time to do the explanation, and also reduce the

cognitive load of students.

51!

robust representation (Presmag, 1997), therefore the schema should be

built up together with the following strategy.

DiMaggio (1997) defines schema to be an organized pattern of thought

that contains categories of information and the relationships among them.

Chinnappan M. (1998) also emphasize that organizational quality of the

knowledge in the long-term memory is very important in the problemsolving process. Based on these suggestions, schema here we want the

students to build up is not only the visual perception (e.g. the butterfly in

the previous strategy), but also an extensive knowledge network related to

that representation.

To build up students conceptual model for solving geometric problems, a

schema approach with mastery learning will be used. Following from the

previously introduced analogy prototype, connection for different

52!

associated with the prototypes being taught from time to time and the

variation of problem environment of applying the theorem, a complete

schema system is formed in student mind. The schema system in solving

geometric problems should consist of four components:

Prototype visual analogy prototype for each theorem as the center

component of schema

Properties For the activation of the prototype, certain properties must be

present.

avoid faulty use of theorem.

Description The theorems are to be understood as a description of the

schema. Students must be encouraged to understand the meaning of the

terms in the theorem instead of rote memorization. I will also employ

CLIL approach here (ESOL, 2010). Academic vocabularies such as arc,

circumference etc are introduced. Moreover, through a careful analysis of

clumsy theory such as Line from centre to mid-point of chord

perpendicular to chord, I will make use of highlighter to chunk the

sentence into parts to introduce the causal relationship of the theory.

Variation Anderson's (1983) ACT* theory suggests that a rich

conceptual knowledge base and examples together with general problemsolving heuristics are important to develop the new procedures for a

specific task. Then it comes to the discrimination and generalization

processes.

Here to build up the rich knowledge base and facilitate generalization

53!

students are required to face problems. For example, I will analyze the

presence of Butterfly in whole circle, semi-circle and quarter-circle.

Though in such cases some equal arcs may become invisible, they can

still be able to visualize the presence of the theorem. Another example is

to identify cyclic quadrilateral in various forms:

require different levels of reasoning and deduction. Only when students

showing that they can master problems of a specific difficulties they will

move to the next difficulty level.

always a jump that corresponds to a new awareness in which

everything is completely reorganized in an obvious way. On the

positive side, such jump can result in an automated short-cut to

solution. However, on the negative side, they are sometimes errorprone. Over-emphasis on the surface feature in the analogy prototype

!

54!

sometimes can have adverse effect that students are more prompt to

mistakes. For example, sometimes even when some angles of butterfly

not lying on the circumference, students also will consider them to be

butterfly. Therefore a correction process is necessary.

Instead of telling them the correct way directly, they will be trapped in

some problems. They will reform their schema themselves with the

appropriate condition and constraints effectively after making mistakes

themselves. This can also be considered as using procedural knowledge to

reconstruct conceptual knowledge.

Figure 24: Error-Prompt Problem. Students will easily consider the ratio

of three angles as 4:5:6.

5. Worked Example

Sweller (1988) suggested that sometimes goal-free problems and workedexamples should be used instead of means-end analysis in problem solving

to help building up the schema and reduce cognitive load. The design of

remedial class here will use worked-example as majority. Steps-by-steps

55!

procedures step by step, teaching is focused on using existing information

to generate new information.

6. The use of open-ended questions

For some questions, students will be invited to think of alternative solution.

Instead of solving the problems, the process and logic of thinking and how

to apply different schema in searching the problem space will be

encouraged. Klavir and Hershkovitz (2008) also suggest that these kinds

of problems can be used to learn various strategies and thus deepen the

students' mathematical knowledge and develop their creative mathematical

thinking.

7. Active highlighting

In the lesson, students are encouraged to highlight keywords by

themselves before demonstration from the instructor.

Svinicki (2006)

they chose that sentence to highlight, they will take highlighting to a

deeper and more active level.

Most students memorized all those theorems names by rote memorization. They

only focus on solving the problem but pay only little attention on the language used in

communication.

also their ability in understanding word problem, following strategies are being used

in class:

56!

1. Vocabularies first

A collection of vocabularies referring to different position and terms to be

used in this topic should be introduced first. This is also a kind of concept

building and preparation for learning different theorems. Chords, Arcs,

Circumference, Segment, Sector are examples of the subject

vocabularies. Students are encouraged to speak aloud these words for better

memorization and to facilitate future learning. Moreover, some vocabularies

such as Sector and segment, arcs and chords should be paired up to help

students identifying their similarities and differences.

2. Learn each theorem by Logic first, theorems later

After introducing the vocabularies, teacher should encourage students to

identify the key properties of each theorem but not focus on the theorem

statement itself. After the students apply the theorems to different problems

and have built up the correct concepts, the theorem statements are to be

analyzed in terms of relational clauses, ways of presenting arguments and

causality to help students consolidating what they have learnt and also learn

the language.

3. Relational clauses and thesaurus

In geometry students learn quite a lot about relational clauses.

Before

similar words for the relationship.

meaning of two times, doubles etc. This can deepen the understanding on

the properties and also strengthen their English language ability.

4. Ways of presenting arguments

Some geometry problems involves angle finding, and some problems involves

57!

proving.

difference purposes.

problem context can be designed and the structure of statement and common

styles used for different purposes should be introduced.

5. Reason and Result Chunking

For some tedious and long statements such as Line joining centre to midpoint of chord perpendicular to chord can be chunked into two lines: Line

joining centre to mid-point of chord and

perpendicular to chord to

pattern in these thoerems.

58!

Evaluation (Post-test)

About 1 month after attending the remedial class designed with the strategy presented

in the previous part, students are asked to finish a post-test. Delayed test is arranged

such that long-term effect of class and change of students knowledge base can be

reflected. Format and level of test will be similar to the post-test in analysis part. I

will try to evaluate the effectiveness of the class with reference to the test result and

also their performance throughout the lessons.+

Post>test+1:+Theorem+test+

Theorems''

Pre'Test'

Post'Test'

1!

4!

4!

2!

2!

4!

3!

3!

4!

4!

2!

4!

5!

5!

4!

6!

0!

5!

16!

25!

+

+

+

+

+

TOTAL!

+

+

+

Table+5:+Number+of+correct+theorems+identified+

!

Students!recall!and!identify!most!theorems!precisely.!!They!do!not!perform!rote!

memorization!but!try!to!relate!the!meaning!of!theorems!with!the!related!terms!

in!their!mind.!!For!example,!Line!joining!centre!to!midTpoint!of!chord!

perpendicular!to!chord!and!Line!perpendicular!to!chord!bisects!chord!are!two!

theorems!that!are!easily!mixed!up!by!students.!!In!the!post!test,!4!out!of!5!

!

59!

students!state!the!theorem!correctly.!!This!reflects!a!logical!relationship!in!

students!mind!instead!of!rote!memorization!of!the!statement.!!

!+

Post+test+2+&+3:+Cognitive+Load+test+

(

Question!!

Pre!Test!

Post!Test!

1!

3!

5!

2!

2!

5!

3!

3!

5!

4!

3!

5!

5!

4!

4!

15!

24!

(

(

(

(

TOTAL!

(

(

(

Table+6:+Number+of+correct+answers+in+Test+2+(Without+written+procedure)+

Question!!

Pre!Test!

Post!Test!

1!

4!

5! !

2!

4!

5!

3!

3!

5!

4!

2!

5!

!

!

!

!

5!

TOTAL!

5!

4!

18!

24!

!

!

Table+7:+Number+of+correct+answers+in+Test+3(With+written+procedure)+

!

60!

Students!perform!much!better!in!both!tests.!!With!a!more!structured!knowledge!

base! with! related! schemas! connecting! to! each! other,! they! successfully! reduce!

their! cognitive! load! in! solving! problems! and! access! the! correct! solution!

effectively.!

Post+test+4:+Conventional+question++

Students! can! successfully! present! their! steps! logically! following! the! angles!

marked!on!the!diagram.!!Similar!problem!solving!style!with!preTtest!was!found.!

Post+test+5:+Word>only+Problems++

Diagram+25:+L1+can+solve+word>problem+successfully+in+the+post+test++

Diagram+26:+L4+can+solve+word>problem+successfully+in+the+post+test++

!

!

61!

In! the! preTtest,! low! achievers! in! general! cannot! even! draw! the! diagram! with!

correct!information.!!After!the!class,!they!can!comprehend!all!the!information!in!

problem!and!also!make!successful!attempt!in!solving!the!problem.!!This!is!a!great!

progress!in!dealing!with!these!word!problems.!!Language!is!a!focus!in!class!such!

that! students! not! only! need! to! solve! a! problem! but! also! to! communicate!

effectively.! ! Key! terms! and! relationship! are! emphasized! in! class.! Students! are!

encouraged! to! speak! out! their! steps! and! reasons! behind! instead! of! simply!

writing!down!the!angles.!!They!do!not!need!to!memorize!the!theorems,!but!they!

are!encouraged!to!retrieve!the!correct!terms!and!put!them!together!in!their!own!

way.! ! Language! plays! a! very! important! role! not! only! in! solving! a! problem,! but!

also!to!communicate!and!building!up!the!architecture!of!concepts.!!

!

!

!

62!

Conclusion

Schema plays an important role in teaching and learning geometry. From the openended question result, we can see that there is a significant difference in problem

solving style between high achievers and low achievers. Through the solution path

analysis they demonstrate the difference in expert and novice way in problem solving.

The long sequence of angle seeking procedure is one of the characteristics of how

high achiever solve a problem.

information using an existing one. With an organized schema structure they are also

more capable of searching through their solution space. In contrast, low achiever

seems less effective in generating new information. Whenever they get stuck, they

will give up and try to look for some other clues.

This result is consistent with the findings from Lawson and Chinnappan (1994) about

generative activity during geometry problem solving.

Their solution

searching process is more sustainable and spread more widely through the knowledge

network. Chinnappan suggests the term wave for this kind of generative activity.

One problem-relevant knowledge component was used to cue and activate further

knowledge.

In the instruction part, students should be encouraged to use the information given in

the data instead of finding a specific angle. They should be encouraged to generate

new information from the given information. This is a training to enhance their

generative ability. Moreover, they can work on the problems according to their ability

with this kind of training. Through these generative activity their understanding can

63!

guidance! and! presentation! are! also! of! importance.! ! They! should! not! simply!

demonstrate! the! solution! while! presenting! a! worked! example,! they! also! should!

focus!on!how!to!generate!one!angle!from!another.!!For!questions!that!ask!for!a!

specific!angle,!teachers!can!also!put!in!variety!by!extending!the!diagram!or!lines!

further!that!can!lead!to!a!new!question.!!Generative!ability!is!always!the!focus.!

!

Generation of wide range of new information that provides opportunities for

searching relevant knowledge

For some high achievers (H3, H5), besides demonstrating the long sequence

processing, they also demonstrate another strategy in solving problem they generate

a wide range of information first, and then facilitate their solution searching process.

This is also consistent with Chinnappans research. In his paper high achievers fed

off nearly generated information and provided themselves with multiple chances for

finding relevant knowledge.

sequences of information generation.

In understanding their learning process, I focus mainly on the role of schema through

their process in solving the open-ended questions. However many different cognitive

activities are indeed affecting a students problem solving process. The effect of

cognitive load and memory system in learning geometry is an area that worth to be

investigated yet not much research has been done in the area.

Concerning the instructional part, with the limitation of my tutorial class format that

focus on teachers presentation, I omit the design of student activities in this paper.

64!

However student activities like collaborative learning can also be very effective in

schema formation.

Low achievers usually give up after working on existing information. However, high

achievers are more persistent in searching for possible solution. These personality

differences may also account for the long chain solution process. Especially when

facing difficult questions, high achievers try to find different cues to solve the

problem and find as many pieces of information as they can. However, for low

achievers, after they stuck into existing information without moving further for a short

while, they stop their attempt to solve the problem.

Satisfaction can enhance persistency. Instructors can break the task into different

milestones and guide low achievers to finish easier task one after another.

In the cognitive load test where students were asked to mentally calculate the angles

without the help of paper and pen, a significant difference is found between high

achievers and low achievers, and also the pre-test and post-test of low achievers. This

proves that not only there is a difference between their depth and width of knowledge,

but also the information processing procedures and the structure of knowledge that

affect the retrieval of information.

Besides the use of schema, teachers should also reduce extrinsic load and avoid splitattention effect of students by using techniques like Diagram-text integration as

mentioned earlier before.

students mind. How they present the problem solving procedures affect largely how

65!

students solve the problems themselves in future. Teachers not only have to present

the steps clearly, but also the thinking process behind. For example, when a diagram

requires adding a line, teacher should explain not only why the line helps to solve the

problem, but also what information triggers him to add the line. Emphasis should be

put on not only steps and answers, but also depth of thought.

In this paper, language used in geometry is also an area I want to study. In the pretests and post-tests, there are two parts called Theorem name and Word-only

Problem. Both parts suggest that language is an issues we need to address in

mathematics class. Here I would like to further discuss on this issue.

In geometry, all properties and theorems are clearly defined with specific subject

vocabularies.

with the topics. All are precise, non-redundant and unambiguous. In Cuevas (1984)

words, these are the properties for mathematics register, which are the meanings

belonging to the natural language used in mathematics.

Besides these nouns that are reinterpreted from natural language words, there are also

specific relational clause used in the subject. For example, in the theorem angle at

centre twice angle at circumference, twice is specific relational clause that relates

two angles.

Styles of meaning and ways of presenting arguments are also the other components of

mathematics language (Halliday, 1975). For example Angle in the same segment,

Alternate angle, AB//CD are used when using these theorems to find a value,

66!

however Converse of angle in the same segment, Alternate angles equal are used

in the proving statement.

Causality is also another interesting point to note in the theorems statement. For

example, Line perpendicular from centre to chord bisects chord can be interpreted

as Because the line is perpendicular to chord, therefore it bisects the chord. While

Line joining centre to mid-point of chord perpendicular to chord can be interpreted

as Because the line joins centre to mid-point of chord, therefore it is perpendicular to

chord.

Given!

Result!

Line!joining!midTpoint!to!centre!of!chord!! perpendicular!to!chord!

Vocabularies, relational clause, ways of presenting arguments and causality are the

four key aspects of language issues in teaching and learning geometry. Chunking,

Logic first are some important strategies in dealing with these aspects. To further

enhance the instructional design of class, extra exercises can also be designed on

improving students ability in these areas. They are not about spelling of words or

memorization of statements, but about building up a deeper understanding and more

extensive concept network for students. For example, words-diagram conversion can

be a kind of training in which students try to draw diagram from words-problem or

use words to describe a diagram and all the information contained in the diagram. !

67!

In this paper, I have conducted the research on various aspects about teaching and

learning geometry. Cognitive models and psychological factors can affect not only

the effectiveness of the process, but also students knowledge structure in long term.

I would like to provide a broad range of perspectives on the area, which may inspire

future research to focus on one of these aspects. Another area for future research can

also focus on applying schema and cognitive models on other areas of mathematics.

As educators, we have to understand that teaching and learning is a process to transfer

knowledge and skill. Mathematics is not only about drilling and practice, most

importantly it is about thinking and reasoning. We show them how to solve the

problem, not meaning that they understand the way to solve the problem; Even if they

can understand it, not meaning that they can solve it in future. How to aid students to

build up such ability and knowledge structure is always more important than asking

students to practise and practise. The role of a mathematics teacher is much more

important than the books, or the exercises. Cognitive models provide a foundation for

us to understand our students mind, however the most important thing is, we have to

bear in mind to keep thinking on our students thinking during our classroom

practice.

68!

Appendix

Appendix 1:

Pre-test question Part+1:+Theorem+Name+Questions+

1. !

O!is!the!centre!of!circle!ABC.!!Write!down!the!value!of!x!with!reason.!

[O!

!ABC!

!x!

O(

]!

C(

A(

B(

2.!!

AB!is!the!diameter!of!circle!ABCD.!!Write!down!the!value!of!x!with!reason.!

[AB!

!ABCD!

!x!

]!

C(

D(

A(

B(

!

!

!

!

!

!

69!

!

3.!

O!is!the!centre!of!circle!ABC.!!Write!down!the!value!of!x!with!reason.!

[O!

!ABC!

!x!

]!

C(

O(

A(

B(

4.!

AD!is!the!tangent!of!circle!ABC.!!Write!down!the!value!of!x!with!reason.!

[AD!

!ABC!

!x!

]!

B(

A(

5.!!

!

D(

C(

The!figure!shows!the!circle!ABCD!with!AB!=!BC.!Write!down!the!value!of!x!

with!reason.!

A(

!ABCD!

!AB!=!BC

!x!

]!

70!

B(

C(

D(

!

6. !

O!is!the!centre!of!circle!ABC.!!Write!down!the!value!of!x!with!reason.!

[O!

!ABC!

!x!

]!

!

!

71!

Appendix 2:

Pre-test question Part+2:+MC+Question+(Without+written+procedure)+

!

1.!

In!the!figure,!XAB!and(XDC!are!straight!lines.!If!DX!=!18,!AX!=!20!and!AB!=!

16,!find!CD.!

XAB!

!XDC!

!DX!=!18 AX!=!20!

AB!=!16

]!

C(

A.!

14!

B.!

14.4!

C.!

160

!

9

CD

D.!

D(

18!

X(

22!

20!

16!

A(

B(

!

!

2.!

In!the!figure,!OABCD!is!a!semiTcircle!with!centre!O.!If!BC!//!OD!and!

ODC

OABCD!

]!

!O!

BC!//!OD!

! BAC = 28

O(

A(

!

!

A.!

56 !

B.!

59 !

C.!

62 !

D.!

68 !

D(

B(

C(

!

!

!

72!

!

3.!

In!the!figure,!CD!is!the!diameter!of!the!circle!ABCD.!CD!and!BA!are!

produced!to!meet!at!E.!If! BCA = 42 !and!BA!=!BC,!find! CEB .!

CD!

!ABCD!

BCA = 42 ! !BA!=!BC

CD!

! CEB

!BA!

!E

]!

!

!

A.!

26 !

B.!

36 !

C.!

42 !

D.!

48 !

C(

(

D(

E(

A(

B(

!

!

!

4.!

In!the!figure,!AF!is!the!tangent!to!circle!BCDE.!If! EDB = 40 ,!

!

AF(

BCD = 150

! EDB = 40

!BCDE!

BAE

]!

AED = 110 ! !

A(

E(

A.!

40 !

B.!

60 !

C.!

70 !

D.!

30 !

B(

D(

F(

C(

73!

5.!

In!the!figure,!A,!B,!C!and!D!are!points!on!the!circle!and!O!is!the!centre.!XY!is!

AC(

!BD(

C(

!E

!D(

!O(

! XAB = 67 !

XY(

! CDB = 38

! AEB = ]!

X(

A.!

104 !

B.!

105 !

C.!

119 !

D.!

134 !

!

B(

O( E(

!

!

!A

A(

D(

Y(

C(

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

74!

Appendix 4:

Pre-test question Part+3:+MC+Question+Part+1:+MC+Question+(With+written+

procedures)+

!

1.!

In!the!figure,!the!centre!of!the!circle!ACD!lies!on!the!circle!BCD.!If!

!ACD!

! CAD = 50

!BCD!

! CBD

]!

!

!

A.!

40 !

B.!

65 !

C.!

80 !

D.!

130 !

D(

B(

A(

C(

!

!

!

2.!

POR

O!

!PQR!

! QPR = 28 !

! QRP = 36

]!

!

!

A.!

58 !

B.!

64 !

C.!

128 !

D.!

232 !

O(

R(

(

(

P(

Q(

75!

3.!

find!AB!:!CD.!

! AB : CD = 1: 2 !

O!

! AOB = 60

!AB!:!CD

]!

D(

A.!

1!:!2!

B.!

1!:!3!

C.!

1: 3 !

D.!

2: 3 !

A(

( O(

C(

B(

!

!

!

!

!

!

4.!

In!the!figure,!ADE,!BCE!and!DPC!are!tangents!to!the!circle.!If! DEC = 40 !

APD = 37

ADE

BCE!

! DEC = 40 !

!DPC!

! BAP

]!

!

!

A.!

33 !

B.!

35 !

C.!

37 !

D.!

70 !

A(

D(

P(

(

(

B(

C(

E(

76!

!

5.!

GC!and!AB!are!tangent!to!the!circle!ABC!and!CDE!respectively.!Which!of!

the!following!statements!is!true?!

[GC(

!AB(

!ABC!

!CDE!

]!

!

!

I.!

ADC = CED !

II.!

DEA = CDE !

III.!

DCG = CBA !

B(

D(

A(

A.!

I!only![

!I]!

B.!

I!and!III!only![

C.!

II!and!III!only![

!II!

D.!

I,!II!and!III![I

!III]!

G(

II!

E(

F(

C(

!III]!

!III]!

!

!

!

!

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

77!

Appendix 4:

Pre-test question Part+Part+4:+Conventional+Question

1.!

In!the!figure,! AB : BC : CA = 1: 3: 5 .!D!is!a!point!on!AC!such!that! BD AC .!

Find! DBA .!

[

DBA

! BD AC

AB : BC : CA = 1: 3: 5 D! !AC!

]!

!

!

A(

D(

!

!

C(

B(

!

!

!

2.!

In!the!figure,!AC!and!BD!intersect!at!F.!ADE!and!BCE!are!straight!lines.!If!

CBD = 26

AC!

!BD!

!F ADE!

! AFD

]!

D(

A(

E(

F(

C(

!

!

! DB = DE !

!BCE!

(

B(

78!

3.!

In!the!figure,!AFC!is!the!diameter!of!the!circle!ABCD.!CE!is!the!tangent!to!

the!circle!at!C!and!EBFD!is!a!straight!line.!If! CED = 43 !and! ADB = 58 ,!

find! BAD .!

[

AFC!

!ABCD!

! CED = 43 !

CE!

! ADB = 58

!C!

! BAD

!EBFD!

]!

!

!

C(

D(

F(

A(

B(

E(

!

!

!

4.!

In!the!figure,!DE!is!the!tangent!of!the!circle!ABC!which!touches!at!A.!If!

DE!

! CAE

!ABC!

! BAC = 84 !

!A!

!BA!=!BD

]!

E(

!

A(

!

!

D(

B(

C(

79!

5.!

In!the!figure,!CA!and!CE!are!tangents!to!the!circle!at!A!and!D!respectively.!

AKD,!! BKE,!CDE!and!ABC!are!straight!lines.!If! ABK = 75 !and!

[

ABC!

CA!

!CE(

! ABK = 75 !

!A!

!D(

! KED = 25

AKD

BKE

! AKE

]!

CDE!! !

!

!

A(

!

B(

!

!

(

K(

(

!

!

C(

D(

E(

!

!

80!

Appendix 5:

Pre-test question Part+5:+Word>only+Problems+

1.!

[O!

ABC

! ABC !

! OAC = 30 !

! OCA = 20

]!

!

!

!

!

2.!

AE!is!the!diameter!of!the!semiTcircle!ABCDE.!If!BC!=!CD!=!DE!and!

[AE!

AED

!ABCDE!

!BC!=!CD!=!DE!

! ABC = 134

]!

!

!

!

3.!

O!is!the!centre!of!the!circle!and!AP!is!the!tangent!to!the!circle!at!P.!If!AOB!is!

a!straight!line!and!AP!=!BP,!find! PBO .!

[O!

PBO

!AP!

!P!

!AOB!

!AP!=!BP

]!

!

!

81!

Appendix 6:

Pre-test question Part+6:+The+Open>ended+Question+

+

1.!

Given!that:!

1.!

PQ!is!the!diameter!of!semiTcircle!PBQ!and!tangent!of!circle!ABC!at!O!

2.!

O!is!the!center!of!semiTcircle!PBQ!

3.!

Find!as!many!angles!as!you!can!

1.!

PQ!

2.!

O!

3.!

BPQ = 20 ! ! ABP = 50 !

:!

!PBQ!

!PBQ!

!ABC!

!O!

]!

!

!

!

!

!

D(

!

!

!

E(

F(

!

!

!

82!

Appendix 7:

Post-test question sets Part+1:+Theorem+Name+Questions

!

1.!

In!the!figure,!O!is!the!centre!of!circle!ABNM.!If!AB!=!MN!and!OP!=!5!cm,!

write!down!the!length!of!OQ!with!reason.!

OQ!

O!

!ABNM!

AB!=!MN!

!OP!=!5!cm

!

B(

]!

P(

!

A(

O(

!

M(

N(

Q(

!

!

!

!

!

!

2.!

In!the!figure,!O!is!the!centre!of!semiTcircle!ABCD.!If!ADE!is!a!straight!line,!

write!down!the!value!of!x!with!reason.!

O!

!ABCD!

ADE!

!x!

]!

B(

C(

!

!

x(

A(

D(

83!

E(

!

!

!

!

3.!

In!the!figure,!O!is!the!centre!of!circle!ABC.!Write!down!the!value!of!x!with!

reason.!

O!

!ABC!

!x!

]!

A(

!

!

B(

x(

C(

O(

!

!

!

84!

4.!

In!the!figure,!AB(is!the!diameter!of!circle.!If!CD!is!the!tangent!of!the!circle!

at!B,!! write!down!the!value!of!x!with!reason.!

AB(

CD!

!B!

!x!

]!

D(

B(

x(

C(

!

!

!

A(

!

!

!

!

!

!

5.!

In!the!figure,! BC : AD = 2 : 5 .!Write!down!the!value!of!x!with!reason.!

BC : AD = 2 : 5

!x!

]!

A(

!

x(

!

!

!

!

(

B(

D(

C(

!

!

!

85!

!

!

6.!

In!the!figure,!TA!and!TB!are!the!tangents!which!touches!the!circle!at!A!and!

B.!If!! TA!=!10!cm,!write!down!the!length!of!TB!with!reason.!

TA!

!TB!

!TB!

!A!

!B!

!TA!=!10!cm

A(

]!

!

!

!

T(

B(

86!

Appendix 8:

Post-test question sets Part+2:+MC+Question+(Without+written+procedure)+

!

1.!

In!the!figure,!AEC!is!a!diameter!and!DEB!is!a!straight!line.!Find!x.!

AEC!

A.!

82 !

B.!

113 !

!x

]!

A(

C.!

121 !

D.!

123 !

( E(

B(

x(

D(

C(

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

2.!

AB : BC : CD = 2 : 3: 2 ! ! CAD = 42

! DCA

]!

D(

A(

!

A.!

12 !

B.!

21 !

C.!

33 !

D.!

75 !

(

C(

B(

87!

3.!

In!the!figure,!ABCD!is!a!semiTcircle!and!AB!=!BC.! ACB = !

ABCD!

!AB!=!BC

ACB = ]!

A(

A.!

15 !

B.!

20 !

C.!

25 !

D.!

30 !

D(

(

B(

C(

!

!

!

!

!

4.!

BDC = 75 .! ADB = !

[DA!

!DC!

!ABCD!

DCB = 68 ! ! BDC = 75

ADB = ]!

!

!

A.!

31 !

B.!

37 !

C.!

55 !

D.!

75 !

A(

D(

(

( C(

B(

!

!

!

88!

!

5.!

In!the!figure,!the!tangent!touches!the!circle!at!B!and!AD!is!the!diameter!of!

the!!

DCB

ABE = 60

AD

A(

A. 10

B. 30

D(

C. 50

D. 70

C(

B(

E(

89!

Appendix 9:

Post-test question sets MC+Question+(With+written+procedure)!

!

1.!

In!the!figure,!ABCD!is!a!circle.!If!AC!is!a!diameter!of!the!circle!and!AB!=!BD,!

then! BDA = !

ABCD!

!AC!

!AB!=!BD

D(

A.!

54 !

B.!

57 !

C.!

63 !

! BDA = ]!

D.!

C(

72 !

B(

A(

!

!

2.!

In!the!figure,!ABCD!is!a!semiTcircle,!ADE!and!BCE!are!straight!line.!If!

BEA = 23

A.!

B.!

!

!

!

!

ABCD!

ADE!

!x

BCA = 34 !

!BCE!

]!

B(

C.!

33 !

34 !

45 !

D.!

56 !

x(

A(

C(

(

D(

E(

!

!

90!

3.!

In!the!figure,!chords!AC!and!BD!meet!at!E!and!AD!//!BC.!If! CED = 78 ,!

find!!

DAE .!

AC!

DAE

!BD!

!E!

!AD!//!BC

! 78

D(

]!

A(

E(

!

!

A.!

39 !

B.!

41 !

C.!

49 !

D.!

51 !

C(

B(

!

!

!

!

!

4.!

In!the!figure,!ABCD!is!a!rhombus.!B!is!the!centre!of!the!circle.! ABC = !

ABCD!

B!

ABC = ]!

D(

!

!

A.!

105 !

B.!

120 !

C.!

130 !

D.!

135 !

A(

C(

B(

!

!

!

91!

!

!

5.!

In!the!figure,!BE!is!tangent!to!the!circle!at!B.!If!AC!and!BD!intersect!at!F,!

find!!

CFB .!

BE!

!B!

!AC!

!BD!

! CFB

!F

!

!

A.!

104 !

B.!

106 !

C.!

108 !

D.!

140 !

]!

D(

A(

(

F(

E(

(

B(

!

!

92!

C(

Appendix 10:

Post-test question sets Part+4:+Conventional+Question+

1.!

BD!is!a!straight!line!that!passes!through!the!centre!of!the!circle.!If!

!

[BD!

ABD

! CBE = 65 !

!AB!=!BC

A(

]!

!

!

B(

E(

D(

!

C(

!

2.!

find! DAC .!

DAC

! CAB = 100 !

ABCD(

]!

A(

!BC!=!BD

C(

!

!

!

B(

D(

!

!

93!

3.!

In!the!figure!below,!O!is!the!centre!of!the!circle.!OAE!and!CBD!are!straight!

lines.!! If!A,!B,!D,!E!are!concyclic!points,!then! = !

O!

OAE!

!CBD!

D(

!E!

! = ]!

!

!

!

E(

A(

(

O(

!

C(

D(

B(

!

!

!

!

!

In the figure, CE is the tangent of the circle and DCE = 70 . If

4.

AB : BC = 1: 2 , find ACE .

[

CE

DCE = 70

ACE

AB : BC = 1: 2

A(

!

B(

!

!

!

!

F(

C(

E(

D(

94!

5.!

In!the!figure,!the!tangents!at!P!and!Q!meet!at!T.!Find! PRQ .!

!P!

!Q!

!T

! PRQ

]!

T(

(

R(

P(

Q(

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

95!

Appendix 11:

Post-test question sets Part+5:+Word+Question+

!

1.!

TA!and!TB!are!tangents!to!the!circle!ABC!at!A!and!B!respectively.!If!

[TA!

!TB!

!ABC!

!A!

!B

! ACB = 56

! ATB

]!

!

!

2.!

Straight!lines!AB,!AC!and!BC!are!the!tangents!of!the!circle!DFE!which!

touches!the!circle!at!D,!E!and!F!respectively.!If!the!perimeter!of!the! ABC !

is!36!cm,!find!the!length!of!AD.!

[

!AB

AC!

!36!cm

!BC!

!DFE!

!AD!

!D

E!

! ABC !

!F!

]!

!

!

3.!

find!!

[ABCD!

ACO

ACO .!

!O!

!AD!

! ABC = 130

]!

96!

Reference

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

University Press.

Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science 255. pp556-558

Bartlett, F. C. (1932) Remembering - a study in experimental and social psychology.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1932.

Byrnes, J. P. ; Wasik, B. A. (1991) Role of Conceptual Knowledge in Mathematical

Procedural Learning, Developmental Psychology, 1991, Vol.27(5), pp.777-786

Cambridge ESOL (2010) Teaching Maths through English a CLIL approach,

University of Cambridge ESAL Examinations

Chandler P., Sweller J. (1992) The Split-attention effect as a factor in the design of

instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology. Vol.62, 233-246.

CHINNAPPAN, M. (1998). SCHEMAS AND MENTAL MODELS IN GEOMETRY

PROBLEM SOLVING, Educational Studies in Mathematics 36: 201217, 1998.

Clement, J., Lockhead, J. and Monk, G. (1981) Translation difficulties in Learning

Mathematics, American Mathematical Monthly 88, 286-290

Collis K.F. (1992) Curriculum and assessment: A basic cognitive model. Assessment

and Learning of Mathematics. 24-45

Cooney,! T.J.,! W.B.! Sanchez,! K.! Leatham,! &! D.S.! Mewborn.! (2004).! OpenTEnded!

Assessment!in!Math:!A!Searchable!Collection!of!450+!Questions.!Heinemann(

97!

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Vol. 15, No. 2, 134-144

De Groot, A.D. (1966) Perception and memory versus thought: some old ideas and

recent findings. In B. Kleinmuntz (Ed.), Problem solving (pp. 19-50). New York:

Wiley.

DiMaggio, P. (1997). Culture and cognition. Annual Review Of Sociology, 23263287. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.23.1.263

Duval, R. (1998). Geometry from a cognitive point of view. In C. Mammana & V.

Villani (Eds.), Perspectives on the teaching of geometry for the 21st century (pp. 37

52). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Duval, R. (2014). Commentary: Linking epistemology and semio-cognitive modeling

in visualization. ZDM Mathematics Education 46:159-170

Education & Manpower Bureau HKSAR (2003) Assessment for learning (Secondary

Mathematics) The open-ended Questions

English, L. D. and Halford, G. S.: 1995, Mathematics Education: Models and

processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

George, Ellen D. (1993) The cognitive psychology of school learning. Pp347-385.

Harper Collins

Grouws D.A. and Meier S.L. (1992) Teaching and assessment relationships in

mathematics instruction. Assessment and Learning of Mathematics. 83-106

Halliday, M. A. K. (1975). Some aspects of sociolinguistics. Interactions between

98!

Hazzon O. and Leron, U.: 1996, Students use and misuse of mathematical theorem:

The case of Lagranges theorem, For the Learning of Mathmatics 16(1) 23-26

Husain H., Bais B., Hussain A., Samad S.A. (2011) How to Construct Open Ended

Questions, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 60 (2012) 456 462

Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1980). Procedures and structures. In D. R. Olson (Ed.), The

social foundations of language and thought (pp.19-27). New York: Norton.

Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P. and Sweller, J. (1998) Human Factors; Mar 1998; 40, 1;

ProQuest

Kwon! O.N.,! Park! J.S.! and! Park! J.H.! (2006)! Cultivating! Divergent! Thinking! in!

Mathematics! through! an! OpenTEnded! Approach.! Asia! Pacific! Education! Review.!

2006,!Vol.7,!1,!51T61!

Lawson!M.J.!and!Chinnappan!M.!(1994)!!Generative)Activity)during)Geometry)

Problem(Solving:(Comparison(of(the(Performance(of!HighTAchieving)and!LowT

Achieving)High)School)Students.!!Cognition'and'Instruction,'Vol.'12,'No.'1',!pp."61T

93!!

Marilla D. Svinicki (2006) Helping Students do well in class: Games. Observer

Vol.19, No.8 Oct 2006.

Marr, D. (1982). Vision. A computational investigation into the human representation

and processing of visual information. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company.

Miller, G.A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limites on

our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.

99!

Nadkarni, S., & Narayanan, V. K. (2007). Strategic schemas, strategic flexibility, and

firm performance: The moderating role of industry Cclockspeed. Strategic

Management Journal, 28(3), 243-270. doi:10.1002/smj.576

Nesher, P. and Hershkovitz, S.: 1994, The role of schemes in two-step problems:

Analysis and research findings, Educational Studies in Mathematics 26, 123.

Piaget, J., & Cook, M. T. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York,

NY: International University Press.

Presmeg, N. (1997). Generalization using imagery in mathematics. In L. English (Ed.),

Mathematical reasoninganalogies, metaphors and images (pp. 299313). Mahwah:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Rama! Klavir! &! Sarah! Hershkovitz! (2008)Teaching( and( evaluating( openbended(

problems,(International(Journal(for(Mathematics(Teaching(and(Learning,(2008b5.!!

Resnick!L.B.!&!Ford!W.W.(1981)!The!Psychology!of!mathematics!for!instruction.!

L.Erlbaum!Associates.!!

Schoenfeld, A. H.: 1985, Mathematical problem solving. New York: Academic Press

Schoenfeld, A. H.: 1987, On having and using geometric knowledge. In J. Hiebert

(ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge (pp 225264). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Sweller, J.: 1989, Cognitive technology: Some procedures for facilitating learning,

problem solving in mathematics and science, Journal of Educational Psychology 81,

457466.

Sweller, J., Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning, Cognitive

100!

Sweller, J., Instructional Design in Technical Areas, (Camberwell, Victoria, Australia:

Australian Council for Educational Research (1999).

Sweller, J., Van Merrinboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and

instructional design. Educational Psychology Review 10: 251296.

Uri Leron, Orit Hazzan: 2006, The Rationality Debate: Application of Cognitive

Psychology to Mathematics Education , Educational Studies in Mathematics, 2006,

Vol.62(2),

pp.105-126

[Peer

Reviewed

Journal],

Accessible

at

http://link.springer.com.eproxy1.lib.hku.hk/article/10.1007/s10649-006-4833-1

Wu H. (1993) The Role of Open-ended problems in Mathematics Education.

Department of Mathematics, University of California, Berkeley.

101!

- MTSS Readiness InstrumentUploaded byskinzel
- Mississippi State the New Science of Learning 2017Uploaded byTerry Doyle
- Schema Theory and ESL Reading PedagogyUploaded bymarcaicedo
- 74133159 Donald Schon Design Studio Higher EducationUploaded byAline Kerch
- 8 Benefit of English Languange LearningUploaded byAhmad Ibrahim Ridhwan
- Lecture w2Uploaded byPhương Vũ
- CoachingUploaded byChandeswori Koju
- how to teach your child mathsUploaded bypopat78
- copy of report card for web assignmentUploaded byapi-316624001
- Lesson PlanUploaded byMegan Krywanczyk
- Language and Cognitive DevelopmentUploaded byShacara Millington
- Feinstein 2004 The Engaged BrainUploaded byJesus Guillen
- KAI6034 Analisis BermainUploaded byCikgu 'Echah
- Jean Piaget TheoryUploaded byKashin Soon
- sc2a assess1Uploaded byapi-357541830
- Shared Mental Models—Linking Team Cognition and PerformanceUploaded byRaf Bendenoun
- DosUploaded byjucepa
- 20323 mae mangaoil be 1251 final project report 895695 999975383Uploaded byapi-408316181
- 86Uploaded byHanieh Akbarimehr
- heykoop finalsynthesisUploaded byapi-251839082
- v16i1math1Uploaded byoscarguerreroc
- English EssayUploaded byDyana Baharom ديانابهاروم
- 5 Engl 1013 Study and Thinking SkillsUploaded bynoli90
- Solving Day by Day ProblemsUploaded byUmeara Rizwan
- Cooperative Content Based LabUploaded byUlil Ariyani
- 2Problem SolvingUploaded byAli Alkhzaimi
- ELTM RaniUploaded byMia Febriana
- Journal of Physics Conference Series Volume 943 Issue 2017 [Doi 10.1088%2F1742-6596%2F943%2F1%2F012053] Ahmad, S; Prahmana, R C I; Kenedi, A K; Helsa, Y; Arianil, Y; Za -- The Instruments of Higher OrUploaded byAlan Sariadi Suhadi
- 08 Chapter 2Uploaded byAngelo Erispe
- des-lessonplan.pdfUploaded bybabunaidu2006

- FullText (2)Uploaded byHam FG
- 2016bisfe_catalog_en.pdfUploaded byHam FG
- FullText (1)Uploaded byHam FG
- Pol 852 - Crime Information FormsUploaded byHam FG
- ft (16)Uploaded byHam FG
- Gluten Free Kids Preview Tracey Black 1Uploaded byHam FG
- 70850326-Beauty-TipsUploaded byHam FG
- ListofContactPersonsforLeaver 8 10 TxtUploaded byHam FG
- ft (10)Uploaded byHam FG
- ft (17)Uploaded byHam FG
- 2904637-Making-candles-at-home.pdfUploaded byHam FG
- FullText (14)Uploaded byHam FG
- FullText (12)Uploaded byHam FG
- FullText (11)Uploaded byHam FG
- FullText (10)Uploaded byHam FG
- FullText (97)Uploaded bykan
- FullText.99pdfUploaded bykan
- FullText (98)Uploaded bykan
- FullText (5)Uploaded byHam FG
- FullText (95)Uploaded bykan
- FullText (3)Uploaded byHam FG
- FullText (1)Uploaded byHam FG
- Full TextUploaded byHam FG
- ft (18)Uploaded byHam FG
- ft (14)Uploaded byHam FG
- ft (13)Uploaded byHam FG
- ft (12)Uploaded byHam FG
- FullText (4)Uploaded byHam FG

- Ethics SyllabusUploaded byJudith Malveaux
- Russell S DragoUploaded byOmSilence2651
- What is It About Theories in the Human Sciences and Natural Sciences That Makes Them ConvincingUploaded bygorbi514
- Marketing QuizUploaded byjithinraju
- Practico 1 Theories of Learning StUploaded byGabriela Llaneza
- Usmle Score CorrelationUploaded byIffat Kabir
- Turnabout! The New Strategy for SpaceUploaded byBrent Bedford
- thematic unit templateUploaded byapi-346170750
- Principles of W D Gann Law of VibrationUploaded byqwertyjose
- Bsxii. 2017 Mainnn for 12thUploaded byAejaz Mohamed
- Unit I- Nature TorretaUploaded byCathy Ü Arzobal
- All Branches of BiologyUploaded byYhan Brotamonte Boneo
- Mutual Ufo NetworkUploaded bySAB78
- UT Dallas Syllabus for eco3304.501.07f taught by Vira Holovchenko (verah)Uploaded byUT Dallas Provost's Technology Group
- Robert L. Armstrong-Metaphysics and British Empiricism (1970)Uploaded bynachin111
- Henri Lefebvre the Urban RevolutionUploaded byMarcela Scheer
- ecu204 session 1Uploaded byapi-305277394
- BCIT Forensic Science StudiesUploaded byNauman Mithani
- Kapil Sibal Speech FinalUploaded byChitradip Pramanik
- History of Nano WorldUploaded byfelize padlla
- Articulo 7 ExactitudUploaded byEdward Ventura Barrientos
- ug datesheetUploaded byankithns102
- McGraw University: Online Degree Programs and Schools | ProspectusUploaded byMcGraw University
- massachusetts health standardsUploaded byapi-334966817
- Wint ReportUploaded byAnurag Kumar
- Towards a Critical Moral AnthropologyUploaded byReza Khaje
- Proposal Shawal 60228 Tk616Uploaded byresearchcrazy
- Course1 Introduction EngineringGeology EditUploaded byAldrin Fauzan Faza
- Higgs BosonUploaded byAnuj pilania
- Aharonov-Bohm EffectUploaded byweylguy