Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Author(s)
Hui, See-ming;
Citation
Issued Date
URL
Rights
2015
http://hdl.handle.net/10722/223648
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!
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.
1!
+
+
+
+
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!
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.
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!
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!
9!
For
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.
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.
12!
Extraneous
cognitive
load,
by
contrast,
is
controllable
by
instructional
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.
14!
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.
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!
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!
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!2:!
Instructional!
Design!
Phase!3:!
Evaluation!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Figure+3:+Design+of+research+
!
!
!
23!
24!
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+
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!
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)+
!
!
!
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.
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.
This can
significantly shorten the time to do the explanation, and also reduce the
cognitive load of students.
51!
52!
53!
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!
Svinicki (2006)
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
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
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.
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!
64!
However student activities like collaborative learning can also be very effective in
schema formation.
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.
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!
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.!
! 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!
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!
98!
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!
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!