Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 698 Download : 230

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

This study explores the worked-example instruction (WEI) and the van Hiele teaching phases (VHTP) pedagogies to advance students’ acquisition of procedural and conceptual understanding of solving simultaneous equations. The quasi-experimental study involved two groups of high school students (age=15): 157 students in total with 72 in one group and 85 in the other. The study followed a pre-, post- and delay tests design. This study adapted two conceptual frameworks, the structure of the observed learning outcomes (SOLO) model and the Rasch model, and employed Rasch analysis and Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) as data analysis tools. The results indicated that both WEI and VHTP improved students’ procedural and conceptual understanding of solving simultaneous equations at the post-test; however, the WEI effects (on both procedural and conceptual understanding) were not sustained after the post-test while the VHTP had a lasting effect on only conceptual understanding. Furthermore, the VHTP group significantly outperformed the WEI group at the post-test and delay test in both conceptual and procedural understanding. These results indicated that the WEI is only beneficial at the initial stage of knowledge acquisition and VHTP is better at the initial and long-term. Practical implications of these results were discussed.

Keywords

Cognitive Load Theory Simultaneous Equations Van Hiele Teaching Phases Van Hiele Theory Worked-Example Instruction

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Author Biography

Penelope Baker, School of Education, University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia

Penelope Baker is a Professor of Mathematics Education at the University of New England, Australia. Her research interests include effective pedagogies for mathematics teaching, e-learning, mathematics curriculum, teacher education, innovative mathematical concepts, and indigenous education. She has held several academic and administrative positions within and outside the University of New England. She is currently the Chairperson of the School of Education Research Committee and has numerous research reports published around the globe.

How to Cite
Adeniji, S. M., & Baker, P. (2022). Worked-examples instruction versus Van Hiele teaching phases: A demonstration of students’ procedural and conceptual understanding. Journal on Mathematics Education, 13(2), 337–356. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v13i2.pp337-356
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Abdullah, A. H., & Zakaria, E. (2013). The effects of Van Hiele's phases of learning geometry on students’ degree of acquisition of Van Hiele levels. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 102, 251-266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.740
  2. Afriyani, D., & Sa'dijah, C. (2018). Characteristics of students' mathematical understanding in solving multiple representation task based on SOLO taxonomy. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 13(3), 281-287. https://doi.org/10.12973/iejme/3920
  3. Alex, J. K., & Mammen, K. J. (2016). Lessons learnt from employing van Hiele theory-based instruction in senior secondary school geometry classrooms. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(8), 2223-2236. https://doi:10.12973/eurasia.2016.1228a
  4. Alreshidi, N. A. K. (2021). Effects of example-problem pairs on students' mathematics achievements: A mixed-method study. International Education Studies, 14(5), 8-18. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v14n5p8
  5. Armah, R. B., Cofie, P. O., & Okpoti, C. A. (2018). Investigating the effect of van Hiele phase-based instruction on pre-service teachers' geometric thinking. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 4(1), 314-330. https://doi:10.21890/ijres.383201
  6. Barbieri, C. A., Booth, J. L., Begolli, K. N., & McCann, N. (2021). The effect of worked examples on student learning and error anticipation in algebra. Instructional Science, 49(4), 419-439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-021-09545-6
  7. Baroody, A. J., Feil, Y., & Johnson, A. R. (2007). Research commentary: An alternative reconceptualization of procedural and conceptual knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(2), 115-131. https://doi.org/10.2307/30034952
  8. Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (2014). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy (structure of the observed learning outcome). Academic Press.
  9. Bolstad, O. H. (2021). Lower secondary students’ encounters with mathematical literacy. Mathematics Education Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-021-00386-7
  10. Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2013). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Routledge Psychology Press.
  11. Booth, J. L., Lange, K. E., Koedinger, K. R., & Newton, K. J. (2013, 2013/06/01/). Using example problems to improve student learning in algebra: Differentiating between correct and incorrect examples. Learning and Instruction, 25, 24-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.11.002
  12. Briars, D. J. (2016). Strategies and tasks to build procedural fluency from conceptual understanding. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) Phoenix Regional Conference. https://www.nctm.org/uploadedFiles/About/President,_Board_and_Committees/Board_Materials/Briars%20TL%20Procedural%20Fluency%20handout.pdf
  13. Canobi, K. H. (2009). Concept–procedure interactions in children’s addition and subtraction. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 102(2), 131-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2008.07.008
  14. Cobb, P., & Jackson, K. (2011). Towards an empirically grounded theory of action for improving the quality of mathematics teaching at scale. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 13(1), 6-33.
  15. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge.
  16. Colignatus, T. (2014). Pierre van Hiele, David Tall and Hans Freudenthal: Getting the facts right. https://arxiv.org/abs/1408.1930
  17. Hecht, S. A., & Vagi, K. J. (2010). Sources of group and individual differences in emerging fraction skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 843–859. https://doi.org/https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0019824
  18. Hurrell, D. (2021). Conceptual knowledge or procedural knowledge or conceptual knowledge and procedural knowledge: Why the conjunction is important to teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 46(2), 57-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2021v46n2.4
  19. Johari, P. M. A. R. P., & Shahrill, M. (2020). The common errors in the learning of the simultaneous equations. Infinity Journal, 9(2), 263-274. https://doi.org/10.22460/infinity.v9i2.p263-274
  20. Khalid, M. (2006). Mathematical thinking in Brunei curriculum: Implementation issues and challenges. APEC-TSUKUBA International Conference, Tokyo. https://www.criced.tsukuba.ac.jp/math/apec/apec2007/progress_report/specialists_session/Madihah_Khalid.pdf
  21. Kolawole, E. B., & Ojo, O. F. (2019). Effects of two problem solving methods on senior secondary school students' performance in simultaneous equations in Ekiti state. International Journal of Current Research and Academic Review, 6(11), 155-161. https://doi.org/doi:10.20546/ijcrar.2019.701.003
  22. Li, Y., & Schoenfeld, A. H. (2019, 2019/12/19). Problematizing teaching and learning mathematics as “given” in STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 44. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0197-9
  23. Luneta, K. (2014). Foundation phase teachers' (limited) knowledge of geometry. South African Journal of Childhood Education, 4, 71-86. www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2223-76822014000300006
  24. Machisi, E., & Feza, N. N. (2021). Van Hiele theory-based instruction and Grade 11 students’ geometric proof competencies. Contemporary Mathematics and Science Education, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.30935/conmaths/9682
  25. Mayberry, J. (1983). The van Hiele levels of geometric thought in undergraduate preservice teachers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 14(1), 58-69. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.14.1.0058
  26. National Health and Medical Research Council. (2007). Human research ethics committees. https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/research-policy/ethics/human-research-ethics-committees
  27. Ngu, B. H., & Phan, H. P. (2021). Learning linear equations: Capitalizing on cognitive load theory and learning by analogy. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2021.1902007
  28. Ngu, B. H., Phan, H. P., Yeung, A. S., & Chung, S. F. (2018). Managing element interactivity in equation solving. Educational Psychology Review, 30(1), 255-272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9397-8
  29. Nisawa, Y. (2018). Applying van Hiele’s levels to basic research on the difficulty factors behind understanding functions. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 13(2), 61-65. https://doi.org/10.12973/iejme/2696
  30. Omobude, E. O. (2014). Learning mathematics through mathematical modelling: A study of secondary school students in Nigeria [Unpublished PhD thesis]. University of Agder.
  31. Pegg, J. (2014). The van Hiele theory. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education (pp. 613-615). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4978-8_183
  32. Peugh, J. L., & Enders, C. K. (2004). Missing data in educational research: A review of reporting practices and suggestions for improvement. Review of Educational Research, 74(4), 525-556. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074004525
  33. Popovic, G., & Lederman, J. S. (2015). Implications of informal education experiences for mathematics teachers' ability to make connections beyond formal classroom. School Science and Mathematics, 115(3), 129-140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12114
  34. Renkl, A. (2017, 2017/08/01). Learning from worked-examples in mathematics: students relate procedures to principles. ZDM, 49(4), 571-584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0859-3
  35. Renkl, A., Atkinson, R. K., & Große, C. S. (2004). How fading worked solution steps works–a cognitive load perspective. Instructional Science, 32(1), 59-82. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41953637
  36. Richey, J. E., & Nokes-Malach, T. J. (2013). How much is too much? Learning and motivation effects of adding instructional explanations to worked examples. Learning and Instruction, 25, 104-124. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.11.006
  37. Rittle-Johnson, B. (2019). Iterative development of conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics learning and instruction. In J. Dunlosky & K. A. Rawson (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of cognition and education (pp. 124-147). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108235631.007
  38. Rittle-Johnson, B., & Schneider, M. (2015). Developing conceptual and procedural knowledge of mathematics. In R. C. Kadosh & A. Dowker (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of numerical cognition (pp. 1118–1134). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642342.013.014
  39. Serow, P., Callingham, R., & Muir, T. (2019). Primary Mathematics. Cambridge University Press.
  40. Serow, P., & Inglis, M. (2010). Templates in action. The Australian Mathematics Teacher, 66(4), 10-16.
  41. Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory. In J. P. Mestre & B. H. Ross (Eds.), Cognition in education (pp. 37–76). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00002-8
  42. Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019, 2019/06/01). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 261-292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5
  43. Ugboduma, O. S. (2012). Students’ preference of method of solving simultaneous equations. Global Journal of Educational Research, 11(2), 129-136. https://doi.org/10.4314/gjedr.v11i2.8
  44. Usiskin, Z. (1982). Van Hiele levels and achievement in secondary school geometry: CDASSG project. University of Chicago.
  45. Van Gog, T., Kester, L., & Paas, F. (2011). Effects of worked examples, example-problem, and problem-example pairs on novices’ learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(3), 212-218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.10.004
  46. Van Hiele, P. M. (1986). Structure and insight: A theory of mathematics education. Academic press.
  47. Vos, P. (2018). “How real people really need mathematics in the real world”—Authenticity in mathematics education. Education Sciences, 8(4), 195. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8040195
  48. Walsh, R. (2015). A purpose-built model for the effective teaching of trigonometry: a transformation of the van Hiele model [Unpublished PhD Thesis]. University of Limerick.
  49. Wijaya, A., van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., Doorman, M., & Robitzsch, A. (2014). Difficulties in solving context-based PISA mathematics tasks: An analysis of students' errors. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 11(3), 555-584. http://dx.doi.org/10.54870/1551-3440.1317
  50. Wittwer, J., & Renkl, A. (2010). How effective are instructional explanations in example-based learning? A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychology Review, 22(4), 393-409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9136-5