Unloading Working Memory to Facilitate Comparisons between Mathematical Concepts

Kreshnik N.
Abstract
Instructional analogies can overload childrens working memory. Videotaped classroom instruction was manipulated to test a realistic offload for students WM: When comparing student solutions to a word problem, teachers should make solutions visible simultaneously throughout the instruction. Sixth grade students solved ratio word problems, guided by a computerized video lesson edited to create three different versions: Not Visible (NV) - solutions were not visible, and Partially Visible (PV) only the most recent solution was visible, and All Visible (AV) all solutions were visible throughout the lesson. Overall, students improve when seeing all the solutions on the board compared to students who see only the most recent solution.

1 Begolli

and Lindsey E. Richland,

1 Irvine

2 Ph.D.

University of California,

and University of

2 Chicago
Student Performance on by Condition Across Three Learning Outcomes

Conditions Not Visible

In this condition the video was edited so that no solutions were visible on the board.

Part Visible
In this condition the video was edited such that only the most recent solution was visible.

All Visible
In this condition the video was edited so that all of the solutions were visible.

90%

All Visible
80%

Part Visible
70%

Not Visible
60%

50%

40%

30%

Introduction
Relational thinking is highly taxing on working memory and executive function resources (Richland, Morrison, & Holyoak, 2006), leading young reasoners in school settings to miss opportunities for learning and drawing relational comparisons. This study explores the role of visual and mental imagery in supporting childrens learning from relational comparisons. Previous work with adults has shown that providing visual imagery during a relational comparison increases learners acquisition of more schematized, generalizable learning (Richland and McDonough, 2010). This research has crucial instructional implications, since drawing connections and comparing representations is critical for conceptual understanding of mathematics (National Mathematics Panel, 2008). This is seriously underutilized by U.S. teachers, but is prevalent in countries that outperform U.S. students in mathematics (Richland, Zur, & Holyoak, 2007). This study aims to provide teachers with specific practice relevant teaching strategies for supporting students ability to draw connections from instructional comparisons on an abstract mathematical concept: ratio. Two specific questions are investigated: Does putting problem solutions on the board enhance students ability to draw connections when compared with hearing them verbally? Does making multiple solution strategies visible on the board enhance students' ability to draw connections when compared to only having the most recent solution visible?
Figure 1 Still shots of images that students saw during the video lesson.

20%

10%

0%

Procedural

Procedural Flexibillity

Conceptual

Negative Transfer

Dependent Measures
Gains in procedural knowledge, procedural flexibility, conceptual knowledge (Rittle-Johnson and Star, 2007) and negative transfer were measured. The word problem below exemplifies a typical problem statement, but we asked different questions, depending on assessment category ( see the Examples column)

Positively Aligned Problems

Figure 2. Students in the All Visible condition outperformed students in the Part Visible condition on all assessment categories that were aligned with the instructional lesson (F = 3.286, p = 0.042). Including the negative transfer problems revealed an interaction: part visible students conversely outperformed both conditions on problems rewarding negative transfer (F =4.182, p = 0.18).

Example Problem:
Ken and Yoko shot several free throws in their basketball games. The result of their shooting is shown in the table.

Shots Made

Total Shots Tried

Ken Yoko

12 16

20 25

Assessment Categories Procedural Procedural Flexibility Conceptual Negative Transfer

The ability to correctly solve a problem using the appropriate sequence of steps. Understanding multiple ways to solve a problem and when to use each. A functional understanding of the relationship between mathematical ideas. The ability to use the correct strategy, despite misleading contextual cues.

Examples
Who is better ? Please solve using two different strategies Used conceptual representations instead of numbers Who missed more ?

Conclusion
Overall, keeping all problem solutions visible improves learning outcomes for aligned problems versus showing only the most recent solution. Students that see only the most recent solution seemed to fail to distinguish between misconceptions and correct strategies, which may have lead to a higher usage of misaligned strategies, but better outcomes in negative transfer problems.

Results
Table 1

References
Assessment Type
National Mathematics Advisory Panel (2008) Foundations for Success: The Final Report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel, U.S. Department of Education: Washington, DC. Richland, L.E., McDonough, I. (in press). Learning by Analogy: Discriminating between Potential Analogs. Contemporary Educational Psychology. Richland, L. E., Morrison, R. G., & Holyoak, K. J. (2006). Childrens development of analogical reasoning: Insights from scene analogy problems. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 94,249-271. Richland, L.E., Zur, O., & Holyoak, K.J. (2007). Cognitive supports for Analogies in the Mathematics Classroom. Science, 316, 1128-1129.

Method
Sixth grade students, randomized within three classrooms took a pretest, intervention, immediate-posttest, and 1-week-delay-posttest. They solved ratio word problems, guided by a computerized video lesson edited to create three different versions. Students either watched a version where no solutions were visible Not Visible (NV), the most recent solution was visible Part Visible (PV), or a version showing all solutions on the board throughout the lesson - All Visible (AV).

T-Test p-values Conditions All Visible vs. Not Visible All Visible vs. Part Visible Procedural 0.374 0.029*

Procedural Flexibility 0.229 0.008** 0.138

Conceptual 0.061 0.044* 0.902

Negative Transfer 0.964 0.044* 0.042*

Not Visible vs. Part Visible 0.194 p < .001 ***, p < .01 ** , p <.05 *, p < .10

We would like to acknowledge Carey DeMichellis, Carmen Chan, and James Gamboa., for their continuous and exceptional work on the project. This study is made possible by a CAREER award from the National Science Foundation.