Visual Support for Instructional Analogy: Context Matters

摘要: Visual Support for Instructional Analogy: Context Matters Kreshnik Nasi Begolli (kbegolli@uci.edu) School of Education, 3200 Education Irvine, CA 92697 USA Lindsey Engle Richland (lrichland@uchicago.edu) Department Comparative Human Development, 5730 S. Woodlawn Ave. Chicago, IL 60637 Abstract analogies can overload children’s executive function and working memory resources (see Richland, Morrison & Holyoak, 2006), though structure-mapping lies at the core recommended pedagogy in mathematics instruction (National Mathematics Panel, 2008; NRC, 2001). Videotaped was manipulated to test role visual representations instructional analogy. Pretest, posttest, delayed posttest measures assessed 11- 13 year old learning from one three versions same lesson which solution strategies (one a misconception) were compared. Analogs either a) Not Visible (NV) - presented only orally, b) Partially (PV) – most recent visible, or 3) All (AV) all solutions visible throughout instruction. Overall, AV students experienced greater gains procedural knowledge, flexibility, conceptual/ schematic knowledge compared PV students. These results persist after one-week delay. Apart trend is evident when comparing students’ NV immediate gains. analogs within an analogy appear support schema formation they are simultaneously structure- mapping. Showing but not enabling them be led lowest performance overall, suggesting this may lead more object-level encoding than formation. Keywords: analogy; comparison; education; video stimulus; misconception; function. Comparing different student single problem key pedagogical tool mathematics, however cognitive underpinnings successfully completing task complex. Students must represent multiple as relational systems, align map these systems each other, draw inferences based on alignments (and misalignments) successful Gentner, 1983; Gick Zur 2007). Orchestrating classroom lessons learners accomplish structure mapping straightforward, particularly because opportunities through often fail laboratory contexts (e.g., Ross, 1989). Specifically, reasoners regularly notice utility aligning two available structures. The low success rate with participants use mapping, analogy, studies solve problems part reflect limitations system Waltz, Lau, Grewal 2000). Working required relationally objects, case steps strategies, re-represent relations so that their structures together, identify meaningful similarities differences, derive exercise better inform future solving Morrison, Krawczyk, Holyoak et al 2004). current study tests source target opportunity structure-mapping. manipulation assesses whether 1) making (versus oral) increases likelihood will benefit opportunities, 2) during order increase former likely salience representation, while latter reduce load necessary engage inference processes. research questions high ecological validity. A cross-cultural 8 th grade revealed verbal structured common practice U.S. classrooms well higher achieving regions (Hong Kong Japan), teachers less make episode countries (Richland, Thus findings experiment yield both theoretical insight into resource complex formation, relevant implications everyday teachers. Because takes validity complexity serious constraints, novel methodology used rigorous, experimental data incorporates complexities situated cognition. stimuli videotapes public school