Abstract
Eighth grade students in Australia (N = 60) participated in an experiment on learning how to solve percentage change problems in a regular classroom in three conditions: unitary, pictorial, and equation approaches. The procedure involved a pre-test, an acquisition phase, and a post-test. The main goal was to test the relative merits of the three approaches from a cognitive load perspective. Experimental results indicated superior performance of the equation approach over the unitary or pictorial approach especially for the complex tasks. The unitary approach required students not only to process the interaction between numerous elements within and across solution steps, but also to search for critical information, thus imposing high cognitive load. The pictorial approach did not provide a consistent approach to tackling various percentage change problems. Coupled with the need to coordinate multiple elements within and across solution steps, and the need to search for relevant information in the diagram, this approach imposed high cognitive load. By treating the prior knowledge of percentage quantity as a single unit, the equation approach required students to process two elements only. Empirical evidence and theoretical support favor the equation approach as an instructional method for learning how to solve percentage change problems for eighth graders.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2012). Australian curriculum v3.0 Mathematics. Retrieved April 27, 2012, http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Mathematics.
Beckmann, J. F. (2010). Taming a beast of burden—On some issues with the conceptualisation and operationalisation of cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 20(3), 250–264. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.024.
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62(2), 233–246. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1992.tb01017.x.
Cooper, G., & Sweller, J. (1987). Effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on mathematical problem-solving transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 347–362. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.79.4.347.
Dole, S. (2000). Promoting percent as a proportion in eighth-grade mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 100(7), 380–389. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2000.tb18180.x.
Edens, K., & Potter, E. (2008). How students “Unpack” the structure of a word problem: Graphic representations and problem solving. School Science and Mathematics, 108(5), 184–196. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2008.tb17827.x.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Prentice, K., Hamlett, C. L., Finelli, R., & Courey, S. J. (2004). Enhancing mathematical problem solving among third-grade students with schema-based instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 635–647. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(80)90013-4.
Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., & Catrambone, R. (2004). Designing instructional examples to reduce intrinsic cognitive load: Molar versus modular presentation of solution procedures. Instructional Science, 32(1–2), 33–58. doi:10.1023/b:truc.0000021809.10236.71.
Hegarty, M., & Kozhevnikov, M. (1999). Types of visual–spatial representations and mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 684–689. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.4.684.
Holyoak, K., & Koh, K. (1987). Surface and structural similarity in analogical transfer. Memory and Cognition, 15(4), 332–340. doi:10.3758/bf03197035.
Hong, E., & O’Neil, H. F. (1992). Instructional strategies to help learners build relevant mental models in inferential statistics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(2), 150–159. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.2.150.
Jitendra, A. K., Griffin, C. C., Haria, P., Leh, J., Adams, A., & Kaduvettoor, A. (2007). A comparison of single and multiple strategy instruction on third-grade students’ mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 115–127. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.119.2.176.
Jitendra, A. K., Star, J. R., Rodriguez, M., Lindell, M., & Someki, F. (2011). Improving students’ proportional thinking using schema-based instruction. Learning and Instruction, 21(6), 731–745. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.04.002.
Kalra, A., & Stamell, J. (2005). Connections maths 10. Sydney: Pascal Press.
Kalyuga, S. (2007). Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 19(4), 509–539. doi:10.1007/s10648-007-9054-3.
Kalyuga, S. (2008). When less is more in cognitive diagnosis: A rapid online method for diagnosing learner task-specific expertise. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 603–612. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.603.
Kalyuga, S. (2009). Knowledge elaboration: A cognitive load perspective. Learning and Instruction, 19(5), 402–410. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.003.
Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 23–31. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3801_4.
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., Tuovinen, J., & Sweller, J. (2001). When problem solving is superior to studying worked examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 579–588. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.3.579.
Kalyuga, S., & Renkl, A. (2010). Expertise reversal effect and its instructional implications: introduction to the special issue. Instructional Science, 38(3), 209–215. doi:10.1007/s11251-009-9102-0.
Low, R., & Over, R. (1992). Hierarchical ordering of schematic knowledge relating to area-of-rectangle problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(1), 62–69. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.1.62.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97. doi:10.1037/h0043158.
Nathan, M. J., Kintsch, W., & Young, E. (1992). A theory of algebra-word-problem comprehension and its implications for the design of learning environments. Cognition and Instruction, 9(4), 329–389. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0904_2.
National Mathematics Curriculum: Framing paper. (2009). Retrieved April 27, 2012, from http://www.ncb.org.au/verve/_resources/National_Mathematics_Curriculum_-_Framing_Paper.pdf.
Ngu, B. H., Mit, E., Shahbodin, F., & Tuovinen, J. (2009). Chemistry problem solving instruction: a comparison of three computer-based formats for learning from hierarchical network problem representations. Instructional Science, 37(1), 21–42. doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9072-7.
Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1993). The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental-effort and performance measures. Human Factors, 35, 737–743.
Paas, F. G. W. C., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 122–133. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.86.1.122.
Parker, M., & Leinhardt, G. (1995). Percent: A privileged proportion. Review of Educational Research, 65(4), 421–481. doi:10.3102/00346543065004421.
Pollock, E., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2002). Assimilating complex information. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 61–86. doi:10.1016/s0959-4752(01)00016-0.
Quilici, J. L., & Mayer, R. E. (1996). Role of examples in how students learn to categorize statistics word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 144–161. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.88.1.144.
Reed, S. K. (1987). A structure-mapping model for word problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13(1), 124–139. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(80)90013-4.
Reed, S. K., Willis, D., & Guarino, J. (1994). Selecting examples for solving word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(3), 380–388. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.86.3.380.
Richland, L. E., & McDonough, I. M. (2010). Learning by analogy: Discriminating between potential analogs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(1), 28–43. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.09.001.
Shield, M., & Dole, S. (2008). Proportion in middle-school mathematics: It is everywhere. Australian Mathematics Teacher, 64(3), 10–15.
Stacey, K., & Vincent, J. (2009). Modes of reasoning in explanations in Australian eighth-grade mathematics textbooks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72(3), 271–288. doi:10.1007/s10649-009-9193-1.
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 295–312. doi:10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5.
Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 123–138. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9128-5.
Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory. In J. Mestre & B. Ross (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Cognition in education (Vol. 55, pp. 37–76). Oxford: Academic Press.
Sweller, J. (2012). Human cognitive architecture: Why some instructional procedures work and others do not. In K. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), APA Educational Psychology Handbook (Vol. 1, pp. 295–325). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12(3), 185–233. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1203_1.
Sweller, J., Chandler, P., Tierney, P., & Cooper, M. (1990). Cognitive load as a factor in the structuring of technical material. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 119(2), 176–192. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.119.2.176.
Sweller, J., & Cooper, G. A. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 2(1), 59–89. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0201_3.
Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. G., & Paas, F. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296. doi:10.1023/a:1022193728205.
Van Den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2003). The didactical use of models in realistic mathematics education: An example from a longitudinal trajectory on percentage. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 54(1), 9–35. doi:10.1023/B:EDUC.0000005212.03219.dc.
van Merriënboer, J. G., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 147–177. doi:10.1007/s10648-005-3951-0.
Weaver, C. A., & Kintsch, W. (1992). Enhancing students’ comprehension of the conceptual structure of algebra word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 419–428. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.419.
White, P., & Mitchelmore, M. C. (2005). Teaching percentage as a multiplicative relationship. In P. Clarkson, A. Dowton, D. Gronn, A. McDonough, R. Pierce, & A. Roche (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th annual conference of the mathematics education research group of Australasia (pp. 783–790). Sydney: MERGA.
Xin, Y. P., Jitendra, A. K., and Deatline-Buchman, A. (2005). Effects of mathematical word problem-solving instruction on middle school students with learning problems. The Journal of Special Education , 39(3), 181–192. http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.une.edu.au/docview/194705924?accountid=17227.
Yeung, A. S., Jin, P., & Sweller, J. (1998). Cognitive load and learner expertise: Split-attention and redundancy effects in reading with explanatory notes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23(1), 1–21. doi:10.1006/ceps.1997.0951.
Zahner, D., & Corter, J. E. (2010). The process of probability problem solving: Use of external visual representations. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 12(2), 177–204. doi:10.1080/10986061003654240.
Zhu, X., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Learning mathematics from examples and by doing. Cognition and Instruction, 4(3), 137–166. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0403_1.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported with funding from the University of New England, School of Education, Grant RE22778. The authors would like to thank the teachers and students involved in this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix A
Appendix B
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ngu, B.H., Yeung, A.S. & Tobias, S. Cognitive load in percentage change problems: unitary, pictorial, and equation approaches to instruction. Instr Sci 42, 685–713 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9309-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9309-6