Student Performance in Water Pouring and Balance Beam Tasks: effect of manipulation of perceptual field factor

Robinson

1992

J Res Sci Teach

Self Cite

It has been shown previously that manipulation of the M demand (amount of information needed for processing) of chemistry problems affects student performance, which suggests that manipulation of logical structure of chemistry problems could also lead to significant changes in performance. The objective of this study is to investigate the following: Given the opportunity for training, what is the effect of increasing (manipulation) the complexity of logical structure of chemistry problems on student performance, and to what extent can cognitive variables explain changes in performance. Results obtained show that (a) even a small increase in the logical structure of a problem can change the role of cognitive variables (mental capacity and formal reasoning) to the extent that increase in logical complexity outweighs the advantage students may have gained through training on a similar problem; (b) the use of algorithms and training on particular types of chemistry problems could lead to a situation in which formal reasoning is the only cognitive variable that explains variance in performance significantly; and (c) after having solved very similar problems on two different occasions with improving performance, the improvement is not retained if the logical structure of a third problem increases considerably. It is concluded that when dealing with significant changes in logical complexity of chemistry problems, developmental level of students is the most consistent predictor of success. A model for the qualitative analysis of logical complexity of chemistry problems is presented.The importance of cognitive variables, such as formal operational reasoning, mental capacity, and disembedding ability, to science achievement has been the subject of recent studies (ChandranIrem A (M demand = 6). Barium oxide contains 10.46% of oxygen. How many grams of this compound can be obtained from 2.541 grams of barium and 0.444 grams of oxygen. Calculate the grams of barium and oxygen that reacted completely.

Section: Effect Of Manipulation Of M Demand Of Chemistry Problemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Manipulation of logical structure of chemistry problems and its effect on student performance

Robinson

1992

J Res Sci Teach

Self Cite

“…Johnstone & El-Banna, 1986;Karplus, Pulos, & Stage, 1983;Lawson, 1983;Niaz, 1987a;1989b;1991); Field operator (cf. Collings, 1985;Lawson, 1976;Lawson & Snitgen, 1982;Linn, 1978;Niaz, 1988a;1989c;Strawitz, 1984); Mobilityfixity dimension (cf. Niaz, 1987b;1989a;Niaz & Saud de Nuriez, 1991; Pascual- Leone, 1989).…”

Section: Demonstration Of the Eplstemlc Transition Through Antecedentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Niaz, 1988); b) manipulation of the field operator (cf. Niaz, 1988a); and c) manipulation of the logical structure of a task (cf. Niaz & Robinson, in press).…”

Section: Demonstration Of the Eplstemlc Transition Through Antecedentmentioning

confidence: 99%

From Piaget's Epistemic Subject to Pascual‐Leone's Metasubject: Epistemic Transition in the Constructivist—Rationalist Theory of Cognitive Development

1992

Int J Psychol

Self Cite

The explanation of the transition from one epistemic theory to another is an important part of Piaget's genetic epistemology. It is argued that this epistemic transition leads to a retrodictable orthogenetic tendency toward optimizing equilibration. The objective of this paper is to establish a relationship between Piaget's epistemic subject and Pascual‐Leone's metasubject and to demonstrate that the postulation of the latter can be considered as an epistemic transition between two constructivist—rationalist theories, which leads to the development of a theory with greater explanatory power. Epistemic transition in this paper refers to a progressive problemshift (cf. Lakatos, 1970), between the theories of Piaget and Pascual‐Leone. Piaget builds a “general model” by neglecting individual differences, that is, studies the epistemic subject, whereas Pascual‐Leone by incorporating a framework for individual difference variables, studies the metasubject—the psychological organization of the epistemic subject. Empirical evidence is presented to demonstrate that Pascual‐Leone's theory of constructive operators is a model of the psychological organism (the metasubject), which is at work inside Piaget's epistemic subject. Finally, it is concluded that the greater explanatory power of Pascual‐Leone's theory can be interpreted as an epistemic transition between Piaget's epistemic subject and Pascual‐Leone's metasubject.

“…Referring to the strategies that students use to solve the balance-beam problems (proportional reasoning), Case (1985) has emphasized the role of manipulation of the weights used and the position of the weights. Niaz (1987b). for example, has shown that the manipulation of the weights and the position of the weights in the balance-beam problem changes the cognitive complexity, pos-Problem:…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Manipulation of M demand of chemistry problems and its effect on student performance: A neo‐piagetian study

1988

J Res Sci Teach

Self Cite

It has been shown that student performance in chemistry problems decreases as the M demand of the problem increases, thus emphasizing the role of information processing in problem solving. It was hypothesized that manipulation (increase or decrease) of the M demand of a problem can affect student performance. Increasing the M demand of a problem would affect more the performance of subjects with a limited functional M capacity. The objective of this study is to investigate the effect of manipulation (increase) of the M demand of chemistry problems, having the same logical structure, on performance of students having different functional M capacity, cognitive style, and formal operational reasoning patterns. As predicted the performance of one group of students was lower after the manipulation (increase) in the M demand of the problem. This shows how even small changes in the amount of information required for processing can lead to working memory overload, as a consequence of a poor capacity for mobilization of M power.