Pre-college Electrical Engineering
Instruction: Do Abstract or
Contextualized Representations
Promote Better Learning?
Dr. Roxana Moreno, University of New Mexico
Dr. Martin Reisslein, Arizona State University
Dr. Gamze Ozogul, Arizona State University
Frontiers in Education, October 18 - 21, 2009, San Antonio, TX
Pre-College Engineering Education




The K-12 school audience has been identified as a key target
for improving engineering education.
Investigating methods that can help increase the performance
and enthusiasm of pre-college students is a major focus.
How to help pre-college students develop problem-solving
skills and positive perceptions towards engineering
education?
A promising technique shown to promote problem-solving
skills in well-structured domains such as physics or
mathematics is worked-example instruction.
Two Conflicting Hypotheses

Contextualized Representations Promote Learning



Realistic problem representations that are anchored in learners
past experiences promote learning by activating prior
knowledge that relates to the problem.
Predictions: C group will show higher transfer, lower difficulty
perceptions, higher perceptions of the program usefulness,
especially of the problem representations.
Abstract Representations Promote Learning


Abstract problem representations help learners focus on
relevant (structural) rather than irrelevant problem information
(superficial)
Predictions: A group will show higher transfer, lower difficulty
perceptions, higher perceptions of the program usefulness,
especially of the problem representations.
Research Questions

Does contextualizing problems during worked-example
instruction promote the near and/or far transfer of the
principles learned?

Does contextualizing problems during worked-example
instruction affect students’ ability to represent novel
problems?

Does contextualizing problems during worked- example
instruction affect students’ learning perceptions?
Method
Participants










86 pre-college students (54 females and 32 males).
Age: M =15.4 years (SD = 1.43 years)
Ethnicity
42 (48.8 %) students Hispanic American
24 (27.9 %) Caucasian
6 (7.0 %) African American
2 (2.3 %) Native American
2 (2.3 %) Asian American
10 (11.6 %) other ethnicities
Materials








Computerized materials
demographic information questionnaire
pretest
instructional session
problem-solving practice session
program rating questionnaire
Paper-pencil materials
posttest
Treatment Conditions
Abstract (A)



Abstract text
Abstract representations
Contextualized (C)



Contextualized text
Context representations
Results
Pretest

No significant differences between groups




Abstract, M = 2.12 (max 6), SD = 0.87
Contextualized, M = 2.29, SD = 1.04
F(1, 84) = 0.65, p = .42
Research Question 1: Does Contextualizing Problems
Promote the Near and/or Far Transfer of the Principles
Learned?

Treatment effect on near transfer




Abstract, M = 4.86 (max 9), SD = 3.78
Contextualized, M = 3.09, SD = 3.84
F(1, 83) = 4.98, MSE = 14.51, p = .03
No treatment effect on far transfer




Abstract, M = 1.61(max 9), SD = 2.69
Contextualized, M = 0.96, SD = 2.37
F(1, 83) =1.62, MSE = 6.41, p = .21
Results_ continue




Research Question 2: Does Contextualizing Problems
Affect Students’ Ability to Represent Novel Problems?
15 % of the participants spontaneously produced
graphic representations of posttest problems.
Six of these students were in A group and 7 were in C
group.
Group A produced significantly better representations
of the posttest problems than group C



Abstract, M = 28.33 (max 60), SD = 17.52
Contextualized, M = 9.38, SD = 6.26
F(1, 10) = 5.39, MSE = 176.63, p = .04.
Results_ continue




Research Question 3: Does Contextualizing Problems
Affect Students’ Learning Perceptions?
No significant differences between the treatment groups
on ratings of overall program usefulness (p = .60)
No significant differences between the treatment groups
on difficulty perceptions (p = .26)
Marginally significant difference for representation
usefulness ratings. Group C > group A, F(1, 84) = 2.84,
MSE = 0.86, p = .10.
Theoretical Implications



Abstract representations help learners focus on relevant
structural information underlying isomorphic problems
The findings support a coherence principle for workedexample engineering education according to which visual
adjuncts that are not necessary to promote the learning
objectives of a lesson should be minimized.
The marginal tendency in favor of group C on the picture
representation usefulness suggests that realistic problem
representations may create an illusion of understanding
(they are perceived to be more useful but do not promote
learning).
Practical Implications

Pre-college engineering instruction should focus on the
development of abstract problem solving before tackling
real-life problems independently

Pre-college students have reached the cognitive
development necessary to engage in abstract thinking,
development of abstract problem solving is appropriate for
this age