Dr. Roxana Moreno, University of New Mexico Dr. Martin Reisslein, Arizona State University

1. 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

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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?

5. 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

6. Materials • Computerized materials • demographic information questionnaire • pretest • instructional session • problem-solving practice session • program rating questionnaire • Paper-pencil materials • posttest

7. Treatment Conditions • Abstract (A) • Abstract text • Abstract representations • Contextualized (C) • Contextualized text • Context representations

8. 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

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. Theoretical Implications • Abstract representations help learners focus on relevant structural information underlying isomorphic problems • The findings support a coherence principle for worked-example 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).

12. 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