ISSN 0439-755X
CN 11-1911/B
主办:中国心理学会
   中国科学院心理研究所
出版:科学出版社

心理学报 ›› 2011, Vol. 43 ›› Issue (11): 1283-1292.

• • 上一篇    下一篇

问题表征、工作记忆对小学生数学问题解决的影响

宋广文;何文广;孔伟   

  1. (1 曲阜师范大学心理科学研究所, 曲阜 273165) (2 北京师范大学心理学院, 北京 100875)
  • 收稿日期:2010-12-07 修回日期:1900-01-01 出版日期:2011-11-30 发布日期:2011-11-30
  • 通讯作者: 何文广

Influence of Problem Representation and Working Memory Span on Pupils’ Mathematical Problem Solving

SONG Guang-Wen;HE Wen-Guang;KONG-Wei   

  1. (1 Institute of Psychology, Qufu Normal University, Qufu 273165, China)
    (2 School of Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China)
  • Received:2010-12-07 Revised:1900-01-01 Published:2011-11-30 Online:2011-11-30
  • Contact: HE Wen-Guang

摘要: 以104名小学六年级学生为被试, 采用4个相对独立的研究探讨了工作记忆广度、问题表征方式与小学生数学应用题解决的关系。结果表明:(1)言语工作记忆广度只影响高难度应用题的解决, 在低难度、中等难度的应用题解决上, 高、低言语工作记忆广度者不存在显著差异; (2)视觉-空间工作记忆广度对低难度、中等难度、高难度应用题的解决都存在影响; (3)问题表征方式影响数学应用题的解决, 应用题的解题成绩与问题表征方式的使用有关; (4)言语工作记忆广度对应用题的表征方式没有影响, 高、低言语工作记忆广度者在三种难度水平应用题的表征方式上不存在显著差异; (5)视觉-空间工作记忆广度对应用题的表征方式存在影响, 高、低视觉-空间工作记忆广度者在三种难度水平应用题的表征方式上均存在组间差异。

关键词: 小学生, 工作记忆, 问题表征方式, 数学问题解决

Abstract: Since 1980’s systematic researches have been made on mental processes, influencing factors and psychological models of problem solving. The researches found that problem context, problem representation types, mental preparation, working memory, cognitive styles, and self-evaluation are the main factors for problem solving (Lu haidong, 2004; You xuqun, 2006; Chen yinghe, 2004; Beckmann et al., 2007). Some researchers pointed out that problem representation and problem solving plans are the basic inner processes (Kintch & Greeno, 1985; Greeno, 1986). Along with deeper studies, direct translation strategy and problem-model strategy (Mayer, 1996) were considered as the main representation types, and working memory as the major factor for problem representation type (Baddeley, 1992; Cornoldi, 1999; Mclean, 1999; Wang enguo, 2007; Wanyan, 2007). However, the past studies paid much attention to how verbal working memory affected problem representation, while there were few studies on how visual-spacial memory span influenced problem representation in mathematics. As a hypothesis, we thought that it was the individual differences in working memory that resulted in different problem representation in mathematics, which led to different performances in mathematical assignments. Those with a high spacial working memory span, based on an overall comprehension of the problem, could construct a good problem representation, and would show superiority in high speed and accuracy in mathematical problem solving. Those with a high verbal working memory span, might display an advantage in comprehension of mathematical problems. However, compared with the high visual-spacial memory span group, they might have different problem representation. This study was especially concerned about whether there were differences in problem representation and problem solving between the two groups with different working memory.
This study included four separate experiments. 104 Grade 6 pupils from primary school (male, 61, female, 43, Mage=11.26±0.56) participated in the study. Four tests were carried out, concerning mathematical problems, problem representation, verbal working memory span and visual-spacial working memory span respectively. All subjects were tested by mathematical works and cognitive behavior.
By using one-way analysis of variance and χ2 test, this study found:
1. Verbal working memory span showed a main effect in high level difficult word problem solving (F (1,102)=5.78, p<0.05), and had no main effect in low and middle level difficult word problem solving (F (1,102)=0.21, p>0.05; F (1,102)=0.58, p>0.05).
2. Visual-spacial working memory span showed a main effect in the three level difficult word problem solving (F (1,102)=8.13, p<0.01; F (1,102)=4.59, p<0.05; F (1,102)=11.01, p<0.01).
3. The mathematical scores were correlated with problem representation. When solving the three level difficult problems, the high score group had a tendency to choose problem-model strategy (82.0%; 81.9%; 55.8%). There were significant differences in problem representation in the three level difficult problems between the high and low score group.
4. There were no relations between verbal working memory span and problem representation types (low difficult problem: χ2(2)=2.31, p>0.05; middle difficult problem: χ2(2)=2.21, p>0.05; high difficult problem: χ2(2)=2.95, p>0.05). When solving the three level difficult problems, both the high and low verbal working memory span groups tended to choose problem-model strategy (high group: 65.7%; 63.9%; 46.6%; low group: 71.3%; 66.3%; 42.9%), and there were no significant differences between the high and low verbal working memory span group in selecting problem representation types.
5. There were correlations between visual-spacial working memory span and problem representation types (low difficult problem: χ2(2)=16.44, p<0.001; middle difficult problem: χ2(2)=18.16, p<0.001; high difficult problem: χ2(2)=8.64, p<0.01). In solving the three level difficult problems, there were significant differences between the high and low visual–spacial working memory span group in selecting problem representation types, and the high visual-spacial working memory span group more likely chose problem-model strategy (75.4%; 72.4%; 49.9%).

Key words: pupil, working memory, problem representation type, mathematical problem solving