Integration of critical thinking skills into

elementary school teacher education courses

in mathematics.
From:
Education
Date:
March 22, 2008
Author:
Sezer, Renan

Background

Critical thinking receives increasing emphasis from educators looking to

infuse analytical thinking skills into the curriculum. Many educators are
tempted to equate critical thinking with higher order thinking skills within
the last steps of Bloom's taxonomy: analysis, synthesis and evaluation.
Ennis argues that this taxonomy is insufficient (Bloom et al., 1974; Ennis,
1981). He believes that neither provides enough guidance to teach and
learn these skills. R. Paul (1985) concurs with Ennis that the taxonomy has
served educators, agreeing that it is a useful "framework for the
educational process" (Paul, 1985, 36), but argues that it is limited. One
limitation is its hierarchical nature which dictates a uni-directional flow
between strata. Bloom indicates that the taxonomy was intended "as a
method of classifying the objectives, experiences, learning processes,
evaluation questions and problems of education, [but] did not intend to
provide a constraint on educational philosophy, teaching methods, or
curriculum development." (Paul, 1985, 39.)

Attempts have been made to define critical thinking (Ennis, 1981; Paul,
1985; Lipman, 1988). Critical thinking is described as rational thinking
reflected in actions and decisions (Ennis, 1981; Hitchcock, 1983). It is used
to solve problems, choose between alternatives, and make judgments
(Beyer, 1995). It shares affinities with creative thinking and decision-
making (Innabi and El Sheikh, 2007). Lipman defines critical thinking as
skilfful, responsible thinking facilitating goodjudgment because it 1) relies
upon criteria [at hand], 2) is self-correcting, and 3) is sensitive to context.
Good judgment, he says, is only possible through good reasoning skills,
which assumes competent inquiry, concept-formation, and translation
skills. Ennis (1985) defines critical thinking as "reflective and reasonable
thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do" (45), paralleling
Lipman's formulation. These definitions highlight proclivities as well as
abilities. Ennis's list includes the following traits as fundamental to the art
of critical thinking: precision, clarification, erudition, open-mindedness,
seeking reasons and dealing with all parts of the problem. Critical thinking
is not only a set of skills to be learned, but skills which need to be
accompanied by sets of behaviors in order to make them effective such
as: thinking critically in daily life, monitoring and thinking about one's own
thought processes, and acting congruently with one's critical thinking
(Sternberg, 1983; Paul, 1985; Norris, 1985).
Once critical thinking skills and accompanying behaviors are defined, one
can look at the importance of critical thinking in education. The emphasis
in today's education is shifting from the acquisition of facts to the process
of thinking. The contemporary goal is to have students think for
themselves (Lipman, 1988). For many educators and philosophers, critical
thinking is not a way to education but a prerequisite (Norris, 1985;
McPeck, 1981; Siegel, 1980). One advantage cited is the creation of a
community of inquiry, where each member monitors his/her thinking, as
well as critiques other members' methods and procedures; thus,
individuals not only self correct thinking processes, but contribute overall
to group thinking skills (Lipman, 1988.) In such a community where
questioning becomes a way of reflection, students are encouraged to
question the validity of sources of information, including teachers (Siegel,
1980). Moreover, the teachers need to convey to students these skills,
since research indicates that many high school and college students do
not demonstrate strong critical thinking skills (Norris, 1985). Two virtues of
critical thinking in education are greatly enhanced reading comprehension
and the ability to communicate the in-depth perception gained from
increased understanding (Lipman, 1988). Yet the benefits of critical
thinking skills are not limited to the above. Positive effects can be
observed in the area of problem solving as well.

One study differentiated the problem-solving approaches of individuals

based on experience. The differences in problem-solving were not limited
to the expert knowledge or having an "automated" approach to certain
problems. The difference also lay in the choice of heuristics used. More
experienced individuals give greater thought to the approach that they will
use, and the relevance of each piece of information, given in the problem.
The experienced pay more attention to strategy, but spend less time in
actual problem-solving. The reverse is true for the less experienced (Larkin
et. al, 1980; Norris, 1985).

Many research projects have been conducted on the transferability of

critical thinking skills to other disciplines and how critical thinking may be
taught (Norris, 1985). There are numerous studies on teaching critical
thinking, yet none makes use of a control group or attempted to evaluate
ways in which students' critical thinking skills have improved (Annis and
Annis, 1979; Moll and Allen, 1982; Ross and Semb, 1981). In assessing
critical thinking skills, research reiterates that skills are highly context
dependent, since underlying knowledge in the area will effect assumptions
made. Thus, it is important to evaluate the thinking process and not only
the outcome solutions (Ennis, 1985; Norris, 1985; McPeck, 1981).

Need for the Study:

This study is an examination of one attempt to increase critical thinking

skills among students in a first course in mathematics for elementary
school teachers in an urban community college. This first course covers
early mathematical concepts for children, primarily from K-3rd grade, with
some mathematics topics pertaining to 4th grade level. The course can be
followed by a second course in mathematics for pre-service teachers
concentrating on grades 4-6. It has been the author's observation that the
majority of the potential instructors do not have strong mathematics
background. Such weakness manifests itself in the predisposition among
pre-service teachers to teach mathematics primarily in grades K-3rd.
Student teachers may have the misconception that they can get a license
to teach 1st-3rd grade without solidifying their mathematics knowledge.
Many opt to become kindergarten teachers for this reason in particular.
The aim, therefore, is to strengthen student teachers' mathematical skills
while imparting pedagogical strategies. Initially, many in-coming students
do not realize that mathematics is based on reasoning and problem-
solving. Such students arrive believing that mathematics consists of
memorizing arbitrary rules. Mathematics is a discipline which relies on
critical thinking skills and not rote memorization.

Norris' research (1985) indicates that critical thinking was not strongly
emphasized for many students; however, research by Innabi and Elsheikh
(2007) suggests that even teachers, who believe critical thinking is
essential, feel unequipped to teach those skills. Teachers in training who
develop improved critical thinking strategies may in turn enhance their
own students' analytical skills (Onoshko, 1990; Paul, Elder, and Bartell,
1997; Mei- Yun, Swee, Jung, and Leah, 2003; Marlow and Inman, 1992). It
appears beneficial to design and integrate critical thinking into the
mathematics training for future teachers.

Methodology:

During the development of this curriculum, the author contributed original

materials designed to enhance critical thinking skills among pre-service
teachers given in Appendix A. The control group of students took the
course previously when the critical thinking activities were not used. The
experimental group comprised students taking the course after the critical
thinking skills were integrated. These activities addressed problem-solving
strategies, asked students to monitor own thinking process while problem-
solving, searched for alternative approaches to problems, questioned
established arithmetical algorithms, asked for reasons and justifications,
provided reading material with conflicting information from which
judgments should be made. There were 45 students in the experimental
group, and 80 students in the control group.

Course content, in both treatments, was identical; however, emphasis on

content differed. The experimental group emphasized multiple approaches
to problem solving, alternative algorithmic methods, reading conflicting
information and making judgments. In both groups, emphasis was placed
on providing reasons and justifications for approaches used, as well as
how to explain mathematical ideas to children.

The Fennema-Sherman Mathematics Attitude Scales (1976), the

Mathematics Attitude Inventory for Students, created by Sandman (1974),
and the questionnaires developed by Aiken (1974) and by Umay (2001)
individually have some overlapping questions, with minor wording
variations.

The mathematics attitude survey (Appendix B), used in this study, consists
of 10 questions, 9 of which are based on the above mentioned surveys.
Questions 1, 4, and 7 were taken from the Fennema-Sherman Mathematics
Attitude Scales. Questions 2 and 3 were created by Aiken and question 8
by Umay. Question 10 was added by the author, to test if this first course
in mathematics pedagogy had any effect on students' comfort level
regarding grade 4-6 mathematics. The remaining questions were taken
from the Mathematics Attitude Inventory for Students. The wording of
question 9 was slightly altered. "Most of the problems my mathematics
teacher assigns are to give us practice in using a particular rule or
formula" became "As a future mathematics teacher, my primary role is
getting students to memorize rules and assigning work so that students
would practice a particular rule." This small modification was made to
monitor future teacher's perception of mathematics learning, as opposed
to the perception of mathematics students in general. For the l0 item
questionnaire, the reliability, calculated using SPSS, had Cronbach's Alpha
equal to 0.907.

The questionnaire was given in the first and final weeks of the semester to
both groups to assess the change in students' attitudes. The attitude
survey questions asked the participants to rate their feelings and
subjective perceptions regarding confidence level in mathematics,
problem solving ability, frustration level etc. These questions were
answered on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 for 'strongly disagree'
to 5 for 'strongly agree.' Note that while an increase in the average scores
in questions 1, 6, 7 indicates a positive outcome, a decrease in questions
2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 suggests improvement in perceptions. These questions
required reverse scoring, so that in all questions, an increase in posttest
results would imply positive changes.

The change in attitude, among both groups, was analyzed using SPSS
software. For each question in the attitude survey, independent samples t-
test were used to compare the changes in the means of each group. Since
recoded values were used when appropriate, for all questions, the
alternate hypothesis is that the change in the mean ([mu]) of the
experimental group is greater than that of the control group. In all tests,
an [alpha] level of 0.05 was used. In addition, the pre-test and post-test
were developed to measure any change in students' problem solving
ability as well as their ability to explain mathematical ideas. These test
questions were developed along with critical thinking activities and were
unavailable during the time the control group took the course. Thus, only
the pre- and post-tests were administered to the experimental group. The
questions on both tests were graded on a scale of 4. A grade of 0 was
assigned when no attempt was made to answer the question, a 1
indicated student answer containing major flaws in reasoning, a 2
indicated an answer that had minor flaws, such as errors in calculation,
and 3 was given for a correct answer.

Findings and Analysis of the Results:

The mean and standard deviation of the control group and the
experimental group, obtained from the pre-survey, appear in Table 1:
these values refer to the mean and standard deviation of the original
responses and not to the recoded values. After recoding the appropriate
questions in the survey, the comparisons in the changes of the mean
scores of the two groups were calculated using 'independent sample t-
test.' Results and the related t and p values are given in Table 2.

The hypothesis tests indicate a significant attitude change in 7 out of the

10 questions in the survey. The only three questions where a significant
change was not observed were questions 1, 6 and 10. Question 1 dealt
with a student's confidence in his/her mathematical ability. Since this
question covers mathematics ability at all levels, and not necessarily those
pertaining to the course content, a significant difference between two
groups was not observed. Question 6 related to students' ability to explain
mathematical concepts. In both the experimental and control groups equal
emphasis was given to explaining mathematical concepts to children;
therefore, there is no notable difference in responses to this question.
Question 10 refers to student's comfort level in teaching mathematics in
grades 4-6. Since the current course covered grades K-3 and some
concepts from grades 4, neither approach significantly affected students'
confidence pertaining to other grade levels.

This study indicates that emphasis on teaching methods outlined above

can positively alter attitudes. Students not only believe that they are
better problem solvers, but their frustration level decreases. They do not
give up if they cannot immediately solve a problem. Students accept
increased mathematical challenges. They also realize that time spent on
trying to solve a problem is not wasted if a correct answer is not found.
Moreover, the students in the experimental group revisioned their role in
teaching mathematic; future teachers no longer see memorization tasks
as their primary function. The benefits of other critical thinking exercises
were not reflected in the attitude survey.

Change in problem solving and explaining one's reasoning skills can be

assessed from the results of the pre- and post-tests (Table 3), even
though, a two-question exam is not a sufficient measurement tool. Even
though many students did not attempt to solve pre-test problems; the
post-test results indicate significant improvement in problem solving
ability. Students did relatively better on the pre-test question that required
explaining one's thought process and justifying one's reasoning than they
did on problem solving. The post test results show a vast improvement in
this area as well. The pre- and post-test results were analyzed using
'comparison of the means paired sample t-test'. The results obtained from
SPSS output is given in Table 4. In both questions, the change between
pre- and post-tests were found to be significant; however, more questions
are necessary in each category to make these tests more than a
preliminary assessment tool.

Conclusion:

This study compared the effects of integrating critical thinking skills into a
teacher preparation course by examining a control and an experimental
group. Results indicate that emphasis on critical thinking, even in one
course content, can have positive affects on students' attitudes. Future
work found to be significant; however, more questions are necessary in
each category to make these tests more than a preliminary assessment
tool.

Conclusion:

This study compared the effects of integrating critical thinking skills into a
teacher preparation course by examining a control and an experimental
group. Results indicate that emphasis on critical thinking, even in one
course content, can have positive affects on students' attitudes. Future
work in this area should include measurable outcomes of other critical
thinking skills with control groups.
APPENDIX A

Assignment 1: THINKING OUTSIDE OF THE BOX

You are on one side of a bank with a live fox, a live rabbit and a head of
lettuce. You have a small boat with which you can cross to the other side,
but the boat can accommodate only one more thing other than yourself.
How many times do you need to cross the river to take all three of them
safely across?

Read all the questions below before you start working on the above
problem.

1) Solve the problem above. If you know the solution, please do not tell it
to others in the class, so they have a chance to think for themselves.

2) While you are working on the problem, step back and monitor your own
thinking. What did you do when facing an unknown problem?

3) What problem solving methods did you utilize in this problem?

Assignment 2: CREATIVE SOLUTIONS

You are given a candle that takes 1 hour to bum completely. But the speed
with which the candle burns is not uniform. It burns slower on one end and
faster on the other end. You are not given these rates. You are given the
candle, a box of matches and put in an empty room that has no clock and
you do not have a watch or anything you can tell the time with (no cell
phone, computer etc.). Moreover there is no ruler (or anything that you
can use as a ruler, say strings etc.)

How can you tell exactly if half an hour has passed?

Assignment 3: POLYA'S STEPS IN PROBLEM SOLVING GENERALIZING

SOLUTIONS

Please solve the problem below using Polya's Steps in Problem Solving (1)
Read and understand the problem, 2) Devise a Plan, 3) Carry Out the Plan,
4) Look Back)

Be sure that you indicate how you are fulfilling each step. Make sure that
your approach to this problem is accessible to elementary school students.
While you are working on the problem, step back and monitor your own
thinking. What did you do when facing an unknown problem?

"A farmer raises only chickens and pigs. When he counts the heads of all
his animals he finds 67 heads, when he counts the legs he finds 214. How
many chickens and how many pigs does he have?"

Hints for the "Look Back" stage:

1) Is the answer to the problem unique? Is there a shorter approach to

solve the problem?

2) Could you solve this type of problem (i.e. with different numbers) if
instead of chickens and pigs the farmer raised chickens and spiders?
(Spiders have 8 legs.) Would there be a solution? Would it be unique?
3) Could you solve this type of problem (i.e. with different numbers) if
instead of chickens and pigs the farmer raised pigs and horses? Would
there be a solution? Would it be unique?

4) Could you solve this type of problem (i.e. with different numbers) if
instead of chickens and pigs the farmer raised chickens, pigs and spiders?
Would there be a solution? Would it be unique? (This part will require
mathematics that is beyond elementary school, unless you use trial and
error.)

5) Looking at your answers to hints 1-4, under what conditions does the
problem have a solution? Under what conditions is the solution unique?

6) Write a generalization to solve this type of problem (do not use

particular numbers, but rather what those numbers stand for.) Make sure
you indicate under what conditions this problem has a solution/a unique
solution.

Assignment 4: RE-LEARNING BASE 10 CONCEPTS

1) a) In the number 325,647 written in base 10, what does 7, 4, 6, 5, 2,

and 3 represent?

b) How many single digit numbers are there in base 10? What is the
largest single digit number you can write in base 10?

2) a) How many single digit numbers are there in base 4? What is the
largest single digit number you can write in base 4?

b) The following numbers are written in base 4. What numbers do they

represent in base 10?

I) 21

II) 323

III) 3012

3) Write following base 10 numbers in base 4.

a) 8

b) 12

c) 38

d) 69

4) Do the following operations on base 4.

a) 312+323

b) 301-233

c) 123 x 2

5) a) How many single digit numbers are there in base 12?

b) What is the largest single digit number you can write in base 12?

c) Make suggestions on how you might write the number 10 in base 12

notation.

Assignment 5: QUESTIONING ALGORITHMS

1) Divide 1462 by 34 using long division.

2) Long division is the only operation among the basic four operations that
start with the biggest digit i.e. we start with the left most digit of the
dividend (the number being divided). Can you do long division starting
with the ones digit and going left rather than starting on the left and going
right? Try it with the exercise in #1.

3) If you can do the division as indicated in #2, how do you need to adjust
your record keeping?

4) a) Is it possible to do division either way correctly?

b) If so, which is easier and why?

Assignment 6: WHY DO WE DO WHAT WE DO?

1) Solve the following problem: John painted 2/5 of a room. The next day
Anne came and painted 1/4 of the remaining part of the room. What part
of the room remains unpainted?

2) Explain the problem using a picture or in words as you would to an

elementary school student.

3) Solving this problem you had to use subtraction and multiplication.

explanation include why you need to put fractions on common
denominator when you subtract/add but you do not need to when you
multiply.

Assignment 7: READING CRITICALLY NCTM STANDARDS

This assignment is related to the assigned reading of the following

websites:

NCTM: http://standards.nctm.org/document/appendix/numb.htm

In the above document click on Principles or go to

http://standards.nctm.org/ document/chapter2/index.htm

Then Standards: http://standards.nctm.org/document/chapter3/index.htm

Then Pre K-2: http://standards.nctm.org/document/chapter4/numb.htm

Then 3-5 (Overview of Standards 3-5): http://standards.nctm.org/

document/chapter5/numb.htm

W. G. Quirk's website:

http://www.wgquirk.com/TruthK12.html

http://www.wgquirk.com/Genmath.html
http://www.wgquirk.com/HMathStd.html

http://www.wgquirk.com/chap3.html

http://www.wgquirk.corn/chap4.html

1) Please use VERBS that indicate the kind of mathematical activity that
takes plain a classroom that is described by NCTM Standards. Shortly
describe the kind of activities that takes place in such a classroom. (You
are NOT asked to list the Standards but synthesize your reading of the
Standards and visualize a classroom based on NCTM Standards.)

2) Please use VERBS that indicate the kind of mathematical activity that
takes ph in a classroom that is described by W. G. Quirk. Shortly describe
the kind of activities that takes place in such a classroom. (Try to visualize
a classroom based on W. G. Quirk's website.)

3) If you were an elementary school student, from which of the two classes
would you have benefited more? Explain in detail why? (I do not want TWO
WORD answers.)

4) a) What are some of the advantages of being in an NCTM friendly

mathematics classroom?

b) What are some of the advantages in being in a mathematics classroom

described by W. G. Quirk?

APPENDIX B

Mathematics Attitude Questionnaire

1. I have a lot of self-confidence when it comes to math.

2. [Most of] mathematics is just memorizing formulas and things.

3. Word problems in mathematics have always been difficult for me.

4. The challenge of math problems does not appeal to me.

5. If I do not see how to do a mathematics problem right away, I never get

it.

6. I like to explain how to do mathematics questions to other people.

7. When a math problem arises that I can't immediately solve, I stick with
it until I have the solution.

8. If I can not get the answer to a mathematics problem, then trying is a

waste of time.

9. As a future mathematics teacher, my primary role is getting students to

memorize rules and assign work students would practice a particular rule.

10. I am not comfortable teaching mathematics in grades 4-6.

REFERENCES:
Annis, L. F., Annis, D. B. (1974). The Impact of Philosophy on Students'
Critical Thinking Ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 4, 219-
226.

Aiken, L. R. (1974). Two Scales of Attitude Towards Mathematics. Journal

for Research in Mathematics Education, 5, 2, 67-71.

Beyer, B. K. (1995). Critical thinking. Phi Delta Kappa Educational

Foundation, (pp. 8). Indiana: Bloomington.

Bloom, B. S., et al. (1974). The Taxonomy of Educational Objectives:

Affective And Cognitive Domains. New York: David McKay Company, Inc.

Casa, T. M., McGivney-Burelle, J., DeFranco, T.C. (2007). The Development

of an Instrument to Measure Preservice Teachers' Attitudes about
Discourse in the Mathematics Classroom. School Science and
Mathematics, 107, 2, 70-80.

Ennis, R. H. (1981). Rational thinking and educational practice. In J. F.

Soltis (Ed.), Philosophy of education (v.1). Chicago, IL: The National Society
for the Study of Education.

Ennis, R. H. (1985). A Logical Basis for Measuring Critical Thinking Skills.

Educational Leadership, 43, 2, 44-49

Fennema, E., Sherman, J. A. (1976). Fennema-Shermann Mathematics

Attitude Scales: Instruments Designed to Measure Attitudes Toward the
Learning of Mathematics by Females and Males. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 7, 5, 324-326.

Hitchock, D. (1983). Critical Thinking: A Guide to Evaluating Information.

Toronto: Methuen.

Innabi, H., El Sheikh, O. (2007). The Change in Mathematics Teachers'

Perceptions of Critical Thinking after 15 Years of Educational Reform in
Jordan. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 64, 1, 45-68.

Larkin, J., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., Simon, H. (1980) Expert and Novice
Performance in Solving Physics Problems. Science, 208, 1335-1342.

Lipman, M. (1988). Critical Thinking--What Can It Be? Educational

Leadership, 46, 1, 38-43.

Marlow, L., Inman, D. (1992). Higher Order Thinking Skills: Teachers'

Perceptions. Education, 12, 4, 538-541.

McPeck, J. (1981). Critical Thinking and Education. Oxford: Martin

Robertson.

Mei-Yun, L., Swee, L., Jung, M. Leah, A. (2003). What Hong Kong Teachers
and Parents Think About Thinking. Early Child Development and Care, 173,
1, 147-158.

Moll, M. D., Allen, R. D. (1982). Developing Critical Thinking Skills in

Biology. Journal of College Science Teaching, 12, 95-98.
Norris, S.P. (1985). Synthesis of Research on Critical Thinking. Educational
Leadership, 42, 8, 40-45.

Onoshko, J. J. (1990). Comparing Teachers' Instruction to Promote

Students' Thinking. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 22, 5, 443-461.

Paul, R. W. (1985). Bloom's Taxonomy and Critical Thinking Instruction.

Educational Leadership, 42, 8, 36-39.

Paul, R., Elder, L., Bartell, T. (1997). California teacher preparation for
instruction in critical thinking: Research findings and policy
recommendations. (Report: California Commission on Teacher
Credentialing. No. ED43737). CA

Ross, G. A., Scrub, G. (1981). Philosophy Can Teach Critical Thinking Skills.
Teaching Philosophy, 4, 111-122.

Sandman, R. S. (1974). The Development, Validation, and Application of a

Multi-Dimensional Mathematics Attitude Instrument. Dissertation Abstracts
International, University of Minnesota 189 pages; (UMI No. 7410626)

Siegel, H. (1980). Critical Thinking as an Educational Ideal. Educational

Forum 45, 1, 7-23.

Sternberg, R. J. (1983). Criteria for Intellectual Skills Training. Educational

Researcher, 12, 2, 6-2.

Umay, A. (2001). Ilkogretim Matematik Ogretmenligi Programinin

Matematige Karsi Ozyeterlik Algisina Etkisi. Journal of Qafqaz University, 8.
Baku: Azerbaycan

Zang, L. (2001). Approaches and Thinking Styles in Teaching. The Journal

of Psychology, 135, 5, 547-561.

DR. RENAN SEZER

LaGuardia Community College, CUNY

Table 1

Mean and Standard Deviation of Student Responses to Each

Question in

the Pre-Survey *

Mean Standard Deviation

Question Control Experimental Control Experimental

1 2.633 2.6440.856 0.830

2 3.663 3.4440.941 1.179

3 3.875 3.4170.919 0.996

4 3.875 3.9780.862 0.866

5 3.688 3.5560.949 0.967

6 2.613 2.6670.987 0.953

7 2.625 2.4890.919 0.869

8 3.575 3.6440.991 1.069

9 3.525 3.2440.954 0.944

10 2.763 2.4440.783 0.785

* Values for the mean and standard deviations were rounded to

3

decimal places.

Table 2

Comparison of the Means of the Two Groups (1)

Change in the Means Standard Deviation

Question Control Experimental Control Experimental

1 0.550 0.5560.634 0.586

2 0.800 1.7561.048 1.090

3 0.600 0.8000.686 0.548

4 0.538 0.7330.693 0.580

5 0.588 1.0440.688 0.562

6 1.100 1.1110.773 0.859

7 0.613 0.8000.665 0.505

8 0.875 1.6440.891 0.773

9 1.138 1.3780.651 0.806

10 0.813 0.8000.658 0.786

Question t Value Sig. *

1 0.0480.481

2 4.7690.000

3 1.7850.039

4 1.6870.047

5 4.0170.000

6 0.0720.472

7 1.7720.040

8 5.0500.000

9 1.7110.046

10 -0.0900.464

(1) Values for the mean and standard deviations were rounded
to 3

decimal places. Equal variances were not assumed. All

hypotheses tests

were one tailed and an level of 0.05 was used for all tests.

* Indicates p value.

Table 3

Pre- and Post-Test Means and Standard Deviation for the

Experimental
Group *

Mean ScoreStandard Deviation

Question Pre-Test Post-Test Pre-Test Post-Test

Problem 0.289 2.444 0.661 0.693

Solving

Explaining1.311 2.622 0.973 0.576

Reasoning

* Values for the mean and standard deviations were rounded to

3

decimal places.

Table 4

Comparison of the Means of the Pre- and Post-Test for the

Experimental

Group *

Change

in theStandard

Question Mean Deviation t Value Sig. **

Problem 2.156 0.767 18.8430.000

Solving

Explaining 1.311 0.763 11.5210.000

Reasoning
* Values for the mean and standard deviations were rounded to
3 decimal

places. Equal variances were not assumed. All hypotheses tests

were one

tailed and an level of 0.05 was used for all tests.

** Indicates p value.