Research Title: Concrete Representational-Abstraction Technique on the

Learning
Outcomes of
Grade
Seven Students in
Mathematics
Research Proponent: OLDRIC JOROLAN LICAROS
Position: Teacher III
School/Institution:

Division: Cotabato

Gil B. Manalo High School

INTRODUCTION
Imparting knowledge to a group of learners is a crucial task faced by every educator at
all levels of education. How it is to be done effectively is often the most critical and
yet unending query that inevitably confronts sensitive and effective educators. Being
an integral component in the teaching-learning process, a teaching method is a
compass that guides the teacher to the right destination.

However, the question remains: What best teaching method should be employed in
order to attain utmost learning?

For so many years, teachers used to repeat traditional teaching to impart mathematical
knowledge or skills to their students. However, since mathematics is a complex
process using abstract concepts, teachers usually fail to bring out the best learning
outcomes from their students. This has been the dilemma faced by most teachers
especially in public schools where heterogeneous sectioning of classes are done
including students with learning disabilities in mathematics.

Learning Disability (LD) in mathematics is a disorder in one or more of the basic

psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or
written; it may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read,
write, spell or do mathematical calculations (The National Research Council). This
inability to do mathematical calculations accurately describes how Learning Disability
affects many pupils. Fuchs & Fuchs, et al. (2002) reported that Learning Disability
chiefly affects math learning and performance among 5 to 10% of children in grade K12.

On the other hand, Kilpatrick, et al. (2001) asserted that visual processing, visual
memory, and visual-spatial relationship all impact math proficiency; they are threads
in the fabric of conceptual understanding and procedural fluency.
proficiency as envisioned by the

National

Mathematical

Council of Teachers of Mathematics

(NCTM, 2005), describes the five (5) interrelated strands of knowledge, skills,
abilities, and beliefs which allow pupils to do

mathematical manipulation and

achievement across all mathematical domains (Kilpatric

et al., 2001).

This

mathematical proficiency is also a criteria by which all students have access to

rigorous, high quality mathematics instruction and curriculum that is mathematically
rich, providing pupils with opportunities to learn important mathematical concepts and
procedures with understanding. Achieving mathematical proficiency then calls for the
challenge to teach in simpler and tangible ways so that difficult ideas will become

understandable and multi-faceted problems become solvable (Gersten, et al., 2008).

Such challenge may possibly be addressed by using Concrete-RepresentationalAbstraction (CRA) teaching technique.

The purpose of this Action Research is to evaluate the effect of concreterepresentational-abstraciont technique on the mathematical learning outcomes of the
students in terms of representation and abstraction skills.
Specifically, it sought to answer if there were significant differences among:
2

1. the pre-test mean scores of the students in both the control and experimental
groups in their representations and abstraction skills.
2. the post test mean scores of students in terms of representation and abstraction
skills in the control and experimental groups.
3. the pre-test and post test mean scores of students in terms of representation and
abstraction skills in the control and experimental groups.
4. the mean gain scores of the students in the control and experimental groups.
5. the relationship between representation and abstraction skills of the students.

METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH DESIGN

A quasi-research design was used in the study where the experimental group was
concrete-representational-abstraction teaching technique while the control group to
traditional teaching technique. The respondents of the study were the two sections of
grade seven students of Gil B. Manalo High School, Katidtuan, Kabacan, Cotabato
forming the experimental and control groups of the study. A pretest-posttest research
instrument was used to obtain the quantitative data needed.

A pretest was

administered to both groups before experimentation in order to establish equivalence

between the two groups in terms of their prior knowledge,

The respondents in the experimental group were divided into small groups;
manipulative method with the use of concrete materials was first introduced, then
representation of terms or concepts was through manipulation of concrete materials
and finally, abstraction of ideas or concepts followed. This was done through
construction of mathematical representation of the concepts introduced such as
numbers, math symbols and equations. This had ensured pupils understanding of the
lesson.

The teacher gave computerized instruction including the steps or procedure of the
activity every class session. Each group analyzed and followed the procedure very
carefully (manipulative concrete), then posted their output on the board and assigned
one person to give brief idea or concept of what they had come-up within their group
(representation). The concept discussed by each group as well as their discovery

through the activity was corrected through a ready-made output as representation of

the topic for follow-up lecture and discussion of provided by the teacher. This was
for the purpose of fixing the correct representation of the concept.
In the control group, the lecture-discussion method, referred to as talk and chalk
method was employed by the teacher as teaching strategy where fixation of skills was
through the exercises, board works, seat works provided.

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

This study was anchored from the hierarchical learning types of Robert Gagne (1970)
stemmed from his book the Conditions of Learning.

Among his hierarchical

arrangement is the S-R learning of Thorndike, otherwise called Operant Learning by

Skinner, that best magnify the ends of this study. Stimulus- response learning is a type
of associative learning which involves trial-and-error learning some goal or objective
that the subject attempts to achieve.

The process is essentially a successive

approximation where initial efforts are almost random; subject modified his approach
in every attempt, successful attempt is remembered and failed attempts are forgotten;
success rate improves with more attempts.

Concept learning may be distinguished into: concrete and abstract. Concrete concepts
are those that are formed through direct observation like the learners response to a set
of stimulus objects by distinguishing the stimulus or by allowing them to respond at
any instance in a class.

Students acquire higher levels of mathematical proficiency when they have

opportunities to use mathematics to solve significant problems as well as to learn the
key concepts and procedures of that mathematics and hence gains power through
abstraction, finding both his sources and applications in concrete settings. Learning is
concretized when meaningful items in the childs immediate experiences are used as
scaffolding with which to erect abstract ideas (Bressoud, D.M., 2008).

The study conceptualized that teaching mathematics using concrete-representationalabstraction technique (CRA) will facilitate learning outcomes by providing students
with concrete materials and allowing them to draw pictures of their mathematical
understandings in a tangible way (The Access Centers Concrete-RepresentationalAbstract Approach).

A significant difference in the learning outcomes between the pupils exposed to CRA
and traditional methods, as teaching methods, was measured by pupils posttest mean
scores as shown in the following figure:

Teaching Method
Independent Variable

Dependent Variable

Pupils Learning Outcomes

in terms of

Experimental
Experimental
Group
Group

a) Representation
b)

Abstraction

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Difference in the Pretest Mean Scores (Prior Knowledge of the respondents)
The t-values of 0.00 ans -0.13 with associated probabilities of 1.00 and 0.89 under
representation and abstraction categories, respectively, as shown in Table 1 indicated
no significant differences the between the experimental and control groups on their
prior knowledge in terms of representation and abstraction.

Table 1Comparison of the pretest mean scores of the

respondents in

the experimental and control groups 2014.

Category

Group

Representation Exptl
Control
Abstraction

Exptl

Mean
Mean
Score SD Difference t-value P-value

21 13.30 2.00
22 13.30 2.00
21 15.50 2.30

1.79

0.00

0.00ns

1.00

-0.07

-0.13ns

0.89

1.16
1.80

Control 22 16.10 2.40 1.92

______________________________________________________________
The learning outcomes of the respondents in terms of their representation and
abstraction skills were measured and analyzed using t-test for independent samples.
Learning Outcomes
Posttest Scores of the Respondents in terms of Representation and Abstraction
The learning outcomes of the respondents in terms of their representation and
abstraction skills were measured and analyzed using t-test for independent samples.

In terms of representation skills, 69.50% (Table 2) of the students got a posttest mean
score of 10.40 in the experimental group while 56.10% of the students got a posttest
mean score of 8.42 in the control group. The experimental group rated higher with a
mean score of 2.00 compared to the control group a better performance of the
experimental group than the control group. The computed t-value of -2.33 with an
associated probability of 0.03 indicated a significant difference in the representation

outcomes between the two groups. This further indicated that students who were
taught through CRA outperformed students who were taught traditional instruction in
terms of representation.

This implied that before the students can represent mathematical concepts, they should
be taught first productively through the use of mathematical manipulatives, must be
committed in making sense of the activities and expressing their sense meaningfully,
and that they must see the concrete representation of the concepts and the notational
method as a reflection of the other.

Under abstraction category, 84.10% of the experimental group got a posttest mean
score of 12.62 which was higher compared to the control group with only 53.70%
students who got a posttest mean score of 8.05. With mean difference of 4.57, the
experimental group rated higher by 30.40% outperforming. The computed t-value of
-6.12 with associated probability of 0.00 showed a very high significant difference in
the abstraction outcomes between the two groups. This further indicated that students
who were taught through CRA outperformed students who were taught traditional
instruction in terms of abstraction.

Students in the control group who received traditional instruction experienced

difficulty to comprehend mathematical concepts. They needed to acquire higher levels

of mathematical proficiency in order to learn the key concepts and procedures of that
mathematical problem.

These results conform with the findings of Mercer & Miller (1992), Miller & Mercer
(1993), and, Peterson, Mercer & OShea (1998) who used CRA to teach place values
to students with math disabilities; Babbit, et al. (2003) in who used manipulative to
teach students following a concrete-representational-abstraction.
Table 2. Learning outcomes mean score between experimental and control groups in
terms of representation and abstraction.

Category

Group

Representation Exptl
Abstraction

Mean
Mean
Score SD Difference t-value P-value

21 69.30 10.40 2.62

2.00

Control 22 56.01 8.40 3.27

Exptl 21 84.10 12.62 2.11 4.57
Control

22 53.70

8.05

-2.33*
-6.12**

0.03
0.00

2.73

Learning Outcomes in the Pretest and Posttest

The learning outcomes of the experimental and control groups in their pretests and
posttests were compared in terms of measured representation and abstraction skills.
Under representation category, 13.33% (Table 3) of the students obtained a pretest
mean score of 2.00 in both the experimental and control groups. However, 69.33%
students of the experimental group got a posttest mean score of 10.40. The mean
difference of the pretest and posttest mean scores in the experimental group of -8.40
showed that the learning outcomes of the experimental group in terms of

representation was 8.40 higher in the posttest than in the pretest with a t-value of
-13.05 and associated probability indicating a high significant difference between the
pretest and posttest mean scores.

In the control group, the mean difference of the pretest and posttest mean scores under
representation category of -6.40 showed that the learning outcomes of the control
group in terms of representation was 6.40 higher in the posttest than in the pretest with
a t-value of -7.98 and associated probability of 0.00 showing also a high significant
difference between the pretest and posttest mean scores in terms of representation.

Under abstraction category, 15.33% of the experimental group got a pretest mean
score of 2.30 while 16.00% of the control group got a pretest mean score of 2.40;
84.13% of the experimental group got a posttest mean score of 12.62 while 53.60% of
the control group a posttest mean score of 8.05. The mean difference of the pretest and
posttest mean scores in the experimental group of -10.32 showed that learning
outcomes of the experimental group was 10.32 higher in the posttest than the pretest
with a t-value of -18.46 and associated probability of 0.00 showed a high significant
difference between the pretest and posttest mean scores in the abstraction category of
the experimental group. The mean difference in the pretest and posttest mean scores
in the control group of -6.58, however, showed that learning outcomes of the control
group were 6.40 higher in the posttest than in the pretest with a t-value of -6.58 and

28
27

associated probability of 0.00 showing also a high significant difference between the
pretest and posttest mean scores in the abstraction of the control group.
These results conform to Butler, et. Al. (2003) who investigated on the effects of
teaching middle school students with mathematics disabilities equivalent fraction
concepts and procedures using CRA or representational-abstraction (RA) instructional
sequence. Students in both treatment groups improved over-all in their understanding
of fraction equivalency from pretest to posttest, hence, found overall higher mean
scores in CRA group than in RA group.

Table 3.

Category
Representation

Comparison of the pretest and posttest mean scores of

respondents in the experimental and control groups.
GROUP
Experimental
Control
Pretest
Posttest
Pretest
Posttest
Mean
2.00
S.D.
1.79
Mean diff.
t-value
-13.05*
P-value

10.40
2.62
-8.40

2.00
1.16

the

8.40
3.27
-6.40

-7.98*
0.00

0.00

Abstraction
Mean
2.30
12.62
S.D.
1.80
2.11
Mean diff.
-10.32
t-value
-18.46*
P-value
0.00

2.40
1.92

8.05
2.73
-5.65

-6.58

0.00

Mean Gain in Scores

The mean gain in scores of the respondents as measured in terms of their
representation and abstraction skills were measured and analyzed using t-test for

independent samples. The mean gain of 56.00% (Table 4) of the experimental group
was 8.43 while that of 42.70% of control group was 6.32. 13.30% of the experimental
group scored by about 2.11 higher in mean score in terms of representation with a tvalue of 2.01 and associated probability of 0.05 indicating a significant gain in
knowledge in the experimental and control groups in terms of representation and that
the experimental group taught using CRA improved better than in control group taught
using traditional method.

In terms of abstraction, 68.60% OF the experimental group got a mean gain score of
10.32 while 37.70% of the control group got a mean gain score of 5.64 with a t-value
of 2.30 and associated probability of 0.02 indicating a significant gain in knowledge
between the experimental and control groups in terms of abstraction, hence, showed
that students who were taught CRA had gained more learning than the students who
31

were taught by using traditional method; learning mathematics using CRA facilitated
learning outcomes in terms of representation and abstraction skills especially among

heterogeneous group of students; using CRA as an alternative teaching technique

guided students to grasp necessary skills, understand and concretize mathematical
concepts through first-hand experience and helped them appreciate the importance of
Mathematics in real life.

Table 4 Mean gain in scores between experimental and control

in terms of representation and abstraction 2014.

Category

Group n

groups

Mean
Mean
% Gain
SD Difference t-value P-value

Representation Exptl 21 56.00 8.43 2.96

2.11
Control 22 42.70 6.32 3.84
Abstraction
Exptl 21 68.60 10.32 15.6
Control 22 37.70 5.64 4.01

8.12

2.01*

0.05

2.3*

0.02

Relationship Between Representation and Abstraction Skills

The relationship between the representation and abstraction outcomes of the
respondents was measured using Pearson Correlation Coefficient. The computed rcoefficient of 0.68 (Table 5) with an associated probability of 0.00 indicated a very
high significant relationship between the representation and abstraction outcomes of
the respondents.

Result indicated that students that could represent or draw

mathematical ideas could also relate mathematical ideas into its symbolic terms or
equations; it further explained that students who were taught CRA were able to model
the mathematical concept, demonstrated the concept in representational terms and
finally in abstract or symbolic terms. Result conform to the finding of Thompson
(1992) who investigated the transfer of concepts using representational tools among
his twenty-fourth grade students; Raphael and Wahlstrom (1989) who used
manipulatives on 103 Ontario eighth grade mathematics teachers; Raymond and

Leinenbach (2000) who studied five classes of eighth graders in pre-algebra and
Witzel, Mercer, and Miller (2003) who used 34 matched pairs of sixth and seventh
graders in a comparison of an explicit CRA sequence of instruction with traditional
instruction for teaching algebraic transformation equations.

Table 5

Relationship between representation and abstraction skills 2014.

Variables
Abstraction

coefficient
0.68**

P-value
0.00

Description
Very
High Positive

versus
Correlation
Representation
_______________________________________________________________
** highly

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusions
1. The experimental and the control groups were comparable at the start of the
experiment.
2. The students taught using CRA performed better in representation and
abstraction skills.
3. Both the control and experimental groups gained knowledge at the end of the
experiment.
4. Students in the experimental group gained more knowledge than the students
in the control group. Thus, students who were taught using CRA learned better
than those who were taught using traditional method.

5. The higher the representations skill, the higher also was the abstraction skills
of the students.
Recommendations
1. Teachers should not limit their teaching strategy in the talk and chalk
method especially in the elementary level. CRA could be a rich alternative
strategy.
2. In order to develop abstraction skills among students, teachers should
develop first representation skills among them.
3. Similar study may be made to determine the extent of using CRA in other
areas of mathematics.
4. Administrators may use evidences provided by this study in upgrading
5.

their teachers.
Teachers should be kept abreast of dynamic changes of mathematics
education.

REFERENCES
Books
Rose & Meyer; Evidence-based Practices in Mathematics Instruction; 2002
Woodward and Montegue; New Directions in Mathematics Instruction; 2002

Journals/Articles
Foundations for Success: The Final Report of the National Mathematics Advisory
Panel. 2008; p. xiv
Special Connections Concrete-Representational-Abstract (C-R-A) Instruction
The Access Centers Concrete-Representational-Abstract Instructional Approach
The The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics; 2005
Thesis/Dissertations
Bressoud, D. M.; The Advantage of Abstract Examples in Learning Math; New
York; 2008; p. 6, 426
Butler, Miller, Crehan, Babbitt, & Pierce; Mastering Fractions through Visual
Representations; Published Research. 2003
Witzel, Mercer, & Miller; Visual Representations on Algebra; Published Research.
2003