Home⇛Journal of Interdisciplinary Perspectives⇛vol. 4 no. 5 (2026)

Enactive and Iconic Representations in Student Intellectual Development in Mathematics: The Mediating Role of Cognitive Flexibility

Imma Tessie Donne D. Llemit

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

Low intellectual development in mathematics persists globally, with many students struggling to progress from concrete to abstract reasoning. While prior research has focused on mathematical performance, few studies have explored the instructional and cognitive barriers underlying this issue. Addressing this gap, the present study examines cognitive flexibility as a mediator between enactive and iconic representations and students’ intellectual development in mathematics. A quantitative, correlational design with mediation analysis was employed, and data were collected from 250 Grade 11 Technical– Vocational–Livelihood students. Grounded in Bruner’s Theory of Representation, the findings reveal that both enactive and iconic representations have significant direct and indirect effects on students’ intellectual development through cognitive flexibility. Mediation analysis showed that cognitive flexibility accounted for 16.80% and 54.78% of the effects of enactive and iconic representations, respectively, highlighting the role of adaptive reasoning in enhancing the benefits of hands-on and visual learning. These findings emphasize the instructional value of integrating multiple representations with cognitive flexibility in mathematics education. Further studies may explore additional mediating variables to explain the remaining variance in the relationships between enactive and iconic representations and intellectual development that is not accounted for by cognitive flexibility. Potential mediators may be identified from a qualitative study.



References:

  1. Bernardo, A.B.I. (2020). Cognitive foundations of mathematics learning: Evidence from the Philippines. Philippine Journal of Education, 99(2), 112–129.
  2. Bernardo, A.B.I., Limjap, J., Prudente, M., & Roleda, P. (2022). Algebraic reasoning and cognitive development among Filipino students. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 42(1),77–95.
  3. Betsy. (2025). Application of multiple representations in teaching fraction concepts in elementary mathematics. Journal of Education and Educational Research, 15(2), 167–176. https://doi.org/10.54097/43893209
  4. BetterEvaluation. (2026). Stratified random sampling.
  5. Cipriano, A., & Guiu, A. (2024). Manipulatives and representational use in secondary mathematics: When perceptual richness hinders abstract reasoning. Journal of Mathematics Education Research, 16(1), 59–78.
  6. Creswell, J.W., & Creswell, J.D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
  7. Durongkaveroj, P. (2023). Educational reform and intellectual development in Thailand: A mathematics perspective. Southeast Asian Journal of Education, 12(2), 55–72.
  8. Galabo, C., Cuyos, R., & Jumawan, L. (2018). Mathematics performance of students in Davao Region: A cognitive perspective. Mindanao Journal of Education Research, 7(1), 22–38.
  9. Haque, M.N. (2024). The role of multiple representations and attitudes in enhancing statistical and mathematical learning. Smart Internet of Things, 1(4). https://doi.org/10.22105/siot.vi.52
  10. Ji, X., Gao, S., Shen, J., & Wong, D. (2024). Using hands-on learning video assignments in online and in-person contexts: A longitudinal study. Education Sciences, 14(1), Article 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14010012
  11. Makondo, L., & Makondo, R. (2021). Intellectual foundations and mathematics achievement in Kenyan schools. African Journal of Educational Studies, 15(3), 45–63.
  12. Mandeville, D., Perks, L., Benes, S., & Poloskey, L. (2018). The Mindset and Intellectual Development Scale (MINDS): Metacognitive assessment for undergraduate students. International Journal on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 30(3), 497–505.
  13. Martin, M., & Rubin, R. (1995). A new measure of cognitive flexibility. Psychological Reports, 76(2), 623–626. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1995.76.2.623
  14. Mullis, I., Martin, M., Foy, P., & Hooper, M. (2022). TIMSS 2021 international results in mathematics and science. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA).
  15. OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The state of learning and equity in education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en
  16. Polo-Blanco, I., Chimoni, M., Goñi-Cervera, J., & Pitta-Pantazi, D. (2025). Representations and generalization in early algebra: A comparative study of autistic students and their non- autistic peers. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 120, 33–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-025-10416-x
  17. Quezada, J. (2020). Cognitive challenges in senior high school mathematics in Davao City. Davao Educational Review, 8(2), 33–48.
  18. Raosoft. (2025). Sample size calculator. http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html
  19. Rellon, M. (2025). Cognitive barriers in algebra among Mindanao students. Philippine Journal of Mathematical Education, 14(1), 101–120.
  20. Rexigel, E., Qerimi, L., Bley, J., Malone, S., Küchemann, S., & Kuhn, J. (2025). Learning quantum properties with informationally redundant external representations: An eye-tracking study. Computers & Education. Advance Online Publication.
  21. Rovira, G., & Sta. Maria, R. (2021). Research-based learning model for senior high school science instruction. Philippine Social Science Journal, 4(2), 80–90.
  22. Ruamba, M.Y., Sukestiyarno, Y.L., Rochmad, R., & Asih, T.S.N. (2025). The impact of visual and multimodal representations in mathematics on cognitive load and problem-solving skills. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 12(4), 164–172. https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2025.04.018
  23. Schleicher, A. (2019). PISA 2018: Insights and interpretations. OECD Publishing.
  24. Sivakumar, S., & Sharma, M. (2022). Assessment of hands-on activities to enhance students’ learning. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 12(5), 23–36.
  25. Sperry, L.F., & Smith, G.A. (2001). Educational psychology: Contemporary approaches. Allyn & Bacon.
  26. Tana, S., Clivaz, S., & Sakamoto, M. (2023). Presenting multiple representations at the chalkboard: Bansho analysis of a Japanese mathematics classroom. Journal of Education for Teaching.
  27. Wong Shao Yun, V., Md Ulang, N., Husain, S.H. (2023). Measuring internal consistency reliability using Cronbach’s alpha. Journal of Advanced Research in Applied Sciences and Engineering Technology, 33(1), 392–405. https://doi.org/10.37934/araset.33.1.392405

Tools


Copyright © 2026  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic