Some Correct Strategies Are Better Than Others: Individual Differences in Strategy Evaluations Are Related to Strategy Adoption.
Individual differences
Mathematics learning
Problem-solving
Strategy change
Strategy ratings
Journal
Cognitive science
ISSN: 1551-6709
Titre abrégé: Cogn Sci
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7708195
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2023
03 2023
Historique:
revised:
22
02
2023
received:
22
03
2022
accepted:
25
02
2023
entrez:
24
3
2023
pubmed:
25
3
2023
medline:
28
3
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Why do people shift their strategies for solving problems? Past work has focused on the roles of contextual and individual factors in explaining whether people adopt new strategies when they are exposed to them. In this study, we examined a factor not considered in prior work: people's evaluations of the strategies themselves. We presented undergraduate participants from a moderately selective university (N = 252; 64.8% women, 65.6% White, 67.6% who had taken calculus) with two strategies for solving algebraic word problems and asked them to rate these strategies and their own strategy on a variety of dimensions. Participants' ratings loaded onto two factors, which we label quality and difficulty. Participants' initial evaluations of the quality of the strategies were associated with whether they used the strategies at posttest, and this effect held even when controlling for individual and contextual factors. However, people's evaluations of the difficulty of the strategies were not consistently associated with their later adoption of those strategies. We also examined individual and contextual predictors of strategy ratings and strategy adoption. Participants' need for cognition and their spatial visualization ability were associated with their strategy evaluations, and the framing of the story problems was associated with their strategy adoption. The findings highlight that strategy adoption depends on multiple interacting factors, and that to understand strategy change, it is critical to examine how people evaluate strategies.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e13269Informations de copyright
© 2023 Cognitive Science Society LLC.
Références
Adamson, R. E. (1952). Functional fixedness as related to problem solving: A repetition of three experiments. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44(4), 288-291.
Aguilar-Lleyda, D., Lemarchand, M., & de Gardelle, V. (2020). Confidence as a priority signal. Psychological Science, 31(9), 1084-1096.
Alibali, M. W. (1999). How children change their minds: Strategy change can be gradual or abrupt. Developmental Psychology, 35(1), 127-145.
Alibali, M. W., Bassok, M., Solomon, K. O., Syc, S. E., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (1999). Illuminating mental representations through speech and gesture. Psychological Science, 10(4), 327-333.
Alibali, M. W., & Booth, T. L. (2002). Representation strength influences strategy use and strategy discovery. In C. D. Schunn, & W. Gray (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 59-64). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
Alibali, M. W., Brown, S. A., & Menendez, D. (2019). Understanding strategy change: Contextual, individual, and metacognitive factors. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 56, 227-256.
Alibali, M. W., Crooks, N. M., & McNeil, N. M. (2018). Perceptual support promotes strategy generation: Evidence from equation solving. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 36(2), 153-168.
Atkinson, R. K., Derry, S. J., Renkl, A., & Wortham, D. (2000). Learning from examples: Instructional principles from the worked examples research. Review of Educational Research, 70(2), 181-214.
Barbieri, C., & Booth, J. L. (2016). Support for struggling students in algebra: Contributions of incorrect worked examples. Learning and Individual Differences, 48, 36-44.
Bartel, A. N., & Alibali, M. W. (2021). Symbolizing algebraic story problems: Are diagrams helpful? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35, 1427-1442.
Bartholomé, T., & Bromme, R. (2009). Coherence formation when learning from text and pictures: What kind of support for whom? Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(2), 282-293.
Booth, J. L., McGinn, K. M., Young, L. K., & Barbieri, C. (2015). Simple practice doesn't always make perfect: Evidence from the worked example effect. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2(1), 24-32.
Brauer, M., & Curtin, J. J. (2018). Linear mixed-effects models and the analysis of nonindependent data: A unified framework to analyze categorical and continuous independent variables that vary within-subjects and/or within-items. Psychological Methods, 23(3), 389.
Brown, S. A. (2018). What kind of problem is it? Problem features and labels guide transfer of problem-solving strategies. Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Brown, S. A., & Alibali, M. W. (2018a). Promoting strategy change: Mere exposure to alternative strategies helps, but feedback can hurt. Journal of Cognition and Development, 19(3), 301-324.
Brown, S. A., & Alibali, M. W. (2018b). What kind of problem is this? Labels guide generalization of math strategies. In C. Kalish, M. Rau, T. Rogers, & J. Zhu (Eds.), Proceedings of the 40th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (p. 2818). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
Brown, S. A., Menendez, D., & Alibali, M. W. (2018). How do people evaluate problem-solving strategies? Efficiency and intuitiveness matter. In C. Kalish, M. Rau, T. Rogers, & J. Zhu (Eds.), Proceedings of the 40th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1414-1419). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
Brown, S. A., Menendez, D., & Alibali, M. W. (2019). Strategy adoption depends on characteristics of the instruction, learner, and strategy. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 4, 1-18.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131.
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(3), 306-307.
Canobi, K. H. (2009). Concept-procedure interactions in children's addition and subtraction. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 102(2), 131-149.
Crooks, N. M., & Alibali, M. W. (2014). Defining and measuring conceptual knowledge in mathematics. Developmental Review, 34(4), 344-377.
Duncker, K. (1945). On problem-solving. Psychological Monographs, 58(5). 1-113.
Durkin, K., Rittle-Johnson, B., Star, J. R., & Loehr, A. (2023). Comparing and discussing multiple strategies: An approach to improving algebra instruction. Journal of Experimental Education, 91(1), 1-19.
Ekstrom, R. B., French, J. W., Harman, H., & Derman, D. (1976). Kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests (revised edition). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Fazio, L. K., DeWolf, M., & Siegler, R. S. (2016). Strategy use and strategy choice in fraction magnitude comparison. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(1), 1-16.
Grice, J. W. (2001). Computing and evaluating factor scores. Psychological Methods, 6(4), 430.
Guggenmos, M., Wilbertz, G., Hebart, M. N., & Sterzer, P. (2016). Mesolimbic confidence signals guide perceptual learning in the absence of external feedback. eLife, 5, e13388.
Gutiérrez, J. F., Brown, S. A., & Alibali, M. W. (2018). Relational equity and mathematics learning: Mutual construction during collaborative problem solving. Journal of Numerical Cognition, 4(1), 159-187.
Hainguerlot, M., Vergnaud, J. C., & De Gardelle, V. (2018). Metacognitive ability predicts learning cue-stimulus associations in the absence of external feedback. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 1-8.
Hegarty, M. (2011). The cognitive science of visual-spatial displays: Implications for design. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3(3), 446-474.
Hegarty, M., & Kozhevnikov, M. (1999). Types of visual-spatial representations and mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 684-689.
Hegarty, M., & Sims, V. K. (1994). Individual differences in mental animation during mechanical reasoning. Memory & Cognition, 22(4), 411-430.
Hegarty, M., & Steinhoff, K. (1997). Individual differences in use of diagrams as external memory in mechanical reasoning. Learning and Individual Differences, 9(1), 19-42.
Lemaire, P., & Siegler, R. S. (1995). Four aspects of strategic change: Contributions to children's learning of multiplication. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 83-97.
Lovett, M. C., & Schunn, C. D. (1999). Task representations, strategy variability, and base-rate neglect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128(2), 107-130.
Lubienski, S. T., Ganley, C. M., Makowski, M. B., Miller, E. K., & Timmer, J. D. (2021). “Bold problem solving”: A new construct for understanding gender differences in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 52(1), 12-61.
Luchins, A. S. (1942). Mechanization in problem solving: The effect of Einstellung. Psychological Monographs, 54(6), 1-95.
McNeil, N. M. (2014). A change-resistance account of children's difficulties understanding mathematical equivalence. Child Development Perspectives, 8(1), 42-47.
Newcombe, N. S. (2018). Three kinds of spatial cognition. In J. Wixted (Ed.), Stevens’ handbook of experimental psychology and cognitive neuroscience (4th ed., pp. 521-552). Wiley.
Newcombe, N. S., & Shipley, T. F. (2015). Thinking about spatial thinking: New typology, new assessments. In J. S. Gero (Ed.), Studying visual and spatial reasoning for design creativity (pp. 179-192). New York: Springer.
Paas, F., & van Merriënboer J. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 122-133.
Rieskamp, J., & Otto, P. E. (2006). SSL: A theory of how people learn to select strategies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(2), 207-236.
Riggs, A. E., Alibali, M. W., & Kalish, C. W. (2015). Leave her out of it: Person-presentation of strategies is harmful for transfer. Cognitive Science, 39(8), 1965-1978.
Riggs, A. E., Alibali, M. W., & Kalish, C. W. (2017). Does it matter how Molly does it? Person-presentation of strategies and transfer in mathematics. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 51, 315-320.
Rittle-Johnson, B. (2017). Developing mathematics knowledge. Child Development Perspectives, 11(3), 184-190.
Rittle-Johnson, B., & Alibali, M. W. (1999). Conceptual and procedural knowledge of mathematics: Does one lead to the other? Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 175.
Rittle-Johnson, B., Schneider, M., & Star, J. R. (2015). Not a one-way street: Bidirectional relations between procedural and conceptual knowledge of mathematics. Educational Psychology Review, 27(4), 587-597.
Sadowski, C. J., & Gülgöz, S. (1992). Internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the Need for Cognition Scale. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 74(2), 610.
Shrager, J., & Siegler, R. S. (1998). SCADS: A model of children's strategy choices and strategy discoveries. Psychological Science, 9(5), 405-410.
Siegler, R. S. (1996). Emerging minds: The process of change in children's thinking. New York: Oxford University Press.
Siegler, R. S. (2000). The rebirth of children's learning. Child Development, 71(1), 26-35.
Siegler, R., & Araya, R. (2005). A computational model of conscious and unconscious strategy discovery. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 33, 1-42.
Siegler, R. S., & Crowley, K. (1994). Constraints on learning in nonprivileged domains. Cognitive Psychology, 27(2), 194-226.
Siegler, R., & Jenkins, E. A. (2014). How children discover new strategies. Psychology Press.
Siegler, R. S., & Shipley, C. (1995). Variation, selection, and cognitive change. In T. Simon, & G. Halford (Eds.), Developing cognitive competence: New approaches to process modeling (pp. 31-76). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Star, J. R., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2008). Flexibility in problem solving: The case of equation solving. Learning and Instruction, 18, 565-579.
Stieff, M., Ryu, M., Dixon, B., & Hegarty, M. (2012). The role of spatial ability and strategy preference for spatial problem solving in organic chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 89(7), 854-859.
Uttal, D. H., Miller, D. I., & Newcombe, N. S. (2013). Exploring and enhancing spatial thinking: Links to achievement in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(5), 367-373.
van der Ven, S. H., Boom, J., Kroesbergen, E. H., & Leseman, P. P. (2012). Microgenetic patterns of children's multiplication learning: Confirming the overlapping waves model by latent growth modeling. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 113(1), 1-19.
Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009). Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 817-835.
Walsh, M. M., & Anderson, J. R. (2009). The strategic nature of changing your mind. Cognitive Psychology, 58(3), 416-440.