An eye for relations: Eye-tracking indicates long-term negative effects of operational thinking on understanding of math equivalence

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 41, Issue 7, 2013, Pages 1079-1095

  Chesney, Dana L ^a   McNeil, Nicole M ^a   Brockmole, James R ^a   Kelley, Ken ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME   (United States)

Author keywords

Einstellung; Eye tracking; Mathematical equivalence; Mental set; Problem solving

Indexed keywords

ADULT; EDUCATION; EYE MOVEMENT; HUMAN; MATHEMATICAL PHENOMENA; OCULOGRAPHY; PHYSIOLOGY; PROBLEM SOLVING; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT; EYE MOVEMENT MEASUREMENTS; EYE MOVEMENTS; HUMANS; MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS; PROBLEM SOLVING; YOUNG ADULT;

MLCS; MLOWN;

EID: 84884568632     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: 15325946     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13421-013-0315-8     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Alibali, M. W. (1999). How children change their minds: Strategy change can be gradual or abrupt. Developmental Psychology, 35, 127-145. doi: 10. 1037/0012-1649. 35. 1. 127.
2. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
3. Baroody, A. J., & Ginsburg, H. P. (1983). The effects of instruction on children's understanding of the "equals" sign. The Elementary School Journal, 84, 199-212. doi: 10. 1086/461356.
4. Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2011). lme4 (Version. 999375-42) [computer software and manual]: Linear Mixed-effects Models Using S4 Classes. Accessible from http://cran. r-project. org/web/packages/lme4. html.
5. Bilalić, M., McLeod, P., & Gobet, F. (2008a). Inflexibility of experts - Reality or myth? Quantifying the Einstellung effect in chess masters. Cognitive Psychology, 56, 73-102. doi: 10. 1016/j. cogpsych. 2007. 02. 001.
6. Bilalić, M., McLeod, P., & Gobet, F. (2008b). Why good thoughts block better ones: The mechanism of the pernicious Einstellung (set) effect. Cognition, 108, 652-661. doi: 10. 1016/j. cognition. 2008. 05. 005.
7. Clement, J., Lochhead, J., & Monk, G. (1981). Translation difficulties in learning mathematics. The American Mathematical Monthly, 88(4), 286-290.
8. Cook, S. W., Mitchell, Z., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2008). Gesture makes learning last. Cognition, 106, 1047-1058. doi: 10. 1016/j. cognition. 2007. 04. 010.
9. Croskerry, P. (2003). The importance of cognitive errors in diagnosis and strategies to minimize them. Academic Medicine, 78, 775-780.
10. Diamond, A., & Kirkham, N. Z. (2005). Not quite as grown-up as we like to think: Parallels between cognition in childhood and adulthood. Psychological Science, 16, 291-297. doi: 10. 1111/j. 0956-7976. 2005. 01530. x.
11. Duncker, K. (1945). On problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 58 (Whole No. 270).
12. Ellis, J. J., Glaholt, M. G., & Reingold, E. M. (2011). Eye movements real solution knowledge prior to insight. Consciousness and Cognition, 20, 768-776. doi: 10. 1016/j. concog. 2010. 12. 007.
13. Goldin-Meadow, S., Alibali, M. W., & Church, R. B. (1993). Transitions in concept acquisition: Using the hand to read the mind. Psychological Review, 100, 279-297. doi: 10. 1037/0033-295X. 100. 2. 279.
14. Goldin-Meadow, S., Cook, S. W., & Mitchell, Z. A. (2009). Gesturing gives children new ideas about math. Psychological Science, 20(3), 267-272. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1467-9280. 2009. 02297. x.
15. Grant, E. R., & Spivey, M. J. (2003). Eye movements and problem solving: Guiding attention guides thought. Psychological Science, 14(5), 462-466. doi: 10. 1111/1467-9280. 02454.
16. Grove, A. (2012). University of Notre Dame - SAT Scores, Costs and Admissions Data. Retrieved July 19, 2012, from http://collegeapps. about. com/od/collegeprofiles/p/notre-dame. htm.
17. Hattikudur, S., & Alibali, M. W. (2010). Learning about the equal sign: Does comparing with inequality symbols help? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 107, 15-30. doi: 10. 1016/j. jecp. 2010. 03. 004.
18. Jacobs, V. R., Franke, M. L., Carpenter, T. P., Levi, L., & Battey, D. (2007). Professional development focused on children's algebraic reasoning in elementary school. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38, 258-288.
19. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York: Holt.
20. Kelley, K. (2007a). Methods for the behavioral, educational, and social science: An R package. Behavior Research Methods, 39(4), 979-984. doi: 10. 3758/BF03192966.
21. Kelley, K. (2007b). Confidence intervals for standardized effect sizes: Theory, application, and implementation. Journal of Statistical Software, 20(8), 1-24.
22. Knoblich, G., Ohlsson, S., Haider, H., & Rhenius, D. (1999). Constraint relaxation and chunk decomposition in insight problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 1534-1555. doi: 10. 1037/0278-7393. 25. 6. 1534.
23. Knoblich, G., Ohlsson, S., & Raney, E. G. (2001). An eye movement study of insight problem solving. Memory & Cognition, 29, 1000-1009. doi: 10. 3758/BF03195762.
24. Li, X., Ding, M., Capraro, M. M., & Capraro, R. M. (2008). Sources of differences in children's understandings of mathematical equality: Comparative analysis of teacher guides and student texts in China and the United States. Cognition and Instruction, 26, 195-217. doi: 10. 1080/07370000801980845.
25. Lippman, L. G. (1994). Rule governed performance and sensitivity to contingencies: What's new? The Journal of General Psychology, 121, 353-360. doi: 10. 1080/00221309. 1994. 9921209.
26. Lovett, M. C., & Anderson, J. R. (1996). History of success and current context in problem solving: Combined influences on operator selection. Cognitive Psychology, 31, 168-217. doi: 10. 1006/cogp. 1996. 0016.
27. Luchins, A. S. (1942). Mechanization in problem solving - The effect of Einstellung. Psychological Monographs, 54(6), i-95.
28. Maier, N. R. F. (1931). Reasoning in humans: II. The solution of a problem and its appearance in consciousness. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 12, 181-194. doi: 10. 1037/h0071361.
29. McNeil, N. M. (2007). U-shaped development in math: 7-year-olds outperform 9-year-olds on equivalence problems. Developmental Psychology, 43, 687-695. doi: 10. 1037/0012-1649. 43. 3. 687.
30. McNeil, N. M., & Alibali, M. W. (2004). You'll see what you mean: Students encode equations based on their knowledge of arithmetic. Cognitive Science, 28, 451-466. doi: 10. 1207/s15516709cog2803_7.
31. McNeil, N. M., & Alibali, M. W. (2005a). Knowledge change as a function of mathematics experience: All contexts are not created equal. Journal of Cognition and Development, 6, 285-306. doi: 10. 1207/s15327647jcd0602_6.
32. McNeil, N. M., & Alibali, M. W. (2005b). Why won't you change your mind? Knowledge of operational patterns hinders learning and performance on equations. Child Development, 76, 883-899. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1467-8624. 2005. 00884. x.
33. McNeil, N. M., Chesney, D. L., Matthews, P. G., Fyfe, E. R., Petersen, L. A., Dunwiddie, A. E., & Wheeler, M. C. (2012). It pays to be organized: Organizing addition knowledge around equivalent values facilitates understanding of mathematical equivalence. Journal of Educational Psychology.
34. McNeil, N. M., Fyfe, E. R., Petersen, L. A., Dunwiddie, A. E., & Brletic-Shipley, H. (2011). Benefits of practicing 4 = 2 + 2: Nontraditional problem formats facilitate children's understanding of mathematical equivalence. Child Development, 82(5), 1620-1633. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1467-8624. 2011. 01622. x.
35. McNeil, N. M., Rittle-Johnson, B., Hattikudur, S., & Petersen, L. A. (2010). Continuity in representation between children and adults: Arithmetic knowledge hinders undergraduates' algebraic problem solving. Journal of Cognition and Development, 11(4), 437-457. doi: 10. 1080/15248372. 2010. 516421.
36. Munakata, Y. (1998). Infant perseveration and implications for object permanence theories: A PDP model of the AB task. Developmental Science, 1(2), 161-184. doi: 10. 1111/1467-7687. 00021.
37. Ohlsson, S. (2009). Resubsumption: A possible mechanism for conceptual change and belief revision. Educational Psychologist, 44, 20-40. doi: 10. 1080/00461520802616267.
38. R Development Core Team. (2012). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: F Foundation for Statistical Computing.
39. Rabe-Hesketh, S., & Skrondal, A. (2012). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using Stata (3rd ed.). College Station, TX: Stata Press.
40. Rescorla, R. A. (1996). Preservation of pavlovian associations through extinction. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. B, 49(3), 245-258. doi: 10. 1080/713932629.
41. Schauble, L. (1990). Belief revision in children: The role of prior knowledge and strategies for generating evidence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 49(1), 31-57. doi: 10. 1016/0022-0965(90)90048-D.
42. Schultz, P. W., & Searleman, A. (2002). Rigidity of thought and behavior: 100 years of research. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 128(2), 165-207. doi: 10. 1024/1421-0185/a000070.
43. Sherman, J., & Bisanz, J. (2009). Equivalence in symbolic and non-symbolic contexts: Benefits of solving problems with manipulatives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 88-100. doi: 10. 1037/a0013156.
44. Stephen, D. G., Boncoddo, R. A., Magnuson, J. S., & Dixon, J. A. (2009). The dynamics of insight: Mathematical discovery as a phase transition. Memory & Cognition, 37(8), 1132-1149. doi: 10. 3758/MC. 37. 8. 1132.
45. Thomas, L. E., & Lleras, A. (2007). Moving eyes and moving thought: On spatial compatibility between eye movements and cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(4), 663-668. doi: 10. 3758/BF03196818.
46. Wiley, J. (1998). Expertise as mental set: The effects of domain knowledge in creative problem solving. Memory & Cognition, 26(4), 716-730. doi: 10. 3758/BF03211392.
47. Zelazo, P. D., Frye, D., & Rapus, T. (1996). An age-related dissociation between knowing rules and using them. Cognitive Development, 11(1), 37-63. doi: 10. 1016/S0885-2014(96)90027-1.