Abstract numeric relations and the visual structure of algebra

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition

Volumn 40, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 1404-1418

  Landy, David ^a,b   Brookes, David ^c   Smout, Ryan ^b  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND   (United States)

^c FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Analogy; Mathematical cognition; Symbolic reasoning

Indexed keywords

ADULT; COGNITION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MATHEMATICS; PHYSIOLOGY; PROBLEM SOLVING;

ADULT; COGNITION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MATHEMATICS; PROBLEM SOLVING;

EID: 84906492630     PISSN: 02787393     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0036823     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Anderson, J. R. (2005). Human symbol manipulation within an integrated cognitive architecture. Cognitive Science, 29, 313-341. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0000_22
2. Bassok, M., Chase, V. M., & Martin, S. A. (1998). Adding apples and oranges: Alignment of semantic and formal knowledge. Cognitive Psychology, 35, 99-134. doi:10.1006/cogp.1998.0675
3. Bassok, M., Wu, L., & Olseth, L. K. (1995). Judging a book by its cover: Interpretative effects of content on problem solving transfer. Memory & Cognition, 23, 354-367.
4. Bates, D., & Maechler, M. (2010). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes (R package version 0.999375-35) [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4
5. Bever, T. G., Jandreau, S., Burwell, R., Kaplan, R., & Zaenan, A. (1990). Spacing printed text to isolate major phrases improves readability. Visible Language, 25, 74-87.
6. Carlson-Radvansky, L. A., & Logan, G. D. (1997). The influence of reference frame selection on spatial template construction. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 411-437. doi:10.1006/jmla.1997.2519
7. Chatterjee, A., Southwood, M. H., & Basilico, D. (1999). Verbs, events and spatial representations. Neuropsychologia, 37, 395-402. doi:10.1016/S0028-3932(98)00108-0
8. Christianson, K., Mestre, J. P., & Luke, S. G. (2012). Practice makes (nearly) perfect: Solving "students-and-professors"-type algebra word problems. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 810-822. doi:10.1002/acp.2863
9. Clement, J. (1982). Algebra word problem solutions: Thought processes underlying a common misconception. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 13, 16-30. doi:10.2307/748434
10. Clement, J., Lochhead, J., & Monk, G. S. (1981). Translation difficulties in learning mathematics. American Mathematical Monthly, 88, 286-290. doi:10.2307/2320560
11. Cohen, E., & Kanim, S. E. (2005). Factors influencing the algebra "reversal error." American Journal of Physics, 73, 1072-1078. doi:10.1119/1.2063048
12. Crump, M. J. C., McDonnell, J. V., & Gureckis, T. M. (2013). Evaluating Amazon's Mechanical Turk as a tool for experimental behavioral research. PLoS ONE, 8, e57410. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057410
13. Dantzig, T. (1930). Number: The language of science. A critical survey written for the cultured non-mathematician. New York, NY: Macmillan.
14. Fisher, K. J., Borchert, K., & Bassok, M. (2011). Following the standard form: Effects of equation format on algebraic modeling. Memory & Cognition, 39, 502-515. doi:10.3758/s13421-010-0031-6
15. Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155-170. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0702_3
16. Goldstone, R. L., Landy, D., & Son, J. Y. (2010). The education of perception. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2, 265-284. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01055.x
17. Hegarty, M., Canham, M. S., & Fabrikant, S. I. (2010). Thinking about the weather: How display salience and knowledge affect performance in a graphic inference task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 37-53. doi:10.1037/a0017683
18. Hegarty, M., Mayer, R. E., & Monk, C. A. (1995). Comprehension of arithmetic word problems: A comparison of successful and unsuccessful problem solvers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 18-32. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.87.1.18
19. Hinsley, D., Hayes, J. R., & Simon, H. A. (1977). From words to equations. In P. Carpenter & M. Just (Eds.), Cognitive processes in comprehension (pp. 89-106). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
20. Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2000). Applied logistic regression (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
21. Hummel, J. E., & Holyoak, K. J. (1997). Distributed representations of structure: A theory of analogical access and mapping. Psychological Review, 104, 427-466. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.104.3.427
22. Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. New York, NY: Basic Books.
23. Kaminski, J. A., Sloutsky, V. M., & Heckler, A. F. (2008, April 25). The advantage of abstract examples in learning math. Science, 320, 454-455. doi:10.1126/science.1154659
24. Kirshner, D. (1989). The visual syntax of algebra. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 274-287. doi:10.2307/749516
25. Kirshner, D., & Awtry, T. (2004). Visual salience of algebraic transformations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35, 224-257. doi:10.2307/30034809
26. Koedinger, K. R., Alibali, M. W., & Nathan, M. J. (2008). Trade-offs between grounded and abstract representations: Evidence from algebra problem solving. Cognitive Science, 32, 366-397. doi:10.1080/03640210701863933
27. Koedinger, K. R., & Nathan, M. J. (2004). The real story behind story problems: Effects of representations on quantitative reasoning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 129-164. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1302_1
28. Kranjec, A., Lehet, M., Bromberger, B., & Chatterjee, A. (2010). A sinister bias for calling fouls in soccer. PLoS ONE, 5, e11667. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011667
29. Landy, D., & Goldstone, R. L. (2007a). Formal notations are diagrams: Evidence from a production task. Memory & Cognition, 35, 2033-2040. doi:10.3758/BF03192935
30. Landy, D., & Goldstone, R. L. (2007b). How abstract is symbolic thought? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 720-733. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.33.4.720
31. Maass, A., & Russo, A. (2003). Directional bias in the mental representation of spatial events. Psychological Science, 14, 296-301. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.14421
32. MacGregor, M., & Stacey, K. (1993). Cognitive models underlying students' formulation of simple linear equations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 24, 217-232. doi:10.2307/749345
33. Malle, G. (1993). Didaktische Probleme der elementaren Algebra [Didactical problems of elementary algebra]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Vieweg.
34. Marquis, J. (1988). Common mistakes in algebra. In A. F. Coxford & A. P. Shulte (Eds.), The ideas of algebra, K-12: 1988 yearbook (pp. 204-205). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
35. Martin, S. A., & Bassok, M. (2005). Effects of semantic cues on mathematical modeling: Evidence from word-problem solving and equation construction tasks. Memory & Cognition, 33, 471-478. doi:10.3758/BF03193064
36. Mason, W., & Suri, S. (2012). Conducting behavioral research on Amazon's Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 1-23. doi: 10.3758/s13428-011-0124-6
37. Mestre, J. P., & Lochhead, J. (1983). The variable-reversal error among five cultural groups. In J. Bergeron & N. Herscovics (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 180-188). Montreal, Ontario, Canada: International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.
38. Mochon, D., & Sloman, S. A. (2004). Causal models frame interpretations of mathematical equations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 1099-1104. doi:10.3758/BF03196743
39. Nersessian, N. J. (1992). How do scientists think? Capturing the dynamics of conceptual change in science. In R. N. Giere (Ed.), Cognitive models of science (pp. 3-45). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
40. Novick, L. R., & Catley, K. M. (2007). Understanding phylogenies in biology: The influence of a Gestalt perceptual principle. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 13, 197-223. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.13.4.197
41. Paige, J. M., & Simon, H. A. (1966). Cognitive processes in solving algebra word problems. In B. Kleinmuntz (Ed.), Problem solving: Research, method, and theory (pp. 51-119). New York, NY: Wiley
42. Patsenko, E. G., & Altmann, A. M. (2010). How planful is routine behavior? A selective-attention model of performance in the Tower of Hanoi. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139, 95-116. doi: 10.1037/a0018268
43. Reed, S. K. (1987). A structure-mapping model for word problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 124-139. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.13.1.124
44. Ross, J., Zaldivar, A., Irani, L., & Tomlinson, B. (2010). Who are the Turkers? Worker demographics in Amazon Mechanical Turk. Retrieved from http://www.ics.uci.edu/~jwross/pubs/SocialCode-2009-01.pdf
45. Sherin, B. L. (2001). How students understand physics equations. Cognition and Instruction, 19, 479-541. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI1904_3
46. Weaver, C. A., III, & Kintsch, W. (1992). Enhancing students' comprehension of the conceptual structure of algebra word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 419-428. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.419
47. Wollman, W. (1983). Determining the sources of error in a translation from sentence to equation. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 14, 169-181. doi:10.2307/748380