Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-sh8wx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T05:27:45.091Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Efficiency of Arithmetic Procedures Modulates the Problem-Size Effect in Subtraction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2015

M. Isabel Núñez-Peña ,
Angels Colomé  and
Elisabet Tubau
M. Isabel Núñez-Peña*
Affiliation:
Universidad de Barcelona (Spain)
Angels Colomé
Affiliation:
Universidad de Barcelona (Spain)
Elisabet Tubau
Affiliation:
Universidad de Barcelona (Spain)
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Maria Isabel Núñez-Peña. Department of Behavioral Sciences Methods. Faculty of Psychology. Universidad de Barcelona. Passeig Vall d’Hebron, 171. 08035. Barcelona (Spain). Phone: +34–933125853. Fax. +34–934021359. E-mail: inunez@ub.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine whether differences in strategy selection and/or strategy efficiency can explain the modulation of the problem-size effect by arithmetic skill. More specifically, we wondered whether arithmetic skill increases the use of retrieval strategy in large problems, and/or enhances the efficiency of either retrieval or procedural strategies. The performance of highly-skilled (HS) and less highly-skilled (LS) individuals on a subtraction verification task was analyzed according to problem size and to the strategy reported on a trial-by-trial basis after each problem. The problem size effect was larger for LS individuals than for their HS peers, both in response time and in hit rate. Nevertheless, groups did not differ regarding the strategy reported for each subtraction size. As expected, problems in which retrieval strategy was reported were solved more quickly and more accurately than problems solved by procedural strategies. Responses using retrieval strategy were equally fast in the two groups, but HS individuals performed better than LS when using procedural strategies. The results therefore suggest that the differences in behavioral measures between groups might specifically be due to differences in the efficiency of procedural strategies.

Keywords

problem-size effectarithmetic skillcalculation strategiesverbal reportssubtraction
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 18 , 2015 , E41
Copyright
Copyright © Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ashcraft, M. H., & Christy, K. S. (1995). The frequency of arithmetic facts in elementary texts: Addition and multiplication in grades 1–6. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26, 396–421. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/749430 Google Scholar
Ashcraft, M. H., & Guillaume, M. M. (2009). Mathematical cognition and the problem size effect. In Ross, B. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 121–151). Burlington, VT: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baroody, A. J. (1983). The development of procedural knowledge: An alternative explanation for chronometric trends of mental arithmetic. Developmental Review, 3, 225–230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0273-2297(83)90031-X Google Scholar
Baroody, A. J. (1984). A reexamination of mental arithmetic models and data: A reply to Ashcraft. Developmental Review, 4, 148–156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0273-2297(84)90004-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrouillet, P., & Thevenot, C. (2013). On the problem-size effect in small additions: Can we really discard any counting-based account? Cognition, 128, 35–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.02.018 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barrouillet, P., Mignon, M., & Thevenot, C. (2008). Strategies in subtraction problem solving in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 99, 233–251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2007.12.001 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, J. I. D. (2008). Subtraction by addition. Memory and Cognition, 36, 1094–1102. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.6.1094 Google Scholar
Campbell, J. I. D., & Alberts, N. M. (2009). Operation-specific effects of numerical surface form on arithmetic strategy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 35, 999–1011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015829 Google ScholarPubMed
Campbell, J. I. D., & Beech, L. C. (2014). No generalization of practice for non-zero simple addition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000003 Google Scholar
Campbell, J. I. D., & Xue, Q. (2001). Cognitive arithmetic across cultures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 299–315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0096-3445.130.2.299 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, J. I. D., Chen, Y., & Maslany, A. J. (2013). Retrieval-indiced forgetting of arithmetic facts across cultures. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25, 759–773.Google Scholar
Cooney, J. B., & Ladd, S. F. (1992). The influence of verbal protocol methods on children’s mental computation. Learning and Individual Differences, 4, 237–257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/1041-6080(92)90004-X Google Scholar
Duverne, S., & Lemaire, P. (2005). Arithmetic split effects reflect strategy selection: An adult age comparative study in addition comparison and verification tasks. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 262–278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0087479 Google Scholar
El Yagoubi, R., Lemaire, P., & Besson, M. (2003). Different brain mechanisms mediate two strategies in arithmetic: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Neuropsychologia, 41, 855–862. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3932(02)00180-X Google Scholar
El Yagoubi, R., Lemaire, P., & Besson, M. (2005). Effects of aging on arithmetic problem-solving: An event-related brain potential study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 37–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/0898929052880084 Google Scholar
Fayol, M., & Thevenot, C. (2012). The use of procedural knowledge in simple addition and subtraction problems. Cognition, 123, 392–403. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.02.008 Google Scholar
French, J. W., Ekstrom, R. B., & Price, L. A. (1963). Manual for kit of reference tests for cognitive factors. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
Grabner, R. H., Ansari, D., Koschutnig, K., Reishofer, G., Ebner, F., & Neuper, C. (2009). To retrieve or to calculate? Left angular gyrus mediates the retrieval of arithmetic facts during problem solving. Neuropsychologia, 47, 604–608. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.10.013 Google Scholar
Grabner, R. H., & De Smedt, B. (2011). Neurophysiological evidence for the validity of verbal strategy reports in mental arithmetic. Biological Psychology, 87, 128–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2011.02.019 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Groen, G. J., & Parkman, J. M. (1972). A chronometric analysis of simple addition. Psychological Review, 79, 329–343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0032950 Google Scholar
Imbo, I., & Vandierendonck, A. (2008a). Effects of problem size, operation, and working memory span on simple-arithmetic strategies: Differences between children and adults. Psychological Research, 72, 331–346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00426-007-0112-8 Google Scholar
Imbo, I., & Vandierendonck, A. (2008b). Practice effects on strategy selection and strategy efficiency in simple arithmetic. Psychological Research, 72, 528–541. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00426-007-0128-0 Google Scholar
Imbo, I, Vandierendonck, A., & Rosseel, Y. (2007). The influence of problem features and individual differences on strategic performance in simple arithmetic. Memory & Cognition, 35, 454–463. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03193285 Google Scholar
Kirk, R. E. (1996). Practical significance: A concept whose time has come. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 746–759. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164496056005002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirk, E. P., & Ashcraft, M. H. (2001). Telling stories: The perils and promise of using verbal reports to study math strategies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 27, 157–175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.27.1.157 Google Scholar
LeFevre, J. A., DeStefano, D., Penner-Wilger, M., & Daley, K. E. (2006). Selection of procedures in mental subtraction. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 209–220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cjep2006020 Google Scholar
LeFevre, J. A., & Kulak, A. G. (1994). Individual differences in the obligatory activation of addition facts. Memory and Cognition, 22, 188–200. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03208890 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
LeFevre, J. A., Sadesky, G. S., & Bisanz, J. (1996). Selection of procedures in mental addition: Reassessing the problem size effect in adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 22, 216–230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.22.1.216 Google Scholar
LeFevre, J. A., Shanahan, T., & DeStefano, D. (2004). The tie effect in simple arithmetic: An access-based account. Memory and Cognition, 32, 1019–1031. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03196878 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Metcalfe, A. W. S., & Campbell, J. I. D. (2010). Switch costs and the operand-recognition paradigm. Psychological Research, 74, 491–498. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00426-009-0272-9 Google Scholar
Metcalfe, A. W. S., & Campbell, J. I. D. (2011). Adults’ strategies for simple addition and multiplication: Verbal self-reports and the operand recognition paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 37, 661–672. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022218 Google Scholar
Núñez-Peña, M. I., Gracia-Bafalluy, M., & Tubau, E. (2011). Individual differences in arithmetic skill reflected in event-related brain potentials. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 80, 143–149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.02.017 Google Scholar
Russo, J. E., Johnson, E. J., & Stephens, D. L. (1989). The validity of verbal protocols. Memory and Cognition, 17, 759–769. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03202637 Google Scholar
Seyler, D. J., Kirk, E. P., & Ashcraft, M. H. (2003). Elementary subtraction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 29, 1339–1352. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.29.6.1339 Google Scholar
Siegler, R. S., Adolph, K. E., & Lemaire, P. (1996). Strategy choices across the life span. In Reder, L. R. (Ed.), Implicit memory and metacognition (pp. 796–121). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Smith-Chant, B. L., & LeFevre, J. A. (2003). Doing as they told and telling it like it is: Self-reports in mental arithmetic. Memory and Cognition, 31, 516–528. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03196093 Google Scholar
Thevenot, C., Barrouillet, P., & Fayol, M. (2001). Algorithmic solution of arithmetic problems and operands-answer associations in long-term memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52A, 599–611. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02724980042000291 Google Scholar
Thevenot, C., Castel, C., Fanget, M., & Fayol, M. (2010). Mental subtraction in high- and lower skilled arithmetic problem solvers: Verbal reports versus operand-recognition paradigms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 36, 1242–1255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020447 Google Scholar
Thevenot, C., Fanget, M., & Fayol, M. (2007). Retrieval or non-retrieval strategies in mental addition? An operand-recognition paradigm. Memory and Cognition, 35, 1344–1352.Google Scholar
Zbrodoff, N. J., & Logan, G. D. (2005). What everyone finds: The problem-size effect. In Campbell, J. I. D. (Ed.). Handbook of Mathematical Cognition (pp. 331–346). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar