↓ Skip to main content

Inducing mental set constrains procedural flexibility and conceptual understanding in mathematics

Overview of attention for article published in Memory & Cognition, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
Title
Inducing mental set constrains procedural flexibility and conceptual understanding in mathematics
Published in
Memory & Cognition, April 2016
DOI 10.3758/s13421-016-0614-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marci S. DeCaro

Abstract

An important goal in mathematics is to flexibly use and apply multiple, efficient procedures to solve problems and to understand why these procedures work. One factor that may limit individuals' ability to notice and flexibly apply strategies is the mental set induced by the problem context. Undergraduate (N = 41, Experiment 1) and fifth- and sixth-grade students (N = 87, Experiment 2) solved mathematical equivalence problems in one of two set-inducing conditions. Participants in the complex-first condition solved problems without a repeated addend on both sides of the equal sign (e.g., 7 + 5 + 9 = 3 + _), which required multistep strategies. Then these students solved problems with a repeated addend (e.g., 7 + 5 + 9 = 7 + _), for which a shortcut strategy could be readily used (i.e., adding 5 + 9). Participants in the shortcut-first condition solved the same problem set but began with the shortcut problems. Consistent with laboratory studies of mental set, participants in the complex-first condition were less likely to use the more efficient shortcut strategy when possible. In addition, these participants were less likely to demonstrate procedural flexibility and conceptual understanding on a subsequent assessment of mathematical equivalence knowledge. These findings suggest that certain problem-solving contexts can help or hinder both flexibility in strategy use and deeper conceptual thinking about the problems.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Student > Postgraduate 5 10%
Lecturer 4 8%
Other 11 22%
Unknown 14 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 24%
Mathematics 8 16%
Social Sciences 6 12%
Linguistics 2 4%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 15 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 September 2016.
All research outputs
#20,342,896
of 22,889,074 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#1,493
of 1,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,387
of 299,124 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#19
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,889,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,576 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 299,124 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.