From Marbles to Numbers—Estimation Influences Looking Patterns on Arithmetic Problems

Claudia Godau, Maria Wirth, Sonja Hansen, Hilde Haider, Robert Gaschler

Department of Psychology, Humboldt Universit?t zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

DOI: 10.4236/psych.2014.52020                

Abstract

Flexibly spotting and applying shortcut options in arithmetic is often a major challenge for children as well as adults. Recent work has suggests that children benefit in terms of such flexibility from tasks requiring estimation or other operations with quantities that they cannot easily enumerate. Such tasks often require comparison of quantities by fixation and as such necessitate long-range eye movements, e.g. across the whole screen. We tested whether fixation patterns account for transfer from estimation to arithmetic tasks. Conceivably, participants who first solve estimation tasks are more flexible in spotting and applying shortcuts on later arithmetic tasks, because they stick to scanning the screen with long-range eye movements (which were necessary for solving the estimation task). To test this account, we manipulated the location of the marbles in an estimation task so that one group of participants had to make long-range eye movement, whereas another group did not need long-range eye movements to solve the task. Afterwards participants of both groups solved addition problems that contained a shortcut option based on the commutativity principle. We tested whether shortcut usage and fixation patterns in the arithmetic problems were influenced by the variant of the estimation task provided beforehand. The experiment allowed us to explore whether flexibility in spotting and using arithmetic shortcuts can be fostered by applying a prior task that induces flexible looking patterns. The results suggest that estimation tasks can indeed influence fixation patterns in a later arithmetic task. While shortcut search and application is reflected in fixation patterns, we did not obtain evidence for the reverse influence. Changed fixation patterns did not lead to higher shortcut usage. Thus, the results are in line with top-down accounts of strategy change: fixation patterns reflect rather than elicit strategy change.

Keywords

Mental Arithmetic; Estimation; Fixation Pattern; Transfer; Commutativity Principle

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Baroody, A. J., & Gannon, K. E. (1984). The development of the commutativity principle and economical addition strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 321-339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0103_3
[2]	Baroody, A. J., Ginsburg, H. P., & Waxman, B. (1983). Children’s use of mathematical structure. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 14, 156-168. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/748379
[3]	Canobi, K. H., Reeve, R. A., & Pattison, P. E. (2002). Young children’s understanding of addition concepts. Educational Psychology, 22, 513-532. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144341022000023608
[4]	Canobi, K. H., Reeve, R. A., & Pattison, P. E. (2003). Patterns of knowledge in children’s addition. Developmental Psychology, 39, 521-534. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.39.3.521
[5]	Cowan, R., & Renton, M. (1996). Do they know what they are doing? Children’s use of economical addition strategies and knowledge of commutativity. Educational Psychology, 16, 407-420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144341960160405
[6]	Dubé, A. K., & Robinson, K. M. (2010). The relationship between adults’ conceptual understanding of inversion and associativity. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale, 64, 60-66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017756
[7]	Gallistel, C. R., & Gelman, R. (1992). Preverbal and verbal counting and computation. Cognition, 44, 43-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(92)90050-R
[8]	Gaschler, R., Vaterrodt, B., Frensch, P. A., Eichler, A., & Haider, H. (2013). Spontaneous usage of different shortcuts based on the commutativity principle. PLoS ONE, 8, Article ID: e74972. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0074972
[9]	Gilmore, C. K., McCarthy, S. E., & Spelke, E. S. (2007). Symbolic arithmetic knowledge without instruction. Nature, 447, 589-591. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature05850
[10]	Gilmore, C. K., McCarthy, S. E., & Spelke, E. S. (2010). Non-symbolic arithmetic abilities and achievement in the first year of formal schooling in mathematics. Cognition, 115, 394-406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.02.002
[11]	Godau, C., Haider, H., Hansen, S., Vaterrodt, B., Schubert, T., Frensch, P. A., & Gaschler, R. (2013). Increasing the usage of an arithmetic shortcut by offering an easy-to-find shortcut based on the same mathematical principle. Manuscript submitted for publication.
[12]	Haider, H., & Frensch, P. A. (1999). Eye movement during skill acquisition: More evidence for the information-reduction hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 172-190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.25.1.172
[13]	Hansen, S., Haider, H., Eichler, A., Gaschler, R., Godau, C., & Frensch, P. A. (2013). Fostering formal commutativity knowledge with approximate arithmetic. Manuscript submitted for publication.
[14]	Madsen, A., Rouinfar, A., Larson, A. M., Loschky, L. C., & Rebello, N. S. (2013). Can short duration visual cues influence students’ reasoning and eye movements in physics problems? Physical Review Special Topics—Physics Education Research, 9, Article ID: 020104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.9.020104
[15]	Obersteiner, A., Reiss, K., & Ufer, S. (2013). How training on exact or approximate mental representations of number can enhance first-grade students’ basic number processing and arithmetic skills. Learning and Instruction, 23, 125-135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.08.004
[16]	Resnick, L. B. (1992). From protoquantities to operators: Building mathematical competence on a foundation of everyday knowledge. In G. Leinhardt, R. Putnam, & R. A. Hattrup (Eds.), Analysis of arithmetic for mathematics teaching. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
[17]	Robinson, K. M., & Dubé, A. K. (2012). Children’s use of arithmetic shortcuts: The role of attitudes in strategy choice. Child Development Research, 2012, 10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/459385
[18]	Sherman, J., & Bisanz, J. (2009). Equivalence in symbolic and nonsymbolic contexts: Benefits of solving problems with manipulatives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 88-100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013156
[19]	Siegler, R. S., & Jenkins, E. (1989). How children discover new strategies (Vol. xiv). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
[20]	Siegler, R. S., & Stern, E. (1998). Conscious and unconscious strategy discoveries: A microgenetic analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 377-397. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.127.4.377
[21]	Sophian, C., Harley, H., & Martin, C. S. M. (1995). Relational and representational aspects of early number development. Cognition and Instruction, 13, 253-268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1302_4
[22]	Thomas, L. E., & Lleras, A. (2007). Moving eyes and moving thought: On the spatial compatibility between eye movements and cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 663-668. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03196818
[23]	Verschaffel, L., Luwel, K., Torbeyns, J., & Dooren, W. V. (2009). Conceptualizing, investigating, and enhancing adaptive expertise in elementary mathematics education. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24, 335-359. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03174765
[24]	Wilkins, J. L., Baroody, A. J., & Tiilikainen, S. (2001). Kindergartners’ understanding of additive commutativity within the context of word problems. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 79, 23-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jecp.2000.2580