Search

Previous research suggests that the Approximate Number System (ANS) allows people to approximate the cardinality of a set. This ability to discern numerical quantities may explain how meaning becomes associated with number symbols. However, recently it has been argued that ANS representations are not directly numerical, but rather are formed by amalgamating perceptual features confounded with the set's cardinality. In this paper, we approach the question of whether ANS representations are numerical by studying the properties they have, rather than how they are formed. Across two pre-registered within-subjects studies, we measured 189 participants' ability to multiply the numbers between 2 and 8. Participants completed symbolic and nonsymbolic versions of the task. Results showed that participants succeeded at above-chance levels when multiplying nonsymbolic representations within the subitizing range (2-4) but were at chance levels when multiplying numbers within the ANS range (5-8). We conclude that, unlike Object Tracking System (OTS) representations, two ANS representations cannot be multiplied together. We suggest that investigating which numerical properties ANS representations possess may advance the debate over whether the ANS is a genuinely numerical system.

This study explores student flexibility in mathematics by examining the relationship between accuracy and strategy use for solving arithmetic and algebra problems. Core to procedural flexibility is the ability to select and accurately execute the most appropriate strategy for a given problem. Yet the relationship between strategy selection and accurate execution is nuanced and poorly understood. In this paper, this relationship was examined in the context of an assessment where students were asked to complete the same problem twice using different approaches. In particular, we explored (a) the extent to which students were more accurate when selecting standard or better-than-standard strategies, (b) whether this accuracy-strategy use relationship differed depending on whether the student solved a problem for the first time or the second time, and (c) the extent to which students were more accurate when solving algebraic versus arithmetic problems. Our results indicate significant associations between accuracy and all of these aspects--we found differences in accuracy based on strategy, problem type, and a significant interaction effect between strategy and assessment part. These findings have important implications both for researchers investigating procedural flexibility as well as secondary mathematics educators who seek to promote this capacity among their students.

This study explores student flexibility in mathematics by examining the relationship between accuracy and strategy use for solving arithmetic and algebra problems. Core to procedural flexibility is the ability to select and accurately execute the most appropriate strategy for a given problem. Yet the relationship between strategy selection and accurate execution is nuanced and poorly understood. In this paper, this relationship was examined in the context of an assessment where students were asked to complete the same problem twice using different approaches. In particular, we explored (a) the extent to which students were more accurate when selecting standard or better-than-standard strategies, (b) whether this accuracy-strategy use relationship differed depending on whether the student solved a problem for the first time or the second time, and (c) the extent to which students were more accurate when solving algebraic versus arithmetic problems. Our results indicate significant associations between accuracy and all of these aspects— we found differences in accuracy based on strategy, problem type, and a significant interaction effect between strategy and assessment part. These findings have important implications both for researchers investigating procedural flexibility as well as secondary mathematics educators who seek to promote this capacity among their students.