Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38742079›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2024

Teaching strategies, cognitive factors and mathematics.

Estívaliz Aragón, Inmaculada Menacho, José I Navarro, Manuel Aguilar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Estívaliz AragónDepartment of Psychology, School of Education, University of Cádiz, Spain.
Inmaculada MenachoDepartment of Psychology, School of Education, University of Cádiz, Spain.
José I NavarroDepartment of Psychology, School of Education, University of Cádiz, Spain.
Manuel AguilarDepartment of Psychology, School of Education, University of Cádiz, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mathematics teaching strategies have a positive impact on learning. However, there is a lack of studies on non-traditional approaches to early mathematics education in the specialized scientific literature. In this theoretical framework, a study to connect teaching methodology with the various cognitive processes implicated in learning has been designed. A total of 114 primary school students aged 74 and 84 months who were taught mathematics either with the method called Open Algorithm Based on Numbers or with the more traditional Closed Algorithm Based on Ciphers, participated in the study. After conducting a thorough examination of cognitive processes and early math performance using well-established assessment instruments, a comparative analysis was undertaken to explore the relationship between cognitive predictors of mathematical performance, while considering the mathematics teaching strategies used. Students were distributed according to their level of mathematical competence and teaching methodology and the type of schools (Charter or Public). The results from the multivariate statistical test showed that the teaching strategy was inconclusive for most of the cognitive factors studied. Significant differences according to mathematical performance were found for fluid intelligence, verbal short-term memory, and visuospatial working memory. Finally, no significant differences were found in the cognitive variables studied when considering the interaction between the teaching approach, school characteristics, and mathematical achievement as a reference.

Indexed as

ABN methodCBC methodDomain-general predictorsEarly childhoodMathematical cognition

Identifiers

PMID38742079
PMCPMC11089322

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.