ArticlePsychological research2024
Strategy variability in computational estimation and its association with mathematical achievement.
Article in Psychological research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Computational estimation requires a breadth of strategies and selection of the relevant strategy given a problem's features. We used the new Test of Estimation Strategies (TES), composed of 20 arithmetic problems (e.g., 144 x 0.38), to investigate variability in strategy use in young adults. The TES targets the five estimation strategies that adults use most frequently, which fall into two Classes. The three Class One strategies are general-purpose and taught in schools. Proceed Algorithmically entails applying an algorithm (e.g., shifting a decimal place). Round One and Round Two are defined as rounding one or both operands, respectively. The two Class Two strategies are more advanced, requiring application of conceptual knowledge of mathematics. Known-and-Nice is used when a participant relies on a well-known mathematical fact (e.g., 25 × 4 = 100) to form an estimate. Fractions uses a fraction or percentage in the estimation process (e.g., 943 x 0.48 is about 50% or half of 900). We divided our sample of adult participants into two groups (i.e., high, average) based on their estimation performance on the TES. The high-performance group used a broader range of strategies and more frequently applied the most relevant strategy given a problem's features. Overall estimation accuracy was correlated with mathematical achievement, as were strategy breadth and strategy relevance. However, none of these associations survived first controlling for verbal achievement. Participants' strategy reports suggested that the TES problems were generally successful in eliciting the five target strategies and provided evidence for a new strategy, Partitioning. These findings provide a basis for future instructional studies to improve students' computational estimation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39141054What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.