Overt counting, especially min-counting, remained common in adolescents and strategy solution times followed the expected retrieval < decomposition < counting ordering¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Min-counting was used at least once on 20% of simple, 30% of mixed, and 44% of double-digit problems; retrieval was fastest (M = 1.60 seconds) and the addition algorithm slowest (M = 7.76 seconds). → Rhodes 2018

Evidence¶

Rhodes 2018¶

Rhodes, K. T., Lukowski, S., Branum-Martin, L., Opfer, J., Geary, D. C., & Petrill, S. A. (2018). Individual Differences in Addition Strategy Choice: A Psychometric Evaluation. Journal of Educational Psychology. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11360214/

q3 · i? · associational · r2

Frequencies and descriptive statistics of strategies across the 30 addition items in the 376-adolescent sample. The observed ordering of solution times (retrieval fastest, then decomposition, min-counting, algorithm) was described as consistent with prior studies and supportive of self-report validity.

"Even among these adolescent problem-solvers, overt counting, especially min-counting, was still common; 20% of simple (e.g., 4 + 6), 30% of mixed (e.g., 17 + 5), and 44% of double (e.g., 26 + 15) problems were solved at least once with min-counting."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The effect of min-counting on solution time and accuracy varies significantly across both items and persons — related
• A minority of adolescents were model-predicted to benefit greatly from min-counting yet used it significantly less often than peers and scored about one standard deviation below average in broad math achievement — related
• Min-counting becomes increasingly maladaptive as addition problem sizes increase — related