Low- and high-performing students make different types of errors and therefore need different kinds of support¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Low-performing students mostly made procedural errors and needed additional instruction, whereas high-performing students mostly made computational errors and needed additional practice. → Sophie Oudman 2021

Evidence¶

Sophie Oudman 2021¶

Sophie Oudman, Janneke van de Pol, Tamara van Gog. (2021). Effects of self-scoring their math problem solutions on primary school students' monitoring and regulation. Metacognition and Learning (2022) 17:213–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-021-09281-9

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Authors' interpretation of the coded actual-need data (discussion section), based on the study's coding scheme distinguishing procedural errors (wrong strategy) from computational errors (sloppiness or lack of fluency with basic math facts).

"While low-performing students mostly made procedural errors and therefore needed additional instruction (and practice afterwards) high-performing students mostly made computational errors and therefore needed additional practice (see Table S12)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Conceptual counting uniquely predicts fluency, computation, and applied problems but not story problems; procedural counting uniquely predicts only applied problems — related
• Experts predict classroom phenomena and student errors far more than novices, who rarely anticipate misalgorithms — related
• Fact retrieval deficits in LA-Severe children occur alongside intact addition procedural competencies and modest, improving number-task performance — related