Controlling statistically for flexibility renders the training effect on word problem solving non-significant, suggesting flexibility explains the gains¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2024 · checked against its sources 2026-10-23 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i3 Flexibility explained a significant share of variance in word problem solving scores (ηp2 = 0.23). → Laura Gabler 2024

Evidence¶

Laura Gabler 2024¶

Laura Gabler, Stefan Ufer. (2024). Training flexibility in dealing with additive situations. Learning and Instruction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101902

q2 · i3 · causal · r1

Exploratory ANCOVA-style analysis (RQ3) adding flexibility at the respective measurement as covariate found a large printed effect: "ηp2 = 0.23" (printed in the source as ηp 2 = 0.23), with F(206.39, 1) = 62.28, p < 0.001.

"Flexibility explained a significant share of variance in word problem solving scores (F(206.39, 1) = 62.28, p < 0.001, ηp 2 = 0.23)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Mathematical Flexibility — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes
• Problem Solving — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• The VisA instrument predicts word problem solving performance in grade 5, explaining 23 percent of variance — related
• The VisA instrument and think-aloud measure converge moderately and each contributes unique predictive variance for word problem solving — related
• The think-aloud measure predicts word problem solving performance, explaining 33 percent of variance — related
• A general self-report metacognition questionnaire shows no relationship with word problem solving performance and no convergence with on-line metacognitive measures in grade 5 — related
• Training effects on flexibility and word problem solving do not differ between students with low and high language skills — related