Inversion intervention did not significantly increase problems solved or attempted on a timed problem-solving measure¶

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

Subclaims¶

q3 i? In Study 2, the inversion condition did not solve or attempt significantly more conducive or non-conducive associativity problems than the two-term control in a 35-second timed task. → Joanne Eaves 2018

Evidence¶

Joanne Eaves 2018¶

Joanne Eaves, Nina Attridge, Camilla Gilmore. (2018). Increasing the use of conceptually-derived strategies in arithmetic: using inversion problems to promote the use of associativity shortcuts. Learning and Instruction. https://figshare.com/s/230ee9491e0b67d9d3f3

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Study 2 problem-solving measure: participants solved as many conducive then non-conducive 'a + b – c' problems as possible in 35 seconds each. Between-subjects t-tests found "no significant difference between the conditions" on problems correctly solved for either type. Equivalence was not tested.

"There was no significant difference between the conditions for either the conducive, t(50) = 1.38, p = 0.173, d = 0.38, or the non-conducive problems, t(50) = 0.93, p = 0.358, d = 0.26."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Problem Solving — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Solving inversion problems increases adults' self-reported use of associativity shortcuts on three-term problems — related
• Self-reported shortcut users solve substantially more conducive problems than non-users, validating the problem-solving measure — related
• Solving only 'a + b – b' inversion problems replicates increased self-reported associativity shortcut use in a new sample — related