Lave, Murtaugh, and de la Rocha found grocery shoppers nearly infallible at situated price-comparison mathematics but answering fewer than half of identical abstract paper-and-pencil problems correctly¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · theoretical r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 1995 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? The review attributes to Lave et al. (1984) the finding that shoppers' mathematics was virtually infallible in the situated supermarket activity yet poor on identical problems in abstract paper-and-pencil form. → Peter Smagorinsky 1995

q2 i? The article reports that grocery shoppers were virtually infallible calculating best prices while shopping, yet answered fewer than half of identical abstract paper-and-pencil problems correctly. → Peter Smagorinsky 1995

Evidence¶

Peter Smagorinsky 1995¶

Peter Smagorinsky. (1995). The Social Construction of Data: Methodological Problems of Investigating Learning in the Zone of Proximal Development. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 191-212. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543065003191

q2 · i? · theoretical · r3

Narrative review attributing this to Lave, Murtaugh, and de la Rocha (1984), who accompanied shoppers and tape recorded their calculations as they sought the best prices. The article reports the shoppers answered "fewer than half of the problems correctly" on the paper test; no effect size is printed.

"the shoppers were virtually infallible in their mathematics in this situated activity. Yet these same people, when tested on identical mathematical problems presented in abstract form through the means of a paper-and-pencil test, performed quite poorly"

Peter Smagorinsky 1995 (2)¶

q2 · i? · theoretical · r3

The article reports Lave, Murtaugh, and de la Rocha's (1984) study, in which researchers accompanied shoppers and tape recorded their price calculations; shoppers were 'virtually infallible' in situated activity but answered 'fewer than half of the problems correctly' on the abstract test. Attributed as the article attributes it.

"The researchers found that the shoppers were virtually infallible in their mathematics in this situated activity. Yet these same people, when tested on identical mathematical problems presented in abstract form through the means of a paper-and-pencil test, performed quite poorly, answering fewer than half of the problems correctly."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

Domain Context — moderator: an instructional effect differs with it

Across everyday-mathematics studies, individuals tended to score higher on tasks linked to their everyday practices than on school-format versions of the same questions — a broader claim this one bears on

Page metadata

Field	Value
`type`	`claim`
`id`	`lave-grocery-shoppers-situated-vs-paper-math`
`aliases`	`lave-shoppers-situated-math`
`title`	`Lave, Murtaugh, and de la Rocha found grocery shoppers nearly infallible at situated price-comparison mathematics but answering fewer than half of identical abstract paper-and-pencil problems correctly`
`description`	`Lave, Murtaugh, and de la Rocha found grocery shoppers nearly infallible at situated price-comparison mathematics but answering fewer than half of identical abstract paper-and-pencil problems correctly`
`status`	`review`
`evidence_strength`	`weak`
`newest_evidence`	`1995`
`generated`	by `process:wiki-ingest` on `2026-10-20`
`trust`	unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
`sources`	2 — `peter-smagorinsky-1995`, `peter-smagorinsky-1995-2`

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.