Mental calculation achievement according to teaching approach: A study with eye-tracking from a neurocognitive approach

Q3 Social Sciences
Malena Manchado Porras, Inmaculada Menacho Jiménez, Jose Carlos Piñero-Charlo, M. Canto-López
{"title":"Mental calculation achievement according to teaching approach: A study with eye-tracking from a neurocognitive approach","authors":"Malena Manchado Porras, Inmaculada Menacho Jiménez, Jose Carlos Piñero-Charlo, M. Canto-López","doi":"10.30935/scimath/13459","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Currently mathematics difficulties in schools are a major problem due to several factors. Some research suggest that mathematics teaching-learning methodology could be one of the causes. As a result, alternative teaching methods to the traditional approach (ciphers-based closed algorithm [CBC]) have emerged, such as numbers-based open algorithm (ABN) method. Some research about this new approach has emerged, including neuropsychological studies. The current study aims to analyze performance and potential cognitive differences in solving a computerized task linked to eye-tracking device, comparing CBC and ABN approaches. 18 5th & 6th graders participants were evaluated through a computerized mental arithmetic task. Nine participants learned mathematics with CBC, and nine with ABN approach. Participants were distributed according to his/her mathematical performance rate in three sub-groups, three students per sub-group: low, medium, and high. The ABN method group obtained a higher overall score in the computerized task (mean [M]CBC=16.22; MABN=17.11), but the differences were not statistically significant (p=.690). However, significant differences have been found in two eye-tracking measures. ABN method group obtained a lower number of fixations average in areas of interest [AOIs]) (MCBC=5.01; MABN=3.85; p=.001), and a lower pupil diameter average in AOIs (MCBC=4.07; MABN=3.91; p=.001). This occurred regardless of the participants’ mathematical performance. These results suggest that differences between groups were not in task performance, but in cognitive effort spent in solving the task.","PeriodicalId":36049,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/13459","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Currently mathematics difficulties in schools are a major problem due to several factors. Some research suggest that mathematics teaching-learning methodology could be one of the causes. As a result, alternative teaching methods to the traditional approach (ciphers-based closed algorithm [CBC]) have emerged, such as numbers-based open algorithm (ABN) method. Some research about this new approach has emerged, including neuropsychological studies. The current study aims to analyze performance and potential cognitive differences in solving a computerized task linked to eye-tracking device, comparing CBC and ABN approaches. 18 5th & 6th graders participants were evaluated through a computerized mental arithmetic task. Nine participants learned mathematics with CBC, and nine with ABN approach. Participants were distributed according to his/her mathematical performance rate in three sub-groups, three students per sub-group: low, medium, and high. The ABN method group obtained a higher overall score in the computerized task (mean [M]CBC=16.22; MABN=17.11), but the differences were not statistically significant (p=.690). However, significant differences have been found in two eye-tracking measures. ABN method group obtained a lower number of fixations average in areas of interest [AOIs]) (MCBC=5.01; MABN=3.85; p=.001), and a lower pupil diameter average in AOIs (MCBC=4.07; MABN=3.91; p=.001). This occurred regardless of the participants’ mathematical performance. These results suggest that differences between groups were not in task performance, but in cognitive effort spent in solving the task.
基于教学方法的心理计算成绩:一项基于神经认知方法的眼动追踪研究
目前学校的数学困难是一个主要问题,由于几个因素。一些研究表明,数学教学方法可能是原因之一。因此,传统的基于密码的封闭算法(CBC)教学方法出现了替代方法,如基于数字的开放算法(ABN)教学方法。一些关于这种新方法的研究已经出现,包括神经心理学研究。目前的研究旨在分析在解决与眼球追踪设备相关的计算机化任务时的表现和潜在的认知差异,比较CBC和ABN方法。18名五年级和六年级的参与者通过计算机心算任务进行评估。9名参与者使用CBC学习数学,9名参与者使用ABN方法学习数学。根据参与者的数学成绩分成三个小组,每个小组有三个学生:低、中、高。ABN方法组在计算机化任务中获得更高的总分(mean [M]CBC=16.22;MABN=17.11),但差异无统计学意义(p= 0.690)。然而,在两种眼球追踪方法中发现了显著的差异。ABN法组在感兴趣区域(aoi)平均固定次数较低(MCBC=5.01;MABN = 3.85;p=.001), aoi患者的平均瞳孔直径较低(MCBC=4.07;MABN = 3.91;p =措施)。不管参与者的数学表现如何,这种情况都会发生。这些结果表明,两组之间的差异不在于任务表现,而在于解决任务所花费的认知努力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信