Interactivity And Mental Arithmetic: Coupling Mind And World Transforms And Enhances Performance

Open access

Abstract

Interactivity has been linked to better performance in problem solving, due in part to a more efficient allocation of attentional resources, a better distribution of cognitive load, but perhaps more important by enabling the reasoner to shape and reshape the physical problem presentation to promote the development of the problem solution. Interactivity in solving quotidian arithmetic problems involves gestures, pointing, and the recruitment of artefacts to facilitate computation and augment efficiency. In the experiment reported here, different types of interactivity were examined with a series of mental arithmetic problems. Using a repeated-measures design, participants solved series of five 11-digit sums in four conditions that varied in the type of interactivity: (i) no interactivity (participants solved the problems with their hands on the table top), (ii) pointing (participants could point at the numbers), (iii) pen and paper (participants could note interim totals with a pen), and (iv) tokens (the sums were presented as 11 numbered tokens the arrangement of which participants were free to modify as they proceeded to the solution). Performance in the four conditions was measured in terms of accuracy, calculation error, and efficiency (a ratio composed of the proportion correct over the proportion of time invested in working on the sums). These quantitative analyses were supplemented by a detailed qualitative examination of a participant’s actions in the different conditions. The integration of artefacts, such as tokens or a pen, offered reasoners the opportunity to reconfigure the physical presentation of the problem, enacting different arithmetic strategies: the affordance landscape shifts as the problem trajectory is enacted through interactivity, and this generally produced better “mental” arithmetic performance. Participants also felt more positive about and better engaged with the task when they could reconfigure the problem presentation through interactivity. These findings underscore the importance of engineering task environments in the laboratory that offer a window on how problem solving unfolds through a coalition of mental and physical resources.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Ashcraft M. H. (1995). Cognitive psychology and simple arithmetic: A review and summary of new directions. Mathematical Cognition1 3–34.

  • Ashcraft M. H. & Moore A. M. (2009). Mathematics anxiety and the affective drop in performance. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment27 197–205.

  • Baber C. Parekh M. & Cengiz T. G. (2014). Tool use as distributed cognition: how tools help hinder and define manual skill. Frontiers in Psychology5 Article 116.

  • Carlson R. A. Avraamides M. N. Cary M. & Strasberg S. (2007). What do the hands externalize in simple arithmetic? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition33 747–756.

  • Clark A. (2010). Material surrogacy and the supernatural: Reflections on the role of artefacts in “off-line” cognition. In L. Malafouris & C. Renfrew (Eds.) The cognitive life of things: Recasting the boundaries of the mind (pp. 23–28). Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.

  • DeStefano D. & LeFevre J.-A. (2004). The role of working memory in mental arithmetic. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology16 353–386.

  • Fu W. & Gray W.D. (2000). Memory versus perceptual-motor tradeoffs in a blocks world task. Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Conference of the Cognitive Society. (pp. 154–159). Hillside NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Goldin-Meadow S. Alibali M. W. & Church R. B. (1993). Transitions in concept acquisition: Using the hand to read the mind. Psychological Review100 279–297.

  • Goldin-Meadow S. Nusbaum H. Kelly S. D. & Wagner S. (2001). Explaining math: Gesturing lightens the load. Psychological Science12 516–522.

  • Gray W.D. & Fu W-T. (2004). Soft constraints behavior: The case of ignoring perfect knowledge in-the-world for imperfect knowledge in-the-head. Cogntive Science28 359–382.

  • Hayes J. R. & Simon H. A. (1977). Psychological differences among problem isomorphs. In N. J. Castellan D. B. Pisoni & G. R. Potts (Eds.) Cognitive Theory (pp. 21–41). Hillside NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Kirsh D. (1995). The intelligent use of space. Artificial Intelligence73 31–68.

  • Kirsh D. (2013). Thinking with external representation. In S. J. Cowley & F. Vallée-Tourangeau (Eds.) Cognition beyond the brain: Computation interactivity and human artifice (pp. 171–194). London: Springer-Verlag.

  • Magnani L. (2007). Semiotic brains and artificial minds: How brains make up material cognitive systems. In R. Gudwin & J. Queiroz (Eds.) Semiotics and Intelligent Systems Development (pp. 1–41). Hershey: Idea Group.

  • Malafouris L. (2013). How things shape the mind: A theory of material engagement. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.

  • Moyer P.S. (2001). Are we having fun yet? How teachers use manipulatives to teach mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics47 175–197.

  • Neth H. & Payne S. J. (2001). Addition as Interactive Problem Solving. In J. D. Moore & K. Stenning (Eds.) Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 698–703). Austin TX: Cognitive Science Society.

  • Neth H. & Payne S. J. (2011). Interactive coin addition: How hands can help us think. In J. D. Moore & K. Stenning (Eds.) Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 279–284). Austin TX: Cognitive Science Society.

  • Newmann F. M. Wehlage G. G. & Lamborn S. D. (1992). The significance and sources of student engagement. In F. M. Newmann (Ed.) Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools (pp. 11–39). New York: Teachers College Press Columbia University.

  • Schiefele U. & Csikszentmihaly M. (1995). Motivation and ability as factors in mathematics experience and achievement. Journal for Research into Mathematics Education26 163–181.

  • Shernoff D. J. Csikszentmihaly M. Schneider B. & Shernoff E. S. (2003). Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. School Psychology Quarterly18 158–176.

  • Simon H.A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.

  • Vallée-Tourangeau F. (2013). Interactivity efficiency and individual differences in mental arithmetic. Experimental Psychology60 302–311.

  • Vallée-Tourangeau F. Euden G. & Hearn V. (2011). Einstellung defused: Interactivity and mental set. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology64 1889–1895.

  • Vallée-Tourangeau F. Sirota M. & Villejoubert G. (2013). Reducing the impact of math anxiety on mental arithmetic: The importance of distributed cognition. Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 3615–3620). Austin TX: Cognitive Science Society.

  • Zhang J. & Norman D. A. (1994). Representations in distributed cognitive tasks. Cognitive Science18 87–122.

Search
Journal information
Impact Factor


Cite Score 2018: 0.29

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.138
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.358

Cited By
Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 216 139 2
PDF Downloads 85 61 1