Impacts of number lines and circle visual displays on caregivers' fraction understanding.

Playful fraction picture books, together with math instructional content called "back matter," may promote fraction learning, which is crucial because fractions are difficult and often disliked content. However, open questions remain regarding how different types of back matter may affect caregivers' ability to use fraction picture books as a teaching tool. The current study offers a novel investigation into how back matter affects caregivers' (N = 160) fraction understanding (i.e., equivalence and arithmetic) and subjective beliefs about math using a pretest/posttest design. We contrasted existing back matter text with research-informed back matter text crossed with either circle area or number line visual displays. Caregivers' performance improved from pretest to posttest in the Researcher-Generated + Circles condition (fraction equivalence) and in the Existing + Circles, Researcher-Generated + Circles, and Researcher-Generated + Number Lines conditions (fraction arithmetic). In addition, caregivers were aware of their learning; they predicted improvements in their fraction arithmetic performance over time. These findings suggest that brief interventions, such as back matter in children's picture books, may improve adults' fraction understanding.

Metacognitive Cues, Working Memory, and Math Anxiety: The Regulated Attention in Mathematical Problem Solving (RAMPS) Framework.

Mathematical problem solving is a process involving metacognitive (e.g., judging progress), cognitive (e.g., working memory), and affective (e.g., math anxiety) factors. Recent research encourages researchers who study math cognition to consider the role that the interaction between metacognition and math anxiety plays in mathematical problem solving. Problem solvers can make many metacognitive judgments during a math problem, ranging from global judgments such as, "Do I care to solve this problem?" to minor cue-based judgments such as, "Is my current strategy successful in making progress toward the correct solution?" Metacognitive monitoring can hinder accurate mathematical problem solving when the monitoring is task-irrelevant; however, task-relevant metacognitive experiences can lead to helpful control decisions in mathematical problem solving such as checking work, considering plausibility of an answer, and considering alternate strategies. Worry and negative thoughts (i.e., math anxiety) can both interfere with the accuracy of metacognitive experiences as cues in mathematical problem solving and lead to avoidance of metacognitive control decisions that could otherwise improve performance. The current paper briefly reviews and incorporates prior literature with current qualitative reports (n = 673) to establish a novel framework of regulated attention in mathematical problem solving (RAMPS).

Task features change the relation between math anxiety and number line estimation performance with rational numbers: Two large-scale online studies.

Math performance is negatively related to math anxiety (MA), though MA may impact certain math skills more than others. We investigated whether the relation between MA and math performance is affected by task features, such as number type (e.g., fractions, whole numbers, percentages), number format (symbolic vs. nonsymbolic), and ratio component size (small vs. large). Across two large-scale studies (combined n = 3,822), the MA-performance relation was strongest for large whole numbers and fractions, and stronger for symbolic than nonsymbolic fractions. The MA-performance relation was also stronger for smaller relative to larger components, and MA relating to specific number types may be a better predictor of performance than general MA for certain tasks. The relation between MA and estimation performance changes depending on task features, which suggests that MA may relate to certain math skills more than others, which may have implications for how people reason with numerical information and may inform future interventions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Leveraging Math Cognition to Combat Health Innumeracy.

Rational numbers (i.e., fractions, percentages, decimals, and whole-number frequencies) are notoriously difficult mathematical constructs. Yet correctly interpreting rational numbers is imperative for understanding health statistics, such as gauging the likelihood of side effects from a medication. Several pernicious biases affect health decision-making involving rational numbers. In our novel developmental framework, the natural-number bias-a tendency to misapply knowledge about natural numbers to all numbers-is the mechanism underlying other biases that shape health decision-making. Natural-number bias occurs when people automatically process natural-number magnitudes and disregard ratio magnitudes. Math-cognition researchers have identified individual differences and environmental factors underlying natural-number bias and devised ways to teach people how to avoid these biases. Although effective interventions from other areas of research can help adults evaluate numerical health information, they circumvent the core issue: people's penchant to automatically process natural-number magnitudes and disregard ratio magnitudes. We describe the origins of natural-number bias and how researchers may harness the bias to improve rational-number understanding and ameliorate innumeracy in real-world contexts, including health. We recommend modifications to formal math education to help children learn the connections among natural and rational numbers. We also call on researchers to consider individual differences people bring to health decision-making contexts and how measures from math cognition might identify those who would benefit most from support when interpreting health statistics. Investigating innumeracy with an interdisciplinary lens could advance understanding of innumeracy in theoretically meaningful and practical ways.

Confidence in COVID problem solving: What factors predict adults' item-level metacognitive judgments on health-related math problems before and after an educational intervention?

The advent of COVID-19 highlighted widespread misconceptions regarding people's accuracy in interpreting quantitative health information. How do people judge whether they accurately answered health-related math problems? Which individual differences predict these item-by-item metacognitive monitoring judgments? How does a brief intervention targeting math skills-which increased problem-solving accuracy-affect people's monitoring judgments? We investigated these pre-registered questions in a secondary analysis of data from a large Qualtrics panel of adults (N = 1,297). Pretest performance accuracy, math self-efficacy, gender, and math anxiety were associated with pretest item-level monitoring judgments. Participants randomly assigned to the intervention condition, relative to the control condition, made higher monitoring judgments post intervention. That is, these participants believed they were more accurate when answering problems. Regardless of experimental condition, those who actually were correct on health-related math problems made higher monitoring judgments than those who answered incorrectly. Finally, consistent with prior research, math anxiety explained additional variance in monitoring judgments beyond trait anxiety. Together, findings indicated the importance of considering both objective (e.g., problem accuracy) and subjective factors (e.g., math self-efficacy, math anxiety) to better understand adults' metacognitive monitoring. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11409-022-09300-3.