Knowing Right From Wrong In Mental Arithmetic Judgments: Calibration Of Confidence Predicts The Development Of Accuracy

Abstract

Does knowing when mental arithmetic judgments are right—and when they are wrong—lead to more accurate judgments over time? We hypothesize that the successful detection of errors (and avoidance of false alarms) may contribute to the development of mental arithmetic performance. Insight into error detection abilities can be gained by examining the “calibration” of mental arithmetic judgments—that is, the alignment between confidence in judgments and the accuracy of those judgments. Calibration may be viewed as a measure of metacognitive monitoring ability. We conducted a developmental longitudinal investigation of the relationship between the calibration of children's mental arithmetic judgments and their performance on a mental arithmetic task. Annually between Grades 5 and 8, children completed a problem verification task in which they rapidly judged the accuracy of arithmetic expressions (e.g., 25+50 = 75) and rated their confidence in each judgment. Results showed that calibration was strongly related to concurrent mental arithmetic performance, that calibration continued to develop even as mental arithmetic accuracy approached ceiling, that poor calibration distinguished children with mathematics learning disability from both low and typically achieving children, and that better calibration in Grade 5 predicted larger gains in mental arithmetic accuracy between Grades 5 and 8. We propose that good calibration supports the implementation of cognitive control, leading to long-term improvement in mental arithmetic accuracy. Because mental arithmetic “fluency” is critical for higher-level mathematics competence, calibration of confidence in mental arithmetic judgments may represent a novel and important developmental predictor of future mathematics performance.

Error monitoring in decision‐making and timing is disrupted in autism spectrum disorder

“…The present results in combination with previous findings suggest that this trajectory may spread over a more extended period in individuals with ASD, or may remain impaired across the lifespan, which is supported by findings of impaired metamemory and reality monitoring in adults with ASD [Cooper et al, ]. Relatedly, Rinne and Mazzocco [] investigated calibration in mental arithmetic, which is the alignment of accuracy and confidence of judgments. They found that calibration continued to develop through grades 5 to 8, even when arithmetic accuracy neared ceiling.…”

Is Math Anxiety Always Bad for Math Learning? The Role of Math Motivation

“…Problem Verification Task was developed as a measure of math calculation fluency and metacognition (Rinne & Mazzocco, 2014). We relied on the calculation fluency component of this measure in the present study.…”

“…Problem Verification Task (Rinne & Mazzocco, 2014) was used to measure participants’ math calculation fluency. Description of this task can be found under the Methods section for Study 1.…”

Unskilled but subjectively aware: Metacognitive monitoring ability and respective awareness in low-performing students

“…As longitudinal data by Rinne and Mazzocco (2014) have shown, students who had better metacognitive monitoring ability also had larger gains in performance. Students' ability to estimate their own performance can be measured via metacognitive judgments.…”