The conceptual/procedural distinction belongs to strategies, not tasks: A comment on Gabriel et al. (2013)

Faulkenberry, Thomas J.

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00820

Cited by 10 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They advocated measuring general principles knowledge through explanations of concepts and explanations of examples and knowledge of principles underlying procedures through application and justification of procedures and evaluation of procedures (p. 366-368). Faulkenberry (2013) noted that tasks themselves are not conceptual or procedural, but the strategies employed to complete a given task may reflect conceptual or procedural knowledge. An important area of research is the relationship between conceptual and procedural knowledge.…”

Section: Conceptual and Procedural Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge: A Framework for Analyzing Point-of-Need Information Literacy Instruction

VanScoy¹

2019

comminfolit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Copyright for articles published in Communications in Information Literacy is retained by the author(s). Author(s) also extend to Communications in Information Literacy the right to redistribute this article via other scholarly resources and bibliographic databases. This extension allows the authors' copyrighted content to be included in some databases that are distributed and maintained by for-profit companies. All other rights of redistribution are licensed by Communications in Information Literacy under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0).

show abstract

Section: Conceptual and Procedural Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge: A Framework for Analyzing Point-of-Need Information Literacy Instruction

VanScoy¹

2019

comminfolit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Neither of these methods (explicit, implicit) are perfect, and researchers have widely documented concerns with each (Crooks & Alibali, 2014; Faulkenberry, 2013; Prather & Alibali, 2009; Rittle-Johnson & Schneider, 2015; Schneider & Stern, 2010). For example, explicit techniques rely on participants being aware of, remembering, and accurately reporting their strategies, which may not always give reliable results (Posner & Gertzog, 1982) and may not be suitable for some individuals (e.g., children).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating the role of attention in the identification of associativity shortcuts using a microgenetic measure of implicit shortcut use

Eaves

Gilmore

Attridge

2020

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many mathematics problems can be solved in different ways or by using different strategies. Good knowledge of arithmetic principles is important for identifying and using strategies that are more sophisticated. For example, the problem “6 + 38 − 35” can be solved through a shortcut strategy where the subtraction “38 − 35 = 3” is performed before the addition “3 + 6 = 9,” a strategy that is derived from the arithmetic principle of associativity. However, both children and adults make infrequent use of this shortcut and the reasons for this are currently unknown. To uncover these reasons, new sensitive measures of strategy identification and use must first be developed, which was one goal of our research. We built a novel method to detect the time-point when individuals first identify an arithmetic strategy, based on trial-by-trial response time data. Our second goal was to use this measure to investigate the contribution of one particular factor, attention, in the identification of the associativity shortcut. In two studies, we found that manipulating visual attention made no difference to the number of people who identified the shortcut, the trial number on which they first identified it, or their accuracy and response time for solving shortcut problems. We discuss the theoretical and methodological contribution of our findings and argue that the origin of people’s difficulty with associativity shortcuts may lie beyond attention.

show abstract

“…Finally, unrelated to space, Gabriel et al (2013) suggested that conceptual knowledge about fractions and procedural knowledge about how to manipulate them should be distinguished. Faulkenberry (2013) commented that the evaluation of solution strategies might be beneficial to differentiate procedural and conceptual knowledge.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Numerical Development - From cognitive functions to neural underpinnings

2015

Frontiers Research Topics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The conceptual/procedural distinction belongs to strategies, not tasks: A comment on Gabriel et al. (2013)

Cited by 10 publications

References 7 publications

Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge: A Framework for Analyzing Point-of-Need Information Literacy Instruction

Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge: A Framework for Analyzing Point-of-Need Information Literacy Instruction

Investigating the role of attention in the identification of associativity shortcuts using a microgenetic measure of implicit shortcut use

Numerical Development - From cognitive functions to neural underpinnings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About