Children with mathematical difficulties need to spend more time than typically achieving children on solving even simple equations. Since these tasks already require a larger share of their cognitive resources, additional demands imposed by the need to switch between tasks may lead to a greater decline of performance in children with mathematical difficulties. We explored differential task switch costs with respect to switching between addition versus subtraction with a tablet-based arithmetic verification task and additional standardized tests in German elementary school children in Grades 1 to 4. Two independent studies were conducted. In Study 1, we assessed the validity of a newly constructed tablet-based arithmetic verification task in a controlled classroom-setting (n = 165). Then, effects of switching between different types of arithmetic operations on accuracy and response latency were analyzed through generalized linear mixed models in an online-based testing (Study 2; n = 3,409). Children with mathematical difficulties needed more time and worked less accurately overall. They also exhibited a stronger performance decline when working in a task-switching condition, when working on subtraction (vs. addition) items and in operations with two-digit (vs. one-digit) operations. These results underline the value of process data in the context of assessing mathematical difficulties.
AnderssonU.LyxellB. (2007). Working memory deficit in children with mathematic difficulties: A general or specific deficit?Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 96(3), 197–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2006.10.001
AshcraftM. H.BattagliaJ. (1978). Cognitive arithmetic: Evidence for retrieval and decision processes in mental addition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4(5), 527–538. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.4.5.527
5.
AshcraftM. H.FiermanB. A. (1982). Mental addition in third, fourth, and sixth graders. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 33(2), 216–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(82)90017-0
6.
AshcraftM. H.FiermanB. A.BartolottaR. (1984). The production and verification tasks in mental addition: an empirical comparison. Developmental Review, 4, 157–170.
7.
BaayenR. H.DavidsonD. J.BatesD. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
8.
BaddeleyA. D. (1986). Working memory. Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press.
9.
BagnoudJ.DewiJ.CastelC.MathieuR.ThevenotC. (2021). Developmental changes on size effects for simple tie and non-tie addition problems in 6- to 12-year-old children and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 201, 104987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2020.104987
10.
BaroodyA. J. (1983). The development of procedural knowledge: An alternative explanation for chronometric trends of mental arithmetic. Developmental Review, 3(2), 225–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-2297(83)90031-X
11.
BaroodyA. J. (1984). A reexamination of mental arithmetic models and data: A reply to Ashcraft. Developmental Review, 4(2), 148–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-2297(84)90004-2
BaroodyA. J.TiilikainenS. H.TaiY.-C. (2006). The application and development of an addition goal sketch. Cognition and Instruction, 24(1), 123–170. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2401_3
14.
BarrouilletP.ThevenotC. (2013). On the problem-size effect in small additions: Can we really discard any counting-based account?Cognition, 128(1), 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.02.018
15.
BatesD.MaechlerM.DaiB. (2021). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using “Eigen” and S4 (R Package Version 1.1-27). http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4
16.
BuschJ.OranuN.SchmidtC.GrubeD. (2013). Rechenschwäche im Grundschulalter: Reduzierte Verfügbarkeit basalen arithmetischen Faktenwissens und Belastung des Arbeitsgedächtnisses bei Drittklässlern [Dyscalculia in elementary school: Reduced availability of basal knowledge of arithmetic facts and working memory load in third graders]. Lernen und Lernstörungen, 2(4), 217–227. https://doi.org/10.1024/2235-0977/a000043
17.
BuschJ.SchmidtC.StudteS.GrubeD. (2018). Kognitive Merkmale rechenschwacher Kinder in Abhängigkeit vom Cut-off Kriterium [Cognitive characteristics of children with mathematical difficulties depending on the cut-off criterion]. Lernen und Lernstörungen, 8(3), 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1024/2235-0977/a000258
CampbellJ. I. D. (1987). Production, verification, and priming of multiplication facts. Memory & Cognition, 15(4), 349–364. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197037
CampbellJ. I. D.FugelsangJ. (2001). Strategy choice for arithmetic verification: Effects of numerical surface form. Cognition, 80(3), B21–B30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(01)00115-9
22.
CampbellJ. I. D.TarlingD. P. M. (1996). Retrieval processes in arithmetic production and verification. Memory & Cognition, 24(2), 156–172. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200878
23.
CampbellR. N. (1978). Recent advances in the psychology of language. Plenum Press.
24.
CarpenterT. P.MoserJ. M. (1984). The acquisition of addition and subtraction concepts in grades one through three. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 15(3), 179–202. https://doi.org/10.2307/748348
ChenY.CampbellJ. I. D. (2018). “Compacted” procedures for adults’ simple addition: A review and critique of the evidence. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(2), 739–753. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1328-2
27.
ChoduraS.KuhnJ.-T.HollingH. (2015). Interventions for children with mathematical difficulties: A meta-analysis. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 223(2), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000211
28.
ColtheartM. (1978). Lexical access in simple reading tasks. In UnderwoodG. (Ed.), Strategies of information processing (pp. 151–216). Academic Press.
29.
CrollenV.NoëlM. P. (2015). The role of fingers in the development of counting and arithmetic skills. Acta Psychologica, 156, 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.01.007
30.
D’AmicoA.GuarneraM. (2005). Exploring working memory in children with low arithmetical achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 15(3), 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2005.01.002
31.
DehaeneS.CohenL. (1995). Towards an anatomical and functional model of number processing. Mathematical Cognition, 1, 83–120.
32.
DehaeneS.CohenL. (1997). Cerebral pathways for calculation: Double dissociation between rote verbal and quantitative knowledge of arithmetic. Cortex: A Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior, 33(2), 219–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70002-9
33.
De RammelaereS.StuyvenE.VandierendonckA. (1999). The contribution of working memory resources in the verification of simple mental arithmetic sums. Psychological Research, 62(1), 72–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004260050041
34.
DevineA.SoltészF.NobesA.GoswamiU.SzűcsD. (2013). Gender differences in developmental dyscalculia depend on diagnostic criteria. Learning and Instruction, 27, 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.02.004
35.
De VisscherA.NoëlM.-P. (2014). The detrimental effect of interference in multiplication facts storing: Typical development and individual differences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(6), 2380–2400. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000029
36.
De VisscherA.SzmalekA.van der LindenL.NoëlM.-P. (2015). Serial-order learning impairment and hypersensitivity-to-interference in dyscalculia. Cognition, 144, 38–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.07.007
37.
de WeerdtF.DesoeteA.RoeyersH. (2013). Behavioral inhibition in children with learning disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34(6), 1998–2007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2013.02.020
38.
DewiJ. D. M.BagnoudJ.ThevenotC. (2021). Do production and verification tasks in arithmetic rely on the same cognitive mechanisms? A test using alphabet arithmetic. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74(12), 2182–2192. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218211022635
EndlichD.LenhardW.MarxP.RichterT. (2022). LONDI-Screening: Früherkennung von Problemen im Lesen, Rechtschreiben und Rechnen in der Grundschule (Beta-version) [LONDI Screening: Early Detection of Difficulties in Reading, Spelling and Arithmetic in Primary School; Mobile App]. Meister Cody GmbH. https://apps.apple.com/de/app/londi-screening/id1517774441
Friso-van den BosI.van der VenS. H. G.KroesbergenE. H.van LuitJ. E. H. (2013). Working memory and mathematics in primary school children: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 10, 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.05.003
43.
GaidoschikM. S. (2010). Die Entwicklung von Lösungsstrategien zu den additiven Grundaufgaben im Laufe des ersten Schuljahres [The Development of Solution Strategies for the Basic Additive Tasks over the Course of the First School Year; Doctoral dissertation, Universität Wien]. https://doi.org/10.25365/thesis.9155
44.
GearyD. C. (1993). Mathematical disabilities: Cognitive, neuropsychological, and genetic components. Psychological Bulletin, 114(2), 345–362. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.2.345
45.
GearyD. C. (2011). Consequences, characteristics, and causes of mathematical learning disabilities and persistent low achievement in mathematics. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 32(3), 250–263. https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0b013e318209edef
46.
GearyD. C.BrownS. C.SamaranayakeV. A. (1991). Cognitive addition: A short longitudinal study of strategy choice and speed-of-processing differences in normal and mathematically disabled children. Developmental Psychology, 27(5), 787–797. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.27.5.787
47.
GearyD. C.FrenschP. A.WileyJ. G. (1993). Simple and complex mental subtraction: Strategy choice and speed-of-processing differences in younger and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 8(2), 242–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.8.2.242
48.
GölitzD.RoickT.HasselhornM. (2006). Deutscher Mathematiktest für vierte Klassen (DEMAT 4) [German Mathematics Test for Grade 4 (DEMAT 4)]. Hogrefe.
49.
GrubeD. (2006). Entwicklung des Rechnens im Grundschulalter:Basale Fertigkeiten, Wissensabruf und Arbeitsgedächtniseinflüsse [Development of calculating in elementary school: Basic skills, knowledge retrieval and influences of working memory]. Waxmann.
HorkayN.BennettR. E.AllenN.KaplanB.YanF. (2006). Does it matter if I take my writing test on computer? An empirical study of mode effects in NAEP. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 5(2), 1–50. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ843858.pdf
52.
JordanN. C.HanichL. B. (2003). Characteristics of children with moderate mathematics deficiencies: A longitudinal perspective. Learning Disabilities Research, 18(4), 213–221. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5826.00076
53.
JordanN. C.HanichL. B.KaplanD. (2003). A longitudinal study of mathematical competencies in children with specific mathematics difficulties versus children with comorbid mathematics and reading difficulties. Child Development, 74(3), 834–850. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00571
KoponenT. K.SorvoR.DowkerA.RäikkönenE.ViholainenH.AroM.AroT. (2018). Does multi-component strategy training improve calculation fluency among poor performing elementary school children?Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 1187. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01187
56.
KrajewskiK.SchneiderW. (2009). Exploring the impact of phonological awareness, visual-spatial working memory, and preschool quantity-number competencies on mathematics achievement in elementary school: Findings from a 3-year longitudinal study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 103(4), 516–531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2009.03.009
57.
KruegerL. E. (1986). Why 2 x 2 = 5 looks so wrong: On the odd-even rule in product verification. Memory & Cognition, 14, 141–149. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198374
58.
KruegerL. E.HallfordE. W. (1984). Why 2 + 2 = 5 looks so wrong: On the odd-even rule in sum verification. Memory & Cognition, 12, 171–180. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198431
59.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. B. (2020). lmerTest: Tests for random and fixed effects for Linear Mixed Effect Models (Lmer objects of lme4 package) (R Package Version 3.1-2). http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lmerTest
60.
LaskiE. V.CaseyB. M.YuQ.DulaneyA.HeymanM.DearingE. (2013). Spatial skills as a predictor of first grade girls’ use of higher level arithmetic strategies. Learning and Individual Differences, 23, 123–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.08.001
61.
LemaireP.FayolM. (1995). When plausibility judgments supersede fact retrieval: The example of the odd-even effect on product verification. Memory & Cognition, 23, 34–48. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210555
62.
LemaireP.RederL. (1999). What affects strategy selection in arithmetic? The example of parity and five effects on product verification. Memory & Cognition, 27(2), 364–382. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211420
MabbottD. J.BisanzJ. (2003). Developmental change and individual differences in children’s multiplication. Child Development, 74(4), 1091–1107. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00594
66.
MasseC.LemaireP. (2001). Do people combine the parity- and five-rule checking strategies in product verification?Psychological Research, 65, 28–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004260000030
67.
MathieuR.GourjonA.CoudercA.ThevenotC.PradoJ. (2016). Running the number line: Rapid shifts of attention in single-digit arithmetic. Cognition, 146, 229–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.10.002
68.
NunesT.BryantP.BarrosR.SylvaK. (2012). The relative importance of two different mathematical abilities to mathematical achievement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 136–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02033.x
69.
NunesT.DornelesB. V.LinP.-J.Rathgeb-SchniererE. (2016). Teaching and learning about whole numbers in primary school. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45113-8
70.
ParsonsS.BynnerJ. (2005). Does numeracy matter more?National Research and Development Center for Adult Literacy and Numeracy.
71.
RaghubarK. P.BarnesM. A.HechtS. A. (2010). Working memory and mathematics: A review of developmental, individual difference, and cognitive approaches. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(2), 110–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.10.005
RederL. M. (1982). Plausibility judgments versus fact retrieval: Alternative strategies for sentence verification. Psychological Review, 89(3), 250–280. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.89.3.250
74.
RichterT.LenhardW.MarxP.EndlichD. (2018). Konzeption eines Online-Screenings für Lernstörungen [Outline for an online-screening for learning disorders]. Lernen und Lernstörungen, 7(4), 203–207. https://doi.org/10.1024/2235-0977/a000237
75.
RitchieS. J.BatesT. C. (2013). Enduring links from childhood mathematics and reading achievement to adult socioeconomic status. Psychological Science, 24(7), 1301–1308. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612466268
76.
RobinsonK. M. (2017). The understanding of additive and multiplicative arithmetic concepts. In GearyD.BerchD.OchsendorfR.KoepkeK. M., (Eds.), Acquisition of complex arithmetic skills and higher-order mathematics concepts (pp. 21–46). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-805086-6.00002-3
77.
RobinsonK. M.DubéA. K. (2009). Children’s understanding of addition and subtraction concepts. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 103(4), 532–545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2008.12.002
78.
RobinsonK. M.DubéA. K. (2012). Children’s use of arithmetic shortcuts: The role of attitudes in strategy choice. Child Development Research, 2012, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/459385
79.
RourkeB. P. (1993). Arithmetic disabilities, specific and otherwise: A neuropsychological perspective. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26(4), 214–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949302600402
80.
RubinsteinJ. S.MeyerD. E.EvansJ. E. (2001). Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(4), 763–797. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.27.4.763
81.
SchindlerJ.RichterT.IsbernerM.-B.NaumannJ.NeebY. (2018). Construct validity of a process-oriented test assessing syntactic skills in German primary schoolchildren. Language Assessment Quarterly, 15(2), 183–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2018.1446142
82.
SchneiderD. W.AndersonJ. R. (2010). Asymmetric switch costs as sequential difficulty effects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(10), 1873–1894. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470211003624010
83.
SchuchardtK.MählerC. (2010). Unterscheiden sich Subgruppen rechengestörter Kinder in ihrer Arbeitsgedächtniskapazität, im basalen arithmetischen Faktenwissen und in den numerischen Basiskompetenzen? [Do subgroups of children with arithmetic impairment differ in their working memory capacity, basal knowledge of arithmetic facts, and basic numerical skills?]. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 42(4), 217–225. https://doi.org/10.1026/0049-8637/a000022
84.
ShalevR. S.ManorO.Gross-TsurV. (2005). Developmental dyscalculia: A prospective six-year follow-up. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 47(2), 121–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.2005.tb01100.x
85.
SieglerR. S. (1991). Children’s thinking. Prentice-Hall.
SieglerR. S.ShipleyC. (1995). Variation, selection, and cognitive change. In SimonT. J.HalfordG. S. (Eds.), Developing cognitive competence: New approaches to process modeling (pp. 31–76). Lawrence Erlbaum.
88.
SieglerR. S.ShragerJ. (1984). Strategy choices in addition and subtraction: How do children know what to do? In SophianC. (Ed.), Origins of cognitive skills (pp. 229–294). Lawrence Erlbaum.
89.
StanatP.SchipolowskiS.SchneiderR.SachseK. A.WeirichS.HenschelS. (2022). Kompetenzen in den Fächern Deutsch und Mathematik am Ende der 4. Jahrgangsstufe: Erste Ergebnisse nach über einem Jahr Schulbetrieb unter Pandemiebedingungen [Skills in the subjects German and Mathematics at the end of Grade 4: First results after more than a year of schooling under pandemic conditions]. Institut zur Qualitätsentwicklung im Bildungswesen.
90.
ThevenotC.BarrouilletP.CastelC.UittenhoveK. (2016). Ten-year-old children strategies in mental addition: A counting model account. Cognition, 146, 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.09.003
91.
UittenhoveK.ThevenotC.BarrouilletP. (2016). Fast automated counting procedures in addition problem solving: When are they used and why are they mistaken for retrieval?Cognition, 146, 289–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.10.008
VanbinstK.CeulemansE.GhesquièreP.De SmedtB. (2015). Profiles of children’s arithmetic fact development: A model-based clustering approach. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 133, 29–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.01.003
94.
van der SluisS.De JongP. F.van der LeijA. V. D. (2004). Inhibition and shifting in children with learning deficits in arithmetic and reading. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 87(3), 239–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2003.12.002
95.
WidamanK. F.LittleT. D.GearyD. C.CormierP. (1992). Individual differences in the development of skill in mental addition: Internal and external validation of chronometric models. Learning and Individual Differences, 4(3), 167–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/1041-6080(92)90002-V
96.
WilsonK. M.SwansonH. L. (2001). Are mathematics disabilities due to a domain-general or a domain-specific working memory deficit?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(3), 237–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940103400304
97.
ZaunmüllerL.DomahsF.DresselK.LonnemannJ.KleinE.IschebeckA.WilmesK. (2009). Rehabilitation of arithmetic fact retrieval via extensive practice: A combined fMRI and behavioural case-study. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 19(3), 422–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602010802296378
98.
ZbrodoffN. J.LoganG. D. (1990). On the relation between production and verification tasks in the psychology of simple arithmetic. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(1), 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.16.1.83
99.
ZhuX.ZhaoX. (2023). Role of executive function in mathematical ability of children in different grades. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(5), 696–710. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.00696
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
