English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

We used the choice/no-choice methodology in two experiments to examine patterns of strategy selection and execution in groups of undergraduates. Comparisons between choice and no-choice trials revealed three groups. Some participants good retrievers) were consistently able to use retrieval to solve almost all arithmetic problems. Other participants (perfectionists) successfully used retrieval substantially less often in choice-allowed trials than when strategy choices were prohibited. Not-so-good retrievers retrieved correct answers less often than the other participants in both the choice-allowed and no-choice conditions. No group differences emerged with respect to time needed to search and access answers from long-term memory; however, not-so-good retrievers were consistently slower than the other subgroups at executing fact-retrieval processes that are peripheral to memory search and access. Theoretical models of simple arithmetic, such as the Strategy Choice and Discovery Simulation (Shrager &amp; Siegler, 1998), should be updated to include the existence of both perfectionist and not-so-good retriever adults.

Group differences in adult simple arithmetic: Good retrievers, not-so-good retrievers, and perfectionists