Abstract
Mathematical flexibility has been widely acknowledged as an important learning goal in mathematical education and has received increasing research attention in order to explore its nature, facilitating mechanisms, and promotion interventions. Given that researchers conceptualize, assess, and explain flexibility in mathematical problem solving from different perspectives, a systematic review could contribute to an integrated framework of mathematical flexibility. To this end, we review mathematical flexibility in terms of its concepts, measurements, and related research on influencing factors and effective interventions. Additionally, we propose a three-dimensional model focusing on analytic units, manifestation forms, and evaluation criteria, which we argue advances a comprehensive understanding of mathematical flexibility. Overall, this review not only helps to reveal the multifaceted construct of mathematical flexibility in theory but also provides supporting evidence for targeted educational interventions in teaching practice. In addition, we discuss each aspect of mathematical flexibility and propose future research directions to potentially broaden and deepen mathematical flexibility research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Notes
Adaptivity is considered to be distinct from flexibility, particularly that adaptivity emphasizes selecting the most appropriate strategy but flexibility emphasizes switching between different strategies. Yet these two constructs overlap, especially given that both highlight the concept of appropriateness during conceptual development (Selter, 2009; Verschaffel et al., 2009). Furthermore, Verschaffel et al. (2011) treated “adaptivity” and “flexibility” as synonyms and noted they are intertwined and could be interchangeable.
References
Agogué, M., Poirel, N., Pineau, A., Houdé, O., & Cassotti, M. (2014). The impact of age and training on creativity: A design-theory approach to study fixation effects. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 11, 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2013.10.002
Australian Education Systems Officials Committee. (2006). Statements of learning for mathematics. Curriculum Corporations.
Blöte, A. W., Klein, A. S., & Beishuizen, M. (2000). Mental computation and conceptual understanding. Learning and Instruction, 10(3), 221–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0959-4752(99)00028-6
Blöte, A. W., Van der Burg, E., & Klein, A. S. (2001). Students’ flexibility in solving two-digit addition and subtraction problems: Instruction effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 627–638. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.93.3.627
Brown, S. A., Menendez, D., & Alibali, M. W. (2019). Strategy adoption depends on characteristics of the instruction, learner, and strategy. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 4(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-019-0158-3
Cassotti, M., Agogue, M., Camarda, A., Houde, O., & Borst, G. (2016). Inhibitory control as a core process of creative problem solving and idea generation from childhood to adulthood. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2016(151), 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20153
DeCaro, M. S. (2016). Inducing mental set constrains procedural flexibility and conceptual understanding in mathematics. Memory & Cognition, 44(7), 1138–1148. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-016-0614-y
DeStefano, D., & LeFevre, J. A. (2004). The role of working memory in mental arithmetic. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16(3), 353–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440244000328
Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135–168. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750
Durkin, K., Star, J. R., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2017). Using comparison of multiple strategies in the mathematics classroom: Lessons learned and next steps. ZDM, 49(4), 585–597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0853-9
Durkin, K., Rittle-Johnson, B., Star, J. R., & Loehr, A. (2021). Comparing and discussing multiple strategies: An approach to improving algebra instruction. The Journal of Experimental Education, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2021.1903377
Eaves, J., Attridge, N., & Gilmore, C. (2022). The role of domain-general and domain-specific skills in the identification of arithmetic strategies. Journal of Numerical Cognition, 8(3), 335–350. https://doi.org/10.5964/jnc.7459
Elia, I., den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Kolovou, A. (2009). Exploring strategy use and strategy flexibility in non-routine problem solving by primary school high achievers in mathematics. ZDM, 41(5), 605–618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-009-0184-6
Ellis, S. (1997). Strategy choice in sociocultural context. Developmental Review, 17(4), 490–524. https://doi.org/10.1006/drev.1997.0444
Fagginger Auer, M. F., Hickendorff, M., & Van Putten, C. M. (2016a). Solution strategies and adaptivity in multidigit division in a choice/no-choice experiment: Student and instructional factors. Learning and Instruction, 41, 52–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.09.008
Fagginger Auer, M. F., Hickendorff, M., Van Putten, C. M., Béguin, A. A., & Heiser, W. J. (2016b). Multilevel latent class analysis for large-scale educational assessment data: Exploring the relation between the curriculum and students’ mathematical strategies. Applied Measurement in Education, 29(2), 144–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2016.1138959
Fagginger Auer, M. F., Hickendorff, M., & Van Putten, C. M. (2018). Training can increase students’ choices for written solution strategies and performance in solving multi-digit division problems. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1644. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01644
Fu, X. (2022). The effect of inhibitory control on dynamic flexibility of mathematical strategies among middle school students [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Beijing Normal University].
Gavaz, H. O., Yazgan, Y., & Arslan, Ç. (2021). Non-routine problem solving and strategy flexibility: A quasi-experimental study. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 5(3), 40–54. https://doi.org/10.33902/jpr.2021370581
Gusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N. R. (2020). Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Research Synthesis Methods, 11(2), 181–217. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378
Halme, H., Trezise, K., Hannula-Sormunen, M. M., & McMullen, J. (2022). Characterizing mathematics anxiety and its relation to performance in routine and adaptive tasks. Journal of Numerical Cognition, 8(3), 414–429. https://doi.org/10.5964/jnc.7675
Hammerstein, S., Poloczek, S., Losche, P., Lemaire, P., & Buttner, G. (2019). Effects of working memory updating on children’s arithmetic performance and strategy use: A study in computational estimation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 184, 174–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2019.04.003
Hästö, P., Palkki, R., Tuomela, D., & Star, J. R. (2019). Relationship between mathematical flexibility and success in national examinations. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/9530
Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In H. Stevenson, H. Azuma, & K. Hakuta (Eds.), Child development and education in Japan (pp. 262–272). Freeman.
Heinze, A., Marschick, F., & Lipowsky, F. (2009). Addition and subtraction of three-digit numbers: Adaptive strategy use and the influence of instruction in German third grade. ZDM, 41(5), 591–604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-009-0205-5
Heinze, A., Arend, J., Gruessing, M., & Lipowsky, F. (2018). Instructional approaches to foster third graders’ adaptive use of strategies: An experimental study on the effects of two learning environments on multi-digit addition and subtraction. Instructional Science, 46(6), 869–891. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-018-9457-1
Heirdsfield, A. M., & Cooper, T. J. (2004). Factors affecting the process of proficient mental addition and subtraction: Case studies of flexible and inflexible computers. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 23(4), 443–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2004.09.005
Hickendorff, M. (2020). Fourth graders’ adaptive strategy use in solving multidigit subtraction problems. Learning and Instruction, 67, 101311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101311
Hickendorff, M. (2022). Flexibility and adaptivity in arithmetic strategy use: What children know and what they show. Journal of Numerical Cognition, 8(3), 367–381. https://doi.org/10.5964/jnc.7277
Hickendorff, M., McMullen, J., & Verschaffel, L. (2022). Mathematical flexibility: Theoretical, methodological, and educational considerations. Journal of Numerical Cognition, 8(3), 326–334. https://doi.org/10.5964/jnc.10085
Imbo, I., & Vandierendonck, A. (2010). Instruction and load effects on high-skill and low-skill individuals: A study in the domain of mental arithmetic. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 22(6), 964–989. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440903150196
Imbo, I., Duverne, S., & Lemaire, P. (2007). Working memory, strategy execution, and strategy selection in mental arithmetic. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(9), 1246–1264. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210600943419
Imbo, I., & LeFevre, J. A. (2009). Cultural differences in complex addition: Efficient Chinese versus adaptive Belgians and Canadians. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(6), 1465–1476. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017022
Imbo, I., & Lefevre, J. A. (2011). Cultural differences in strategic behavior: A study in computational estimation. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(5), 1294–1301. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024070
Jiang, R., Liu, R. D., Star, J., Zhen, R., Wang, J., Hong, W., Jiang, S., Sun, Y., & Fu, X. (2021). How mathematics anxiety affects students’ inflexible perseverance in mathematics problem-solving: Examining the mediating role of cognitive reflection. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 237–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12364
Jiang, R., Star, J. R., Hästö, P., Li, L., Liu, R.-D., Tuomela, D., Prieto, N. J., Palkki, R., Abánades, M. Á., & Pejlare, J. (2022). Which one is the “best”: A cross-national comparative study of students’ strategy evaluation in equation solving. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, Advance online publication.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-022-10282-6
Jiang, R. (2020). The role of inhibitory control on students’ mathematics strategic flexibility: The case of linear equation solving [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Beijing Normal University].
Lamb, L., Bishop, J., Whitacre, I., & Philipp, R. (2023). Flexibility across and flexibility within: The domain of integer addition and subtraction. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 70, 101031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2023.101031
Lemaire, P., & Brun, F. (2014). Adults’ age-related differences in strategy perseveration are modulated by response-stimulus intervals and problem features. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(10), 1863–1870. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.939095
Lemaire, P., & Lecacheur, M. (2010). Strategy switch costs in arithmetic problem solving. Memory & Cognition, 38(3), 322–332. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.38.3.322
Lemaire, P., Arnaud, L., & Lecacheur, M. (2004). Adults’ age-related differences in adaptivity of strategy choices: Evidence from computational estimation. Psychology and Aging, 19(3), 467–481. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.19.3.467
Leung, F. K. S., Graf, K. D., & Lopez-Real, F. J. (2006). Mathematics education in different cultural traditions-A comparative study of East Asia and the West. Springer.
Lin, X., Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. (2007). Intercultural adaptive expertise: Explicit and implicit lessons from Dr. Hatano. Human Development, 50(1), 65–72. https://doi.org/10.1159/000097686
Liu, R. D., Wang, J., Star, J. R., Zhen, R., Jiang, R. H., & Fu, X. C. (2018). Turning potential flexibility into flexible performance: Moderating effect of self-efficacy and use of flexible cognition. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 646. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00646
Luchins, A. S. (1942). Mechanization in problem solving: The effect of Einstellung. Psychological Monographs, 54(6), 1–95. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093502
Luwel, K., Onghena, P., Torbeyns, J., Schillemans, V., & Verschaffel, L. (2009a). Strengths and weaknesses of the choice/no-choice method in research on strategy use. European Psychologist, 14(4), 351–362. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.14.4.351
Luwel, K., Schillemans, V., Onghena, P., & Verschaffel, L. (2009b). Does switching between strategies within the same task involve a cost? British Journal of Psychology, 100(Pt 4), 753–771. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712609X402801
Lynch, K., & Star, J. R. (2014). Teachers’ views about multiple strategies in middle and high school mathematics. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 16(2), 85–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2014.889501
Maciejewski, W. (2020). Between confidence and procedural flexibility in calculus. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 53(7), 1733–1750. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739x.2020.1840639
Maciejewski, W., & Star, J. R. (2016). Developing flexible procedural knowledge in undergraduate calculus. Research in Mathematics Education, 18(3), 299–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2016.1148626
McMullen, J., Brezovszky, B., Rodríguez-Aflecht, G., Pongsakdi, N., Hannula-Sormunen, M. M., & Lehtinen, E. (2016). Adaptive number knowledge: Exploring the foundations of adaptivity with whole-number arithmetic. Learning and Individual Differences, 47, 172–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.02.007
Memisevic, H., & Bisevic, I. (2018). Exploring the link between inhibitory control and cognitive flexibility in preschool children. Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.24193/cbb.2018.22.01
Ministry of Education of Singapore. (2006). Secondary mathematics syllabuses.
Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. (2022). Mathematics curriculum standards for compulsory education.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & Group, P. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. BMJ, 339, b2535. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535
NCTM. (2014). Procedural fluency in mathematics: A position of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Retrieved September 28, 2022, from https://www.nctm.org/Standards-and-Positions/Position-Statements/Procedural-Fluency-in-Mathematics/
Nemeth, L., Werker, K., Arend, J., Vogel, S., & Lipowsky, F. (2019). Interleaved learning in elementary school mathematics: Effects on the flexible and adaptive use of subtraction strategies. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 86. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00086
Nemeth, L., Werker, K., Arend, J., & Lipowsky, F. (2021). Fostering the acquisition of subtraction strategies with interleaved practice: An intervention study with German third graders. Learning and Instruction, 71, 101354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101354
Newton, K. J., Star, J. R., & Lynch, K. (2010). Understanding the development of flexibility in struggling algebra students. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 12(4), 282–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2010.482150
Newton, K. J., Lange, K., & Booth, J. L. (2019). Mathematical flexibility: Aspects of a continuum and the role of prior knowledge. The Journal of Experimental Education, 88(4), 503–515. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2019.1586629
Rittle-Johnson, B., & Star, J. R. (2007). Does comparing solution methods facilitate conceptual and procedural knowledge? An experimental study on learning to solve equations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 561–574. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.561
Rittle-Johnson, B., & Star, J. R. (2009). Compared with what? The effects of different comparisons on conceptual knowledge and procedural flexibility for equation solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 529–544. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014224
Rittle-Johnson, B., Star, J. R., & Durkin, K. (2009). The importance of prior knowledge when comparing examples: Influences on conceptual and procedural knowledge of equation solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 836–852. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016026
Rittle-Johnson, B., Star, J. R., & Durkin, K. (2012). Developing procedural flexibility: Are novices prepared to learn from comparing procedures? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(Pt 3), 436–455. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02037.x
Rittle-Johnson, B., Star, J. R., Durkin, K., & Loehr, A. (2020). Compare and discuss to promote deep learning. In E. Manalo (Ed.), Deeper Learning, Dialogic Learning, and Critical Thinking: Research-Based Strategies for the Classroom (pp. 48–64). Routledge.
Rittle-Johnson, B., & Star, J. R. (2011). The power of comparison in learning and instruction: Learning outcomes supported by different types of comparisons. In J. P. Mestre & B. H. Ross (Eds.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation (Vol. 55, pp. 199–225). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00007-7
Schillemans, V., Luwel, K., Bulté, I., Onghena, P., & Verschaffel, L. (2010). The influence of previous strategy use on individuals’ subsequent strategy choice: Findings from a numerosity judgement task. Psychologica Belgica, 49(4), 191. https://doi.org/10.5334/pb-49-4-191
Schiller, L. K., Fan, A., & Siegler, R. S. (2022). The power of one: The importance of flexible understanding of an identity element. Journal of Numerical Cognition, 8(3), 430–442. https://doi.org/10.5964/jnc.7593
Schneider, M., Rittle-Johnson, B., & Star, J. R. (2011). Relations among conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and procedural flexibility in two samples differing in prior knowledge. Developmental Psychology, 47(6), 1525–1538. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024997
Selter, C. (2009). Creativity, flexibility, adaptivity, and strategy use in mathematics. ZDM, 41(5), 619–625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-009-0203-7
Shaw, S. T., Pogossian, A. A., & Ramirez, G. (2020). The mathematical flexibility of college students: The role of cognitive and affective factors. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(4), 981–996. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12340
Shrager, J., & Siegler, R. S. (1998). SCADS: A model of children’s strategy choices and strategy discoveries. Psychological Science, 9(5), 405–410. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00076
Siegler, R. S., & Shipley, C. (1995). Variation, selection, and cognitive change. In H. G. & S. T. (Eds.), Developing cognitive competence: New approaches to process modeling (pp. 31–76). Erlbaum.
Siegler, R. S., & Lemaire, P. (1997). Older and younger adults’ strategy choices in multiplication: Testing predictions of ASCM using the choice/no-choice method. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(1), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.126.1.71
Siegler, R. S., & Shrager, J. (1984). Strategy choices in addition and subtraction: How do children know what to do? In C. Sophian (Ed.), Origins of cognitive skills (pp. 229–293). Erlbaum.
Sievert, H., van den Ham, A.-K., Niedermeyer, I., & Heinze, A. (2019). Effects of mathematics textbooks on the development of primary school children’s adaptive expertise in arithmetic. Learning and Individual Differences, 74, 101716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2019.02.006
Silver, E. A., Ghousseini, H., Gosen, D., Charalambous, C., & Strawhun, B. T. F. (2005). Moving from rhetoric to praxis: Issues faced by teachers in having students consider multiple solutions for problems in the mathematics classroom. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 24(3–4), 287–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2005.09.009
Star, J. R. (2005). Reconceptualizing procedural knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36(5), 404–411. https://doi.org/10.2307/30034943
Star, J. R. (2007). Foregrounding procedural knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38, 132–135.
Star, J. R., & Newton, K. J. (2009). The nature and development of experts’ strategy flexibility for solving equations. ZDM, 41(5), 557–567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-009-0185-5
Star, J. R., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2008). Flexibility in problem solving: The case of equation solving. Learning and Instruction, 18(6), 565–579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.018
Star, J. R., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2009). It pays to compare: An experimental study on computational estimation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 102(4), 408–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2008.11.004
Star, J. R., & Seifert, C. (2006). The development of flexibility in equation solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31(3), 280–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.08.001
Star, J. R., Rittle-Johnson, B., Lynch, K., & Perova, N. (2009). The role of prior knowledge in the development of strategy flexibility: The case of computational estimation. ZDM, 41(5), 569–579. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-009-0181-9
Star, J. R., Pollack, C., Durkin, K., Rittle-Johnson, B., Lynch, K., Newton, K., & Gogolen, C. (2014). Learning from comparison in algebra. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 40, 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.05.005
Star, J. R., Newton, K., Pollack, C., Kokka, K., Rittle-Johnson, B., & Durkin, K. (2015). Student, teacher, and instructional characteristics related to students’ gains in flexibility. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41, 198–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.03.001
Star, J. R., Tuomela, D., Joglar-Prieto, N., Hästö, P., Palkki, R., Abánades, M. Á., Pejlare, J., Jiang, R. H., Li, L., & Liu, R.-D. (2022). Exploring students’ procedural flexibility in three countries. International Journal of STEM Education, 9, 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00322-y
Threlfall, J. (2009). Strategies and flexibility in mental calculation. ZDM, 41(5), 541–555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-009-0195-3
Torbeyns, J., Verschaffel, L., & Ghesquière, P. (2004). Strategic aspects of simple addition and subtraction: The influence of mathematical ability. Learning and Instruction, 14(2), 177–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.01.003
Torbeyns, J., Verschaffel, L., & Ghesquiere, P. (2005). Simple addition strategies in a first-grade class with multiple strategy instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2301_1
Torbeyns, J., Verschaffel, L., & Ghesquière, P. (2006). The development of children’s adaptive expertise in the number domain 20 to 100. Cognition and Instruction, 24(4), 439–465. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2404_2
Torbeyns, J., Ghesquière, P., & Verschaffel, L. (2009). Efficiency and flexibility of indirect addition in the domain of multi-digit subtraction. Learning and Instruction, 19(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.12.002
Torbeyns, J., Hickendorff, M., & Verschaffel, L. (2017). The use of number-based versus digit-based strategies on multi-digit subtraction: 9–12-year-olds’ strategy use profiles and task performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 58, 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.07.004
Van Der Auwera, S., De Smedt, B., Torbeyns, J., & Verschaffel, L. (2022). Adults’ use of subtraction by addition and its association with executive functions. Journal of Numerical Cognition, 8(3), 351–366. https://doi.org/10.5964/jnc.7271
Van Stockum, C. A., Jr., & DeCaro, M. S. (2020). When working memory mechanisms compete: Predicting cognitive flexibility versus mental set. Cognition, 201, 104313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104313
Verschaffel, L., Luwel, K., Torbeyns, J., & Van Dooren, W. (2009). Conceptualizing, investigating, and enhancing adaptive expertise in elementary mathematics education. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24(3), 335–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03174765
Verschaffel, L., Luwel, K., Torbeyns, J., & Van Dooren, W. (2011). Analyzing and developing strategy flexibility in mathematics education. In J. Elen, E. Stahl, R. Bromme, & G. Clarebout (Eds.), Links Between Beliefs and Cognitive Flexibility: Lessons Learned (pp. 175–197). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1793-0_10
Wang, J., Liu, R.-D., Star, J., Liu, Y., & Zhen, R. (2019). The moderating effect of regulatory focus in the relationship between potential flexibility and practical flexibility. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 56, 218–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.01.013
Xu, L., Liu, R. D., Star, J. R., Wang, J., Liu, Y., & Zhen, R. (2017). Measures of potential flexibility and practical flexibility in equation solving. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1368. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01368
Xu, C., Wells, E., LeFevre, J. A., & Imbo, I. (2014). Strategic flexibility in computational estimation for Chinese- and Canadian-educated adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(5), 1481–1497. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037346
Acknowledgements
Thanks for the support from China Scholarship Council.
Funding
This work was supported by the Prioritized Project of Beijing Education Sciences Planning (Grant numbers CDEA22010).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics Approval
Not applicable.
Consent to Participate
Not applicable.
Consent for Publication
Not applicable.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Hong, W., Star, J.R., Liu, RD. et al. A Systematic Review of Mathematical Flexibility: Concepts, Measurements, and Related Research. Educ Psychol Rev 35, 104 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09825-2
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09825-2