I don’t think it’s self-evident that effort put in recognizing letters should translate into significant improvement in problem solving. For example, it could be expected that this lower-level burden would drain cognitive “energy” from higher functions trying to solve the mathematical problem.
For example, it could be expected that this lower-level burden would drain cognitive “energy” from higher functions trying to solve the mathematical problem.
In observing how people take tests, I’ve seen that people first ‘extract’ the information from the question and then move on to deriving its answer. Your point is valid, however.
Yes, I think that theory goes that, since you “fired up” the higher-level cognitive “engine” of your mind, you might as well use it to solve the problem. Perhaps it’s a sunk-cost type of thinking, where you feel that you should justify your efforts in understanding the problem by solving the problem properly. Or, perhaps the lower-level, less intelligent mind agents are not triggered by the slower process of understanding the problem.
Well—there’s also the human habit of skimming over text to extract the “useful” information—especially in timed tests or where we believe the text extraneous to the actual function. Word problems are pretty much always an exercise in “these words are an obstacle between me and the formula”. So it stands to reason—superficially that is—that making it harder to read the font (without increasing the difficulty of the language) would act as a “counterbalance” to the impetus to get done as quickly as possible with the verbal and on to the mathematical.
In other words; I’m asserting a hypothesis that this is illustrating an underlying mechanism regarding how test-takers handle reading their examination questions.
Is it “more rational” to spend more time on the exam question? Perhaps. (Almost definitely, since doing so increases their scores as shown here.) But then we have to ask what the actual goal of test-takers is at the time of taking the exam. Is it truly to “get the highest score”? Or is it “avoid the greatest amount of anxiety this exam produces in me {where ‘me’=‘person taking the test’}”? Very often I have found the latter to be the case—but I would suspect that this is hardly irrational; those individuals frequently aren’t much invested in higher exam scores than are necessary to achieve a passing score. Getting the exam done quicker without falling below that score, then, is the rationally optimum resolution.
Hence my doubt as to whether it would be called a “rational” behavior over a “necessary” one.
I guess I’m confused about your use of the word “necessary”.
But you’re right. What is the motivation of the test-taker? How much are they trying to get the answers right and how much they want to “just get it over with”? At least part of the cognitive system is lazy/avoidant, but it doesn’t seem that test-takers consciously think “I’ll just write down the first answer that comes to mind”.
But the real question is this: when they read the smaller text, do they feel less anxiety? Probably not. Then, maybe solving the problem requires less effort once you have spent more time at reading the question. But take a look at the CRT: to me, it seems that problems are clear any way you read them.
At least part of the cognitive system is lazy/avoidant, but it doesn’t seem that test-takers consciously think “I’ll just write down the first answer that comes to mind”.
True, but it does tend—if true—to imply that the test-taker would have a desire of “minimize all extraneous functions”.
Then, maybe solving the problem requires less effort once you have spent more time at reading the question.
My hypothesis here is that by making the font harder to read it’s causing the test-takers to invest more cognition into properly reading the questions than their drive to “optimize” that labor to its bare minimum would otherwise imply.
A higher cognitive burden on comprehension tautologically requires more thought per unit of information occur.
I don’t know if it’s a question of rational behavior but of necessary.
I don’t think it’s self-evident that effort put in recognizing letters should translate into significant improvement in problem solving. For example, it could be expected that this lower-level burden would drain cognitive “energy” from higher functions trying to solve the mathematical problem.
In observing how people take tests, I’ve seen that people first ‘extract’ the information from the question and then move on to deriving its answer. Your point is valid, however.
Yes, I think that theory goes that, since you “fired up” the higher-level cognitive “engine” of your mind, you might as well use it to solve the problem. Perhaps it’s a sunk-cost type of thinking, where you feel that you should justify your efforts in understanding the problem by solving the problem properly. Or, perhaps the lower-level, less intelligent mind agents are not triggered by the slower process of understanding the problem.
Well—there’s also the human habit of skimming over text to extract the “useful” information—especially in timed tests or where we believe the text extraneous to the actual function. Word problems are pretty much always an exercise in “these words are an obstacle between me and the formula”. So it stands to reason—superficially that is—that making it harder to read the font (without increasing the difficulty of the language) would act as a “counterbalance” to the impetus to get done as quickly as possible with the verbal and on to the mathematical.
In other words; I’m asserting a hypothesis that this is illustrating an underlying mechanism regarding how test-takers handle reading their examination questions.
Is it “more rational” to spend more time on the exam question? Perhaps. (Almost definitely, since doing so increases their scores as shown here.) But then we have to ask what the actual goal of test-takers is at the time of taking the exam. Is it truly to “get the highest score”? Or is it “avoid the greatest amount of anxiety this exam produces in me {where ‘me’=‘person taking the test’}”? Very often I have found the latter to be the case—but I would suspect that this is hardly irrational; those individuals frequently aren’t much invested in higher exam scores than are necessary to achieve a passing score. Getting the exam done quicker without falling below that score, then, is the rationally optimum resolution.
Hence my doubt as to whether it would be called a “rational” behavior over a “necessary” one.
I guess I’m confused about your use of the word “necessary”.
But you’re right. What is the motivation of the test-taker? How much are they trying to get the answers right and how much they want to “just get it over with”? At least part of the cognitive system is lazy/avoidant, but it doesn’t seem that test-takers consciously think “I’ll just write down the first answer that comes to mind”.
But the real question is this: when they read the smaller text, do they feel less anxiety? Probably not. Then, maybe solving the problem requires less effort once you have spent more time at reading the question. But take a look at the CRT: to me, it seems that problems are clear any way you read them.
True, but it does tend—if true—to imply that the test-taker would have a desire of “minimize all extraneous functions”.
My hypothesis here is that by making the font harder to read it’s causing the test-takers to invest more cognition into properly reading the questions than their drive to “optimize” that labor to its bare minimum would otherwise imply.