Individual differences and adaptive flexibility in lower-income children's strategy choices

Abstract

Lower-income first graders' strategy choices were examined in addition, subtraction, and word identification. In Experiment 1, it was found that the lower-income children, like previously-studied middle-income ones, most often used backup strategies (e.g., finger-counting) on problems where correct answers were unlikely without such strategies. The relation of backup strategy use to problem difficulty did not differ between income groups. Also, within the lower income sample as within the middle income one, three individual difference clusters were found: perfectionists, good students, and not-so-good students. The relation of backup strategy use to problem difficulty was similar for all three groups on all tasks. On standardized achievement tests, good students and perfectionists did not differ, but both scored higher than not-so-good students. In Experiment 2, the same lower income children were presented timed addition tests six months later in second grade. Individual differences were found to be quite stable longitudinally. Accuracy of backup strategies in Experiment 1 predicted frequency and accuracy of retrieval in Experiment 2. Children exercised the option to skip items predominantly on problems for which neither retrieval nor backup strategies were likely to yield a correct answer. The results indicate that in domains in which they have experience, lower income children, even lower-income not-so-good students, choose strategies adaptively.