Math…the final frontier some would say… and most students would probably agree. In order to fix that, teachers have been trying to incorporate real-life examples to make students learn math “the easy way” (if that’s possible). However, Ohio State University scientists uncovered that this method isn’t quite as efficient as it is widespread.

Experiments have shown that students who were taught math with the help of abstract examples did far better than those taught with real-life examples, which goes to show that even though it is widespread, it is not necessarily the best method to teach math.

“The motivation behind this research was to examine a very widespread belief about the teaching of mathematics, namely that teaching students multiple concrete examples will benefit learning,” said Jennifer A. Kaminski, a research at the Center for Cognitive Science at Ohio State, according to the New York Times. “It was really just that, a belief.”

The study brings valid examples that should turn the “real-example technique” from the most widespread into the less used, as more teachers learn about the benefits of using abstract examples to teach math.

The scientists submitted students to the following experiment: they asked some of them to figure out the rules of a game by using an abstract system, while the other had to do the same, but by using concrete examples. A third group was asked to use both methods. The conclusion: it’s easier to guess than to use concrete examples to solve the task.

Dr. Kaminski explained that when using real-life examples, the subjects tend to remember useless details rather than important information. This doesn’t apply when using abstract examples, which means even the techniques used for children in the first grades aren’t as efficient as previously thought.