Does use of a hypothetical learning progression promote learning of the cardinal-count concept and give-n performance?

IF 1 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Arthur J. Baroody , Douglas H. Clements , Julie Sarama
{"title":"Does use of a hypothetical learning progression promote learning of the cardinal-count concept and give-n performance?","authors":"Arthur J. Baroody ,&nbsp;Douglas H. Clements ,&nbsp;Julie Sarama","doi":"10.1016/j.jmathb.2024.101178","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The general aim of the research was to conduct a rare test of the efficacy of hypothetical learning progressions (HLPs) and a basic assumption of basing instruction on HLPs, namely teaching each successive level is more efficacious than skipping lower levels and teaching the target level directly. The specific aim was evaluating whether counting-based cardinality concepts unfold in a stepwise manner. The research involved a pretest—delayed-posttest design with random assignment of 14 preschoolers to two conditions. The experimental intervention was based on an HLP for cardinality development (first promoting levels that presumably support and are necessary for the target level and then the target knowledge). The active-control treatment entailed a Teach-to-Target approach (first promoting irrelevant cardinality knowledge about recognizing written numbers and then directly teaching the same target-level goals with the same explicit instruction and similar games). A mix of quantitative and qualitative analyses indicated HLP participants performed significantly and substantially better than Teach-to-Target participants on target-level concept and skill measures. Moreover, the former tended to make sensible errors, whereas the latter generally responded cluelessly.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47481,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Mathematical Behavior","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Mathematical Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0732312324000555","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The general aim of the research was to conduct a rare test of the efficacy of hypothetical learning progressions (HLPs) and a basic assumption of basing instruction on HLPs, namely teaching each successive level is more efficacious than skipping lower levels and teaching the target level directly. The specific aim was evaluating whether counting-based cardinality concepts unfold in a stepwise manner. The research involved a pretest—delayed-posttest design with random assignment of 14 preschoolers to two conditions. The experimental intervention was based on an HLP for cardinality development (first promoting levels that presumably support and are necessary for the target level and then the target knowledge). The active-control treatment entailed a Teach-to-Target approach (first promoting irrelevant cardinality knowledge about recognizing written numbers and then directly teaching the same target-level goals with the same explicit instruction and similar games). A mix of quantitative and qualitative analyses indicated HLP participants performed significantly and substantially better than Teach-to-Target participants on target-level concept and skill measures. Moreover, the former tended to make sensible errors, whereas the latter generally responded cluelessly.

使用假定的学习进度是否能促进对心算概念的学习并提高学习成绩?
研究的总体目标是对假设学习进阶(HLPs)的有效性和基于假设学习进阶教学的基本假设进行罕见的测试,即教授每一个连续的水平比跳过较低水平直接教授目标水平更有效。研究的具体目的是评估以计数为基础的万有引力概念是否以循序渐进的方式展开。研究采用了前测-延迟-后测设计,将 14 名学龄前儿童随机分配到两种条件下。实验干预基于万有引力发展的 HLP(首先促进可能支持目标水平且为目标水平所必需的水平,然后促进目标知识)。积极对照组则采用了 "从教学到目标 "的方法(首先推广与识别书面数字无关的万有引力知识,然后通过同样的明确教学和类似的游戏直接教授相同的目标水平目标)。定量和定性分析结果表明,在目标概念和技能测量方面,HLP 参与者的表现明显优于 "从教到目标 "参与者。此外,前者往往会犯一些明智的错误,而后者则通常会做出无知的反应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Mathematical Behavior
Journal of Mathematical Behavior EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
17.60%
发文量
69
期刊介绍: The Journal of Mathematical Behavior solicits original research on the learning and teaching of mathematics. We are interested especially in basic research, research that aims to clarify, in detail and depth, how mathematical ideas develop in learners. Over three decades, our experience confirms a founding premise of this journal: that mathematical thinking, hence mathematics learning as a social enterprise, is special. It is special because mathematics is special, both logically and psychologically. Logically, through the way that mathematical ideas and methods have been built, refined and organized for centuries across a range of cultures; and psychologically, through the variety of ways people today, in many walks of life, make sense of mathematics, develop it, make it their own.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信