评估儿童对一对一通信的理解

R. Cowan
{"title":"评估儿童对一对一通信的理解","authors":"R. Cowan","doi":"10.1111/J.2044-835X.1987.TB01050.X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Brainerd's (1973) cardination test is supposed to assess children's understanding of one-to-one correspondence independently of their counting ability. Children's errors in this test could result from difficulty in executing a pairing strategy rather than defective understanding. This was tested by comparing performance on the cardination test displays with performance on such displays with guidelines added to make pairing easier. Both 5-year-olds and 7-year-olds took part. Guidelines helped both age groups; the 7-year-olds more than the 5-year-olds. There were very marked differences between the age groups.","PeriodicalId":224518,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Development Psychology","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1987-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing children's understanding of one‐to‐one correspondence\",\"authors\":\"R. Cowan\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/J.2044-835X.1987.TB01050.X\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Brainerd's (1973) cardination test is supposed to assess children's understanding of one-to-one correspondence independently of their counting ability. Children's errors in this test could result from difficulty in executing a pairing strategy rather than defective understanding. This was tested by comparing performance on the cardination test displays with performance on such displays with guidelines added to make pairing easier. Both 5-year-olds and 7-year-olds took part. Guidelines helped both age groups; the 7-year-olds more than the 5-year-olds. There were very marked differences between the age groups.\",\"PeriodicalId\":224518,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of Development Psychology\",\"volume\":\"28 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1987-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"12\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of Development Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/J.2044-835X.1987.TB01050.X\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Development Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/J.2044-835X.1987.TB01050.X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

摘要

Brainerd(1973)的基数测试被认为是评估儿童对一对一对应的理解独立于他们的计数能力。儿童在这个测试中的错误可能是由于执行配对策略的困难,而不是理解的缺陷。通过比较基数化测试显示器上的性能与添加了使配对更容易的指导方针的显示器上的性能来测试这一点。5岁和7岁的孩子都参加了实验。指南对这两个年龄组都有帮助;7岁的孩子比5岁的多。各年龄组之间的差异非常明显。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessing children's understanding of one‐to‐one correspondence
Brainerd's (1973) cardination test is supposed to assess children's understanding of one-to-one correspondence independently of their counting ability. Children's errors in this test could result from difficulty in executing a pairing strategy rather than defective understanding. This was tested by comparing performance on the cardination test displays with performance on such displays with guidelines added to make pairing easier. Both 5-year-olds and 7-year-olds took part. Guidelines helped both age groups; the 7-year-olds more than the 5-year-olds. There were very marked differences between the age groups.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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