{"title":"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?","authors":"","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":"{\"title\":\"Does use of a hypothetical learning progression promote learning of the cardinal-count concept and give-n performance?\",\"authors\":\"\",\"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}","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}
Does use of a hypothetical learning progression promote learning of the cardinal-count concept and give-n performance?
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.
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.