早期基数概念的发展和评价

Q2 Mathematics
A. Baroody, Kelly S. Mix, Gamze Kartal, M. Lai
{"title":"早期基数概念的发展和评价","authors":"A. Baroody, Kelly S. Mix, Gamze Kartal, M. Lai","doi":"10.5964/jnc.10035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Number-recognition tasks, such as the how-many task, involve set-to-word mapping, and number-creation tasks, such as the give-n task, entail word-to-set mapping. The present study involved comparing sixty 3-year-olds’ performance on the two tasks with collections of one to three items over three time points about 3 weeks apart. Inconsistent with the sparse evidence indicating equivalent task performance, an omnibus test indicated that success differed significantly by task (and set size but not by time). A follow-up analysis indicated that the hypothesis that success emerges first on the how-many task was, in general, significantly superior to the hypothesis of simultaneous development. It further indicated the how-many-first hypothesis was superior to a give-n-first hypothesis for sets of three. A theoretical implication is that set-to-word mapping appears to develop before word-to-set mapping, especially in the case of three. A methodological implication is that the give-n task may underestimate a key aspect of children’s cardinal understanding of small numbers. Another is that the traditional give-n task, which requires checking an initial response by one-to-one counting, confounds pre-counting and counting competencies.","PeriodicalId":36632,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Numerical Cognition","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The development and assessment of early cardinal-number concepts\",\"authors\":\"A. Baroody, Kelly S. Mix, Gamze Kartal, M. Lai\",\"doi\":\"10.5964/jnc.10035\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Number-recognition tasks, such as the how-many task, involve set-to-word mapping, and number-creation tasks, such as the give-n task, entail word-to-set mapping. The present study involved comparing sixty 3-year-olds’ performance on the two tasks with collections of one to three items over three time points about 3 weeks apart. Inconsistent with the sparse evidence indicating equivalent task performance, an omnibus test indicated that success differed significantly by task (and set size but not by time). A follow-up analysis indicated that the hypothesis that success emerges first on the how-many task was, in general, significantly superior to the hypothesis of simultaneous development. It further indicated the how-many-first hypothesis was superior to a give-n-first hypothesis for sets of three. A theoretical implication is that set-to-word mapping appears to develop before word-to-set mapping, especially in the case of three. A methodological implication is that the give-n task may underestimate a key aspect of children’s cardinal understanding of small numbers. Another is that the traditional give-n task, which requires checking an initial response by one-to-one counting, confounds pre-counting and counting competencies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36632,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Numerical Cognition\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Numerical Cognition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5964/jnc.10035\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Mathematics\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Numerical Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5964/jnc.10035","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Mathematics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

数字识别任务(如“多少”任务)涉及集到词的映射,数字创建任务(如“给定”任务)涉及词到集的映射。目前的研究比较了六十名三岁儿童在三个时间点上完成两项任务的表现,这些任务分别是一到三个项目,时间间隔约为三周。与稀疏的证据表明相等的任务表现不一致,一个综合测试表明,成功的任务(和集合的大小,而不是时间)有显著差异。后续分析表明,成功首先出现在任务数量上的假设总体上明显优于同时发展的假设。它进一步表明,对于三个集合,“多少优先”假设优于“给n优先”假设。一个理论上的推论是,集合到词的映射似乎先于词到集的映射发展起来,特别是在3的情况下。方法上的暗示是,给定任务可能低估了儿童对小数基本理解的一个关键方面。另一个原因是,传统的give-n任务需要通过一对一的计数来检查最初的反应,这混淆了预计数和计数能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The development and assessment of early cardinal-number concepts
Number-recognition tasks, such as the how-many task, involve set-to-word mapping, and number-creation tasks, such as the give-n task, entail word-to-set mapping. The present study involved comparing sixty 3-year-olds’ performance on the two tasks with collections of one to three items over three time points about 3 weeks apart. Inconsistent with the sparse evidence indicating equivalent task performance, an omnibus test indicated that success differed significantly by task (and set size but not by time). A follow-up analysis indicated that the hypothesis that success emerges first on the how-many task was, in general, significantly superior to the hypothesis of simultaneous development. It further indicated the how-many-first hypothesis was superior to a give-n-first hypothesis for sets of three. A theoretical implication is that set-to-word mapping appears to develop before word-to-set mapping, especially in the case of three. A methodological implication is that the give-n task may underestimate a key aspect of children’s cardinal understanding of small numbers. Another is that the traditional give-n task, which requires checking an initial response by one-to-one counting, confounds pre-counting and counting competencies.
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
Journal of Numerical Cognition
Journal of Numerical Cognition Mathematics-Numerical Analysis
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
审稿时长
40 weeks
×
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