Estimating Accuracy of Quantity Representation During the Whole Schooling Period: Problems of Methods Development
https://doi.org/10.26907/esd.18.4.12
EDN: PKUHQM
Abstract
The relevance and social demand for developing methods for measuring the accuracy of representation of quantitative information are associated with the need to analyze specific cognitive functions that underlie individual differences in speed and quality of learning in school. Expressed in symbolic, non-symbolic and mixed formats, representation of quantity is one of the most important cognitive functions that determines the success of learning mathematics. The article presents the results of the development and adaptation of three tests – “Number Sense”, “Number Line” and “Dot Number Task” – that measure the accuracy of the representation of quantitative information presented as sets of objects, numbers, and their combinations. The total number of study participants involved in the process of test adaptation amounted to 1,751 students in grades 1–11 aged from 6.8 to 18.8 years, of which 48.8% were girls. For each test, an internal consistency analysis was carried out, descriptive statistics were calculated, and the distribution of indicators of quantity representation accuracy at various levels of general education was analyzed. The results of the analysis showed satisfactory psychometric characteristics of computerized tests, which indicates their reliability and makes them suitable for application at the primary, basic and full levels of general education.
About the Authors
T. Tikhomirova
Psychological Institute of the Russian Academy of Education
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Tatiana Tikhomirova
Moscow
S. Malykh
Psychological Institute of the Russian Academy of Education
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Sergey Malykh
Moscow
References
1. De Smedt, B., Noël, M. P., Gilmore, C., & Ansari, D. (2013). How do symbolic and non-symbolic numerical magnitude processing skills relate to individual differences in children's mathematical skills? A review of evidence from brain and behavior. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 2(2), 48–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2013.06.001
2. Dehaene, S. (2011). The number sense: How the mind creates mathematics. Oxford University Press.
3. Friso-van den Bos, I., Kroesbergen, E. H., Van Luit, J. E., Xenidou-Dervou, I., Jonkman, L. M., Van der Schoot, M., & Van Lieshout, E. C. (2015). Longitudinal development of number line estimation and mathematics performance in primary school children. Journal of experimental child psychology, 134, 12–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.02.002
4. Halberda, J., Ly, R., Wilmer, J. B., Naiman, D. Q., & Germine, L. (2012). Number sense across the lifespan as revealed by a massive Internet-based sample. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(28), 11116-11120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1200196109
5. Halberda, J., Mazzocco, M. M., & Feigenson, L. (2008). Individual differences in non-verbal number acuity correlate with maths achievement. Nature, 455(7213), 665–668. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07246
6. Malone, S. A., Heron-Delaney, M., Burgoyne, K., & Hulme, C. (2019). Learning correspondences between magnitudes, symbols and words: Evidence for a triple code model of arithmetic development. Cognition, 187, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.11.016
7. Orrantia, J., Muñez, D., Matilla, L., Sanchez, R., San Romualdo, S., & Verschaffel, L. (2019). Disentangling the mechanisms of symbolic number processing in adults’ mathematics and arithmetic achievement. Cognitive Science, 43(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12711
8. Reynvoet, B., & Sasanguie, D. (2016). The symbol grounding problem revisited: A thorough evaluation of the ANS mapping account and the proposal of an alternative account based on symbol–symbol associations. Frontiers in psychology, 7, 1581. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01581
9. Ritchie, S. J., & Bates, T. C. (2013). Enduring links from childhood mathematics and reading achievement to adult socioeconomic status. Psychological science, 24(7), 1301–1308. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612466268
10. Sasanguie, D., De Smedt, B., & Reynvoet, B. (2017). Evidence for distinct magnitude systems for symbolic and non-symbolic number. Psychological research, 81(1), 231–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0734-1
11. Siegler, R. S. (2016). Magnitude knowledge: The common core of numerical development. Developmental Science, 19(3), 341–361. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12395
12. Slusser, E., & Barth, H. (2017). Intuitive proportion judgment in number-line estimation: Converging evidence from multiple tasks. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 162, 181–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.04.010
13. Testolin, A., Zou, W. Y., & McClelland, J. L. (2020). Numerosity discrimination in deep neural networks: Initial competence, developmental refinement and experience statistics. Developmental science, 23(5), e12940. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12940
14. Tikhomirova, T. N., & Malykh, A. S. (2022). High school students accuracy of estimation of quantitative information in symbolic, non-symbolic and mixed forms. Voprosy Psikhologii – Questions of Psychology, 68(5), 19–31.
15. Tikhomirova, T. N., & Malykh, S. B. (2021). Symbolic and non-symbolic representation of quantity: specific ratio and relationship with success in math. Teoreticheskaya i eksperimental'naya psihologiya – Theoretical and Experimental Psychology, 14(3), 6–23.
16. Tikhomirova, T., Kuzmina, Y., Lysenkova, I., & Malykh, S. (2019). The relationship between non-symbolic and symbolic numerosity representations in elementary school: The role of intelligence. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2724. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02724
17. Tikhomirova, T., Malykh, A., Lysenkova, I., Kuzmina, Y., & Malykh, S. (2023). The development of number line accuracy in elementary school children: A cross‐country longitudinal study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 423–436. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12566
18. Wang, J. J., Odic, D., Halberda, J., & Feigenson, L. (2016). Changing the precision of preschoolers’ approximate number system representations changes their symbolic math performance. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 147, 82–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2016.03.002
19. Wang, M. T., Ye, F., & Degol, J. L. (2017). Who chooses STEM careers? Using a relative cognitive strength and interest model to predict careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46, 1805–1820. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0618-8
Review
For citations:
Tikhomirova T., Malykh S. Estimating Accuracy of Quantity Representation During the Whole Schooling Period: Problems of Methods Development. Education and Self-Development. 2023;18(4):157-170. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.26907/esd.18.4.12. EDN: PKUHQM
Views:
6
Email this article 