Do children use language structure to discover the recursive rules of counting?

Thinking about numbers in different tongues: An overview of the influences of multilingualism on numerical and mathematical competencies

In an increasingly multilingual and multicultural world, understanding the interactions between language and mathematics is critical, especially when individuals must acquire and exercise their mathematical competencies in multiple languages. Indeed, research shows that, overall, L2 language learners are at an academic disadvantage compared to their L1 peers. The current article briefly overviews how multilingualism influences basic and advanced mathematical skills and interacts with mathematical learning difficulties. We first outline the traditional cognitive models of number learning and language processing. We then discuss the particularities of multilingualism and how it impacts numerical skills such as counting and building lexical-semantic associations, transcoding and arithmetic, mathematical word problems and mathematical performance tests, and dyscalculia diagnosis. We end this review by outlining challenges, recommendations, and solutions for multilingual educational settings. The article is intended as a guide for numerical cognition researchers who work with diverse populations and for mathematics educators and educational policy-makers facing the challenges of a multilingual classroom.

The psychological reality of the learned "p < .05" boundary

The .05 boundary within Null Hypothesis Statistical Testing (NHST) "has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move" (to quote Douglas Adams). Here, we move past meta-scientific arguments and ask an empirical question: What is the psychological standing of the .05 boundary for statistical significance? We find that graduate students in the psychological sciences show a boundary effect when relating p-values across .05. We propose this psychological boundary is learned through statistical training in NHST and reading a scientific literature replete with "statistical significance". Consistent with this proposal, undergraduates do not show the same sensitivity to the .05 boundary. Additionally, the size of a graduate student's boundary effect is not associated with their explicit endorsement of questionable research practices. These findings suggest that training creates distortions in initial processing of p-values, but these might be dampened through scientific processes operating over longer timescales.

Nameability supports rule-based category learning in children and adults

The present study tested the hypothesis that verbal labels support category induction by providing compact hypotheses. Ninety-seven 4- to 6-year-old children (M = 63.2 months; 46 female, 51 male; 77% White, 8% more than one race, 4% Asian, and 3% Black; tested 2018) and 90 adults (M = 20.1 years; 70 female, 20 male) in the Midwestern United States learned novel categories with features that were easy (e.g., "red") or difficult (e.g., "mauve") to name. Adults (d = 1.06) and-to a lesser extent-children (d = 0.57; final training block) learned categories composed of more nameable features better. Children's knowledge of difficult-to-name color words predicted their learning for categories with difficult-to-name features. Rule-based category learning may be supported by the emerging ability to form verbal hypotheses.

Manual dexterity in school-age children measured by the Grooved Pegboard test: Evaluation of training effect and performance in dual-task

Background

Manual dexterity is the ability to manipulate objects using the hands and fingers for a specific task. Although manual dexterity is widely investigated in the general and special population at all ages, numerous aspects still remain to be explored in children. The aim of this study was to assess the presence of the training effect of the execution of the Grooved Pegboard test (GPT) and to measure the performance of the GPT in dual-task (DT), i.e., during a motor task and a cognitive task.

Methods

In this observational, cross-sectional study manual dexterity was assessed in children aged between 6 and 8. The procedure consisted of two phases: (1) the execution of five consecutive trials of the GPT to evaluate the training effect; (2) the execution of one trial of the GPT associated with a motor task (finger tapping test, GPT-FTT), and one trial of the GPT associated with a cognitive task (counting test, GPT-CT) to evaluate the performance in DT.

Results

As for the training effect, a significant difference (p < 0.001) between the five trials of the GPT (i.e., GPT1, GPT2, GPT3, GPT4, GPT5) was detected. In particular, we found a significant difference between GPT1 and GPT3 (p < 0.05), GPT1 and GPT4 (p < 0.001), and GPT1 and GPT5 (p < 0.001), as well as between GPT2 and GPT4 (p < 0.001), and GPT2 and GPT5 (p < 0.001).As for the performance in DT, no differences between the best trial of the GPT (i.e., GPT5) and both the GPT-FTT and GPT-CT was found.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that the execution of the GPT in children has a training effect up to the third consecutive trial. Furthermore, the administration of the GPT in DT does not affect GPT performance.

A million is more than a thousand: Children's acquisition of very large number words

Very large numbers words such as "hundred," "thousand," "million," "billion," and "trillion" pose a learning problem for children because they are sparse in everyday speech and children's experience with extremely large quantities is scarce. In this study, we examine when children acquire the relative ordering of very large number words as a first step toward understanding their acquisition. In Study 1, a hundred and twenty-five 5-8-year-olds participated in a verbal number comparison task involving very large number words. We found that children can judge which of two very large numbers is more as early as age 6, prior to entering first grade. In Study 2, we provided a descriptive analysis on the usage of very large number words using the CHILDES database. We found that the relative frequency of large number words does not change across the years, with "hundred" uttered more frequently than others by an order of magnitude. We also found that adults were more likely to use large number words to reference units of quantification for money, weight, and time, than for discrete, physical entities. Together, these results show that children construct a numerical scale for large number words prior to learning their precise cardinal meanings, and highlight how frequency and context may support their acquisition. Our results have pedagogical implications and highlight a need to investigate how children acquire meanings for number words that reference quantities beyond our everyday experience.

Aprendizaje del conteo y los números naturales en preescolar: una revisión sistemática de la literatura

Aprender a contar cantidades discretas de forma exacta constituye uno de los primeros hitos del desarrollo del conocimiento matemático infantil. En los últimos años, ha habido un extenso debate en torno a cómo ocurre este proceso de aprendizaje en preescolar. La actual investigación tuvo como objetivo conocer las temáticas y preguntas de investigación generales desarrolladas en los últimos cinco años en cuanto al aprendizaje del conteo y los números naturales en preescolar. Para ello, se realizó una revisión sistemática en la que se hizo una indagación en las bases de datos ScienceDirect, EBSCO, Web of Science, SpringerLink, JSTOR y Sage. Se obtuvieron 98 artículos de investigación que fueron examinados mediante análisis de conglomerados y mapas jerárquicos a través de NVIVO 11.0.  Se encontraron cuatro núcleos temáticos (Ideas sobre los procesos cognitivos implicados en la comprensión del número, Representación de magnitudes numéricas, Intervenciones para favorecer el desarrollo de habilidades matemáticas y Aspectos estructurales del número), que muestran el panorama actual de investigación sobre aprendizaje del conteo. Los resultados de este estudio son importantes para delimitar posibles programas futuros de investigación, y pueden ser usados por docentes como insumo para enriquecer los ambientes de aprendizaje de sus aulas de clase.

Assessing the knower-level framework: How reliable is the Give-a-Number task?

The Give-a-Number task has become a gold standard of children's number word comprehension in developmental psychology. Recently, researchers have begun to use the task as a predictor of other developmental milestones. This raises the question of how reliable the task is, since test-retest reliability of any measure places an upper bound on the size of reliable correlations that can be found between it and other measures. In Experiment 1, we presented 81 2- to 5-year-old children with Wynn (1992) titrated version of the Give-a-Number task twice within a single session. We found that the reliability of this version of the task was high overall, but varied importantly across different assigned knower levels, and was very low for some knower levels. In Experiment 2, we assessed the test-retest reliability of the non-titrated version of the Give-a-Number task with another group of 81 children and found a similar pattern of results. Finally, in Experiment 3, we asked whether the two versions of Give-a-Number generated different knower levels within-subjects, by testing 75 children with both tasks. Also, we asked how both tasks relate to another commonly used test of number knowledge, the "What's-On-This-Card" task. We found that overall, the titrated and non-titrated versions of Give-a-Number yielded similar knower levels, though the non-titrated version was slightly more conservative than the titrated version, which produced modestly higher knower levels. Neither was more closely related to "What's-On-This-Card" than the other. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these results.

Counting and the ontogenetic origins of exact equality

Humans are unique in their capacity to both represent number exactly and to express these representations symbolically. This correlation has prompted debate regarding whether symbolic number systems are necessary to represent large exact number. Previous work addressing this question in innumerate adults and semi-numerate children has been limited by conflicting results and differing methodologies, and has not yielded a clear answer. We address this debate by adapting methods used with innumerate populations (a "set-matching" task) for 3- to 5-year-old US children at varying stages of symbolic number acquisition. In five studies we find that children's ability to match sets exactly is related not simply to knowing the meanings of a few number words, but also to understanding how counting is used to generate sets (i.e., the cardinal principle). However, while children were more likely to match sets after acquiring the cardinal principle, they nevertheless demonstrated failures, compatible with the hypothesis that the ability to reason about exact equality emerges sometime later. These findings provide important data on the origin of exact number concepts, and point to knowledge of a counting system, rather than number language in general, as a key ingredient in the ability to reason about large exact number.

Starting small: exploring the origins of successor function knowledge

Although most U. S. children can accurately count sets by 4 years of age, many fail to understand the structural analogy between counting and number - that adding 1 to a set corresponds to counting up 1 word in the count list. While children are theorized to establish this Structure Mapping coincident with learning how counting is used to generate sets, they initially have an item-based understanding of this relationship, and can infer that, e.g, adding 1 to "five" is "six", while failing to infer that, e.g., adding 1 to "twenty-five" is "twenty-six" despite being able to recite these numbers when counting aloud. The item-specific nature of children's successes in reasoning about the relationship between changes in cardinality and the count list raises the possibility that such a Structure Mapping emerges later in development, and that this ability does not initially depend on learning to count. We test this hypothesis in two experiments and find evidence that children can perform item-based addition operations before they become competent counters. Even after children learn to count, we find that their ability to perform addition operations remains item-based and restricted to very small numbers, rather than drawing on generalized knowledge of how the count list represents number. We discuss how these early item-based associations between number words and sets might play a role in constructing a generalized Structure Mapping between counting and quantity.

What Counts? Sources of Knowledge in Children's Acquisition of the Successor Function

Although many U.S. children can count sets by 4 years, it is not until 5½-6 years that they understand how counting relates to number-that is, that adding 1 to a set necessitates counting up one number. This study examined two knowledge sources that 3½- to 6-year-olds (N = 136) may leverage to acquire this "successor function": (a) mastery of productive rules governing count list generation; and (b) training with "+1" math facts. Both productive counting and "+1" math facts were related to understanding that adding 1 to sets entails counting up one number in the count list; however, even children with robust successor knowledge struggled with its arithmetic expression, suggesting they do not generalize the successor function from "+1" math facts.

Counting to Infinity: Does Learning the Syntax of the Count List Predict Knowledge That Numbers Are Infinite?

By around the age of 5½, many children in the United States judge that numbers never end, and that it is always possible to add 1 to a set. These same children also generally perform well when asked to label the quantity of a set after one object is added (e.g., judging that a set labeled "five" should now be "six"). These findings suggest that children have implicit knowledge of the "successor function": Every natural number, n, has a successor, n + 1. Here, we explored how children discover this recursive function, and whether it might be related to discovering productive morphological rules that govern language-specific counting routines (e.g., the rules in English that represent base-10 structure). We tested 4- and 5-year-old children's knowledge of counting with three tasks, which we then related to (a) children's belief that 1 can always be added to any number (the successor function) and (b) their belief that numbers never end (infinity). Children who exhibited knowledge of a productive counting rule were significantly more likely to believe that numbers are infinite (i.e., there is no largest number), though such counting knowledge was not directly linked to knowledge of the successor function, per se. Also, our findings suggest that children as young as 4 years of age are able to implement rules defined over their verbal count list to generate number words beyond their spontaneous counting range, an insight which may support reasoning over their acquired verbal count sequence to infer that numbers never end.

Language-specific numerical estimation in bilingual children

We tested 5- to 7-year-old bilingual learners of French and English (N = 91) to investigate how language-specific knowledge of verbal numerals affects numerical estimation. Participants made verbal estimates for rapidly presented random dot arrays in each of their two languages. Estimation accuracy differed across children's two languages, an effect that remained when controlling for children's familiarity with number words across their two languages. In addition, children's estimates were equivalently well ordered in their two languages, suggesting that differences in accuracy were due to how children represented the relative distance between number words in each language. Overall, these results suggest that bilingual children have different mappings between their verbal and nonverbal counting systems across their two languages and that those differences in mappings are likely driven by an asymmetry in their knowledge of the structure of the count list across their languages. Implications for bilingual math education are discussed.