Is counting a bad idea? Complex relations among children’s fraction knowledge, eye movements, and performance in visual fraction comparisons

IF 1.8 2区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL Journal of Experimental Child Psychology Pub Date : 2025-01-23 DOI:10.1016/j.jecp.2024.106181
Sabrina Schwarzmeier, Andreas Obersteiner
{"title":"Is counting a bad idea? Complex relations among children’s fraction knowledge, eye movements, and performance in visual fraction comparisons","authors":"Sabrina Schwarzmeier,&nbsp;Andreas Obersteiner","doi":"10.1016/j.jecp.2024.106181","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Understanding fraction magnitudes is crucial for mathematical development but is challenging for many children. Visualizations, such as tape diagrams, are thought to leverage children’s early proportional reasoning skills. However, depending on children’s prior knowledge, these visualizations may encourage various strategies. Children with lower fraction knowledge might rely on counting, leading to natural number bias and low performance, whereas those with higher knowledge might rely on more efficient strategies based on magnitude. This study explores the relationship between students’ general fraction knowledge and their ability to visually compare fraction magnitudes represented with tape diagrams. A total of 67 children completed a fraction knowledge test and a set of comparison tasks with discretized and continuous tape diagrams while their eye movements, accuracy, and response times were recorded. Cluster analysis identified three groups. The first group, high-achieving and applying magnitude-based strategies, showed high accuracy and short response times, indicating efficiency. A second high-achieving group frequently used counting strategies, which was unexpected. This group achieved the highest accuracy but the longest response times, indicating less efficiency. The third group, low-achieving and rarely using counting strategies, had the lowest accuracy and short response times. These students tended to compare absolute sizes rather than relative sizes (i.e., showing a size bias). None of the groups exhibited a natural number bias. The study suggests that counting, although inefficient, does not necessarily lead to bias or low performance. Instead, biased reasoning with fraction visualizations can originate from reliance on absolute sizes.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48391,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Child Psychology","volume":"252 ","pages":"Article 106181"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Child Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022096524003217","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Understanding fraction magnitudes is crucial for mathematical development but is challenging for many children. Visualizations, such as tape diagrams, are thought to leverage children’s early proportional reasoning skills. However, depending on children’s prior knowledge, these visualizations may encourage various strategies. Children with lower fraction knowledge might rely on counting, leading to natural number bias and low performance, whereas those with higher knowledge might rely on more efficient strategies based on magnitude. This study explores the relationship between students’ general fraction knowledge and their ability to visually compare fraction magnitudes represented with tape diagrams. A total of 67 children completed a fraction knowledge test and a set of comparison tasks with discretized and continuous tape diagrams while their eye movements, accuracy, and response times were recorded. Cluster analysis identified three groups. The first group, high-achieving and applying magnitude-based strategies, showed high accuracy and short response times, indicating efficiency. A second high-achieving group frequently used counting strategies, which was unexpected. This group achieved the highest accuracy but the longest response times, indicating less efficiency. The third group, low-achieving and rarely using counting strategies, had the lowest accuracy and short response times. These students tended to compare absolute sizes rather than relative sizes (i.e., showing a size bias). None of the groups exhibited a natural number bias. The study suggests that counting, although inefficient, does not necessarily lead to bias or low performance. Instead, biased reasoning with fraction visualizations can originate from reliance on absolute sizes.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
190
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Child Psychology is an excellent source of information concerning all aspects of the development of children. It includes empirical psychological research on cognitive, social/emotional, and physical development. In addition, the journal periodically publishes Special Topic issues.
期刊最新文献
The relation of verbal and nonverbal skills to basic numerical processing of preterm versus term-born preschoolers. Do children match described probabilities? The sampling hypothesis applied to repeated risky choice. Editorial Board Economic risk proneness in middle childhood: Uncertainty-driven exploration or novelty-seeking? Contingency in maternal sensitivity and quality of child attachment.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1