有多少?"任务没有充分评估对万有引力原则的理解

IF 1.8 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL Cognitive Development Pub Date : 2024-09-16 DOI:10.1016/j.cogdev.2024.101500
{"title":"有多少?\"任务没有充分评估对万有引力原则的理解","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.cogdev.2024.101500","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Once children have acquired the cardinality principle, they understand that the last number-word used in counting represents the total number of objects in a set. This principle is often assessed using the <em>“How many?”</em> task, which consists in asking “How many?” objects there are in a set after children have counted them. However, we show in this study that out of 188 kindergarteners (mean age: 4 ½ years), 42 (22,3 %) succeeded in repeating the last count word in the <em>“How many?”</em> task but failed to correctly apply the one-to-one correspondence principle during counting. Even when only the easiest countable sets were considered (i.e., linear and homogeneous collections or sets with a very limited number of objects), still more than 10 % of children from our sample repeated the last count word but failed to apply the one-to-one correspondence principle. Such developmental profile, in which children understand that the last word used in counting represents the total number of objects in a set but fail to grasp that each individual object must be associated with a single number word to determine this total, is not psychologically plausible. We conclude that the <em>“How many?”</em> task leads to an inaccurate assessment of the cardinality principle, in both its basic and more meaningful conception, in a non-negligible number of young children.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51422,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Development","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885201424000856/pdfft?md5=07734e18e2d6021099b4a13ce4141d72&pid=1-s2.0-S0885201424000856-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The “How many?” task inadequately assesses the understanding of the cardinality principle\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cogdev.2024.101500\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Once children have acquired the cardinality principle, they understand that the last number-word used in counting represents the total number of objects in a set. This principle is often assessed using the <em>“How many?”</em> task, which consists in asking “How many?” objects there are in a set after children have counted them. However, we show in this study that out of 188 kindergarteners (mean age: 4 ½ years), 42 (22,3 %) succeeded in repeating the last count word in the <em>“How many?”</em> task but failed to correctly apply the one-to-one correspondence principle during counting. Even when only the easiest countable sets were considered (i.e., linear and homogeneous collections or sets with a very limited number of objects), still more than 10 % of children from our sample repeated the last count word but failed to apply the one-to-one correspondence principle. Such developmental profile, in which children understand that the last word used in counting represents the total number of objects in a set but fail to grasp that each individual object must be associated with a single number word to determine this total, is not psychologically plausible. We conclude that the <em>“How many?”</em> task leads to an inaccurate assessment of the cardinality principle, in both its basic and more meaningful conception, in a non-negligible number of young children.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51422,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognitive Development\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885201424000856/pdfft?md5=07734e18e2d6021099b4a13ce4141d72&pid=1-s2.0-S0885201424000856-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognitive Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885201424000856\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Development","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885201424000856","RegionNum":3,"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

摘要

一旦孩子们掌握了 "万有引力 "原则,他们就会明白,数数时使用的最后一个数 字代表了一组物体的总数。对这一原则的评估通常采用 "有多少?"任务,即在儿童数完一组物体后,询问 "有多少?"。然而,我们在本研究中发现,在 188 名幼儿园儿童(平均年龄:4 岁半)中,有 42 人(22.3%)在 "有多少?"任务中成功地重复了最后一个数词,但在数数时却未能正确应用一一对应原则。即使只考虑最简单的可数集(即线性和同质集合或物体数量非常有限的集合),我们的样本中仍有超过 10% 的儿童重复了最后一个数词,但未能应用一一对应原则。在这种发展过程中,幼儿懂得计数时使用的最后一个数词代表集合中物体的总数,但却不懂得每个物体都必须与一个数词相关联才能确定总数,这在心理学上是说不通的。我们的结论是,"有多少?"任务会导致相当数量的幼儿对万有引力原理的基本概念和更有意义的概念作出不准确的评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The “How many?” task inadequately assesses the understanding of the cardinality principle

Once children have acquired the cardinality principle, they understand that the last number-word used in counting represents the total number of objects in a set. This principle is often assessed using the “How many?” task, which consists in asking “How many?” objects there are in a set after children have counted them. However, we show in this study that out of 188 kindergarteners (mean age: 4 ½ years), 42 (22,3 %) succeeded in repeating the last count word in the “How many?” task but failed to correctly apply the one-to-one correspondence principle during counting. Even when only the easiest countable sets were considered (i.e., linear and homogeneous collections or sets with a very limited number of objects), still more than 10 % of children from our sample repeated the last count word but failed to apply the one-to-one correspondence principle. Such developmental profile, in which children understand that the last word used in counting represents the total number of objects in a set but fail to grasp that each individual object must be associated with a single number word to determine this total, is not psychologically plausible. We conclude that the “How many?” task leads to an inaccurate assessment of the cardinality principle, in both its basic and more meaningful conception, in a non-negligible number of young children.

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
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
5.60%
发文量
114
期刊介绍: Cognitive Development contains the very best empirical and theoretical work on the development of perception, memory, language, concepts, thinking, problem solving, metacognition, and social cognition. Criteria for acceptance of articles will be: significance of the work to issues of current interest, substance of the argument, and clarity of expression. For purposes of publication in Cognitive Development, moral and social development will be considered part of cognitive development when they are related to the development of knowledge or thought processes.
期刊最新文献
From spontaneous focusing on numerosity to mathematics achievement: The mediating role of non-symbolic number processing and mapping between symbolic and non-symbolic representations of number Preschoolers prioritize humans over robots less than adults do: An eye-tracking study Sociolinguistic development in a diverse, multilinguistic environment: Evidence from multilingual children in Gujarat, India Attentional skills, developmental areas, and phonological awareness in children aged 5–6 years Attending to talker characteristics: Word learning and recognition in monolingually- and multilingually-raised infants
×
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