Prior work indicates that children have an untrained ability to approximately calculate using their approximate number system (ANS). For example, children can mentally double or halve a large array of discrete objects. Here, we asked whether children can per-form a true multiplication operation, flexibly attending to both the multiplier and multiplicand, prior to formal multiplication instruc-tion. We presented 5- to 8-year-olds with nonsymbolic multipli-cands (dot arrays) or symbolic multiplicands (Arabic numerals) ranging from 2 to 12 and with nonsymbolic multipliers ranging from 2 to 8. Children compared each imagined product with a vis-ible comparison quantity. Children performed with above-chance accuracy on both nonsymbolic and symbolic approximate multipli-cation, and their performance was dependent on the ratio between the imagined product and the comparison target. Children who could not solve any single-digit symbolic multiplication equations (e.g., 2 3) on a basic math test were nevertheless successful on both our approximate multiplication tasks, indicating that children have an intuitive sense of multiplication that emerges independent of formal instruction about symbolic multiplication. Nonsymbolic multiplication performance mediated the relation between chil-dren’s Weber fraction and symbolic math abilities, suggesting a pathway by which the ANS contributes to children’s emerging symbolic math competence. These findings may inform future educational interventions that allow children to use their basic arithmetic intuition as a scaffold to facilitate symbolic math learning.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on June 11, 2024
Is Nonsymbolic Arithmetic Truly “Arithmetic”? Examining the Computational Capacity of the Approximate Number System in Young Children
Young children with limited knowledge of formal mathematics can intuitively perform basic arithmetic‐like operations over nonsymbolic, approximate representations of quantity. However, the algorithmic rules that guide such nonsymbolic operations are not entirely clear. We asked whether nonsymbolic arithmetic operations have a function‐like structure, like symbolic arithmetic. Children (
- Award ID(s):
- 1844155
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10442947
- Publisher / Repository:
- Wiley-Blackwell
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Cognitive Science
- Volume:
- 47
- Issue:
- 6
- ISSN:
- 0364-0213
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Children bring intuitive arithmetic knowledge to the classroom before formal instruction in mathematics begins. For example, children can use their number sense to add, subtract, compare ratios, and even perform scaling operations that increase or decrease a set of dots by a factor of 2 or 4. However, it is currently unknown whether children can engage in a true division operation before formal mathematical instruction. Here we examined the ability of 6- to 9-year-old children and college students to perform symbolic and non-symbolic approximate division. Subjects were presented with non-symbolic (dot array) or symbolic (Arabic numeral) dividends ranging from 32 to 185, and non-symbolic divisors ranging from 2 to 8. Subjects compared their imagined quotient to a visible target quantity. Both children (Experiment 1 N = 89, Experiment 2 N = 42) and adults (Experiment 3 N = 87) were successful at the approximate division tasks in both dots and numeral formats. This was true even among the subset of children that could not recognize the division symbol or solve simple division equations, suggesting intuitive division ability precedes formal division instruction. For both children and adults, the ability to divide non-symbolically mediated the relation between Approximate Number System (ANS) acuity and symbolic math performance, suggesting that the ability to calculate non-symbolically may be a mechanism of the relation between ANS acuity and symbolic math. Our findings highlight the intuitive arithmetic abilities children possess before formal math instruction.more » « less
-
more » « less
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. -
Children struggle with exact, symbolic ratio reasoning, but prior research demonstrates children show surprising intuition when making approximate, nonsymbolic ratio judgments. In the current experiment, eighty‐five 6‐ to 8‐year‐old children made approximate ratio judgments with dot arrays and numerals. Children were adept at approximate ratio reasoning in both formats and improved with age. Children who engaged in the nonsymbolic task first performed better on the symbolic task compared to children tested in the reverse order, suggesting that nonsymbolic ratio reasoning may function as a scaffold for symbolic ratio reasoning. Nonsymbolic ratio reasoning mediated the relation between children’s numerosity comparison performance and symbolic mathematics performance in the domain of probabilities, but numerosity comparison performance explained significant unique variance in general numeration skills.more » « less
-
more » « less
Abstract Natural language helps express mathematical thinking and contexts. Conventional mathematical notation (CMN) best suits expressions and equations. Each is essential; each also has limitations, especially for learners. Our research studies how programming can be a advantageous third language that can also help restore mathematical connections that are hidden by topic‐centred curricula. Restoring opportunities for surprise and delight reclaims mathematics' creative nature. Studies of children's use of language in mathematics and their programming behaviours guide our iterative design/redesign of mathematical microworlds in which students, ages 7–11, use programming in their regular school lessons
as a language for learning mathematics . Though driven by mathematics, not coding, the microworlds develop the programming over time so that it continues to support children's developing mathematical ideas. This paper briefly describes microworlds EDC has tested with well over 400 7‐to‐8‐year‐olds in school, and others tested (or about to be tested) with over 200 8‐to‐11‐year‐olds. Our challenge was to satisfy schools' topical orientation and fit easily within regular classroom study but use and foreshadow other mathematical learning to remove the siloes. The design/redesign research and evaluation is exploratory, without formal methodology. We are also more formally studying effects on children's learning. That ongoing study is not reported here.Practitioner notes What is already known
Active learning—
doing —supports learning.Collaborative learning—doing
together —supports learning.Classroom discourse—focused, relevant
discussion , not just listening—supports learning.Clear articulation of one's thinking, even just to oneself, helps develop that thinking.
What this paper adds
The common languages we use for classroom mathematics—natural language for conveying the meaning and context of mathematical situations and for explaining our reasoning; and the formal (written) language of conventional mathematical notation, the symbols we use in mathematical expressions and equations—are both essential but each presents hurdles that necessitate the other. Yet, even together, they are insufficient especially for young learners.
Programming, appropriately designed and used, can be the third language that both reduces barriers and provides the missing expressive and creative capabilities children need.
Appropriate design for use in regular mathematics classrooms requires making key mathematical content obvious, strong and the ‘driver’ of the activities, and requires reducing tech ‘overhead’ to near zero.
Continued usefulness across the grades requires developing children's sophistication and knowledge with the language; the powerful ways that children rapidly acquire facility with (natural) language provides guidance for ways they can learn a formal language as well.
Implications for policy and/or practice
Mathematics teaching can take advantage of the ways children learn through experimentation and attention to the results, and of the ways children use their language brain even for mathematics.
In particular, programming—in microworlds driven by the mathematical content, designed to minimise distraction and overhead, open to exploration and discovery
en route to focused aims, and in which childrenself ‐evaluate—can allow clear articulation of thought, experimentation with immediate feedback.As it aids the mathematics, it also builds computational thinking and satisfies schools' increasing concerns to broaden access to ideas of computer science.
