Improved set‐size labeling mediates the effect of a counting intervention on children's understanding of cardinality. Issue 6 (30th April 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: O'Rear, Connor D.; McNeil, Nicole M.
• Is Part Of: Developmental science. Volume 22:Issue 6(2019)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2019-04-30
• Subjects: cardinality -- cognitive development -- counting -- early learning -- preschool mathematics; Developmental psychology -- Periodicals; Psychology, Comparative -- Periodicals; 155
• DOI: 10.1111/desc.12819
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1363-755X

Abstract

Abstract: How does improving children's ability to label set sizes without counting affect the development of understanding of the cardinality principle? It may accelerate development by facilitating subsequent alignment and comparison of the cardinal label for a given set and the last word counted when counting that set (Mix et al., 2012). Alternatively, it may delay development by decreasing the need for a comprehensive abstract principle to understand and label exact numerosities (Piantadosi et al., 2012). In this study, preschoolers ( N = 106, M age = 4;8) were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: (a) count‐and‐label, wherein children spent 6 weeks both counting and labeling sets arranged in canonical patterns like pips on a die; (b) label‐first, wherein children spent the first 3 weeks learning to label the set sizes without counting before spending 3 weeks identical to the count‐and‐label condition; (c) print referencing control . Both counting conditions improved understanding of cardinality through increases in children's ability to label set sizes without counting. In addition to this indirect effect, there was a direct effect of the count‐and‐label condition on progress toward understanding of cardinality. Results highlight the roles of set labeling and equifinality in the development of children's understanding of number concepts. Abstract : In this study, preschoolers (N = 106, Mage = 4; 8) were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: (a) count‐and‐label, wherein children spent 6 weeks both counting and labeling sets arranged in canonical patterns like pips on a die; (b) label‐first, wherein children spent the first 3 weeks learning to label the set sizes without counting before spending 3 weeks identical to the count‐and‐label condition; (c) print referencing control. Both counting conditions improved understanding of cardinality through increases in children's ability to label set sizes without counting. In addition to this indirect effect, there was a direct effect of the count‐and label condition on progress toward understanding of cardinality.