posted on 2016-11-08, 16:11authored byIro Xenidou-DervouIro Xenidou-Dervou, Dylan Molenaar, Daniel Ansari, Menno van der Schoot, Ernest C.D.M. van Lieshout
What developmental roles do nonsymbolic (e.g., dot arrays) and symbolic (i.e., Arabic
numerals) magnitude comparison skills play in children’s mathematics? In the literature, one
notices several gaps and contradictory findings. We assessed a large sample in kindergarten,
grade 1 and 2 on two well-known nonsymbolic and symbolic magnitude comparison measures.
We also assessed children’s initial IQ and developing Working Memory (WM) capacities.
Results demonstrated that symbolic and nonsymbolic comparison had different developmental trajectories; the first underwent larger developmental improvements. Both skills were important longitudinal predictors of children’s future mathematical achievement above and beyond IQ and WM. Nonsymbolic comparison was predictive in kindergarten. Symbolic comparison, however,
was consistently a stronger predictor of future mathematics compared to nonsymbolic, and its predictive power at the early stages was even comparable to that of IQ. Furthermore, results bring forth methodological implications regarding the role of different types of magnitude comparison measures.
Funding
This research was conducted as part of a
broader NWO (National Dutch Organization for Scientific Research) funded project [grant
number: PROO 411-07-111].
History
School
Science
Department
Mathematics Education Centre
Published in
Learning and Instruction
Citation
XENIDOU-DERVOU, I. ... et al, 2017. Nonsymbolic and symbolic magnitude comparison skills as longitudinal predictors of mathematical achievement. Learning and Instruction, 50, pp.1-13.
This work is made available according to the conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence. Full details of this licence are available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Acceptance date
2016-11-06
Publication date
2017
Notes
This paper was published in the journal Learning and Instruction and the definitive published version is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.11.001.