Children can learn the meanings of novel number symbols through an artificial symbol learning paradigm, performing above chance on a subsequent symbolic comparison task¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? Children aged 6-10 learned novel numerical symbols from passive training with dot arrays and performed significantly above chance on symbolic comparison. → Amy Bennett 2018
Evidence¶
Amy Bennett 2018¶
Amy Bennett, Matthew Inglis and Camilla Gilmore. (2018). The Cost of Multiple Representations: Learning Number Symbols with Abstract and Concrete Representations. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000318
q3 · i? · causal · r2
Experiment 1, a within-subjects study of 74 children (6-10 years), trained participants on five novel symbols per condition and tested symbolic comparison. Accuracy was above chance in both conditions: abstract "M= .72, SD = .166" and multiple-concrete M = .66. No effect size printed.
"Children were significantly more accurate than chance (0.5) in both the abstract, M= .72, SD = .166, t(73) = 11.41, p < .001, and multiple-concrete conditions, M = .66, SD = .195, t(73) = 7.25, p < .001"
Discussion¶
Learner Variables¶
- Number Sense — outcome: instruction changes it
Related Claims¶
- Brief practice on non-symbolic approximate numerical addition or comparison tasks speeds subsequent exact symbolic arithmetic in first graders compared with non-numerical magnitude tasks — related
- Children from kindergarten through second grade perform significantly above chance on simple multidigit numeral identification and comparison tasks — related
- Non-symbolic training improves collection comparison at ratios 1:2, 2:3 and 3:4, while symbolic training improves only ratio 1:2 — related
- Symbols-only training improved kindergarteners' performance on difficult place value items, but base-10 blocks training did not — related
- In Experiment 1, abstract representations produced better symbol learning than multiple concrete representations, but only for children who completed the concrete condition first — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
children-learn-novel-symbols-artificial-paradigm |
title |
Children can learn the meanings of novel number symbols through an artificial symbol learning paradigm, performing above chance on a subsequent symbolic comparison task |
description |
Children can learn the meanings of novel number symbols through an artificial symbol learning paradigm, performing above chance on a subsequent symbolic comparison task |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2018 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-24 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — amy-bennett-2018 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.