Among low-early-math-ability kindergarteners, supplemental training produced significantly higher improvement than an equally low-ability control group¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr1·q2·i3large
Currency · newest study 2017 · checked against its sources 2026-11-01 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · 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.
q2 i3 In the low-ability subsample (at least half a standard deviation below the normative mean at pre-test), the training group's BIN improvement score significantly exceeded the control group's (W = 114, p = .04, printed effect size |r| = .40). → Meloni et al. 2017
Evidence¶
Meloni et al. 2017¶
Carla Meloni, Rachele Fanari, Andrea Bertucci and Sara Berretti. (2017). IMPACT OF EARLY NUMERACY TRAINING ON KINDERGARTENERS FROM MIDDLE-INCOME FAMILIES. 14th International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age (CELDA 2017). https://isbnsearch.org/isbn/978-989-8533-68-5
q2 · i3 · causal · r1
Follow-up analysis on a subsample of 25 low-ability children (training group n=14 drawn from CL and IL conditions; control group n=11), selected at half a standard deviation below the normative BIN 4-6 mean. The Wilcoxon comparison of improvement scores showed a significant difference with printed effect size |r| = .40 ("W = 114, p = .04; |r| = .40").
"To test if the training group improved more compared with the control one, the same BIN-IS score used in the previous analysis was used as dependent variable, and a Wilcoxon test was carried out to compare the two groups. The results showed a significant difference between the two groups (W = 114, p = .04; |r| = .40)."
Discussion¶
Learner Variables¶
- Number Sense — outcome: instruction changes it
Related Claims¶
- All three groups (cooperative learning, individual learning, and control) improved significantly in early numeracy from pre-test to post-test over 12 weeks — a broader claim this one bears on
- Both low-ability training and low-ability control children improved significantly in early numeracy from pre-test to post-test — related
- Participants entered the study with very poor skills, at least 1 SD below the mean on every measure and 2 SD below on receptive vocabulary, phonological awareness, and fluency — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.