Neither numerical training significantly improves Arabic number comparison performance¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? There was no significant training effect on the Arabic number comparison task. → Honoré N 2016

Evidence¶

Honoré N 2016¶

Honoré N, Noël M-P (2016) Improving Preschoolers' Arithmetic through Number Magnitude Training: The Impact of Non-Symbolic and Symbolic Training. PLoS ONE 11(11): e0166685. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166685

q3 · i? · causal · r2

In the Arabic number comparison task of the randomized training study, the training effect was non-significant, "F(2,50) = 0.54,p = .585"; no effect size beyond the printed η² = 0.021 interaction term is reported for the null training effect.

"There was no effect of training,F(2,50) = 0.54,p = .585; η2 = 0.021 (Fig 7)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Number Sense — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• In a number comparison task, adults outperform 6- to 7-year-old children in accuracy, Arabic numerals are easier than dot arrays, and easy 0.5 ratios are easier than difficult 0.8 ratios — related
• Response times in number comparison show group, notation, and ratio main effects, with a larger ratio effect for dot arrays than Arabic numerals — related
• Symbols-only training improved kindergarteners' performance on difficult place value items, but base-10 blocks training did not — related
• Symbolic training transfers to the auditory modality, improving spoken number-word magnitude comparison — 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