Training effects on the non-symbolic number line are size-specific: non-symbolic training improves large numerosities, symbolic training small numerosities¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 The time × size × group interaction was significant, with the non-symbolic group improving on large numerosities and the symbolic group on small numerosities. → 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 · i3 · causal · r2

In the non-symbolic number line task, the three-way interaction "F(2,49) = 3.25,p = .047" showed the non-symbolic group's PAE decreased for large numerosities (η² = 0.238) and the symbolic group's for small numerosities (η² = 0.174).

"the effect of interaction between time, size and group was significant, F(2,49) = 3.25,p = .047, η2 = 117, indicating a significant decrease of PAE for large numerosities in the non-symbolic group,t(49) 3.91,p<.001, η2 = 0.238"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Number Sense — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Symbolic number magnitude training, but not non-symbolic training, significantly improves preschoolers' exact arithmetic — related
• Symbolic training transfers to the auditory modality, improving spoken number-word magnitude comparison — related
• Both numerical training conditions improve magnitude processing more than a story-understanding control condition — related