Both numerical training conditions improve magnitude processing more than a story-understanding control condition¶

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 Both numerical training groups improved in trained magnitude tasks while the control group showed no performance increase. → 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

Repeated-measures ANOVA on the collection comparison task in the randomized training study showed a significant time × group interaction, "F(2,50) = 4.09; p = .023, η2 = 0.140"; the discussion notes no performance increase was observed in the control group.

"we found a significant interaction between time and group,F(2,50) = 4.09; p = .023, η2 = 0.140"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Number Sense — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Training effects on the non-symbolic number line are size-specific: non-symbolic training improves large numerosities, symbolic training small numerosities — related
• 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
• Non-symbolic numerical addition practice improves accuracy on symbolic arithmetic but not sentence completion, showing the practice effect is specific to mathematics — related
• Symbolic number magnitude training, but not non-symbolic training, significantly improves preschoolers' exact arithmetic — related
• The training-condition effect on symbolic arithmetic speed persists after controlling for training task reaction time and accuracy — related
• Engaging symbolic number representations does not by itself prime subsequent symbolic arithmetic: second test-set performance declined in both training groups — related
• In Experiment 1, the numerical comparison group was more accurate on symbolic arithmetic than the line-length addition group, the only pairwise accuracy difference — related