Does training children's number sense improve their maths?
Six weeks of number-sense games made children better at judging which dot set was bigger but did not improve their maths scores.
Source
Testing the Efficacy of Training Basic Numerical Cognition and Transfer Effects to Improvement in Children's Math Ability
Study at a glance
- Design
- RCT — Children randomly assigned to 30 sessions of computerised basic-number training over six weeks or a no-training control, with pre- and post-tests using different task interfaces
- N
- N=46 · 46 first graders analysed (22 training, 24 control) after excluding 10 of 56 recruited
- Population
- Korean first-grade children
- Outcome
- Numerosity comparison, number-line estimation, approximate arithmetic and symbol-to-numerosity mapping; standardised maths test and computerised arithmetic accuracy
Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.
What they did
First graders were randomly assigned to play a home computer program called 123 Bakery for 30 sessions over six weeks, or to receive no training. The program trained comparing dot quantities, placing quantities on a number line, approximate adding and subtracting of dot sets, and matching numerals to dot sets, deliberately excluding exact sums. Before and after, all children took basic number tasks with a different look from the training, a standardised maths test and a computerised arithmetic test.
What they found
Only numerosity comparison accuracy improved more in the trained group than in controls; the two groups did not differ before training but did afterwards. Number-line estimation, approximate arithmetic and symbol-to-quantity mapping showed no specific training gains. There was no transfer to the standardised maths test or to exact arithmetic accuracy.
The limits
What it doesn't show
The sample was small, which limits power to detect modest transfer effects, and 10 children were excluded after testing. The control group received no activity at all rather than an equally engaging alternative, which the authors acknowledge. Mixing four training modules in each session may have diluted any one module's effect, and a null result in this format does not show that no form of number-sense training can help, for example in children with low maths ability.
Key terms
- Approximate number system (ANS) acuity
- How precisely someone can tell apart two quantities without counting.
- Transfer effect
- Improvement on an untrained skill as a result of training a different skill.
- Numerosity comparison
- Choosing which of two briefly shown dot sets has more items.
- Active control group
- A comparison group that does an equally engaging but irrelevant activity, controlling for expectation and attention effects.
- Test-retest effect
- Improvement simply from taking the same test twice.
Flashcards
0 of 9 answers reviewed
Research intelligence for this paper
See its role on concept claims, tensions it is part of, placement history, and related discoveries.
Quiz yourself
Which skill improved more in trained children than in controls?
Common questions
Why was exact arithmetic left out of the training?
So that any improvement in exact maths could not be explained simply by practising sums, making it a genuine test of transfer.
Why use different-looking tasks for testing than for training?
To reduce practice effects at the level of the specific interface, so gains would reflect the underlying ability.
What explanation do the authors favour for the lack of transfer?
That transfer needs substantial overlap in mental operations between trained and target skills, which comparing dot sets and exact arithmetic do not share.
More on Numerical cognition