SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the probably-where-I-went-wrong dept.
Educators, policymakers, and parents have begun to focus more on children's math learning in the earliest years. Yet parents and teachers still find it challenging to know which kinds of early math skills merit attention in the classroom. Determining how to help children achieve in math is important, particularly for children from low-income families who often enter school with weaker math knowledge than their peers. A new longitudinal study conducted in Tennessee has found that low-income children's math knowledge in preschool was related to their later achievement—but not all types of math knowledge were related equally. The findings suggest that educators and school administrators may want to consider carefully which areas of math study they shift attention to as they develop curricula for the early years.
Conducted by researchers at Vanderbilt University, the study appears in the journal Child Development.
The study followed 517 low-income children from ages 4 to 11; the children were primarily Black and all qualified for free or reduced-price lunch, a measure of poverty. When the children were in the last year of preschool and near the end of first grade, researchers tested general skills (including self-regulated behavior, work-related skills, and reading) and six math skills (patterning, counting objects, comparing quantities, understanding written numbers, calculating, and understanding shapes). When the children were at the end of fifth grade, researchers tested a range of math knowledge, including knowledge about numbers, algebra, and geometry. The aim of the study was to determine whether children's math skills at ages 4 and 5 predicted their math achievement at age 11.
Preschool math skills supported first-grade math skills, which in turn supported fifth-grade math knowledge, according to the study. In preschool, children's skills in patterning, comparing quantities, and counting objects were stronger predictors of their math achievement in fifth grade than other skills, the study found. By first grade, patterning remained important, and understanding written numbers and calculating emerged as important predictors of later achievement.
(Score: 2) by tfried on Wednesday December 07 2016, @08:02PM
The interpretation is that just putting researchers into the school causes improvement irrespective of what the researchers are doing.
Well, yes and no. The takeaway is to never compare an intervention (program) to no intervention, but at least a credible dummy. Not entirely unlike giving a placebo to control subject in a medical study, instead of just nothing. Of course in order to be a credible comparison, you'll need to put in roughly the same amount of professional involvement, which means you've just doubled an already high cost.
That's not really an excuse for cutting the corners, but sometimes an unavoidable reason for doing it despite knowing better...