245 research outputs found
Revisiting and Refining Relations Between Nonsymbolic Ratio Processing and Symbolic Math Achievement
No full textIn their 2016 Psych Science article, Matthews, Lewis and Hubbard (2016, https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615617799) leveled a challenge against the prevailing theory that fractions—as opposed to whole numbers—are incompatible with humans’ primitive nonsymbolic number sense. Their ratio processing system (RPS) account holds that humans possess a primitive system that confers the ability to process nonysmbolic ratio magnitudes. Perhaps the most striking finding from Matthews et al. was that ratio processing ability predicted symbolic fractions knowledge and algebraic competence. The purpose of the current study was to replicate Matthews et al.’s novel results and to extend the study by including a control measure of fluid intelligence and an additional nonsymbolic magnitude format as predictors of multiple symbolic math outcomes. Ninety-nine college students completed three comparison tasks deciding which of two nonsymbolic ratios was numerically larger along with three simple magnitude comparison tasks in corresponding formats that served as controls. The formats included were lines, circles, and dots. We found that RPS acuity predicted fractions knowledge for three university math placement exam subtests when controlling for simple magnitude acuities and inhibitory control. However, this predictive power of the RPS measure appeared to stem primarily from acuity of the line-ratio format, and that predictive power was attenuated with the inclusion of fluid intelligence. These findings may help refine theories positing the RPS as a domain-specific foundation for building fractional knowledge and related higher mathematics
Revisiting and Refining Relations between Nonsymbolic Ratio Processing and Symbolic Math Achievement
No full textReplicating and expanding Matthews, Lewis, & Hubbard (2016)'s results
Supplementary materials to: Revisiting and refining relations between nonsymbolic ratio processing and symbolic math achievement
No full textSupplementary materials to: Park, Y., & Matthews, P. G. (2021). Revisiting and refining relations between nonsymbolic ratio processing and symbolic math achievement. Journal of Numerical Cognition, 7(3), 328-350. https://doi.org/10.5964/jnc.6927The Supplementary Materials contain the following additional information:
1. Analysis of the relations between ratio acuities measured by Weber fractions (ws) and math abilities.
2. Bivariate correlation tables relating performance among various comparison tasks and math tasks, as well as inhibitory control.
Separate tables were constructed, alternatively using accuracy and ws as the performance metric. Tables were also constructed
with and without the use of listwise deletion.
3. Results from the hierarchical regression analyses predicting math abilities from ws.
4. Results from the hierarchical regression analyses predicting symbolic fraction comparison without including Ravens as a
covariate
Multiple cross-format discriminations across nonsymbolic ratios and symbolic fractions
No full textPrevious studies have demonstrated that humans can represent fractional magnitudes abstractly and amodally (e.g., Balci & Gallistel, 2006; Bonn & Cantlon, 2017; Jacob et al., 2012). One line of studies has supported this by showing that humans can compare across fractions and nonsymbolic ratios accurately and rapidly (e.g., Matthews & Chesney, 2015; Kalra et al., 2020). In these cross-format comparisons, individuals have sometimes shown whereby they overestimate the sizes of nonsymbolic ratios relative to symbolic ones.
We aim to replicate and expand these previous findings by conducting a series of cross-format comparison tasks comparing across different nonsymbolic ratios, across nonsymbolic and symbolic fractions and across nonsymbolic ratio and decimals. The nonsymbolic ratios will be instantiated by lines, circles, blobs and dots (Park et al., 2020).
1. Do the findings the adults can successfully compare across different nonsymbolic ratios and across nonsymbolic and symbolic fractions replicate?
2. Will all comparisons (between and within format) show distance effects?
4. In the cross-format comparisons between nonsymbolic ratio and symbolic fractions, is the bias toward overestimating nonsymbolic ratios similar across formats?
5. In the cross-format comparisons between nonsymbolic ratio and decimals, is there also a bias toward overestimation in nonsymbolic format?
Experiment 1 will conduct a series of nonsymbolic ratio cross-format comparisons with various formats. Experiment 2 will test a series of cross-format comparisons across various nonsymbolic ratios and symbolic fractions. Lastly, Experiment 3 will test a series of cross-format comparisons cross various nonsymbolic ratios and symbolic decimals
Interview: Anne-Marie Fortier
No full textThis paper is an edited version of an email interview conducted by Debra Ferreday and Adi Kuntsman with Anne-Marie Fortier, the author of Multicultural Horizons: Diversity and the Limits of the Civil Nation (Routledge, 2008). Fortier’s work has been informative in the development of some of the arguments explored in this special issue; in their conversation Ferreday and Kuntsman asked her to comment on the ideas of haunting, racial imaginaries, nostalgia, national anxieties, political feelings and hopes for the future
A developmental evaluation to enhance stakeholder engagement in a wide-scale interactive project disseminating quality improvement data: study protocol for a mixed-methods study
No full textIntroduction: Bringing together continuous quality improvement (CQI) data from multiple health services offers opportunities to identify common improvement priorities and to develop interventions at various system levels to achieve large-scale improvement in care. An important principle of CQI is practitioner participation in interpreting data and planning evidence-based change. This study will contribute knowledge about engaging diverse stakeholders in collaborative and theoretically informed processes to identify and address priority evidence-practice gaps in care delivery. This paper describes a developmental evaluation to support and refine a novel interactive dissemination project using aggregated CQI data from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander primary healthcare centres in Australia. The project aims to effect multilevel system improvement in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander primary healthcare. Methods and Analysis: Data will be gathered using document analysis, online surveys, interviews with participants and iterative analytical processes with the research team. These methods will enable real-time feedback to guide refinements to the design, reports, tools and processes as the interactive dissemination project is implemented. Qualitative data from interviews and surveys will be analysed and interpreted to provide in-depth understanding of factors that influence engagement and stakeholder perspectives about use of the aggregated data and generated improvement strategies. Sources of data will be triangulated to build up a comprehensive, contextualised perspective and integrated understanding of the project's development, implementation and findings. Ethics and Dissemination: The Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) of the Northern Territory Department of Health and Menzies School of Health Research (Project 2015-2329), the Central Australian HREC (Project 15-288) and the Charles Darwin University HREC (Project H15030) approved the study. Dissemination will include articles in peer-reviewed journals, policy and research briefs. Results will be presented at conferences and quality improvement network meetings. Researchers, clinicians, policymakers and managers developing evidence-based system and policy interventions should benefit from this research.Alison Laycock, Jodie Bailie, Veronica Matthews, Frances Cunningham, Gillian Harvey, Nikki Percival, Ross Baili
GSNSW Exploration NSW Area G SE Darling Basin magnetic grid geodetic
No full textMaintenance and Update Frequency: notPlannedStatement: This GSNSW Exploration NSW Area G SE Darling Basin magnetic grid geodetic is an airborne-derived Total Magnetic Intensity (TMI) grid for the NSW DMR, Discovery 2000, 1995, S.E. Darling Basin, AREA G survey. The survey was acquired under the project No. 737 for the geological survey of NSW. The grid has a cell size of 0.00097 degrees (approximately 100m). The units are in nanoTesla (or nT). A total of 42604 line-kilometres of data at a line spacing of 400m and 80m terrain clearance were acquired to produce this grid. Details of the specifications of individual airborne surveys can be found in the Fourteenth Edition of the Index of Airborne Geophysical Surveys (Percival, 2014). This Index is also available online at http://pid.geoscience.gov.au/dataset/79134.
Reference:
Percival, P.J., 2014. Index of airborne geophysical surveys (Fourteenth Edition).Total magnetic intensity (TMI) data measures variations in the intensity of the Earth's magnetic field caused by the contrasting content of rock-forming minerals in the Earth crust. Magnetic anomalies can be either positive (field stronger than normal) or negative (field weaker) depending on the susceptibility of the rock. The data are processed via standard methods to ensure the response recorded is that due only to the rocks in the ground. The results produce datasets that can be interpreted to reveal the geological structure of the sub-surface. The processed data is checked for quality by GA geophysicists to ensure that the final data released by GA are fit-for-purpose.<br/>This GSNSW Exploration NSW Area G SE Darling Basin magnetic grid geodetic has a cell size of 0.00097 degrees (approximately 100m). The units are in nanoTesla (or nT). The data used to produce this grid was acquired in 1995 by the NSW Government, and consisted of 42604 line-kilometres of data at 400m line spacing and 80m terrain clearance
- …
