Kindergarteners` Understanding of Base-Ten Notation through Formal and Informal Instructions: A Comparative Study of the United States and Korea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study examines kindergarteners` understanding of the base-ten number system through formal and informal instructions in the United States and South Korea. A total of 69 kindergarteners (30 in the U.S. and 39 in Korea) and their head teachers participated in this study over the course of one semester. Experimental groups in both countries were provided with various formal and informal instructions, whereas control groups were not. The math activities for formal instruction and concrete materials for informal instruction, which were designed to support Korean children`s development of base-ten understanding, were provided to the experimental groups in the U.S. and Korea for one semester. Pre-tests and post-tests were conducted with all participating children at the beginning and at the end of the semester to examine changes in the children`s understanding of base-ten notation over time. The findings indicate no differences in terms of children`s performance on base-ten tasks during the pre-test between the experimental and the control groups in each country. Comparison between the countries showed that Korean children exhibited better understanding of base-ten notation than their peers in the U.S. even before any math instruction was provided. During the post-test, children in the experimental groups in both countries showed better understanding of base-ten notation than children in the control groups. Overall, Korean children in the experimental group achieved the highest scores in understanding the base-ten system. This paper discusses the elements that affected the children`s understanding of base-ten notation in the U.S. and Korea, including numerical language systems and the types of instruction provided.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".