当前位置:首页 >期刊论文 >《最新论文》>正文

女孩子学不好数学?事实并非如此!

 2018/11/8 8:34:23 《最新论文》 作者:npj Science of Learning 我有话说(0人评论) 字体大小:+

论文标题:No intrinsic gender differences in children’s earliest numerical abilities

期刊:npj Science of Learning

作者:Alyssa J. Kersey, Emily J. Braham, Kelsey D. Csumitta, Melissa E. Libertus, Jessica F. Cantlon,

发表时间:2018/07/06

数字识别码:10.1038/s41539-018-0028-7

原文链接:https://www.nature.com/articles/s41539-018-0028-7

npj Science of Learning最近发表了题为《儿童早期数字能力没有内在性别差异》的文章。作者和他的同事们、Emily Braham、 Kelsey Csumitta、Melissa Libertus、Jessica Cantlon分别在纽约州罗切斯特大学和宾夕法尼亚州匹兹堡大学工作。Nature杂志十分有兴趣对该研究了解更多,以下是作者的回应。

本研究的主要目的是什么?为什么决定进行这项研究?

纵观历史,人们会基于种族和性别而质疑他人的能力。类似的公众讨论在2017年被再次引发,人们声称男孩在数学和科学领域比女孩更优秀。我们的主要研究领域是幼儿数学认知,因此我们有机会直接比较男孩和女孩在婴儿期和幼儿期的数学认知。如果依据公众讨论进行预测的话,假如数学能力的性别差异很明显并源于生理性别,那么儿童早期的数学基础中就可以显现出性别差异。而另一方面,以往的科学研究表明,数学能力上的性别差异很小或根本不存在,据此进行预测的话,那么儿童早期的数学能力应该没有性别差异。

本研究的关键发现是什么?

我们的发现与数学能力存在性别差异的预测恰恰相反——在婴儿期和幼儿期,男孩和女孩在表示数值大小、学习数数和获得基本数学概念方面的能力没有不同。事实上,男孩和女孩的数学能力并没有统计学显著差异。

研究结果有什么更宏观的意义吗?

宏观上我们希望传达的信息是:男孩和女孩学习数学的能力是一样的。

我们该如何提高计算和读写能力?

之前的一些研究表明,男孩和女孩在童年时期所接受的数学训练可能存在差异,女孩可能处于不利地位。提高计算和读写能力的一个方法是确保孩子们同等地接触数学并得到一样的鼓励和训练,不论性别、社会经济地位或任何其他可能影响孩子学习的社会和文化因素。

可否展望一下该领域的未来(例如研究进展、循证政策)?

本研究表明,在早期数学学习中,无论男孩还是女孩在婴幼儿时期都有相似的认知机能。我们的一个新项目主要是研究儿童早期数学认知的神经机制,并测试男孩和女孩之间的相似性和区别。我们预测男孩和女孩使用同样的神经机制,因为他们的行为表现是相同的。

摘要:Recent public discussions have suggested that the under-representation of women in science and mathematics careers can be traced back to intrinsic differences in aptitude. However, true gender differences are difficult to assess because sociocultural influences enter at an early point in childhood. If these claims of intrinsic differences are true, then gender differences in quantitative and mathematical abilities should emerge early in human development. We examined cross-sectional gender differences in mathematical cognition from over 500 children aged 6 months to 8 years by compiling data from five published studies with unpublished data from longitudinal records. We targeted three key milestones of numerical development: numerosity perception, culturally trained counting, and formal and informal elementary mathematics concepts. In addition to testing for statistical differences between boys’ and girls’ mean performance and variability, we also tested for statistical equivalence between boys’ and girls’ performance. Across all stages of numerical development, analyses consistently revealed that boys and girls do not differ in early quantitative and mathematical ability. These findings indicate that boys and girls are equally equipped to reason about mathematics during early childhood

阅读论文全文请访问:https://www.nature.com/articles/s41539-018-0028-7

期刊介绍:npj Science of Learning( https://www.nature.com/npjscilearn/) is the first journal to bring together the findings of neuroscientists, psychologists, and education researchers to understand how the brain learns. It connects neuroscientists and psychologists with teachers and policymakers. A deep understanding of learning requires the integration of findings from several levels of analysis: from cellular to behavioral, in animal models and humans, in the laboratory and in the classroom. Through cross-disciplinary interactions, this combined knowledge can then be used to revolutionise learning, memory, and education.

来源:npj Science of Learning