Embodied action enhances early numerical cognition: A study with three-year-old children

VERONICA COCCOZ; MARIANA LOZADA; ANALIA SALSA; NORA SCHEUER

Conferencia; Jean Piaget Society, 48th Annual Meeting; 2018

This study investigates early number development by taking intoaccount the enactive approach, a perspective that has not been systematicallyconsidered in this field. As is well known, the enactive theory emphasizes theimportance of embodied action in cognition (Di Paolo et al., 2010; Varela etal., 1991). There is growing evidence for the idea that embodied actionenhances conceptualization and learning from school-age onwards (e.g., Glenberget al., 2008; Kontra et al., 2015; Lozada & Carro, 2017).Regarding numerical cognition, many studies have analysed howperceptual processes, social interaction, uptake of number words and use offingers contribute to number development (see for instance Fuson, 1988;Leibovich at al., 2017; Mix et al., 2005).  Calling for an enactiveapproach to the study of early number cognition implies considering embodiedaction experience as it is intertwined with objects in meaningful situations,instead of analyzing isolated components such as words or fingers. In line withthis view, we propose that embodied action improves numerical understanding in young children. To explore this hypothesis, we carriedout a quasi-experimental study directed at comparing the short-term influenceof enactive participation in tasks with quantities 1 to 5, which have beenextensively studied (e.g., Carey et al., 2009; Salsa & Martí, 2015). MethodsParticipants were 44 children between ages 36 and 49 months. Theywere randomly assigned to one of two groups: Observation (41.6 months, 10 boys,12 girls) or Action (41.1 months, 12 boys, 10 girls). All children wereindividually interviewed at a quiet room at school. Another researcher tooknotes and managed a fixed video-camera. Children in both conditions were invited to play a game speciallydesigned to tap children?s numerical thinking in a challenging activity (Martíet al., 2013). The aim of the game was to advance a toy horse in a segmentedpath according to the dots of the different faces of a wooden dice with smallconcave dots. Tasks involved different cognitive demands. Task 1. Quantification of dots. The interviewer (INT) showed eachface of the dice in pseudorandom order and asked: ?How many dots are there??. This taskwas composed of three complete series, each of them requesting to quantify eachface 1-5 once. We call them Q1, Q2, and Q3.Task 2. From dots to steps. INT showed each faceand invited the child to advance the toy horse along the segmented path ?asmany steps as the number of dots?. This was done once for each face of the dice1-5.Task 3. From steps to dots. INT placed the horseat a given number of steps from a small plate of food and asked the child toshow the face of the dice corresponding to the number of such number of steps,so that the horse would then advance to its food and eat. This was done oncefor each of the distances 1-5.Difference between Action and ObservationconditionsQ1 allowed detecting children?s initialquantitative performance. Here the demonstration was the same for children inboth conditions, consisting in looking attentively at the face on the die andenumerating its dots clearly and slowly. In contrast, Q2, Q3, Tasks 2 and 3were introduced by a demonstration that differed between conditions. Thedifference pointed at the extent to which children?s enactive participation wasencouraged. In all tasks, demonstrations were performed regarding numbers 2 and4 in both groups.Task 1. In Q2 and Q3 a novelty was introduced inthe quantification demonstration. The demonstration for the Action Group consistedin touching the concave dots one by one before saying how many dots there are-in this way, these children were encouraged to establish an experientialcontact with the concave dots. The demonstration for the Observation Groupconsisted in communicating the quantity orally through a tube that INT held inher hands and then passed over to the children in order to respond to thesetasks -in this way, these children kept a distance from the dice.Task 2. The demonstration for the Action Groupconsisted in touching the concave dots while enumerating (one, two / one,two, three, four), as well as placing the palm of the hand on each step ofthe segmented path, while simultaneously enumerating them. Only then, INTadvanced the horse the required number shown in the dice. The demonstration forthe Observation group consisted in looking attentively at the dots whileenumerating them before advancing the horse. That is, the verbal component ofthe demonstration was the same between groups; the difference lies on whetherdirect contact with the dots and steps is established or not.Task 3: The demonstration for the Action Groupconsisted in placing the palm of the hand successively over the steps betweenthe horse and the small plate while enumerating them. Next, INT took the dicein her hands, looked at it attentively while she rotated it slowly until shefound the face corresponding to the number of steps. Then, she touched andenumerated the dots and placed the dice on the floor with the correspondingface upwards. Finally, she advanced the horse step by step to its food and?made it eat?. The demonstration for the Observation group did not include anydirect contact with the steps or the dots.  Main findings and contributionPerformance in Q1 was similar across groups. As expected, childrenin the Action Group showed a higher proportion of correct answers in Q2, Q3,Tasks 2 and 3. This finding was obtained for overall task performance and alsofor most magnitudes within each task. Interestingly enough, the most difficultmagnitudes for this age -3, and especially 4 and 5 (see Carey et al., 2009,among others)- were the ones revealing  more significant differencesbetween groups. Our findings support the thesis that enactive experiencecontributes to improving numerical understanding. This work extends thisfinding to earlier developmental stages than those considered in previousstudies. These results underscore the need to investigate the contribution ofembodied action in educational settings.