title: Development of proportional reasoning: where young children go wrong.
abstract: Previous studies have found that children have difficulty solving proportional reasoning problems involving discrete units until 10 to 12 years of age, but can solve parallel problems involving continuous quantities by 6 years of age. The present studies examine where children go wrong in processing proportions that involve discrete quantities. A computerized proportional equivalence choice task was administered to kindergartners through 4th-graders in Study 1, and to 1st- and 3rd-graders in Study 2. Both studies involved 4 between-subjects conditions that were formed by pairing continuous and discrete target proportions with continuous and discrete choice alternatives. In Study 1, target and choice alternatives were presented simultaneously; in Study 2, target and choice alternatives were presented sequentially. In both studies, children performed significantly worse when both the target and choice alternatives were represented with discrete quantities than when either or both of the proportions involved continuous quantities. Taken together, these findings indicate that children go astray on proportional reasoning problems involving discrete units only when a numerical match is possible, suggesting that their difficulty is due to an overextension of numerical equivalence concepts to proportional equivalence problems.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University, IN 47405, USA. tywboyer@indiana.edu
authors.forename: Ty W
authors.initials: TW
authors.lastname: Boyer
authors.forename: Susan C
authors.initials: SC
authors.lastname: Levine
authors.forename: Janellen
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Huttenlocher
mesh_terms: D002648:Child; D002755:Choice Behavior; D003210:Concept Formation; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008433:Mathematics; D011340:Problem Solving; D012737:Sex Factors; D012858:Size Perception
references.citation: Child Dev. 2001 Jan-Feb;72(1):103-22
references.pmid: 11280473
references.citation: Am Psychol. 2005 Nov;60(8):769-78
references.pmid: 16351402
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2004 Jul;8(7):307-14
references.pmid: 15242690
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2007 Aug;18(8):740-5
references.pmid: 17680947
references.citation: Dev Psychol. 1999 Jan;35(1):164-74
references.pmid: 9923472
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2007 May;11(5):185-7
references.pmid: 17339127
references.citation: Cognition. 2000 Jan 10;74(1):B1-B11
references.pmid: 10594312
references.citation: Cognition. 2000 May 15;75(2):145-70
references.pmid: 10771276
references.citation: Cognition. 1992 Aug;44(1-2):43-74
references.pmid: 1511586
references.citation: Dev Sci. 2006 Nov;9(6):F59-64
references.pmid: 17059447
references.citation: Cognition. 1991 Jan;38(1):13-42
references.pmid: 2015755
references.citation: Br J Dev Psychol. 2010 Jun;28(Pt 2):427-48
references.pmid: 20481396
references.citation: J Exp Child Psychol. 2007 May;97(1):28-43
references.pmid: 17321540
references.citation: Child Dev. 1989 Aug;60(4):933-45
references.pmid: 2758887
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2002 May;13(3):244-9
references.pmid: 12009045
references.citation: J Exp Child Psychol. 2008 Sep;101(1):20-51
references.pmid: 18381214
references.citation: Dev Psychol. 1998 Nov;34(6):1340-57
references.pmid: 9823516
references.citation: Child Dev. 1975 Mar;46(1):141-8
references.pmid: 1132267
references.citation: Dev Psychol. 1997 Sep;33(5):731-44
references.pmid: 9300207