Decision Making and Logical Deductions in Early Childhood When Dealing with the Quantifier “For All”
Le résumé fourni par la source
In natural language, there is a necessity for logical connectives, such as “and” and “or”, and in quantifiers, such as “all” and “exists/there is/are”. In this chapter, we investigate the decision-making and logical reasoning processes among young children, specifically when dealing with logical deduction based on the quantifier “all”. Two hundred and seventy eight kindergarten and first- and second-grade pupils participated in the study, (age range 4–8 years). In this chapter, we report on a problem worded as follows: “All of Roni’s red shirts are in the closet. Is Roni wearing a red shirt or a green shirt now?” The findings of this study show that about fifty percent of the children arrived at the correct decision about Roni’s shirt colour, with older children giving a higher percentage of correct answers: a reasonable expectation given that children are developing their cognitive abilities. In addition, the findings of this study do suggest that there is a very strong significant correlation between decision making and the rationale given by children, and this is influenced by three predominant factors: environmental, preferences, and intuition. The principle conclusion from this study is that there are parameters that affect the logical reasoning in early childhood: environment, intuition, and preferences. In addition, young children may use abductive reasoning when required to deal with quantifier-based problems, but this only occurs in the case of an incorrect decision.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Decision Making and Logical Deductions in Early Childhood When Dealing with the Quantifier “For All”
- Date Crossref
- 07/02/2022
- Éditeur
- BRILL
- Type
- book-chapter
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.