Search

In this paper, motivated by the desire to understand which forms of parent-initiated activity are productively implicated in young children's mathematics learning, we present a methodological critique of recent research. Many such studies, based on assumptions that parent-initiated activities can be categorised as formal or informal, direct or indirect, or advanced or basic, exploit surveys to elicit how frequently parents engage their children in various predetermined activities. While such survey data have the potential to yield important insights, the analytical procedures typically employed prevent them. Studies involving factor analyses yield uninterpretable factors, which are then used to create summative variables based on the scores of individual activities. Other studies, drawing on untested preconceptions, simply create summative variables. In all cases, these summative variables are based on such a wide range of qualitatively different activities that labels like formal or informal become arbitrary and the potential of individual activities to support learning gets lost beneath colleagues' desires for statistical significance. In closing, we ask colleagues, albeit somewhat rhetorically, what is the purpose of such research? Is it to identify those activities that support learning or to offer statistically robust factors, which, due to the diversity of activities embedded within them, offer few useful insights?

In this paper, motivated by the desire to understand which forms of parent-initiated activity are productively implicated in young children's mathematics learning, we present a methodological critique of recent research. Many such studies, based on assumptions that parent-initiated activities can be categorised as formal or informal, direct or indirect, or advanced or basic, exploit surveys to elicit how frequently parents engage their children in various predetermined activities. While such survey data have the potential to yield important insights, the analytical procedures typically employed prevent them. Studies involving factor analyses yield uninterpretable factors, which are then used to create summative variables based on the scores of individual activities. Other studies, drawing on untested preconceptions, simply create summative variables. In all cases, these summative variables are based on such a wide range of qualitatively different activities that labels like formal or informal become arbitrary and the potential of individual activities to support learning gets lost beneath colleagues' desires for statistical significance. In closing, we ask colleagues, albeit somewhat rhetorically, what is the purpose of such research? Is it to identify those activities that support learning or to offer statistically robust factors, which, due to the diversity of activities embedded within them, offer few useful insights? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]