Abstract
AbstractWe present a systematic and qualitative review of academic literature on early conceptual development (0–24 months of age), with an emphasis on methodological aspects. The final sample of our review included 281 studies reported in 115 articles. The main aims of the article were four: first, to organise studies into sets according to methodological similarities and differences; second, to elaborate on the methodological procedures that characterise each set; third, to circumscribe the empirical indicators that different sets of studies consider as proof of the existence of concepts in early childhood; last, to identify methodological limitations and to propose possible ways to overcome them. We grouped the studies into five sets: preference and habituation experiments, category extension tasks, object sorting tasks, sequential touching tasks and object examination tasks. In the “Results” section, we review the core features of each set of studies. In the “Discussion” and “Conclusions” sections, we describe, for one thing, the most relevant methodological shortcomings. We end by arguing that a situated, semiotic and pragmatic perspective that emphasises the importance of ecological validity could open up new avenues of research to better understand the development of concepts in early childhood.
Funder
Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte
Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference174 articles.
1. Alessandroni, N. (2020). Object concepts and their functional core: Material engagement and canonical uses of objects in early childhood education. Human Arenas. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42087-020-00119-5.
2. Alessandroni, N., Moreno-Núñez, A., Rodríguez, C., & Del Olmo, M. J. (2019). Musical dynamics in early triadic interactions: A case study. Psychological Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01168-4.
3. Alessandroni, N., & Rodríguez, C. (in press). On perception as the basis for object concepts: A critical analysis. Pragmatics & Cognition.
4. Alvarez, G. A., & Franconeri, S. L. (2007). How many objects can you track? Evidence for a resource-limited attentive tracking mechanism. Journal of Vision, 7(13), 14. https://doi.org/10.1167/7.13.14.
5. Anderson, A., & Prawat, R. S. (1983). When is a cup not a cup? A further examination of form and function in children’s labeling responses. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 4, 375–385. www.jstor.org/stable/23086306.
Cited by
12 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献