Young Children's Representations of Groups of Objects: The Relationship between Abstraction

and Representation
Author(s): Yasuhiko Kato, Constance Kamii, Kyoko Ozaki, Mariko Nagahiro
Source: Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Vol. 33, No. 1 (Jan., 2002), pp. 30-45
Published by: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/749868
Accessed: 04/10/2010 03:43

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=nctm.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Journal for Research in Mathematics Education.

http://www.jstor.org
Journalfor Researchin MathematicsEducation
2002, Vol. 33, No. 1, 30-45

Young Children's Representations of

Groups of Objects:
The Relationship Between
Abstraction and Representation

YasuhikoKato, ChugokuJunior College, Okayama,Japan

ConstanceKamii, Universityof Alabamaat Birmingham
Kyoko Ozaki, TomiyamaChild Care Center,Okayama,Japan
MarikoNagahiro,ChugokuJunior College, Okayama,Japan

SixtyJapanesechildrenbetweentheagesof 3 years4 monthsand7 years5 months

wereindividuallyinterviewed to investigatetherelationship betweentheirlevelsof
abstraction
(asassessedby a taskinvolvingconservation of number)andtheirlevels
of representation
(asassessedbya taskaskingfortheirgraphicrepresentation of small
groupsof objects).Theinvestigation concludedthatabstraction andrepresentation
arecloselyrelatedandthatchildrencanrepresent at or belowtheirlevelof abstrac-
tionbutnotabovethislevel.Theeducational implication is thateducatorsneedto
focusmoreonthementalrelationships childrenmake(i.e.,theirabstraction)because
the meaningchildrencan give to conventional symbolsdependson theirlevel of
abstraction.
Keywords:Abstraction; Constructivism;
Cognitivedevelopment; Earlychildhood;
Piaget;Representation
Preschool/primary;

The verb to representis often used mathematicallyin the following way: "In
elementaryschool mathematics,therearetwo types of writtensymbols:those that
representquantities(e.g., 2, 3 1/2, 1.6) and those that representactions or opera-
tions on quantities(e.g., +, -)" (Hiebert, 1988, p. 336). Base-10 blocks are like-
wise saidto representthebase-10 system,andFurth(1981, p. 69) gives otherexam-
ples, such as "TheletterX representsthose childrenof the city who arebetween 6
and 10 years of age." For Piaget (1945/1962), however, representingis not what
symbols do. In his view, people represent,but symbols do not. A child who sees
the numeral8 can representthe idea of eight to himselfor herself if he or she has
alreadyconstructedthisidea.A childwho has notconstructedthisideacannotrepre-
sent it to himself or herself when presentedwith this numeral.
Childrenalso representby drawingpicturesor writingnumerals.To studyhow
youngchildrengraphicallyrepresentsmallgroupsof objects,Sinclair,Siegrist,and
Sinclair (1983) individually interviewed 4-, 5-, and 6-year-olds in Geneva,
Switzerland,in a kindergartenand child-carecenter where no formal academic
instructionhadbeen given. Therewere a total of 45 childrenin the study,with 15
childrenin each age group.Duringthe interviewsthe childrenwere presentedwith
Y.Kato, C. Kamii,K. Ozaki,and M. Nagahiro 31

up to eight identical objects, such as pencils, small rubberballs, and toy cars. A
typical session involved, for example, an interviewerpresentinga child with three
small rubberballs as well as a pencil andpaperand asking, "Couldyou put down
whatis on thetable?"To avoidsuggestingquantification, the interviewerspurposely
avoided using phrasesand words such as how many and number.This first phase
of the session involved several similaritems based on numbersof objects, such as
two balls or five toy houses.
In the second phase of the interviews,the interviewerdid not presentobjects to
the childrenbut instead asked questions such as, "Couldyou write '3' [then '5,'
and so on]?"The purposeof this requestwas to find out if the childrencould write
numeralsin the absence of objects when explicitly asked to do so.
On the basis of the resultsof their study, Sinclairet al. categorizedsix types of
notations,as shown in Figure 1 and explainedbelow. The numbersthat precede
the explanationscorrespondto the numbersin the columnlabelednotationtypein
the figure.

NOTATION
TYPE: threeballs twoballs fivehouses

3. FF 17117
3. A- I /JTTI

4.OOL

4. 333 22. 555SS

6. 3..T9o Io 5
5-.s;
6.
I ct t on dem ba~l 37 mez ft e.

Figure1. Notationtypesreported by Sinclair,Siegrist,andSinclair(1983).Note.From

A. Sinclair,F. Siegrist,andH. Sinclair,"Youngchildren'sideasaboutthewrittennumber
system,"in D. Rogers & J. A. Sloboda (Eds.), The acquisitionof symbolicskills (p. 540).
NewYork:Plenum.Copyright1983by Plenum.Reprinted
withpermission.
32 YoungChildren's
Representations
of Groupsof Objects

1. Global representation of quantity. Examples of this type include multiple

strokes-forinstance,IIIIforthreeballsandI1111
fortwoballs.Thechildwhodrew
these strokescan be saidto be representinga vague,prenumerical,quantitativeidea
of "many,""abunch,"or "morethanone."In this example,the childdrew4 strokes
for threeballs and 5 strokesfor two balls, but also 5 strokesfor five houses.
2. Representationof the object-kind.These notationsshow a focus on the qualita-
tive ratherthanthe quantitativeaspect of each set. The examples show a form of
the letterB for threeballs andtwo balls, and a drawingof a house for five houses.
3. One-to-onecorrespondencewithsymbols(i.e., symbolsin the Piagetiansense).
The figure shows threeexamples of this kind of notation.Some childreninvented
symbolsto representthe correctnumber,andothersused threeconventionalletters
as symbols to representthe numberof objects (e.g., "TIL"and "AE1"[which are
not three-letterFrenchwords]to representthreeballs).This is the firstnotationtype
in which precise numericalideas makes an appearance.
4. One-to-one correspondencewith numerals. As shown in the figure, the first
example of a one-to-one correspondencewith numeralsfor three balls is "123,"
and the second example is "333."It can be said thatthe childrenwho wrote these
numeralsfelt the need to representeach object or theirown action of counting.
5. Cardinalvalue alone. We finally see the numeral3 for threeballs and5 for five
houses(alongwith"invented" spellingin Frenchforthenumberstrois,deux,andcinq).
6. Cardinalvalue and object-kind.Examples of this type are "4 pencils" and "5
houses."("Crbion"and"mbzone"areinventedspellings for crayonsandmaisons.
The child who gave these responses was probablyshown four pencils insteadof
threeballs.) These representationsshow a simultaneousfocus on the quantitative
and qualitativeaspects of each set.
Results from the study by Sinclairet al. showed thatType 1 (global) represen-
tationwas foundmainly amongthe 4-year-olds,andTypes 5 and6 (cardinalvalue
with or without object-kind)were found mostly among those older than 5 and a
half years.Types 3 and4 (one-to-onecorrespondence)were most frequentlyfound
in the middle of the age range.It mustbe notedthatno clear-cutlevels were found
by Sinclairet al., as half of the childrenin the study used more than one type of
representation.
However,a significantfindingof Sinclairet al. was thatmanychildrenwho used
only representationsof Type 1, 2, or 3 were perfectly able to write the numerals
3, 5, and so on when asked, "Can you write '3' [then '5,' and so on]?" The
following questionarises:Why did the childrennot writethe numeralsthey knew?
In ourview, the answerto this questionis that,as Piaget (1977) said, when chil-
drenrepresentreality,they do not representrealityitself-they representwhatthey
thinkabout reality. When the childrenin the study saw threeballs, for example,
some of them-especially the youngerones-thought of them in some fashion as
"a bunch"and gave a Type-i representation.Othersthought"balls"and gave a
Type-2 representationinvolving the letter B. These children thought about the
Y.Kato,C.Kamii,K. Ozaki,andM.Nagahiro 33

objects eitherfrom a vaguely quantitativeor a qualitativepoint of view. At age 5,

when childrenconstructednumber,they tendedto makeType-3 andType-4 repre-
sentations.These childrenthoughtaboutthreeobjectswith numericalprecisionbut
still consideredeach object individually.The fact that some childrenmade Type-
4 representationsis especially significantbecause it shows that even when chil-
drenhave acquiredthe social knowledgeof writtennumerals,they use this knowl-
edge at theirrespectivelevels of abstraction.No one teaches childrento write 123
or 333 to representthreeobjects,but representationsof Types 3 and4 reveal chil-
dren's attentionto each object ratherthanto the total quantity.
The oldest children,reflectingtheirthinkingaboutthe total quantityof objects,
mostly madeType-5 representations.At this stage,it seemedbest to these children
to writeone numeralandnot threesymbolsor signs. Type-6 representationsreflect
children'sabilityto thinksimultaneouslyaboutnumericalquantityandobject-type.
Sinclairet al. conceptualizedsix types of representation,ratherthan six devel-
opmentallevels, andnoted a generalrelationshipbetween children'sages andthe
representationtypes. On the basis of this observationand Piaget's (1945/1962;
Piaget & Inhelder,1968/1973) theoryof representation,we decidedto studymore
specifically the relationshipbetween children's constructionof numberthrough
constructiveabstraction'(also known as reflective or reflecting abstraction)and
their development in representingnumericalquantities.To clarify what Piaget
meantby constructiveabstraction,it is necessaryto reviewthe threekindsof knowl-
edge thathe distinguishedaccordingto theirultimatesourcesandthe two kinds of
abstractioninvolved in the constructionof each kind of knowledge.
The three kinds of knowledge are physical, social, and logico-mathematical
knowledge. Physical knowledgeis a knowledge of objects in the externalworld.
The color and weight of countersor any other objects are examples of physical
knowledge. The ultimate source of physical knowledge is partlyin objects, and
physical knowledge can be acquired empirically through observation. Social
knowledgeincludesa knowledgeof words,such as one, two, andthree,or uno,dos,
and tres, which have theirsourcepartlyin conventionsmadeby people. Otherex-
amples of social knowledge are a knowledge of writtennumeralsandof holidays,
such as Christmas.Logico-mathematicalknowledgeconsists of mental relation-
ships,andtheultimatesourceof theserelationshipsis in eachindividual.Knowledge
of numberis partof logico-mathematicalknowledge,which is constructedby each
child from within, throughconstructiveabstraction.For instance, when we are
presentedwith a red counter and a blue one, we can think about them as being
different,similar, or two. If we focus on theircolors, the countersare different.If
we ignorecolors, the countersaresimilar,andif we thinkaboutthemnumerically,
the countersbecome two.

1 Piaget spoke of abstraction riflechissante, which has been translatedfrom French variously as
"reflectiveabstraction,""reflectingabstraction,"and "constructiveabstraction."For a more detailed
explanationof constructiveabstractioninvolving children'sconstructionof number,see Kamii, 1982,
1985, 1989, 1994, 2000.
34 YoungChildren'sRepresentationsof Groupsof Objects

Piaget (1967/1971) distinguishedbetween empiricalabstractionand construc-

tive abstractionand pointed out that empiricalabstractionis heavily involved in
the acquisition of physical knowledge. In empirical abstraction,we focus on a
certainpropertyof an objectandignorethe others.For example,when we abstract
the color of an object, we simply ignore the object's otherproperties,such as its
weight andthe materialfrom which it is made (e.g., plasticor glass). Constructive
abstractioninvolves making mental relationships, such as the same, similar,
different,and two, between and among objects. As statedearlier,these relation-
ships do not have an existence in externalreality.Eightcountersareobservableas
empirical,physicalknowledge,butthe numbereightis a mentalrelationship,which
is not observable.
Having made the theoretical distinction between empirical and constructive
abstraction,Piaget went on to say that,in the psychological realityof young chil-
dren,one kindof abstractioncannottakeplace withoutthe other.Forexample,chil-
drencouldnot constructthe relationshipdifferentif all the objectsin the worldwere
identical. The relationship two would likewise be impossible for children to
constructif they thoughtthatobjectsbehavedlike multipledropsof water,which
can combine to become one drop. Conversely, physical knowledge, such as a
knowledge of red, could not be acquiredif we did not make the category color
(distinct from every other property,such as weight), at least at some intuitive,
implicitlevel. A logico-mathematicalorganization-built by constructiveabstrac-
tion-is thusnecessaryfor empiricalabstractionbecausewe couldnot "read"facts
from externalrealityif each fact were an isolated bit of knowledge, with no rela-
tionshipto the knowledge alreadybuilt andorganized.This is why we said earlier
thatthe sourceof physical knowledge is only partly in objects and thatthe source
of social knowledge is only partly in conventions.
While constructive abstraction cannot take place independently of empir-
ical abstractionbefore about age 6, constructive abstractiongraduallybecomes
independent in the logico-mathematical realm. For example, once a child has
constructed number, then that child can operate on numbers and think about
8 + 8 + 8 + 8, 4 x 8, and 4x = 32 without empirical abstractionfrom objects.
In the present investigation, we hypothesized that there must be a close rela-
tionshipbetweenchildren's levels of abstractionin the constructionof numberand
their levels of representation.We used a conservation-of-numbertask to assess
children'slevels of constructiveabstractionanda modificationof the methodused
by Sinclairet al. to assess their levels of representation.

METHOD
A total of 60 Japanesechildrenrangingin age from 3 years4 monthsto 7 years
5 monthswere individuallyinterviewed.They were randomlyselected from class
lists providedby theirrespectiveschoolsto constitutethe followingfourage groups,
each consistingof 15 children:4-year-olds(3 years4 monthsto 4 years 5 months;
meanage:3 years8 months),5-year-olds(4 years6 monthsto 5 years5 months;mean
Y.Kato, C. Kamii,K. Ozaki,and M. Nagahiro 35

age:5 years2 months),6-year-olds(5 years6 monthsto 6 years5 months;meanage:

6 years2 months),and7-year-olds(6 years6 monthsto 7 years5 months;meanage:
7 years0 months).
The 3-to-6-year-old children were attending two private child-care centers;
those in the 7-year-old groupwere selected from two public elementaryschools,
one in FukuyamaCity andthe otherin OkayamaCity. All the childrencame from
middle-classfamilies.2While genderwas not consideredin selecting the samples,
we found that there were more boys than girls in the 4-year-old and 5-year-old
groups(9 and 10 boys, respectively)andfewer boys thangirls in the 6- and7-year-
old groups (6 and 5 boys, respectively). The following three tasks were given to
each child in each interview;all the interviewswere videotaped.

Task
Representation-of-Groups-of-Objects
This task was very similar to the one used by Sinclair et al. and involved the
following fourkinds andnumbersof objects,which were presentedto all the chil-
drenin the sameorder:fourplasticdishes(eachabout9 cm in diameter),threestain-
less steel spoons, six pencils, andeight wooden blocks (2.5 cm on each side). Each
child was first given a sheet of paperand a black marker.The intervieweraligned
the dishes in frontof the child with the requestto "takea good look at all of these,"
accompaniedby a handmotionencirclingthe entireset. The interviewerthenasked
the child to "draw/writeon this sheet of paperwhat's here so thatyourmotherwill
be able to tell what I showed you." (In spoken Japanese,the words for draw and
write sound exactly the same.) The interviewerwas carefulnot to use phrasesor
words like how manyor number,which could have suggestedquantities.When a
child askedwhetherto drawor to write, the responsewas "Youdecide which way
you like."
When the child finished, the interviewerasked, "Will your motherbe able to
know whatI showed you?"and"Isthereanythingyou wantto add?"If the answer
was yes, the child was encouragedto modifyhis or heranswer.Otherwise,the inter-
viewer went on to the next item-three spoons-presented along with a new sheet
of paper.The process was repeateduntil all four items had been presented.When
it was impossible to interpretwhat the child had scribbled,the interviewerasked
additionalquestions,probingsuch aspectsas whatwas represented,why the child
had produceda shape like this, and so on.

Task
Conservation-of-Number
This taskwas given to determineeach child's level of abstractionin the construc-
tion of number.The materialsused were 20 red and 20 blue counters,andthe task
consisted of the following two parts:

2 A very largeproportionof the Japanesepopulationcan be said to belong to the middleclass because

Japandoes not have the kind of povertythatexists in the United States.
36 YoungChildren'sRepresentationsof Groupsof Objects

1. Making a row that had the same number as a given row. The interviewer
alignedeight countersof one color and, afteroffering all the countersof the other
color to the child, asked, "Couldyou put out the same number[or "sameamount"
or "justas many"]here [indicatingwith the movement of a finger a parallelline
below and slightly shorterthanthe model]?"
2. Conservingnumericalsameness (given only to the childrenwho createda row
with the samenumberof counters).The intervieweraskedthe child to "watchcare-
fully what I am going to do," and in frontof the child's attentiveeyes, made one
row longer and the otherrow shorter,as shown in Figure2. The interviewerthen
asked, "Aretherejust as many here as here [runninga finger along each row], or
aretheremore here or more here [indicatingeach row separately]?"Whateverthe
child's response,the next questionwas "How do you know that?"

00000000

O O O O O O O O

Figure2. Arrangement
of countersin theconservation-of-number
task.

This task shows the developmentof logico-mathematicalknowledge through

constructiveabstractionat threelevels. Whenchildrenoperatingat the lowest level
(Level 1) do not successfullycompletePart1 of thetask,theydo not thinkof making
a one-to-onecorrespondencebecausetheircapacityfor constructiveabstractionis
still too weak to makea precisequantitativecomparisonbetweentwo sets. Children
at Level 2 can make a one-to-one correspondencebut when this empiricalcorre-
spondenceis destroyed,theircapacityfor constructiveabstractionis not developed
enough to deduce that the quantityhas to remainthe same. Nonconservershave
physical, empiricalknowledge of the countersand of the space occupied by the
counters,but they do not have the logico-mathematicalknowledgeto deduce,with
theforce of logical necessity, that the quantityof the two sets has to remainthe
same.Childrenat the highestlevel (Level 3), by contrast,have developedtheirlogic
sufficiently to deduce thatthe two sets have to have the same number(i.e., these
childrenare successful on both parts).

Writing-of-NumeralsTask
The interviewerasked, "Canyou write a 3 [thena 5, a 6, an 8, and so on]?"The
numerals 1-8 were requestedin randomorder,withoutany prescribedsequence.
This task was given to find out if, in the representation-of-groups-of-objects
task,
childrenused the numeralsthey knew how to write.
Y.Kato, C. Kamii,K. Ozaki,and M. Nagahiro 37

RESULTS

In this section we firstreportanddiscuss the resultsfromeach of the threetasks.

We then presentthe relationshipsfound between levels of abstractionand levels
of representation,and between knowledge of numeralsand use of numerals.

Representationof Groupsof Objects

Afteranalyzingthe responsesof the60 childrento thistask,we identified10 chil-
drenwho gave responsesthatdid not lend themselvesto analysisaccordingto the
focus of our study-that is, children'snumericalthinking.One child's responseto
therepresentation taskwas impossibleto interpret.Theotherninechildrenrepresented
only the qualitativeaspect of each set of objects. For example, when they were
presented with fourdishes,they focused on the qualitativeaspect,thought"Dishes!"
andproducedresponseslike those in Figure3. Figure3a was producedby a boy in
the 5-year-oldgroup,andFigure3b, by a girlin the 6-year-oldgroup.The nine chil-
drenwho madethis kind of responsewere distributedover the entireage range.

(a)

S (Dishes,inJapanese)

(b)

Figure3. Examplesof representation

of only the qualitativeaspectof sets of objects
(specifically,4 dishes).

The representationsof the remaining50 children were categorized into three

levels, each with two subcategories that we designated either as true sublevels
or as response types. From Sinclair et al., we retainedType 1-a prenumerical
level of representing a vague quantity like "a bunch"-as our Level 1. We
droppedType 2 becauseit did not involve any quantity.We combinedTypes 3 and
4, which both involved one-to-one correspondences, as our Level 2; and we
combinedTypes 5 and 6, which both involved composite wholes, as our Level 3.
38 YoungChildren'sRepresentationsof Groupsof Objects

It is importantto notethatSinclairet al. categorizedresponsetypesratherthanlevels

because theirresearchwas in a new, unexploredterritory,andthey foundthathalf
of the childrenin theirstudyusedmorethanone typeof representation. In ourstudy,
we
by contrast, categorized children according to levels becausewe benefited from
the findings of Sinclairet al. andbecause no child in our studyrepresentedsets of
objects at more thanone level. Ourclassificationsystem, along with examples of
children'sresponses, appearsin Figure4.
As shownin thefigure,Level 1 is quantitativebutprenumerical. At Level la (a true
sublevel),thechildproduces"abunch"of circles-5 circlesin theexampleshown-
even when the set containsonly four dishes. At Level lb (also a truesublevel),the
childdrawsthecorrectnumberforsmallsets suchas fourdishesbutnotforsetslarger
thanfive-in the example,the child drew 12 shapesto representeightblocks.
At Level 2 (which has two responsetypes ratherthansublevels),representation
with a one-to-onecorrespondencebecomes possible even with largersets, such as
six pencils andeight blocks. Type 2a was typicalof childrenwho drewshapes in a
one-to-onecorrespondence,andType 2b was typicalof those who wrotenumerals
in a one-to-onecorrespondence, suchas 1234(fournumerals)to representfourdishes.
Childrenat Level 3 (also with two responsetypes) representsets of objectswith
one numeralto indicatethe totalquantityas a compositewhole. Childrenwho gave
a Type-3a responsewrote only one numeral-"6" for six pencils, for example. A
Type-3b responseinvolved representingboth the quantitativeand the qualitative
aspects-for example,"4 dishes,"or a completesentenceincludinga numeral,such
as "Thereare4 dishes."
Threeof the four authorsindependentlycategorizedeach child's graphicrepre-
sentationsaccordingto the precedingcriteria.The inter-raterreliabilitycoefficient
was 0.86, and the disagreementswere discusseduntil consensus was reached.
The resultsare summarizedin Table 1. Somers' dAB,a statisticthatassesses the
degree of associationbetween two orderedvariables(Siegel & Castellan, 1988),
was 0.63, which is significant at the .001 level. Thus, these findings suggest a
generalprogressionof levels of representationacross age levels, with most of the
4-year-oldsin Level 1 (77%),most of the 5-year-oldsin Level 2 (83%), andmost
of the 7-year-oldsin Level 3 (62%).The 6-year-oldswere evenly dividedbetween
Levels 2 and 3.

Conservationof Number(Levels of Abstraction)

We obtainedresponses to this task from all 60 children.On the basis of their
responses,the childrenwere categorizedaccordingto threelevels of abstraction.
Level 1 is characterizedby an absence of a one-to-one correspondence.Some
childrenat this level put out all 20 of the chips that were available,while others
carefullymadethe ends of the two rows alignbutputout differentnumbersof chips
in rows that differedin density. These children'sconstructiveabstraction,or the
abilityto makementalrelationships,was not strongenoughfor themto makea one-
to-one correspondence.
Y.Kato, C. Kamii,K. Ozaki,and M. Nagahiro 39

Level 1: Global, prenumericalrepresentation

Sublevel la. Absence of a one-to-one correspondence even when the numberof
objects is smallerthanfive
Example:Childdraws5 circlesto representfourdishes.

Sublevel 1b. Absence of a one-to-one correspondencewhen the numberof objects is

greaterthanfive
Example:Childdraws4 circlesto representfourdishes, butdraws 12 shapes to repre-
sent eight blocks.
0 fourdishes

eight blocks

Level 2: Representation with one-to-one correspondence

Response type 2a: One-to-onecorrespondence,withpictures
Example:Childdraws6 pencilsto representsix pencils.

Response type 2b: One-to-onecorrespondence,withnumerals

Example:Childwrites4 numeralsto representfourdishes.

Level 3: Representation with one numeral indicating the total quantity as a

composite whole
Response type 3a: Writingnumeralonly
Example:Childwrites"6"forsix pencils.

Response type 3b: Writingnumeraland name of object or a complete sentence that

includesboth
Example:Childwrites"Thereare 4 dishes"in Japanese.

Figure4. Examplesof representationsat Levels 1, 2, and3, with sublevelsor responsetypes.

40 YoungChildren'sRepresentationsof Groupsof Objects

Table 1
RelationshipbetweenAge and Level of Representation(N = 50)
Level of Representation
1 2 3
(Global/ (Representationwith (Representation
prenumerical) 1-1 correspondence) with one numeral)
Age a b a b a b
4-year-olds 8 (62%) 2 (15%) 3 (23%) 0 0 0
5-year-olds 0 2 (17%) 9 (75%) 1 (8%) 0 0
6-year-olds 0 0 6 (50%) 0 2 (16%) 4 (34%)
7-year-olds 0 0 4 (30%) 1 (8%) 0 8 (62%)
Note.Percentages in
reported thetablearerow See
percentages. Figure 4 forexamples of Levels la-b
and Response Types 2a-b and 3a-b.

Level 2 is characterizedby a one-to-one correspondencewithoutconservation

of numericalsameness.The childrenat this level putout the same numberof coun-
tersin a one-to-onecorrespondence.However,when the empiricalcorrespondence
was destroyed,these childrenthoughtthat one set had more than the other. The
constructiveabstractionof these childrenwas developedenoughfor them to make
a precise quantitativecomparison but not enough for them to make a logical
deductionwhen the empiricalappearanceof the two sets createdan impressionof
unequalquantities.
Level 3 involves a one-to-one correspondencewith conservationof numerical
sameness.The conserversused a one-to-onecorrespondence,saidthe two rows had
the same numberwhen one row looked longer than the other, andjustified their
judgment logically with one of the following arguments:(a) "You didn't add or
takeawayanything"(identity);(b) "Icanputthembackto theway theywerebefore,
and you'll see that it's still the same amount"(reversibility);or (c) "This line is
longer, but it has lots of space between the counters"(compensation).
Threeof the four authorsindependentlyviewed the videotapesand categorized
each child accordingto the precedingcriteria.The inter-raterreliabilitycoefficient
was 0.95, and agreementaboutinitial discrepancieswas reachedby discussion.
As shown in Table 2, a positive relationshipwas foundbetweenchildren'sages
and theirlevels of abstraction(Somers' dab = 0.63; significantat the .001 level).
Most of the 4-year-olds(67%)were foundto be at Level 1 (inabilityto makea one-
to-one correspondence).Most of the 5-year-olds(67%)were foundto be at Level 2
(ability to make a one-to-one correspondencebut not to conserve). The percent-
ages of the two older groupsof childrenwere the same, with most of the students
(87%) at Level 3 (conservation).

Ability to WriteNumerals
Based on theirresponsesto this task,the 60 childrenwere categorizedinto three
levels. At Level 1, they did not know how to write any numerals;at Level 2, they
Y.Kato, C. Kamii,K. Ozaki,and M. Nagahiro 41

Table 2
RelationshipbetweenAge and Level of Abstraction(N = 60)
Level of Abstraction
1 2 3
(no 1-1 (1-1 correspondence; (1-1 correspondence
Age correspondence) no conservation) with conservation)
4-year-olds 10 (67%) 5 (33%) 0
5-year-olds 0 10 (67%) 5 (33%)
6-year-olds 0 2 (13%) 13 (87%)
7-year-olds 0 2 (13%) 13 (87%)
Note.Percentages in
reported thetablearerowpercentages.

could write some of them;and at Level 3, they could write all of them. The find-
ings presentedin Table 3 show that no child in the youngest age group wrote
numerals.The majorityof the 5-year-oldchildren(67%)andall the olderchildren
wrote the numeralsperfectly. The relationshipbetween age and knowledge of
numeralswas found to be positive, with Somers' dAB = 0.59, which is significant
at the .001 level.

Table3
RelationshipbetweenAge and Level on the Writing-of-NumeralsTask(N = 60)
Levels
Age 1 (none correct) 2 (some correct) 3 (all correct)
4-year-olds 15 (100%) 0 0
5-year-olds 2 (13%) 3 (20%) 10 (67%)
6-year-olds 0 0 15 (100%)
7-year-olds 0 0 15 (100%)
Note.Percentages
reported in thetablearerowpercentages.

RelationshipBetweenLevel of Abstractionand Level of Representation

Using the subsampleof 50 studentswho were classified within both levels of
abstractionandlevels of representation, we examinedtherelationshipbetweenthese
two variables.Table4 shows the relationshipbetweenchildren'slevels of abstrac-
tion, as demonstratedby the conservationtask, and theirlevels of representation,
as revealed by the representation-of-groups-of-objectstask. The relationship
between levels of abstraction and of representationwas significant; Somers'
dAB = 0.78, p < .001. It can be seen from these results that most of the children
(36 of 50, or 72%) showed a "perfect"relationshipbetween the two variables;
thatis, the childrenwere at the same level on both tasks, with 8 (16%) at Level 1,
14 (28%) at Level 2, and 14 (28%) at Level 3 on bothtasks.Fourteenchildrenwere
found to be at a lower level in representationthan in abstraction(i.e., below the
diagonalin the table), but no one wasfound to be at a higher level in representa-
tion than in abstraction(i.e., above the diagonalin the table).
42 YoungChildren'sRepresentationsof Groupsof Objects

Table4
RelationshipbetweenLevel of Abstractionand of Representation(N = 50)
Levelof representation
Levelof abstraction 1 2 3
1 8(16%) 0 0
2 4(8%) 14 (28%) 0
3 0 10(20%) 14(28%)

RelationshipBetweenKnowledgeof Numeralsand Use of Numerals

The results from investigating the relationshipbetween these two variables
appearin Table 5. We found a positive relationshipbetween knowledge and use
of numerals;Somers' dab = .74, p < .01. Of the 50 children,33 could write all the
numerals(Level 3), but only 14 of them (42%) used this social knowledge in the
representation-of-groups-of-object task. The majority(18 children)represented
the groups of objects with one-to-one correspondences(Level 2 of the represen-
tation task).

Table5
RelationshipbetweenKnowledgeof Numeralsand Level of Representation(N = 50)
Levelof representation
Knowledgeof numerals 1 2 3
1 10 (20%) 4(8%) 0
2 1(2%) 2 (4%) 0
3 1(2%) 18 (36%) 14 (28%)

DISCUSSION

The childrenin ourstudygenerallyrepresentedgroupsof objectsat theirrespec-

tive levels of abstraction,as reportedin Table4. The reasonfor this relationshipis
thatthe children'sdegree of abstractionappearedto determinetheirperformance
on theconservationtaskas well as theirabilityto "see"(i.e., thinknumericallyabout)
objects such as eight blocks. If their capacity for abstractionwas not developed
enoughforthemto thinknumerically,theycouldnot"see"exactlyeightblockswhen
they were presentedwith them.Becausethey "saw"only somethinglike "abunch"
of blocks, it is not surprisingthat they representedthis prenumericalidea as "a
bunch."Childrenatthelow level of constructiveabstractioncouldnotmakea precise
one-to-onecorrespondencein theconservationtask,either.Thesechildrenwerethus
classified as being at Level 1 both in conservationandrepresentation.
As childrenbegin to constructnumberin theirheads (i.e., mentally),they begin
to "see"eight blocks with numericalprecision.When they can "see"eight blocks,
they become able to representthem with a one-to-one correspondence(Level-2
Y.Kato, C. Kamii,K. Ozaki,and M. Nagahiro 43

representation).If these children can make a one-to-one correspondencein the

conservationtask but cannotyet conserve, they are categorizedat Level 2 both in
conservationand in representation.
Level-2 representationindicatesthatchildrenare still thinkingaboutindividual
objects,butLevel-3 representationshows thatthey arenow thinkingaboutthe total
quantityas a composite unit. For those who think about composite wholes, the
numeral4 seems bettersuitedto representfourdishesthandoes a one-to-onecorre-
spondence of shapes or symbols, like 0000 or 1234. If a child's level of
abstractionis high, this child thinks at a high level both in the conservationtask
and in the representationtask.
As statedearlier,14 children'sperformanceswere found below the diagonalin
Table4, butnone was foundabovethisdiagonal.Of these 14 children,10 wereclas-
sified as conservers(i.e., achievingLevel 3 in abstraction)who were at Level 2 in
representation.These children's capacities for abstractioncan be said to have
been developed enough for them to conserve with sets of objects but not enough
for them to think about a group of objects as a composite whole and representit
as a totality.The other4 childrenwere at Level 2 in abstractionbut at Level 1 in
representation.Theirpowersof abstractionwere apparentlydevelopedenoughfor
them to make one-to-one correspondenceswith concrete objects in the conserva-
tion task (Level 2) but not enough for them to make representationswith one-to-
one correspondences.
The zeros in the cells above the diagonalin Table 4 suggest thatchildrenin our
studycould not representabove theirlevel of abstraction.One of the zeros appears
in the cell for Level 1 of abstractionand Level 3 of representation.This can be
explainedin the following way: If a child's power of abstractionis not developed
enough to allow him or her to make a one-to-one correspondencein the conser-
vation task, it is not developed enough to allow the child to representcomposite
units. The zero in the cell below (Level 2 of abstractionand Level 3 of represen-
tation)can be explainedin the same way: If a child's power of abstractionis not
developed enough for him or her to conserve numericalsameness,it is not devel-
oped enough for the child to representcomposite units. The thirdzero (Level 1 of
abstractionand Level 2 of representation)can be explained similarly:If a child's
power of abstractionis not developedenough for him or her to make a one-to-one
correspondencein the conservationtask, it is not developed enough for the child
to make representationswith a one-to-one correspondence.
An importantfinding from our study was that most of the childrenwho knew
how to writenumeralsdid not use them. Of the 33 childrenwho could write all the
numerals(see Table5, Level 3 [Knowledgeof numerals]),18 drewpicturesor wrote
numeralswith a one-to-one correspondenceratherthan writinga single numeral.
Only 2 of the childrengave representationsthatwere orderedstringslike 1234, but
these representationsshowed thateven social (conventional)knowledgeis used by
childrenat their level of abstraction.These findings supportPiaget's theory that
childrenrepresenttheirthinkingaboutreality.Whenchildrenarestill thinkingabout
individual objects, they externalize this thinking in their drawing or writing on
44 YoungChildren'sRepresentationsof Groupsof Objects

paper. When their thinking advances to the level of thinking about composite
wholes, they begin to externalizethis thinkingwith single numerals.
The presentstudyhighlightsthe importanceof encouragingchildrento think-
thatis, to make mentalrelationships.However, mathematicseducationhas had a
long traditionof teaching symbol manipulationwithoutpaying attentionto chil-
dren's thinking.The use of manipulativeshas been recommendedin recentyears
to remedy the teaching of symbol manipulationwithout attentionto children's
thinking.However,manipulativesareoftenrecommendedas if mathematicscould
be learnedby empiricalabstractionfrom objects and/orby following instructions
on how to arrangeobjects. In particular,Principles and Standardsfor School
Mathematics(National Council of Teachers of Mathematics,2000) completely
overlookschildren'sthinking-that is, theirpowers of constructiveabstraction-
when it states of studentsin prekindergartenthroughGrade2 that "measurement
conceptsandskills can develop togetheras studentspositionmultiplecopies of the
same units withoutleaving spaces between them or as they measureby iterating
one unitwithoutoverlappingor leaving gaps"(p. 106). Almost no child in pre-K-2
understandswhat a unit of measurementis because very few childrenin this age
rangecan makea part-wholerelationshipmentallybetweena whole lengthandunits
(Kamii & Clark, 1997; Piaget, Inhelder,& Szeminska, 1948/1960). Positioning
"multiplecopies of the same units withoutleaving spaces betweenthem"is there-
fore only an empiricalprocedure.Childrenbecome able to make part-wholerela-
tionshipsby thinkingthroughconstructiveabstractionin activities such as those
suggested in Kamii and Clark(1997), Kamii, Lewis, and Kirkland(2001), Long
and Kamii (2001), and Reece and Kamii (2001).
We areoften told thatchildrenprogressfromthe "concrete"level of real objects
to the "semiconcrete"level of picturesandthento the "abstract"level of symbols.
However,concreteobjectscan be used at a high or low level of abstraction.In the
conservationtask, childrenat a low level of abstractioncannot conserve numer-
ical sameness,but those at a higherlevel can. In the measurementof length, chil-
drenat a low level of abstractionalign paperclips only empirically,but those at a
higher level can think about them as units of length. Base-ten blocks and Unifix
Cubes, too, can be viewed at a high or low level of abstraction.Adults can "see"
one ten andten ones simultaneouslyin a base-10block.However,most6-year-olds,
who have just constructeda system of ones, can "see"one ten and ten ones only
at two differentpoints in time.
We focused on children'sconstructionof numberin the presentstudy, but the
relationshipbetweenabstractionandrepresentationmustbe studiedin otherrealms
as well, such as the four arithmetical operations, fractions, and proportional
reasoning.Furtherresearchis necessaryto understandthe mentalrelationshipschil-
drenare makingor not makingin specific situationsand in variousrealms.
Y. Kato, C. Kamii, K. Ozaki, and M. Nagahiro 45

REFERENCES

Furth,H. G. (1981). Piaget and knowledge:Theoreticalfoundations. Chicago:Universityof Chicago

Press.
Hiebert,J. (1988). A theoryof developingcompetencewith writtenmathematicalsymbols,Educational
Studies in Mathematics,19, 333-355.
Kamii,C. (1982). Numberin preschool and kindergarten:Educationalimplicationof Piaget's theory.
Washington,DC: NationalAssociation for the Educationof Young Children.
Kamii, C. (1985). Youngchildren reinventarithmetic:Implicationsof Piaget's theory. New York:
TeachersCollege Press.
Kamii, C. (1989). Youngchildrencontinueto reinventarithmetic,2nd grade: Implicationsof Piaget's
theory.New York:TeachersCollege Press.
Kamii,C. (1994). Youngchildrencontinueto reinventarithmetic,3rd grade:Implicationsof Piaget's
theory.New York:TeachersCollege Press.
Kamii, C. (2000). Youngchildrenreinventarithmetic:Implicationsof Piaget's theory(2nd ed.). New
York:TeachersCollege Press.
Kamii, C., & Clark,F. B. (1997). Measurementof length:The need for a betterapproachto teaching.
School Science and Mathematics,97, 116-121; 299-300.
Kamii, C., Lewis, B. A., & Kirkland,L. (2001). Manipulatives:When are they useful? Journal of
MathematicalBehavior,20, 21-31.
Long, K., & Kamii, C. (2001). The measurementof time: Children'sconstructionof transitivity,unit
iteration,and conservationof speed. School Science and Mathematics,101, 125-132.
NationalCouncilof Teachersof Mathematics.(2000). Principlesand standardsfor school mathematics.
Reston, VA: Author.
Piaget, J. (1945/1962). Play, dreams,and imitationin childhood.New York: Norton.
Piaget, J. (1967/197 1). Biology and knowledge:An essay on the relationsbetweenorganic regulations
and cognitiveprocesses. Chicago:Universityof Chicago Press.
Piaget, J. (1977). Piaget on Piaget [videorecording].New Haven, CT: Yale UniversityMedia Design
Studio.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder,B. (1968/1973). Memoryand intelligence. New York: Basic.
Piaget, J., Inhelder,B., & Szeminska,A. (1948/1960). The child's conceptionof geometry. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Reece, C. S., & Kamii,C. (2001). The measurementof volume:Why do young childrenmeasureinac-
curately?School Science and Mathematics,101, 356-361.
Siegel, S., & Castellan,N. J., Jr.(1988). Nonparametricstatisticsfor the behavioralsciences (2nded.).
New York:McGraw-Hill.
Sinclair,A., Siegrist,F., & Sinclair,H. (1983). Young children'sideas aboutthe writtennumbersystem.
In D. Rogers & J. A. Sloboda (Eds.), The acquisitionof symbolicskills (pp. 535-541). New York:
Plenum.

Authors
Yasuhiko Kato, ChugokuJuniorCollege, 83 Niwase, Okayama701-0197, Japan;kato740@nifty.com
Constance Kamii, University of Alabamaat Birmingham,116 EducationBuilding, 901 South 13th
Street,Birmingham,AL 35294-1250; ckamii@uab.edu
Kyoko Ozaki, TomiyamaChildCareCenter,138-2 Hukudomari,Okayama703-8262, Japan;ozaki-06
@jb3.so-net.ne.jp
Mariko Nagahiro, Chugoku Junior College, 83 Niwase, Okayama 701-0197, Japan; ICB12791
@nifty.com