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?

在本文中，出于了解哪些形式的父母发起的活动与幼儿的数学学习相关的愿望，我们提出了对最近研究的方法论批评。许多此类研究基于父母发起的活动可分为正式或非正式、直接或间接、高级或基本的假设，利用调查来了解父母让孩子参与各种预定活动的频率。虽然此类调查数据有可能产生重要的见解，但通常采用的分析程序会阻止它们。涉及因素分析的研究会产生无法解释的因素，然后将其用于根据个人活动的分数创建总结性变量。其他研究，借鉴未经检验的先入之见，只需创建总结性变量。在所有情况下，这些总结性变量都基于如此广泛的性质不同的活动，以至于正式或非正式的标签变得随意，个人活动支持学习的潜力在同事对统计意义的渴望之下消失了。最后，我们问同事，尽管有些修辞，这种研究的目的是什么？是确定那些支持学习的活动还是提供统计上稳健的因素，由于其中嵌入的活动的多样性，这些因素几乎没有提供有用的见解？这些总结性变量基于如此广泛的性质不同的活动，以至于正式或非正式的标签变得随意，个人活动支持学习的潜力在同事对统计意义的渴望之下消失了。最后，我们问同事，尽管有些修辞，这种研究的目的是什么？是确定那些支持学习的活动还是提供统计上稳健的因素，由于其中嵌入的活动的多样性，这些因素几乎没有提供有用的见解？这些总结性变量基于如此广泛的性质不同的活动，以至于正式或非正式的标签变得随意，个人活动支持学习的潜力在同事对统计意义的渴望之下消失了。最后，我们问同事，尽管有些修辞，这种研究的目的是什么？是确定那些支持学习的活动还是提供统计上稳健的因素，由于其中嵌入的活动的多样性，这些因素几乎没有提供有用的见解？