Recognize Geometry Shapes through Computer Learning in Early Math Skills

One form of early mathematical recognition is to introduce the concept of geometric shapes. Geometry is an important scientific discipline for present and future life by developing various ways that fit 21st century skills. This study aims to overcome the problem of early mathematical recognition of early childhood on geometry, especially how to recognize geometric forms based on computer learning. A total of 24 children aged 4-5 years in kindergarten has to carrying out 2 research cycles with a total of 5 meetings. Treatment activities in each learning cycle include mentioning, grouping and imitating geometric shapes. There were only 7 children who were able to recognize the geometric shapes in the pre-research cycle (29.2%). An increase in the number of children who are able to do activities well in each research cycle includes: 1) The activities mentioned in the first cycle and 75% in the second cycle; 2) Classifying activities in the first cycle were 37.5% and 75% in the second cycle; 3) Imitation activities in the first cycle 54.2% and 79.2% in the second cycle. The results of data acquisition show that computer learning application can improve the ability to recognize geometric shapes, this is because computer learning provides software that has activities to recognize geometric shapes with the animation and visuals displayed. Keywords: Early Childhood Computer Learning, Geometry Forms, Early Math Skills Reference Alia, T., & Irwansyah. (2018). Pendampingan Orang Tua pada Anak Usia Dini dalam Penggunaan Teknologi Digital. A Journal of Language, Literature, Culture and Education, 14(1), 65– 78. https://doi.org/10.19166/pji.v14i1.639 Ameliola, S., & Nugraha, H. D. (2013). Perkembangan Media Informasi dan Teknologi Terhadap Anak di Era Globalisasi. International Conferences in Indonesian Studies : “Etnicity and Globalization.” Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman. Arikunto, S. (2010). Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktik. Jakarta: Asdi Mahasatya. Arsyad, N., Rahman, A., & Ahmar, A. S. (2017). Developing a self-learning model based on open-ended questions to increase the students’ creativity in calculus. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 19(2), 143–147. https://doi.org/10.26858/gjeev19i2y2017p143147 Asiye, I., Ahmet, E., & Abdullah, A. (2018). Developing a Test for Geometry and Spatial Perceptions of 5-6 Year-Old. Kastamonu Education Journal, 26(1). Aslan, D., & Yasare, A. (2007). Three to Six Years OldChildren’s Recognition of Geometric Shapes. International Journal of Early Years Education, 15 :1, 83–104. Ben-Yehoshua, D., Yaski, O., & Eilam, D. (2011). Spatial behavior: the impact of global and local geometry. Animal Cognition Journal, 13(3), 341–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071- 010-0368-z Charlesworth, R., & Lind, K. K. (2010). Math and Sciend for Young Children. Canada: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning. Chen, J.-Q., & Chang, C. (2006). using computers in early childhood classrooms teachers’ attitudes,skills and practices. Early Childhood Research. Clements, D. H., & Samara. (2003). Strip mining for gold: Research and policy in educational technology—a response to “Fool’s Gold.” Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE) Journal, 11(1), 7–69. Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1994). Research Methods in Education (fourth edi). London: Routledge. Conorldi, C., Mammarela, I. C., & Fine, G. G. (2016). Nonverbal Learning Disability (J. P. Guilford, Ed.). New York. Corey, S. M. (1953). Action Research to Improve School Practice. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University. Couse, L. J., & Chen, D. W. (2010). A tablet computer for young children? Exploring its viability for early childhood education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(1), 75– 98. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782562 Delima, R., Arianti, N. K., & Pramudyawardani, B. (2015). Identifikasi Kebutuhan Pengguna Untuk Aplikasi Permainan Edukasi Bagi Anak Usia 4 sampai 6 Tahun. Jurnal Teknik Informatika Dan Sistem Informasi, 1(1). Depdiknas. (2007). Permainan Berhitung Permulaan Di Taman Kanak-kanak. In Pedoman Pembelajaran. Jakarta: Depdiknas. Djadir, Minggi, I., Ja’faruddin., Zaki, A., & Sidjara, S. (2017). Sumber Belajar PLPG 2017: Bangun Datar. In Modul PLPG. Jakarta: Kementrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Direktorat Jenderal Guru dan Tenaga Kependidikan.Dooley, T., Dunphy, E., & Shiel, G. (2014). Mathematics in Early Childhood and Primary Education (3-8 years). Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C., Klebanov, P., ... Japel, C. (2007). School Readiness and Later Achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43(6), 1428–1446. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1428 Duncan, G. J., & Magnuson, K. (2011). The nature and impact of early achievement skills, attention skills, and behavior problems. Whither Opportunity?: Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children’s Life Chances, (0322356), 47–69. Edwards, S. (2009). Early Childhood Education and Care: a sociocultural Approach. New South Wales: Pademelon Press. Feliyanah, Norman, S., & Yulidesni. (2014). Meningkatkan Kemampuan Matematika dengan Menggunakan Teknik Mengurutkan dan Membandingkan. Universitas Bengkulu. Gardner, H. (2011). Frame of Mind ; The theory of Multiple Intelegences. New York: Basic Book. Gimbert, B., & Cristol, D. (2004). Teaching Curriculum with Technology: Enhancing Children’s Technological Competence During Early Childhood. Early Childhood Education Journal, 31(1). Gulay, H. (2011a). The evaluation of the relationship between the computer using habits and proso_cial and aggressive behaviours of 5–6 years old children. International Journal of Academic Research, 3(2), 252. Gulay, H. (2011b). The evaluation of the relationship between the computer using habits and proso_cial and aggressive behaviours of 5–6 years old children. International Journal of Academic Research, 3(2), 252–257. Gunawan, I., & Palupi, A. R. (2012). Taksonomi Bloom-Revisi Ranah Kognitif; Kerangka Landasan untuk Pembelajaran, Pengajaran, dan Penilaian. Jurnal Pendidikan Dasar Dan Pembelajaran, 2 No.2, 100–108. Inan, H. Z., & Dogan-Temur, O. (2010). Understanding kindergarten teachers’ perspectives of teaching basic geometric shapes: A phenomenographic research. ZDM - International Journal on Mathematics Education, 42(5), 457–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-010- 0241-1 Jackman, H. I., Beaver, N. H., & Wyatt, S. S. (2014). Early Childhood Curriculum: A child’s connection to the world. (sixth edit). Canada: Cengage Learning. Kennedy, L. M., Tipps, S., & Johnson, A. (2008). Guiding Children’s Learning of Mathematic (Eleventh E; Belmot, Ed.). CA: Thomson Wadsworth. Mackintosh, B. B., & McCoy, D. C. (2019). Exploring Social Competence as a Mediator of Head Start’s Impact on Children’s Early Math Skills: Evidence from the Head Start Impact Study. Early Education and Development, 30(5), 655–677. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2019.1576156 Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Foy, P., & Stanco, G. M. (2011). Results in Science. Mirawati. (2017). Matematika Kreatif; Pembelajaran Matematika bagi Anak Usia Dini Melalui Kegiatan yang Menyenangkan dan Bermakna. Jurnal Anak Usia Dini Dan Pendidikan Anak Usia Dini, 3. Mohammad, M., & Mohammad, H. (2012). Computer integration into the early childhood curriculum. Education, 133(1), 97–116. National Research Council. (2009). Mathematics Learning in Early Chidhood Paths Toward Excellence and Equity (C. T. Cross, T. Woods, & H. Schweingruber, Eds.). Washinton D.C: The National Academies Press. Norton, A., & Nurnberger-Haag, J. (2018). Bridging frameworks for understanding numerical cognition. Journal of Numerical Cognition, 4(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.5964/jnc.v4i1.160 Novitasari, D. R. (2010). Pembangunan Media Pembelajaran Bahasa Inggris Untuk Siswa Kelas 1 Pada Sekolah Dasar Negeri 15 Sragen. Sentra Penelitian Engineering Dan Edukas, Volume 2 N. Papadakis, S., Kalogiannakis, M., & Zaranis, N. (2017). Improving Mathematics Teaching in Kindergarten with Realistic Mathematical Education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45(3), 369–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-015-0768-4 Papalia, Old, & Feldman. (2009). Human Development (Psikologi Perkembangan (Kesembilan). Jakarta: Kencana. Paquette, K. R., Fello, S. E., & Jalongo, M. R. (2007). The talking drawings strategy: Using primary children’s Illustrations and oral language to improve comprehension of expository text. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35(1), 65–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643- 007-0184-5 Putra, L. D., & Ishartiwi. (2015). Pengembangan Multimedia Pembelajaram Interaktif Mengenal Angka dan Huruf untuk Anak Usia Dini. Jurnal Inovasi Teknologi Pendidikan, 2(2). Rich, B., & Thomas, C. (2009). Geometry: Includes Plane, Analytic, and Transformational Geometries. . (4th Editio). New York: McGraw-Hill. Rochanah, L. (2016). Pemanfaatan Media Berbasis Komputer Untuk Meningkatkan Kemampuan Huruf pada Anak Usia Dini (Urgensi Media Berbasis Komputer pada Peningkatan Kemampuan Mengenal Huruf ). Jurnal Program Studi PGRA, Volume 2 N, 1–8. Runtukahu, T., & Kandou, S. (2014). Pembelajaran matematika dasar bagi anak berkesulitan belajar. Yogyakarta: Ar-ruzz Media. Santrock, J. W. (2016). Children (Thirteenth). New York: McGraw-Hill Education. Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2006). Mathematics, Young Students, and Computers: Software, Teaching Strategies and Professional Development. The Mathematics Educato, 9(2), 112– 134. Schoenfeld, A. H., & Stipek, D. (2011). Math Matters. Barkeley, California.Shilpa, S., & Sunita, M. (2013). A Study About Role of Multimedia in Early Childhood Education. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention, 2(6). Siswono, T. Y. E. (2012). Belajar dan Mengajar Matematika Anak Usia Dini. Universitas Negeri Surabaya.Smaldino, S. E., Russel, J. D., & Lowther, D. L. (2014). Instructional Technology & Media for Learning (9th ed.). Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media Group. Sudaryanti. (2006). Pengenalan Matematika Anak Usia Dini. Yogyakarta: FIP UNY. Sufa, F. F., & Setiawan, H. Y. (2017). Analisis Kebutuhan Anak Usia 4-6 Tahun Pada Pembelajaran Berbasis Komputer Pada Anak Usia Dini. Research Fair Unisri, 1(1). Suharjana, A. (2008). Pengenalan Bangun Ruang dan Sifat-sifatnya di SD. Yogyakarta: Pusat Pengembangan dan Pemberdayaan Pendidik dan Tenaga Kependidikan Matematika. Sujiono, Y . N. (2014). Batasan dan Dasar T eori Pengembangan Kognitif. In Hakikat Pengembangan Kognitif (p. 12). Suryana, D. (2013). Pendidikan Anak Usia Dini (teori dan praktik pembelajaran). Padang: UNP Press. Susperreguy, M. I., & Davis-Kean, P. E. (2016). Maternal Math Talk in the Home and Math Skills in Preschool Children. Early Education and Development, 27(6), 841–857. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2016.1148480 Suwarna. (2010). Pengembangan Multimedia Pembelajaran untuk Pembinaan Kreativitas Melukis di Taman Kanak-kanak. Jurnal Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta. Suziedelyte, A. (2012). Can video games affect children’s cognitive and non-cognitive skills? UNSW Australian School of Business Research Paper. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2140983 Tarigan, D. (2006). Pembelajaran Matematika Realistik. Jakarta: Departeman Pendidikan Nasional, Direktorat Jendral Pendidikan Tunggi, Direktorat Pembinaan Pendidikan Tenaga Kependidikan dan Ketenaga Perguruan Tinggi. Tatang, S. (2012). Ilmu Pendidikan. Bandung: Pustaka Setia.Trawick, M. (2007). Enemy Line ; Warfare, Childhood, and Play in Batticaloa. London: University of California Press. Trifunović, A., Čičević, S., Lazarević, D., Mitrović1, S., & Dragovi, M. (2018). Comparing Tablets (Touchscreen Devices and PCs in Preschool Children Education: Testing Spatial Relationship Using Geometric Syimbols Traffic Signs. IETI Transections on Economics and Safety, 2(1), 35–41. https://doi.org/10.6722/TES.201808_2(1).0004 Vitianingsih, A. V. (2016). Game Edukasi Sebagai Media Pembelajaran Pendidikan Anak Usia Dini. Jurnal INFORM, 1 No. 1. Wang, F., & Kinzie, M. B. (2010). Applying Technology to Inquiry- Based Learning in Early Childhood Education. Early Childhood Education Journal. Weil, M., Calhoun, E., & Joyce, B. (2011). Models of Teaching. New York.: New York. Zack, N. (2014). Philosophy of Science and Race. New York: Routledge. Zare, Sarikhani, Salarii, & Mansouri. (2016). The Impact Of E-learning on University Student’s Academic Achievement and Creativity. Journal of Technical Education and Training (JTET), 8(11)

On potential cognitive abilities in the machine kingdom

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11023-012-9299-6Animals, including humans, are usually judged on what they could become, rather than what they are. Many physical and cognitive abilities in the ‘animal kingdom’ are only acquired (to a given degree) when the subject reaches a certain stage of development, which can be accelerated or spoilt depending on how the environment, training or education is. The term ‘potential ability’ usually refers to how quick and likely the process of attaining the ability is. In principle, things should not be different for the ‘machine kingdom’. While machines can be characterised by a set of cognitive abilities, and measuring them is already a big challenge, known as ‘universal psychometrics’, a more informative, and yet more challenging, goal would be to also determine the potential cognitive abilities of a machine. In this paper we investigate the notion of potential cognitive ability for machines, focussing especially on universality and intelligence. We consider several machine characterisations (non-interactive and interactive) and give definitions for each case, considering permanent and temporal potentials. From these definitions, we analyse the relation between some potential abilities, we bring out the dependency on the environment distribution and we suggest some ideas about how potential abilities can be measured. Finally, we also analyse the potential of environments at different levels and briefly discuss whether machines should be designed to be intelligent or potentially intelligent.We thank the anonymous reviewers for their comments, which have helped to significantly improve this paper. This work was supported by the MEC-MINECO projects CONSOLIDER-INGENIO CSD2007-00022 and TIN 2010-21062-C02-02, GVA project PROMETEO/2008/051, the COST - European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research IC0801 AT. Finally, we thank three pioneers ahead of their time(s). We thank Ray Solomonoff (1926-2009) and Chris Wallace (1933-2004) for all that they taught us, directly and indirectly. And, in his centenary year, we thank Alan Turing (1912-1954), with whom it perhaps all began.Hernández-Orallo, J.; Dowe, DL. (2013). On potential cognitive abilities in the machine kingdom. Minds and Machines. 23(2):179-210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-012-9299-6S179210232Amari, S., Fujita, N., Shinomoto, S. (1992). Four types of learning curves. Neural Computation 4(4), 605–618.Aristotle (Translation, Introduction, and Commentary by Ross, W.D.) (1924). Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Barmpalias, G. & Dowe, D. L. (2012). Universality probability of a prefix-free machine. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society A [Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences] (Phil Trans A), Theme Issue ‘The foundations of computation, physics and mentality: The Turing legacy’ compiled and edited by Barry Cooper and Samson Abramsky, 370, pp 3488–3511.Chaitin, G. J. (1966). On the length of programs for computing finite sequences. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 13, 547–569.Chaitin, G. J. (1975). A theory of program size formally identical to information theory. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 22(3), 329–340.Dowe, D. L. (2008, September). Foreword re C. S. Wallace. Computer Journal, 51(5):523–560, Christopher Stewart WALLACE (1933–2004) memorial special issue.Dowe, D. L. (2011). MML, hybrid Bayesian network graphical models, statistical consistency, invariance and uniqueness. In: P. S. Bandyopadhyay, M. R. Forster (Eds), Handbook of the philosophy of science—Volume 7: Philosophy of statistics (pp. 901–982). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Dowe, D. L. & Hajek, A. R. (1997a). A computational extension to the turing test. Technical report #97/322, Dept Computer Science, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, 9 pp, http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/publications/1997/tr-cs97-322-abs.html .Dowe, D. L. & Hajek, A. R. (1997b, September). A computational extension to the Turing Test. in Proceedings of the 4th conference of the Australasian Cognitive Science Society, University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia, 9 pp.Dowe, D. L. & Hajek, A. R. (1998, February). A non-behavioural, computational extension to the Turing Test. In: International conference on computational intelligence and multimedia applications (ICCIMA’98), Gippsland, Australia, pp 101–106.Dowe, D. L., Hernández-Orallo, J. (2012). IQ tests are not for machines, yet. Intelligence, 40(2), 77–81.Gallistel, C. R., Fairhurst, S., & Balsam, P. (2004). The learning curve: Implications of a quantitative analysis. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101(36), 13124–13131.Gardner, M. (1970). Mathematical games: The fantastic combinations of John Conway’s new solitaire game “life”. Scientific American, 223(4), 120–123.Goertzel, B. & Bugaj, S. V. (2009). AGI preschool: A framework for evaluating early-stage human-like AGIs. In Proceedings of the second international conference on artificial general intelligence (AGI-09), pp 31–36.Hernández-Orallo, J. (2000a). Beyond the Turing Test. Journal of Logic, Language & Information, 9(4), 447–466.Hernández-Orallo, J. (2000b). On the computational measurement of intelligence factors. In A. Meystel (Ed), Performance metrics for intelligent systems workshop (pp 1–8). Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology.Hernández-Orallo, J. (2010). On evaluating agent performance in a fixed period of time. In M. Hutter et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of 3rd international conference on artificial general intelligence (pp. 25–30). New York: Atlantis Press.Hernández-Orallo, J., & Dowe, D. L. (2010). Measuring universal intelligence: Towards an anytime intelligence test. Artificial Intelligence, 174(18), 1508–1539.Hernández-Orallo, J. & Dowe, D. L. (2011, April). Mammals, machines and mind games. Who’s the smartest?. The conversation, http://theconversation.edu.au/mammals-machines-and-mind-games-whos-the-smartest-566 .Hernández-Orallo J., Dowe D. L., España-Cubillo S., Hernández-Lloreda M. V., & Insa-Cabrera J. (2011). On more realistic environment distributions for defining, evaluating and developing intelligence. In: J. Schmidhuber, K. R. Thórisson, & M. Looks (Eds.), Artificial general intelligence 2011, volume 6830, LNAI series, pp. 82–91. New York: Springer.Hernández-Orallo, J., Dowe, D. L., & Hernández-Lloreda, M. V. (2012a, March). Measuring cognitive abilities of machines, humans and non-human animals in a unified way: towards universal psychometrics. Technical report 2012/267, Faculty of Information Technology, Clayton School of I.T., Monash University, Australia.Hernández-Orallo, J., Insa, J., Dowe, D. L., & Hibbard, B. (2012b). Turing tests with Turing machines. In A. Voronkov (Ed.), The Alan Turing centenary conference, Turing-100, Manchester, volume 10 of EPiC Series, pp 140–156.Hernández-Orallo, J., & Minaya-Collado, N. (1998). A formal definition of intelligence based on an intensional variant of Kolmogorov complexity. In Proceedings of the international symposium of engineering of intelligent systems (EIS’98) (pp 146–163). Switzerland: ICSC Press.Herrmann, E., Call, J., Hernández-Lloreda, M. V., Hare, B., & Tomasello, M. (2007). Humans have evolved specialized skills of social cognition: The cultural intelligence hypothesis. Science, 317(5843), 1360–1366.Herrmann, E., Hernández-Lloreda, M. V., Call, J., Hare, B., & Tomasello, M. (2010). The structure of individual differences in the cognitive abilities of children and chimpanzees. Psychological Science, 21(1), 102–110.Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1966). Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and crystallized general intelligences. Journal of educational psychology, 57(5), 253.Hutter, M. (2005). Universal artificial intelligence: Sequential decisions based on algorithmic probability. New York: Springer.Insa-Cabrera, J., Dowe, D. L., España, S., Hernández-Lloreda, M. V., & Hernández-Orallo, J. (2011a). Comparing humans and AI agents. In AGI: 4th conference on artificial general intelligence—Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (LNAI), volume 6830, pp 122–132. Springer, New York.Insa-Cabrera, J., Dowe, D. L., & Hernández-Orallo, J. (2011b). Evaluating a reinforcement learning algorithm with a general intelligence test. In CAEPIA—Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (LNAI), volume 7023, pages 1–11. Springer, New York.Kearns, M. & Singh, S. (2002). Near-optimal reinforcement learning in polynomial time. Machine Learning, 49(2), 209–232.Kolmogorov, A. N. (1965). Three approaches to the quantitative definition of information. Problems of Information Transmission, 1, 4–7.Legg, S. (2008, June). Machine super intelligence. Department of Informatics, University of Lugano.Legg, S. & Hutter, M. (2007). Universal intelligence: A definition of machine intelligence. Minds and Machines, 17(4), 391–444.Legg, S., & Veness, J. (2012). An approximation of the universal intelligence measure. In Proceedings of Solomonoff 85th memorial conference. New York: Springer.Levin, L. A. (1973). Universal sequential search problems. Problems of Information Transmission, 9(3), 265–266.Li, M., Vitányi, P. (2008). An introduction to Kolmogorov complexity and its applications (3rd ed). New York: Springer.Little, V. L., & Bailey, K. G. (1972). Potential intelligence or intelligence test potential? A question of empirical validity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 39(1), 168.Mahoney, M. V. (1999). Text compression as a test for artificial intelligence. In Proceedings of the national conference on artificial intelligence, AAAI (pp. 486–502). New Jersey: Wiley.Mahrer, A. R. (1958). Potential intelligence: A learning theory approach to description and clinical implication. The Journal of General Psychology, 59(1), 59–71.Oppy, G., & Dowe, D. L. (2011). The Turing Test. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford University. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-test/ .Orseau, L. & Ring, M. (2011). Self-modification and mortality in artificial agents. In AGI: 4th conference on artificial general intelligence—Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (LNAI), volume 6830, pages 1–10. Springer, New York.Ring, M. & Orseau, L. (2011). Delusion, survival, and intelligent agents. In AGI: 4th conference on artificial general intelligence—Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (LNAI), volume 6830, pp. 11–20. Springer, New York.Schaeffer, J., Burch, N., Bjornsson, Y., Kishimoto, A., Muller, M., Lake, R., et al. (2007). Checkers is solved. Science, 317(5844), 1518.Solomonoff, R. J. (1962). Training sequences for mechanized induction. In M. Yovits, G. Jacobi, & G. Goldsteins (Eds.), Self-Organizing Systems, 7, 425–434.Solomonoff, R. J. (1964). A formal theory of inductive inference. Information and Control, 7(1–22), 224–254.Solomonoff, R. J. (1967). Inductive inference research: Status, Spring 1967. RTB 154, Rockford Research, Inc., 140 1/2 Mt. Auburn St., Cambridge, Mass. 02138, July 1967.Solomonoff, R. J. (1978). Complexity-based induction systems: comparisons and convergence theorems. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 24(4), 422–432.Solomonoff, R. J. (1984). Perfect training sequences and the costs of corruption—A progress report on induction inference research. Oxbridge research.Solomonoff, R. J. (1985). The time scale of artificial intelligence: Reflections on social effects. Human Systems Management, 5, 149–153.Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. G. (1998). Reinforcement learning: An introduction. Cambridge: The MIT press.Thorp, T. R., & Mahrer, A. R. (1959). Predicting potential intelligence. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 15(3), 286–288.Turing, A. M. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 59, 433–460.Veness, J., Ng, K. S., Hutter, M., & Silver, D. (2011). A Monte Carlo AIXI approximation. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, JAIR, 40, 95–142.Wallace, C. S. (2005). Statistical and inductive inference by minimum message length. New York: Springer.Wallace, C. S., & Boulton, D. M. (1968). An information measure for classification. Computer Journal, 11, 185–194.Wallace, C. S., & Dowe, D. L. (1999a). Minimum message length and Kolmogorov complexity. Computer Journal 42(4), 270–283.Wallace, C. S., & Dowe, D. L. (1999b). Refinements of MDL and MML coding. Computer Journal, 42(4), 330–337.Woergoetter, F., & Porr, B. (2008). Reinforcement learning. Scholarpedia, 3(3), 1448.Zvonkin, A. K., & Levin, L. A. (1970). The complexity of finite objects and the development of the concepts of information and randomness by means of the theory of algorithms. Russian Mathematical Surveys, 25, 83–124

Mother's Perspective About Using the Gadget Safeness for Children

The rapid development of technology makes it easier for mothers to provide stimulation related to growth and development using gadgets. However, parental knowledge is needed about the safe limits of using a gadget in early childhood. This study aims to determine the perspective and behavior of mothers about the use of gadgets in toddlers. The method used is quantitative research with a cross-sectional approach. The participants of this study were thirty-one mothers who have early childhood and who are empowering family welfare. The inclusion criteria were mothers who agreed to be respondents, the exclusion criteria for mothers who did not have gadgets. This study uses a questionnaire measurement instrument for data collection. Data analysis was performed univariate and bivariate using the chi-square test. The results of the study concluded that the mother's knowledge regarding the safety of using a gadget was still lacking, with a value of around 54.8%, while the mother's behavior related to the same thing was better, which was around 58.1%. The relationship test shows that there is a strong enough relationship between maternal knowledge and maternal behavior in introducing or using gadgets in toddlers.  Keywords: Early Childhood, Mother Perspective, Gadget Safeness  References Appel, M. (2012). Are heavy users of computer games and social media more computer literate? Computers and Education, 59(4), 1339–1349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.06.004 Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall. Cingel, D. P., & Krcmar, M. (2013). Predicting Media Use in Very Young Children: The Role of Demographics and Parent Attitudes. Communication Studies, 64(4), 374–394. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2013.770408 Connell, S. L., Lauricella, A. R., & Wartella, E. (2015). Parental Co-Use of Media Technology with their Young Children in the USA. Journal OfChildren and Media, 9(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2015.997440 Haines, J., O’Brien, A., McDonald, J., Goldman, R. E., Evans-Schmidt, M., Price, S., King, S., Sherry, B., & Taveras, E. M. (2013). Television Viewing and Televisions in Bedrooms: Perceptions of Racial/Ethnic Minority Parents of Young Children. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 22(6), 749–756. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-012-9629-6 Jones, I., & Park, Y. (2015). Virtual worlds: Young children using the internet. Young children and families in the information age. Educating the young child (Advances in theory and research, implications for practice) (I. K. Heider & J. M. Renck (eds.); Volume 10). Springer. Lauricella, A. R., Wartella, E., & Rideout, V. J. (2015). Young children’s screen time: The complex role of parent and child factors. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 36, 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2014.12.001 Livingstone, S, Görzig, A., & Ólafsson, K. (2011). Disadvantaged children and online risk. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/39385/ Livingstone, Sonia, Mascheroni, G., Dreier, M., Chaudron, S., & Lagae, K. (2015). How parents of young children manage digital devices at home: The role of income, education and parental style (Issue September). Livingstone, Sonia, Ólafsson, K., Helsper, E. J., Lupiáñez-Villanueva, F., Veltri, G. A., & Folkvord, F. (2017). Maximizing Opportunities and Minimizing Risks for Children Online: The Role of Digital Skills in Emerging Strategies of Parental Mediation. Journal of Communication, 67(1), 82–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12277 M, S. (2017). The Impact of using Gadgets on Children. Journal of Depression and Anxiety, 07(01), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.4172/2167-1044.1000296 Marsh, J., Hannon, P., Lewis, M., & Ritchie, L. (2017). Young children’s initiation into family literacy practices in the digital age. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 15(1), 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X15582095 Mifsud, C. L., & Petrova, R. (2017). Young Children (0-8) and Digital Technology. In JRC Science and Policies Reports. Nevski, E., & Siibak, A. (2016). The role of parents and parental mediation on 0–3-year olds’ digital play with smart devices: Estonian parents’ attitudes and practices. Early Years, 36(3), 227–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2016.1161601 Nikken, P. (2017). Implications of low or high media use among parents for young children’s media use. Cyberpsychology, 11(3 Special Issue). https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2017-3-1 Nikken, P., & de Haan, J. (2015). Guiding young children’s internet use at home: Problems that parents experience in their parental mediation and the need for parenting support. Cyberpsychology, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2015-1-3 Piotrowski, J. (2017). Media exposure during infancy and early childhood: The effect of content and context on learning and development. In I. R. Barr & D. Linebarger (Eds.), The parental media mediation context of young children’s media use.(pp. 205–219). Springer International Publishing. Plowman, L., Stevenson, O., Stephen, C., & McPake, J. (2012). Preschool children’s learning with technology at home. Computers and Education, 59(1), 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.11.014 Rasmussen, E. E., Shafer, A., Colwell, M. J., White, S., Punyanunt-Carter, N., Densley, R. L., & Wright, H. (2016). Relation between active mediation, exposure to Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood, and US preschoolers’ social and emotional development. Journal of Children and Media, 10(4), 443–461. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2016.1203806 Smahelova, M., Juhová, D., Cermak, I., & Smahel, D. (2017). Mediation of young children’s digital technology use: The parents’ perspective. Cyberpsychology, 11(3 Special Issue). https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2017-3-4 Troseth, G. L., Strouse, G. A., & Russo Johnson, C. E. (2017). Early Digital Literacy: Learning to Watch, Watching to Learn. In Cognitive Development in Digital Contexts. Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809481-5.00002-X Vaala, S. E. (2014). The Nature and Predictive Value of Mothers’ Beliefs Regarding Infants’ and Toddlers’ TV/Video Viewing: Applying the Integrative Model of Behavioral Prediction. Media Psychology, 17(3), 282–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2013.872995 Zaman, B., & Mifsud, C. L. (2017). Editorial: Young children’s use of digital media and parental mediation. Cyberpsychology, 11(3 Special Issue), 9. https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2017-3-x

Interoperability, Trust Based Information Sharing Protocol and Security: Digital Government Key Issues

Improved interoperability between public and private organizations is of key significance to make digital government newest triumphant. Digital Government interoperability, information sharing protocol and security are measured the key issue for achieving a refined stage of digital government. Flawless interoperability is essential to share the information between diverse and merely dispersed organisations in several network environments by using computer based tools. Digital government must ensure security for its information systems, including computers and networks for providing better service to the citizens. Governments around the world are increasingly revolving to information sharing and integration for solving problems in programs and policy areas. Evils of global worry such as syndrome discovery and manage, terror campaign, immigration and border control, prohibited drug trafficking, and more demand information sharing, harmonization and cooperation amid government agencies within a country and across national borders. A number of daunting challenges survive to the progress of an efficient information sharing protocol. A secure and trusted information-sharing protocol is required to enable users to interact and share information easily and perfectly across many diverse networks and databases globally.Comment: 20 page

Abstract State Machines 1988-1998: Commented ASM Bibliography

An annotated bibliography of papers which deal with or use Abstract State Machines (ASMs), as of January 1998.Comment: Also maintained as a BibTeX file at http://www.eecs.umich.edu/gasm