Information provided by The International DYSLE IA Association

This packet of information on

Dyscalculia (Math)
is comprised of the following articles from Perspectives (P), our quarterly
journal for members of IDA:
Mathematical Overview: An Overview for Educators
David C. Geary
(P: Vol. 26, No. 3, Summer 2000, p. 6-9)
Mathematical Learning Profiles and Differentiated Teaching Strategies
Maria R. Marolda, Patricia S. Davidson
(P: Vol. 26, No. 3, Summer 2000, p. 10-15)
Translating Lessons from Research into Mathematics Classroom
Douglas H. Clements
(P: Vol. 26, No. 3, Summer 2000, p. 31-33)
You can always find copies of our Fact Sheets available for download on our website:
www.interdys.org -> "IDA Quick Links" (blue tab, right-hand side) -> Click on "Dyslexia Fact Sheets"

promoting literacy through research, education and advocacy

The International Dyslexia Association 40 York Road Fourth Floor Baltimore MD 21204
Tel: 410-296-0232 Fax: 410-321-5069 E-mail: info@interdys.org Website: http://www.interdys.org

.JL

A
\M
IEE-I
lm

DISORDERS:
MATHEMATICAL
AN OVERVIEWFOREDUCATORS

17
uring the past 20 years,we have
ff
l-/witnessed enormous advancesin
our understanding of the genetic,
neurological,and cognitive factors that
contributeto readingdisorders,as well
as advancesin the ability to diagnose
and remediate this form of learung
disorder (e.g.,Torgesen et a1.,7999).
We now understandthat most forms of
readinsdisorderresult from a heritable
risk and have a phonologicaicore; for
instance.manv of these children have
difficulties associating letters and
words with the associated sounds,
which makes learning to decode
unfamiliar words difficult (Light,
DeFries,& Olson, 1998). At the same
time, there have been a handful of
children's
researchers studying
difficulties with early mathematics,
difficulties that emerge despite lowaverage or better intelligence and
adequateinstruction (Ceary,Hamson,
& Hoard, in press;Jordan& Montani,
1997). This essay overviews this
research,including discussionof the
nrcvalence of
children with
mathematical disorders and their
diagnoses,the approach researchers
use to study these children, and some
malor nnolnSs.

How common is a
MathematicalDisorderand
how is it diagnosed?
Although there are no definitive
answers, studies conducted in the
United States,Europe, and Israel all
converqe on the same conciusion:
About 6%. of school-agechildren and
adolescents have some form of
mathematicaldisorder and about one
half of these individuals also have
difficulty in learning how to read
(Gross-Tsur,Manor, & Shalev,199Q.
These studies also suggest that
mathematicaldisordersareas common
as reading disorders and that a
common deFicitmay contribute to the
co-occurrence of a mathematical
disorderand a readingdisorderin some
children(Ceary,1993).
Like readingdisorders,there is no
universally agreedupon set of criteria
Summer2000
6 Perspectives,

BYDavidC' Geary
for the diagnosis of mathematical
disorders.In our recentwork, we have
found a lower than expected(basedon
IO) perfonnanceon math achievement
testsacrossat leasttwo gradelevelsto
be a useful and practicalindicator of a
mathematicaldisorder(Gearyet al., in
press). This and other studiesindicate
that children with a mathematical
group and
disorderarea heterogeneous
show one or more subrypesof disorder
(Geary,1.993).
Mathematical Disorders:
Subtwe I
SemantiiMemory

within each domain. As an example,

the assessment
of computationalskills
in dyscalculia(poor performanceafter
brain injury) has often been based on
summary scoresfor accuracyat solving
simple (e.g. 9+Q and complex (e.g.
244+1,29)arithmetic problems (Geary,
1993). These scoresactuallyreflectan
arcay of component skills, including
fact retrievaland proceduralas well as
conceptual competencies, making
inferencesabout the source of poor

Mathematical Disorders:
Subtvoe 2
Proc6dural

Mathematical Disorders:
Subtrroe 3
Visuo'sfiatial

Futures:
Features: Cogrtwe& Perfotnance
Cqnttive& Perfomance
A. Difficulties in spaually
A. Relativelyfrequentuse
rePresenunS
numencar
of devel6pmentally
rntormatlonsuchast-fre
urunatureproceoures
misalignmentof numerals
B. Frequentenors in the
in mufticolumnarithmetic
executlonot procedures
or roatirgrurnbels
problerns
C. Potentialdevelopmental
delayn the Lrndeisundmg B. Misinterpretationof
spatially'represented
of fle conceptsunderlyrgnumencallntormatlon,
proceoural
use
suchasplacevalueenors
D. Difficuluessequencing
C. Mav resultin difficulties
thp mrrlhnlp
c t p n c "'
rn
"'"r"
in aieas*ut rely on spatial
complexproceoures
abilities,sucha3georhetry
Neuroy sychoIogicalFeatures:
N euroy sychologicalFeatures:
N euroy sychologicaI Features:
Appearsto be associated
A. Appearsto be associated
Unclear,althoughsome
rlzrtt-r
nght hemispheric
#ith left hemispheric
anassociabon
datasuggest
dystunchon,m partl.cular,
dysfunction,in paru.cular,
with left hemispheric
postenorreqronsot the
postenorregronsot tne
dysfuncuon,and n some
lpFt hpmicn6era
uftnp$
ipht herrusphere,
cisesa prefronal{ifurrtion
the panetalcortexot the
subcortical
B. Possible
left hemispheremay
- be
involvement,
suchasthe
implicatedas well.
basalganglia
CeneticFeatures:
CeneticFeatures:
Unclear
Preliminarystudiesand
the relatioirwith certain
formsof readrngdisorder
sugqestthat this deficit
md'! be heritable

Futures:
Cogiive& Perfomana
A. Low frequencyof
arithmeticfac[ retrieval
B. When factsare
retrieved,there is a high
error rate
C. Errorsare frequendy
assoclates
ot tne
numbersin the problem
D. Soluuontimes for
correctretrievalare
unsystematlc

:
ionsh
iy tokading D isordets
Relat
Appearsto occurwith
nHnnetir

F^*.

:
ing Disorders
Relation
shiy n Read
Unclear

nf

Relationshiy
n RudingDisordes:
Doesnot appearto be
related

i' -- p
_a
- "r^l i^nbo d
* ^i c' "n^r-d" c' r

performance on these arithmetic

problems imprecise. Moreover, in
geometry and algebra,not enough is
known about the normal development
of the associatedcompetenciesto
The complexiry of the field of
a systematicframework for the
provide
mathematics makes the study of
of mathematical disorders.
study
In
mathematical disorderschallenging.
Iortunately, enough is now known
theorv. mathematical disorders can
about normal developmentin the areas
result'from deficits in the ability to
of number concepts, counting skills,
representor processinformation in one
and early arithmetic skills to
or all mathematicaldomains or in one
or a set of individual competencies p r o v i d et h e f r a m e w o r k n e e d e d
continuedon Vage 7

approach
How do researchers
th e study of M athem atical
Disorders?

MathematicalDisorders:An Overviewfor Educators

continuedfrom Vage 6
to systematicallystudy mathematical
disorders(seeGeary,1994,for a review).
The sectionsbelow orovide an overview
of what we now know about children's
developingnumber concepts,counting
skills, and early arithmetic skills aiong
with a discussion of any associated
learnins disorder. The finai section
providJs a discussionof visuospatial
i s s u e s s o m e t i m e s a s s o c i a t e dw i t h
childrenwith mathematicaldisorders.

NumberConcepts
Psychologistshave been studying
children's conceptualunderstandingof
number, for instance that "3" is an
abstractrepresentationof a collectionof
any three things, for many decades.It is
now clear children's understandinsof
small auantitiesand number is evident
to some degree in infancy. Their
understandingof larger numbers and
related skills, such as place value
concepts(e.g.,the "4" in the numeral
"42"
representsfour groups of 10),
emerges slowly during the preschool
and early elementaryschool years and
some times only with instruction
(Iuson, 19BB;Ceary, 1994).
The few studies conducted with
children with mathematical disorders
suggestthat basicnumbercompetencies.
at leastfor smail quantities,are intact in
most of these children (Ceary, 1993;
Cross-Tsuret al..1996'.

CountingSkills

S i e g l e r ,1 9 8 4 ; F u s o n , i 9 B B ) . T h e s e
inductions include " adjacency'(counting
must proceedconsecutivelyand in order
from one to the next) and "start at an
end" (counting must proceed from left
to right).
Studiesof children with concurent
mathematicai disorders and readinq
disorders or mathematical disorderi
alone indicate that these children
understand most of the essential
features of counting, such as stable
order. but consistentlv err on tasks that
assess"adjacency"and order-irrelevance
(Ceary Bow-Thomas, 8t. Yao, 1992;
Geary et al., in press). In fact, these
children, at least in first and second
grade, perform more poorly on these
tasks than do children with much lower
IO scores, suggestinga very specific
deficit in their counting knowledge. It
appearsthat thesechildren,regardless
of

I
Difficultiesin using
countingprocedurescan
thuscontributeto later
arithmetic-factretrieual
problems.
their readingachievement,believe that
counting is constrained such that
counting procedures can only be
executed in the standard way (i.e.,
objects can oniy be counted
sequentially),which, in turn, suggests
that they do not fully understand
counrlngconcepB.
Other studiessuggestthat children
with mathematicaldisordersalso have
difficulties keeping information in
working memory while monitoring the
counting process or performing other
mental manipulations (Hitch &
McAuley, 1991),which, in tum, results
in more errors while counting. Thus,
young children with mathematical
disorders show deficits in countins
knowledge and counting accuracy.

During the preschool years.

children's counting knowledge can be
representedbv Celrnan and Caliistel's
(1978) five implicit counting principles.
These principles include one-one
(oneand only one word
correspondence
tag, such as "one,t'"two," is assignedto
each counted object); the stable order
principle (the order of the word tags
must be invariant acrosscounted sets):
the cardinality principie (the value of the
final word tag representsthe quantiry of
items in the countedset);the abstraction
principie (objects of any kind can be
collectedtogetherand counted);and,the
order-irrelevanceprinciple (items within
a given set can be tagged in any
sequence). Children also make
seeminglyapparent,but not necessarily ArithmeticSkills
correct, inductions about the basic
When first leaming to solve simple
characteristicsof counting by observing arithmeticproblems(e.g.,3+5).children
standard counting behavior (Briars &
gtprcally rely on their knowledge of

counting and use counting proceduresto

ftnd the answer (Geary et al., 1,992;
Siegler & Shrager, I9B4).
Their
procedures sometimes rely on finger
counting and sometimes only on
verbal counting. Common counting
proceduresinclude the foilowing: sum(or
counting-all),where chiidren count each
addend starting from 1; max (or counting
on). where children statethe value of the
smaller addend and then count the
larger addend; and, min (countingon),
where children state the larger addend
and then count the value of ihe smaller
addend, such as stating 5 and counting
on 6.7. B to solve3+5.
The derrelnnmeql of efficient
counting procedures for simple
problems (e.g., 3+5) reFlectsa gradual
shift from frequent use of the sum and
max proceduresto frequent use of the
min procedure. The repeated use of
counting procedures also appears to
result in the development of memory
representations
of basicfacts (Siegler&
Shrager,1984), that is, with repeated
counting the generatedanswer (..g., B)
eventually becomes associated in
memoly' with the problem (e.g.,3+5).
Difficulties in using counting procedures
can thus contribute to later arithmeticfact retrievalproblems.
Studies conducted in the United
Stites, Europe, and Israel have
consistently found that children with
mathematicaldisordershave difficulties
solving simple and complex arithmetic
problems (e.g., Barrouillet, Fayol, &
Lathuiibre, 1997; Jordan & Montani,
1997). These differences involve both
proceduraland memory-baseddeftcits,
each of which is considered in the
respectivesectionsbelow.

ProceduralDeficits
Much of the researchon children
with mathematical disorders has
focused on their use of counting
strategies to solve simple arithmetic
problems and indicates that these
children commit more errors than do
their normal peers (Ceary 1993; Jordan
& Montani, 1997).They oftenmiscount
or iose track of the counting process. As
a group, young children with
mathematical disorders also rely on
finger counting and use the sum
procedure more frequently than do
continuedon pag,e8
Perspectives,
Summer2000 7

MathematicalDisorders:An Overviewfor Educators

continuedfrom Vage 7
normal children. Their use of finger
counting appears to be a working
memory aid, in that it helps these
children to keep track of the counting
process. Their prolonged use of sum
counting appearsto be related,in part,
"adjacency"is an
to their belief that
essentialfeatureof counting (Geary et
a1.,1992).However,many, but not all,
of these children show more efficient
orocedures bv the middle of the
bl.-..rtury school years (Grades4-6)
(Geary 1,993;Jordan& Monuni, 1997).
Thus, for these children, their errorprone use of immature procedures
represents a developmental delay
rather than a long-term cognitive
deFicit.
There have only been a few
studies of the ability of children with
mathematical disorders to pursue
alsorithms
formal
arithmetic
more iomplex
associated with
oroblems. such as 126+537. The
iesearch that has been conducted
suggests some specific difficulties.
Althoush some studieshave attributed
calcuhtlon difficulties to visuospatial
difficulties described below, other
studies suggestthat these calculation
difficulties are likely not due to the
spatial demands of these arithmetic
formats, as most children with
mathematical disorders do not have
poor spatialabilities(e.g.,Gearyet al..
in press).Rather,the errorsappearedto
result trom difficulties in monitoring
the sequenceof stepsof the algorithm
and from poor skill in detecting and
then self-correctingerrors. Thus,
proceduraldifficulties associatedwith
mathematical disorders are evident
when these children count to solve
simple arithmetic problems (e.g.,3+5)
and use algorithms to solve more
complexproblems(e.g.,126 + 537).

RetrievalDeficits
Many children with mathematical
disorders do not show the shift from
direct countingproceduresto memorybasedproductionof solutionsto simple
arithmetic problems that is commoniy
found in normal children. It appears
that there are tvvo different foims of
retrieval deficit, each reflecting a
disruption to different cognitive and
neural systems (Barrouillet et aI., 1997;
Geary,1993).
Cognitive studies suggestthat the
Summer2000
8 Perspectives,

retrieval deficits are due, in part, to

difficulties in accessingfacts from longterm memory. In fact, it appearsthat
the memory representations for
arithmetic facts are supported, in part,
by the samephonological and semantic
memory systems that support word
decodingand reading comprehension.
If this is indeed the case, then the
disrupted phonologicalprocessesthat
contribute to reading disordersmight
also be the sourceof the fact retrieval
difficultiesof childrenwirh mathematical
disorders.It mieht be the sourceof the
mathematical
co-occurrence of
disorders and reading disorders in
many children (Geary, 1993; Light et
aI.. I99B\.
Recent studies suggesta second
form of retrieval deficit, specifically,
disruptionsin the retrievalprocessdue
to difficulties in inhibiting the retrieval
of irrelevantassociations.This form of
retrieval deficit was discoveredby
Barrouillet et al. (1997) and was
recently confirmed (Geary et al., in
press). In the latter study, first and
secondsrade childrenwith concurrent
mathernatical disorders and reading
disorders, mathematics disorders
alone,or readingdisordersalone were
compared to their normal peers. On
one of the tasks, the children were
instructed not to use counting
orocedures but onlv use retrieval
iechniquesto find solutionsfor simple
addition problems. Children in all
iearning disorder groups committed
more retrievalerrorsthan their normal
peersdid, evenafter controllingfor IO.
I he most common error was a
counting string associateof one of the
addends. lor instance, common
retrieval errors for the problem 6+2
wereT and 3, the numbersfollowing 6
and 2, respectively, in the counting
seouence. The pattem acrossstudies
suggeststhat inefficient inhibition of
irrelevant associationscontributes to
the retrieval difFicultiesof children with
mathematicaldisorders. The solution
process is efficient when irrelevant
associations are inhibited and
prevented from entering working
memory. InsufFicientinhibition results
in activationof irrelevantinformation,
which functionally lowers working
memory capaciry. In this view.
children with mathematical disorders
may make retrievalerrorsbecausethey

cannot inhibit irrelevant associations

from entering working memory. Once
in working memory theseassociations
either suppressor compete with the
correct association(i.e., the correct
answer)for expression.
Disruptions in the abiiiry to
retrieve basic facts from long-term
memorv. whether the cause is
accessins difficulties or the lack of
inhibition of jrrelevant associations,
might, in fact, be considereda defining
feature of mathematical disorders
(Geary 1993).Moreover,characteristics
of theseretrievaldeficits(e.g.,solution
times) suggestthat for many children
these do not reflect a simple developmental delay but rather a more persistentcognitivedisorder.

Skills
Visuospatial
In a variety of neuropsychological
studies. soecific difficulties with
visuosoatialskillshave been associated
with specificreference
with dyscalculia,
to spatial acalculia. The particular
featuresassociatedwith spatialacalculia
include the misaiisnmentof numerals
in multi-column irithmetic problems,
numeral omissions,numeral' rotation,
misreadingarithmeticaloperationsiSns
and difficulties with place value and
decimals(seeGeary 1993).Russelland
Ginsburg (1984) found that fourthsfade children with mathematical
iisorders committed more errors than
their lO-matched normal peers on
complex arithmetic problems (e.g.,
34x28). These errors involved the
misalignmentof numberswhile writing
down partial answers or errors while
carrying or borrowing from one
column to the next. The childrenwith
mathematical disorders appeared to
understandthe base-10sysiemas well
as the normal children did, and thus the
errorscould not be attributedto a poor
conceptual understanding of the
structure of the problems (see also
Rourke & Iinlayson, I97B). Other
studiessuggestthat spatialdeficitswill
also intluence the ability to solve other
types of mathematicsproblems, such
as word problemsand certaintypes of
geometryproblems(Geary.199Q. In
elementary school, however, this
subwoe of mathematicaldisorderdoes
not apoear to be as common as the
other subtvpes.
continuedon yage Q

MathematicalDisorders:An Overview for Educators

continuedfrom yage 8

arithmetical leaming disabfities.

BritishJournalof Psychology,
82,375386.

Conclusion

References

As a groupl children with

mathematicaldisordersshow a normal
understanding of number concepts,
conceptsunderlying arithmenc algorithms,
and most countingprinciples. At the
sametime. manv of thesechildrenhave
difficulty keeping information in
working memory while monitoring the
counting process and seem to
understandcounting onJy as a rote,
mechanicalprocess(i.e.. counting can
only proceedwith objectscounted in a
fixed order). When solving simpie
arithmetic problems, young children
with mathematical disorders use
developmentallyimmature procedures
and commit many more errors in the
execution of these procedures. Since
many of these children eventually
develop efficient counting procedures,
their difficultiesin this areareDresenE
a
developmentaldelay. A definingfeature
of mathematicaldisordersthat doesnot
appearto improve with ageor schooling
is difficulty retrieving basic arithmetic
facts from long-term memory. This
memory deficit appearsto result from a
more generaldifficulry in representing
information in or retrievine information
from phoneticand semanticmemory,as
weli as from difficulties in inhibitinp the
retrieval of irrelevant associations.
Finally,many childrenwith mathematical
disordershave difficultiesin organizing
t h e s e q u e n c eo f s t e p s n e e d e d t o
successfullypursue formal algorithms.
Future studies will, no doubt, clarify
thesepatternsand lay the foundationfor
remedialstrategies.

Barrouilleg P., fayol, M.,

&
LathuLibre,
E. (199n. Selecting
betweencompetitonn multiplicanon
N. C., & Montani,T. O. $99n.
tasla: An explanationof the errors Jordaq
Cognitivearithmeticand probiem
with leaming
producedby adolescents
solving: A comparisonof children
disabfities.Intemational
Joumal of
with specificandgeneralmathematics
DeveloVment,
2'l, 253-275.
Behavioral
difficulties.Journal of Learning
30,A4-634.
Disabilities,
Brian,D., & Siegler,
R.S.(1984).A feanrral
analysisof preschoolers'
counting t-tght,l.C., Delries, C., & Olsor5R. K.
I.
Psychology, (998). Multivanatebehavioral
knowledge.DeveloVmenal
genetic
20,ffi7-618.
andcogmtive
analysisof achievement
Iuson,K. C. (1988).Children's
clunting
and
ancepsofnumberNewYork SpringerVerlag.

measuresin reading-disabled
and
controltivin paks.HumanBiology,
70,
215-237.

(1978).
Geary,D. C. (1993). Mathematical Rourke,B. P, & FinlaysoqM. A. ].
Neuropsychological
significance
of
disabilities:
Cogutive,neuropsyctrologrcat
variations
in
pattems
of
academic
Psychologial
and geneticcomponents.
Verbalandvisual-spatial
performance:
Bulletin,
444, 345-362.
abiliues.
Journalof AbnormalChild
P
s
y
ch
ol
o
gy,
b, 121-133.
mathematial
Geary,D. C. (1994).Children's
and Vractical
develoVment:
Research
R. L., & GinsburgH. P (1984).
apyliations. Washington, DC: Russell,
Cognitive
analysis of children's
Association.
AmericanPsychological
mathematicaldifficulties.Cognition
4,217-244.
andInstruction,
and
Geary,D. C. (1996).Sexualselection
sex differencesin mathematical
R. S.,& Shrager,
J.0984).Suategy
abiliues.Behaviual
andBrainSciences,Siegler,
choice
in
addition
and subtraction:
49,229-284.
How dochildrenknowwhatto do?In
C. Sophian@d.),Originsof cognitive
Geary,
D. C.,Bow-Thomas,
C.C.,&Yao,Y
. sbills (pp. 229-293).Hillsdale,NJ:
(1992). Countingknowledgeand
^ r . ; r f l:l -l r-u^5 ,-1^t l:t L
;... addition: A
Erlbaum.
JNtll
lv(
^ ^ - - ^ - : ^ ^ - u^r r n o r m a l a n d
lvlllP4rrDvrr
Torgeser5
J. K., Wagner,R I(., Rose,E.,
mathematically disabled children.
T.,& Carvan,
Lindamood,
P,Conway,
Joumalof Lweimenal ChildPsychology,

54,372-391.
Geary,D. C..Hamson,C. O.,& Hoard,
M. K. (in press).Numericaland
arithmeticalcogninonA longitudinal
studyof process
andconceptdeficitsin
childrenwith leamrrgdisabili
ty.Joumal
ofExVeimenal
Ckh Psychology.

C. (1999).Prevenbng
readngfailurein
young childrenwith phonological
processingdisabilities:Group and
to instruction.
individualresponses
94,
Joumalof MuationalPsychology,
s79-593.

David Geary is a Professorof

Psychologyand Director of the training
at the
Psychology
Frogramin Develoymental
UniversitvofMissouriat Columbia.He has
more than 8J publicationsAcrossa wide
rangeof toVics,includinglearningdisorders
Cross-Tsur,
V, Manor,O., & Shalev,
R. S. in elementarymathematics.His two books
(1996).Developmental
dyscalculia: have been aublishedbv the American
Prevalenceand demographic Psvcholoeical Association, Children's
features.DeveloVmennl
Malicineand MathematicalDevelo?ment:Researchand
38,25-33.
ChihNeurology,
PracticalAy?lications(1994) and Male,
Female: The Evolutionof Human Sex
Hit h, G.J.,& McAuley,E.(1991).Workng Differences(1998).

Gelman,R., & Gallistel,C. R. (1978).

The child'sundersanding
of number.
Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversity
Press.

memory in childrenwith specific

Perspectives,
Summer2000 9

Z\
\M\

a)l
lf-t

AND
LEARNINGPROFILES
MATHEMATICAL
TEACHINGSTRATEGIES
DIFFERENTIATED

\V

Are there particular mathematical proTilesthat characterize how students learn

mathematics?
How does the understanding
of mathematicallearninqprofiles translate into Setter
in
instrutional opportunities
mathematics?primary consideration in the
teaching of mathematics is the
recognition that students bring to the
mathematics classrooma wide ranqe
of abilities and learning approaches.
Extensive instructional and clinical
investigationsduring the past20years,
as well as a detailed researchstudy
(Davidson, 1983), have revealed that
students'leaming profiles are marked
by different constellationsof relative
strengthsand relativeweaknesseswith
which students face the worid of
mathematics.Indeed,it is this study of
dffirences, rather than a definition of
explicit deficits, that provides a more
useful approach to understanding
or inefficiencies
students'effectiveness
in learrungmathematics.Moreover,an
understandine of differences is also
informative in fashioning instructional
approachesthat are compatible with
the various learningprofiles that exist
in the mathematicsclassroom.

Child/ World System

Learning profiles in mathematics
can best be understoodby considering
a Child/1X/orldsystem (Bernstein &
Waber. 1990) that characterizesthe
reciprocalrelationshipof the developing
child and the mathematical world in
which the child must function. The
construction of a Child/Wold system
focusseson differencesamong iearners
as well as differencesin the demands
of what is to be leamed. It then expiores
instancesof natch andnisnatch. in the
consideration of differences among
students,the cntical question becomes,
"When does a learning difference
rendera studentlearningdisabled?"A

10 Perspectives,Summer2000

S.Davidson
ByMariaR.MaroldaandPatricia
"disability" in mathematics
leaming
may be thought of as the occurenceof
multiple "mismatches" and the
inability to overcomethosemismatches.
A tantalizing issue then becomes
whether specificapproachesor sffategies
could be used so that the mismatches
are minimized and the disabiliry is
resolvedor disappears.
It is imporiant to recognizethat
the diagnosticprocessin educationis
quite different from the diagnostic
process in medicine. Whereas the
medical diagnostician is lookrng to
uncover what is wrong and what the
patient can't do, the educator must
strive to uncover the student's

I
Theconstructionof a
ChildlWorldsystem
focuseson differences
amongleamersaswell as
differences
in the demands
of whatis to belearned.
strengthsand what the studentcan do.
The goal of the educator is to find
those strengths that can be used to
addressthe weaknessesand difficulties
inherent in students'learningprofiles.
In focussins on the Child in the
a
system of mathematics,a
Child/\X/orld
multidimensionalview must be taken
and a variew
of parametersconsidered.
-the
Specificaliy, following factorsshould
be explored in order to understanda
student'sMathematicalLeamingProtile:
o the presenceof speciftcdevelopmental featuresthat are prerequisiteto
specificmathematicstopics;
. the preferredmodelswith which
mathematicaltopics are interpreted;
r the preferred approacheswith
which mathematicaltopics are pursued;
. memory skills that affect
students' ability to participate in
mathematical activities;

o language skills that affect

students' ability to participate in the
mathematicalarena.

DevelopmentalFeaturesof
MathematicalLearning
Profiles
A definition of a student's
mathematical leaming profile should
incorporate an appreciation of the
developmentalmaturiw of studentsat
varioui ages.There a.. -".ry developmental milestonesin terms of mathematical readiness for dealing with
numerical, spatiai and logical topics.
For numerical concepts,the developmental milestones consist of an
appreciationof number,the conceptof
number (enumeration/cardinality),
conservation of number, one to one
correspondenceand the principles of
classinclusion. For spatialconcepts,the
construct of space. conservation of
length and conservationof volume must
be considered. Ior logical thought,
deveiopmental milestones include the
concepts underlying classification,
seriation, associativity,reversibility and
inference. Most chiidren between the
ages of four and eight have acquired
thesemilestones.
Recent ciinical investigation and
teaching practicehave suggestedthat
the concept of place value might also
be developmentaliymediated(Marolda
& Davidson, 1994). That is, an appreciation of placevalue dependsmore on
the state/ase of the child than on
specifict.ulhi.tg experiences. If the
child is not cognitively ready to deal
with place value, then the concept of
place value cannot be formally or
meaningfully developed,despiteteaching
efforts. The formal concept of place
for most
valueseemsto be established
children beNveenthe ases of six and
eight. The appreciation of formal
place value concepts is of particular
importance since they are necessary
prerequisitesfor the understandingof
larger quantities and the pursuit of
multi-digitcomputation
(onilnuedon page | |

MathematicalLearningProfilesand DifferentiatedTeachingStrategies
continuedfrom Vage 40

PreferredModels and
Preferred Approaches of
MathematicalLearning
Profiles
Mathematical situations can be
interpretedwith concrete,pictorial, or
symbolic models. For a particular
student, a specific interpretation might
be more comfortable and meaningful.
Among concrete models, further
distinctions can be made. Within the
concrete mode, students may prefer
set (discrete)models,such as counters,
while others appreciate perceptually
driven (measurement)models,such as
Cuisenairerods.
The ways in which students
process or approach mathematical
situationsfollow nvo distinct Datterns
(Marolda & Davidson, 1994). Some
studentsprocesssituationsin a linear
fashion, building forward to an exact
finai solution. Sometimes, these
students are so focused on the
individuai eiements that the overall
thrust or goal is obscured.This style of
processingis often characterizedas a
sequential,step-by-stepapproach. For
other students,a careful building up
approach hoids little inherent
meaning. Such students prefer to
establish a general overview of a
situation first and then refine that
overview successivelyuntil an exact
solution emerges. Such studentsmay
be prone to imprecision and tend to
lack appreciationof all relevantdetails.
lhrc

ct\/lP

ot

nrncpssino

iq

nFtcn

describedas globai or gestalt.

Incorporating these inherent
preferencesin terms of models and
processinghas led to the definitron of
two distinct learning profiles in
mathematics, Mathematics Learning;
StyleI andMathematicsLearningStyleII
as reviewed in Table 1 (Marolda &
Davidson. 1994). Moreover, it is
possible to describe mathematical
concepts and procedures that are
inherently compatible with each
Iar'-i^-

^'^Fil.

To be full and successful

participantsin mathematics,students
must learn to mobilize both
Mathematics Learning Style I and
Mathematics Leaming Sryle II. The
student with special leaming needs,
however, is often limited to one
learning style alone and is unable to

Mathematics Leaming Style I

Mathematics Learning Style II

Preferred
Modelsfor Number:
. SetModels

Preferred
Modelsfor Number:
. Perceptual(Measurement)Models

Preferred
Ayyroaches:

Preferred
Ayyroaches:
. Deductive,global
. Often relieson successive
aooroximations

o I inpar

cfpn hrr cten

. Often relieson verbalmediation

ToVics
AyVroached
with Ease:
o Counting forward & counting-on
o Conceptsof addition & multiplication
r Pursuitof calculationprocedures
o Fractionconceptshterpreted in verbalterms
o CeometricShapes:
Emphasison rnming

Toyics
ofPantcukrChallenge:
. Broaderconceptsand overarchingpnnciples
o Estimationsrrategies
. Appreciationof appropriateness
of solution
generarco
. Selectionof aritimetic operationin word
problems: difficulty swrtthing
tretweenoperauons
ln a setot word problerns
. Conceptof a fraction
o More sophisucated
geometnctopics
. Requirementfor flexibleor
alteirranveaooroaches

ToyicsAyyroachedwith Ease:
o Counting backward
. Conceptsof subtraction& division
. Estimatlon
. Fracbonconceptsrrterpretedin a vaneryof
\,1SUal
mooets
. CeometricShapes:
Emphasison spatiai
relationshiosaird manibulauors
Toyrcs
ofPattrularChallenge:
. Appreciationof all salientdetailsof multistip procedures
or word problems
. Pursuitof multi-stepcalculationprocedures
. Relevanceof exactsolutiorx;prefersto guess
. Follow throush to exactsolutionsin word
problems,deipite conectchoiceof operation
. Formalfracuonoperations,despitecomfon
wlth underlymgrracEonconcept
o Requirementto descnbeapproachin
exacungverbalterms
o Insistence
on a single,specificapproach

Table4
mobilize skills and strategies
memory: registration of the
associatedwith the altemativeleamrng
stimulus,encoding,organization,
stvle. For success.teachers must
storage and retrieval....Learning
trinslate activities into the student's
disabled children, however, are
operatingsryle,building a scaffoldthat
constantly described in the
integratesthe areas of strengthsand
psychological and educational
weaknessesso that thev comolement
literature as having memory
one anotherand leadto ihe acouisition
deficits of various types, usually
.visual or auditorv (shorcrerm or
of mathematical conceoti and
proceduresin a meaningfulway.
otherwise). In almost all cases,
The foliowing charts flables 2 &
the impairment involves either
3: as shown on pages13 and 14)offer
the initial encodins or the
more explicit featuresof each of the
effectiveretrievalof iriformation.
(p.1Be)
Mathemitical LearningStylesand can
be helpful in recognizing them and
In mathematics, it is particularly
teachingto them.
important to consider the distrrctron
between encodingand retrieval aspects
of memory. Is the student having
Memory Skillsas a Feature
difficulty remembering the fact or
of MathematicalLearning
procedurebecauseit was neverproperly
Profiles
understood and therefore not encoded
Often students are characterized for storagein memory? Or is the student
as having difficulry in mathematics
having difficulty remembering the fact
becausethey "can't remember." The
or procedure because it cannot be
attribution of mathematicaldifficulties
aCcessed
from the student'srepertoireof
to a global memory deficit is
leamedskills?
somewhat simplistic. Cognitive
psychologists(Hoimes, 19BB)suggest Four specitic memory skills are
that memory issues, in general. are
important in mathematics:
very comprex.
o retrievalof solutionsto one dieit
In evaluating a child's recall of
facts;
materials, the clinician should
. the recallof the sequenceof
recogtize the various components
multi-step procedures;
of the process ioosely called
continuedon page | 2
Perspec-tives,
Summer2000 11

MathematicalLearningProfilesand DifferentiatedTeachingStrategies
continuedfrom Vage 4 4
established.the procedure is more
effectivelyencoded.That understanding,
however, may emerge from different
a0Droacnes.
-In dealing with geometric designs,
students need to use visual memory
In terms of retrievaldifficultiesin
skills. With visualmemorv difficulties,
the productionof solutionsto one digit
students may find the buiiding and
facts, mathematically it may be more
copylrrgof geometricdesignschallengng.
important to considerif the solution is
To support visuai memory difficulties
produced efficiently rather than
students might be encouraged to
automatically. The distinction that is
interpret geometric designsin verbal
important is whether the retrieval is
terms. Difficulties in visual memory
auiomatic or efficient. Difficuities
can also manifest themselvesin nonwith the retrieval of one digit facts
geometric situations,such as difficulties
may be supported by alternative
orienting written digits, difficulties
strategiesthat are compatible with a
aligningnumeralsin written procedures,
student's inherent learning style and
and difficulty organizing a page of
result in more efficient production of
+
problems. Copying problems from the
6,
a
In
the
example,
B
solutions.
text and the board or interpreting data
student with Mathematics Learning
presented on a computer screen may
Style I would be most efficient tuming
to counting on strategies:9,10,1I,12, also be difftcult. In response,copying
requirements should be minimized,
13...14!or strategiesthat build 10s:B +
(2+4) = 1.0+ 4 = l4l A student with
while graphicorganizersmay be offered
to support the copying that is required.
Mathematics Leamrng Sryle II would
Students with auditorv memory
be most efficient turrung to related
difficultiesare challengedwhen required
facts,e.g.doubles,B+B=16,so 8+6=14
. . . 2 L e s s ! O r 6 + 6 = 7 2 ,s o 8 + 6 = 1 4 . . . 2 to rememberail relevantdata presented
in instruction, remember the overall
More!
outcome sought, remember directions,
multi-step
In dealing with
or remember all the relevant infororocedures. the recall of the
relies
mation in word problem situations
specific
steps
organizationof the
on an understandingof the conceptual presentedverbally. Thesestudentsmay
be supported by offering directions in
foundationsdriving the procedure. By
visual formats as well as by offering
offering alternative approaches that
written directions and / or allowing
appealto a specificlearning style, the
studentsto write down the directions
orocedure is better understood and
and then referring to the written text
more easily pursued. In dealingwith
as needed. Interestinglystudentswith
the multiplication problem 23 x 14, a
apparent auditory memory issuesare
Learning
with
Mathematics
student
Style I would tum to a successrve often confused with students whose
primary difficulties are in language
addition approach or the formal
where memory difficulties are
supports to
algorithm. Iurther
rememberingthe steps of procedures secondary to specific language processingissues.
include encouragingverbai mediation
techniques, developing verbai and
visual flow chartsthat can be used as
Languagelssues
referents,and developing mnemonics
Language skills, both oral and
to cue each step. In contrast, the
written.
are imoortant in mathematics
student with Mathematics Leamins
in
terms
of:
SryleII would turn to the definition oT
. word retrievalskills;
multiolication as an area and would
o verbalformulationresuirements;
then-combine the area of the four
r comprehension
requirements.
subregions to determine the final
issue when
become
an
They
solution. Further supports would be
students are required to retrieve the
estimationtechniquesmade iteratively
names of coins,'geometricshapesor
o! once an initial estimate is made, the
other mathematical terms, when they
use of a calculator for an exact
are asked to explain their solutionsor
solution. With firm understanding
. visual memory of perceptual/
geometric stimuli;
. recallof mathematicaldata
presentedauditorially.

12 Perspectives,Summer2000

when they must dealwith

approaches,
lengthy verbal presentationstypical of
classroominstruction,and when they
are facedwith word problems. These
languagedemandshave becomemore
prominent in mathematicsas education
curricula and textbooks have encouraged teachers to ask students for
eiplanations or iustificationsof their
approaches. Moreover, teachershave
been encouraqedto ask students to
take t.rpot Jbility for their own
learning by reading printed materials
or texts. These newer emphasespose
particular challengesfor students with
languagedifficulties.
In order to addressword retrieval
difficulties in mathematics, students
might focus primarily on the valuesof
the coins rather than their specific
names, might be encouragedto draw
geometric shapes rather than name
them and might be offeredrecognition
formats when dealing with mathematical definitions. Retrieval issues
are further supported by minimizing
fastanswersituations.
confrontational,
Studentswith verbal formulation
issuesoften have difficulty describing
their approachesor in portfolio work
where approachesmust be written
down. To rupport these students,
alternate forms of communication
should be encouraged, including
demonstrationswith physical modeis
and use of pictures or diagrams to
describesolution processes.
Students with comprehension
difficulties often have difficultieswith
directions and with reading texts or
word problems. They otten can't get
started with classwork, mistakenly
suggesting they have attentional
difficulties. These students benefit
from careful monitoring of new
presentations and having word
problemsreadto them. Suchstudents
iun be supported by teachers
presenting content in meaningful
"chunks" that are then carefully linked
together. In terms of word problems,
the situations can be presented
verbally rather than requiring reading.
Studentsshouldthen be encouragedto
draw pictorial interpretations to
reDresent the situation and data
involved.
continuedon yage 43

MathematicalLearningProfilesand DifferentiatedTeachingStrategies
continuedfrom page 42

Mathematics Learning Style I

Coenitive
& Behavioral
"
Correlates
. Highlyrelianton verbalskills

Mathematical

Behaviors

Teachins Implications
& Strat6gies

. Approaches
situations
usingrecipes;

. Emphasizethe meaning of each

concept or procedurein v?rbal terms.

. Interprets geometric designs verbally

. Build on subvocalization strategies

t ; ^ 1 1^. , L - ^ , , - L r , ^ ^ t . ^
6'^J L' uuuBl
LaJNr

tn

Airerr

nrnrpd'

'.ac

. Tendsto focuson individualdetailsor

singleaspects
of a situation

. Approachesmathematicsin a mechanical,
rddtine basedtashion

. Highlight concept /overall goal.

. Seesthe "trees,"but overlooks

the "forest"

. Overwhelmed in situations in which there

are,multipleconsiderations,such as in
multl-step tasl(S

. Break down complex tasks into salient

units and make lihkase berween units
expuclr.

. Can generatecorrect.solutions,but may not

recognrze when solutrons are lnappropnate

. B u i l d s i m p l ee s t r m a r i o ns r r a t e g i e s ;
encourageNvo hnal stepsto eachcalculabon
problem:"Does this arsiver the quesuon?"
"Does
and
the solurjon seem righr?"

. D i f f i c u l t i e s . " c h e c k i nw
g 'o r k ; m u s t r e - d o
entlre problem
. D i f f i c u l r i e s . c h o o s i nagn a p p r o a c hi n
word problems

. Encourage students to rewrite or state

problernsin their own words.
. Develop metacognitivestrategiesto
a n a l y z ew o r d p r o b l e mS r t u a t r o n s .

Difficulties. appreciating larger geometric

constructsbecauseof an emphaslson
componenr pans

. PrefersHOW to WHY

. Relieson a defined sequenceof steps

ro pursuea goal
. Reliant on teacherfor THE approach
. Lack of versatility

. Encourageparts to wholes approachin

b u i l d i n gg e o m e t r i cf i g u r e s . a n d
explicit
descnp[ons ot the overalldeslgnthat emerges.

. Prefersnumericalapproachover
manipulative moddls

o Link manipulative model on a step-bystep basisio the numerical procedur6.

. Once procedureis secure,relatemath

t o p i c s ' t or e l e v a n tr e a ll i f e s i t u a t i o n s .

drill and pracrice.toestablishprocedure

{\e.eds
DeroreconstoennSappllcauonsor nroaoer
conceprualmeanlng

. Prefers
explicitdelineation
of eachstepof a
procedure
and linkageof stepsoneto another

. Offer flow chart approaches.

. H e l p s t u d e n t sc r e a t 6h a n d b o o k sw i t h
p r o i e d u r e sd e s c r i b e di n t h e i r o w n w o r d s .
. Vulnerable
when therearemultipleapproaches . Choose one manipulativemodel or
f' "n : - "c"i _n bo'l-e t- n
" rn' -r r
approachto.developa wide. rangeof
t o p r c s ;a v o r ds w r t c h l n Sm o d e l so r
. Overwhelmed by multiple models or
approachestoo qurckly.
. Don't emphasizespecialcases;rather
multiple approaihes
d e v e l o pa h o v e r - r i d i n gr u l e t h a t a p p l i e s
t o a l l c a s e s ;e . g .f o r t f i e a d d i t i o ni n d
subtractionof lractions with unlike
denominators,develop a singleprocess
u s i n gt h e p r o d u c to f t h e d e n 6 m i n a t o r si n
a l l c a s e sd, v e n i f i t i s n o t t h e I e a s t
common denominator.
. Cive explanationsbefore or after
procedure,but not while student
l s p u r s u l n gp r o c e d u r e .
. Us'ecount.-G on techniquesfor addition
factsand missinSaddend techniques
. Preferslinear approachesfor arithmetic topics
lor subtractlontacts.
. lnterpret multiphcatronas successive
adchtlons.

. Challengedby perceptualdemands

. Difficulties with more sophisticatedperceptual

m o d e l s ,s u c ha s C u i s e n a i i er o d s
. Ceometric.activities.mb
ae
y challenging.
e s D e c r a l lrvn t h r e ed r m e n s r o n s .
. Difficulties interpretinganalog clocks
. D i f f i c u l t i e sd i s t i n g u i s h i n cg o i n s ,e s p e c i a l l y
rucKelano ouaner
. Difficulties brganizing written formats

. Emphasizeset (discrete)models for

counthg, suchas money or countingchips.
. I ranslateperceptualcues ln
terms of verbal'descriptions.

. Prefersquizzes or unit tesrsto more

comprenenstvennal exams

. Mav be able to comolete the most difficult

exampie in a set of dxamplesrelying on the
same concepVskjll,but has diffiiulry switching
to a new topic or new approach

. Spiralall topicsto keepthemcurrent,

I AAteI

continuedon yage 411

Perspectives,
Summer2000

IJ

MathematicalLearningProfilesand DifferentiatedTeachingStrategies
continuedfrom yage 43

Mathematics Learning Style Il

Coenitive
& Behavioral
Correlates

Mathematical Behaviors

. Prefers perceptual stimuli and often

relnterprets abstract sltuahons
visual$ or pictorially

. Benefitsfrom manipulatives

. Likesto dealwrth big ideas;doesnt

want to be botherefwith details

. Prefers concepts to algorithms

o Loves geometric topics

. Toleratesambiguity and imprecision

. Offers impulsirieguessesas'solutions

Teaching Implications
ag)trategres
. Offer a variew of models: introduce
perceptr-ralmodels, sud-ras BaseTenBlocksor
Cuisinaie Rols, to suppon calculations.
. Emphasizegeometry'dsa viul
part ot fhe curnculum.
. Relate manipulative models to
proceduresbefore practicingalgorithms
. Keward approachas well as precrse
solunons.
. Develop an appreciationof how much
preclslona sltuatlon warrants.

. Uses estimation strategiesspontaneously

. Reward/encourage estimation strategies

as hrst step.
. Encouragediagramsas a technique to
organtzedata ln problem solvrng
situations.

. Skims word problems first but must be

encouraged io re-read for salient details

. Aloy calculatorsto support problem

solvmg.

. Perceivesoverall shapeof geometnc

configurationsat the expenseof an appreciatior
of the individual comoonents

o Encouragemultiple refinementswhen
building geomet'ricdesignsin order to
incorpola-"te
all the indiv-idualparts.

. PrefersWHY to HOW

o Reouires a definition of overview before

dealing with exactingprocedures
. Requir?smanipulatiriemodeling before
developinea cbnceptor algorithm
. Likes t6 se"tup proSlems, b"utresists foilowing
throush to a conclusron

. Offer opportunitiesto work in

cooperatlve
Sroups.

. Prefersnonsequentialapproaches,
.
involving pattems and intenelationships

. Preferssuccessiveapproximationsapproach
to formal alsorrthms
. Addition an"dmultiplication factsinvolvlng 9s
more readily generited becauseof underlying,
patternsthat are recogruzedbut not verbauzed
. Not troubled bv mixe-doracticeworksheets
. Comfortable with horizontal formats for
long calculations

. Allow altemative calculationprocedures.

. Help students to create their own
handbooksof rypical problems.
o Ceneratearithm6tic fdcs through
relationships to known facts;
e.e. doubles for + facts.
. Einphasize area model for multiplication.

. Can offer a variery of alternativeanswers

or approachesto I singleproblem

. Start with real-life situation and tease

out more formal arithmetic topics.
. Use simulations, relating simildr concepts/
approachesin a varieryofdifferent situau6rs.
. M b d e l c o m p l e xp r o b l e m sw i t h s i m i l a r
problems in simirler forms.

. Can appreciateoperation neededin a word

problcimbut has difficulry following through
to an exact solutron

. Cive Nvo grades on word problem

activiries;one for correctapproach:
one for exact final solution.

. Likes logicalproblem solvrngin the form

or generalreasonlnSproolems

. lnclude generalreasoningexamplesin
logical p"roblemsolving ictivities.

. Difficultieswith precisecalculations
. Difficultiesofferiire
- rationalefor
correctsolutions

. Encourasestudentsto describethe
ng
approach
or conceptual.
underpinni
evenrt lhev cannotmobllrzean
exacungproceoure.

. Challengedby demands for deuils or

the reou-=iremint
of orecisesolutions

Prefersperformance based or portfolio

t!'pe assessmentto typlcal tests
Prifers
comorehensivd
exams to
.
l
qulzzes and unlt tests
More comfortable recognizingcorrect
soiuttonsthan generattngthem

. May be overwhelmed when faced with

multiple examples

Table
3
14 Perspectives,
Summer 2000

. Corsider a varieryof assessment

techniques
. Allow oral Dresentations.
. Do not alw'avs reouire exact solution but
sometimes g'radehomework and tests
only for corlect approach.
. Indude somemuluirle choiceitems on tess.

continuedon page 'l 5

MathematicalLearningProfilesand DifferentiatedTeachingStrategies
continued
frompage44

Conclusion:
The Child/World System allows
teachersto achieve an understanding
of the dynamic interplay that affects a
student'slearning in mathematics. It
leads to the delineation of specific
Mathematical Learning Profiles.
Extensive clirucal investigations and
classroom instruction, along with
rigorous research efforts, have
corroboratedthe presenceof speciFic
MathematicalLeaming Profiles.Those
learningprofiles involve differencesin
deveiopmentas well as preferencesfor
modelsand preferences
for approaches.
Complicating the consideration of
iearrung profiles in mathematics are
more general memory and language
issues that intrude on efforts in
mathematicalactivities.
The understandingof Mathematical
Learning Profiles helps teachersoffer
specificapproachesand strategiesthat
make use of students'areasof relative
strengths, that minimize areas of
vulnerabiliryand that support areasof
specific deficit, ensuring the
comfortable participation and growth
of all students in the mathematical
arena.The importance to teachersof
understanding Mathematical Learning
Profiles is that they lead to the
development of more effective
learning strategieswhich, in turn,

allow more students to experience

successin the domain of ma*rematics.

Maria Marolda and Paticia

Daddson have collaboratedon teachine
materials,curriculumdevelopment, anl
staff develoVnentin nathematicssince
4968 and on assessmelttresearchand
References
diagnostictestingsince4977. Marolda is a
Bernstein,].H. & WabeSD (1990). ResearchAssociateat Harvard Medkal
Developmentalneuropsychological Schooland seniormathematics
specialistat
assessment:The systematic the Learning Disabilities Program at
approach.In A.A. Boulton,G.B. Children'sHosVitalin Boston.Davidsonis
Baker & M. Hiscoc (Eds.), ViceProvostforAcademicSuyyortServices
(pp.31I-7
N euromethods
1). Clifton, and yrofessorof mathematicsat the
NJ:HumanPress.
Universityof Massachusetts,
Boston,and
has beena chiefexaminerin mathematics
Davidson,P.S. (1983).Mathematics and chair of the ExaminingBoard of the
learning
viewed
froma neurobiologicalInternational Baccalaureate diVloma
(NIE Frograffi.BothMarolda and Davidsonare
modelfor intellectual
funaioning
Crant No. NIE-G-79-0089). authorsof articles,mathematicscurricula
Washington, DC: National and yrograms as well as alternative
Instituteof Education.
assessment
tnstruments.

Holmes,].M. (1988).Testing.In R.
Rudel,J.M.Holmes& J.R.Pardes
(Eds.),
Assessment
of Developmental
Disorders: A neuroysychological
(pp.1,1,6-201).
aVproach
New York:
BasicBooks.
MaroldaM.R. & DavidsonP.S.(1994).
Assessingmathematicalabilities
and learning approaches.In
Windows
ofo47ortuility.
Reston,VA:
NationalCouncilof Teachersof
Mathematics.

Visitthe
IDAWebsite
ItlXtlt.it terdys,ofg

Permission To Copy From

PERSPECTIYES

Perspectives,Summer2000 15

INTO
LESSONS
FROMRESEARCH
TRANSLATING
.JL

ZII

\Un

MATHEMATICSCIASSROOMS

Mathematicsand SpecialNeedsStudents

17
often students with leaming
Too
I disabiiitiesreceivelimited mathematici
instruction.This is due in part to special
education teachers feeling uncomfortable teachins mathemitics. This
leads to an overimphasis on training
skills. There are three reasonsfor thii
focus on skills. First, there is a major
misconceptionthat skill learning is ihe
bedrock of mathematics.uooriwhich
all further mathematicsmubt be built.
Second,skills are easierto measureand
teach.Third, teachersoften believethat
students' perceived memory deficits
imply the need for constant repetition
ano orlll.

H. Clements
ByDouglas
may benefit iessfrom intensive drill and
prattice and more from help searching
For, finding., a.nd us]ng fatterns ii
learrunsthe baslcnumber comblnatlons
and aiithmetic strategies (Baroody,
1996).
Many-from
of the lessons we have
research for general
learned
p p l'students
y,- with
e d u c a t i o n s t u d e n t s a 'tb
modifications of course,
with soecial needs as well. A
particulaily important one is "less is
more." That ii. in mathematics and
science,we have found that sustained
time on fewer bey coftce4tsleads to
sreater overall student achievementin

Lessonsfrom Research
Decades of researchindicate that
studentscan and should solveproblems
before they have masteredprocedures
or algorithms traditionally used to solve
these problems (National Council of
Teachersof Mathematics,2000).If they
are given opportunities to do so, their
conceptualunderstandingand abiliry to
transfer knowledge is increased (e.g.,
Carpenter,Franke,Jacobs,Fennema,&
Empson,1997).
-Tndeed.
some of the most
consistendy successfulof the reform
curriculahive been orosramsthat
o build directlv Jn students
strategles;
.
provide opportunitiesfor both
tnventronanclpractlce;
o have children analyzemultiple
strategles;
.
ask fo-rexolanations.
Researchevaluatioi-rs
of theseprograms
'facilitate
show that these curricula
conceptual
'and qrowth without sacrificinq
skills
ilso helo students ieari
concepts (ideas) arid skills while
problem
solving(Hiebert, 1999).
'
What is re"markableis that similar
principles apply to students with
learning disabiliiies. Many children
classifiedas leamins disabledcan learn
effectively with qrialiry conceptuallyorientedinstruction(Paimar& Cawley,
1997).As the Pinciylesand Standardsfor
(National
SchoolMathematicsrTTustrates
Council of Teachersof Mathematics,
2000), a balanced and comprehensive
instruction,using the child's-abilitiesto
shore up weak-iesses,provides better
long-termresults.For exlmple, students

I
Decadesof research
indicatethat studentscan
andshouldsolueproblems
beforetheyhouemastered
proceduresor algorithms
traditionally usedto solue
theseproblems.
the long run. Compared to other
countries"that sienificindy outperform
us on tests, LJ1S.curri?ula do not
challenge students to learn important
topics in depth (National Cenier for
Education Statistics, 199Q. We state
many more ideas in an averagelesson,
but developfewer of them, dompared
to other countries (Stieler
& Hibbert,
.
Y
Iyyyl. Inus. u.5. studentswould De
better off focusingon in-depth study on
fewer importanf concepis. Such an
aooroachis critical with studentswith
ldarning disabilities. They , need to
concentrateon mastenngthe Key rcleas,
and these ideas are iot arifhmetic
algorithms. Even proficient adults use
relationshipsand itrategiesto produce
basic fact's. Thev ten-d not to use
traditional paper-and-pencilalgorithms
when computlng.
Anoth'er research lesson is that a
variety of instructional materials is

beneficial in meeting the needs

of all students. Studdnts who use
manipulatives in their mathematics
classesusually outperform those who
do not (Drisioll, 19ffi; Greabell, 1978;
Raphael & Wahlstrom, 1989; Sowell,
1989: Suvdam. 1986). Maninulatives
can be pirticularly heipful to students
with learnine disabilities.
Somewhat sumrising,manipulatives
'phvsical
do not necessarilv'have"iobe
objects. Computer. manipulatives can
provrde representatrons
that are lust as
bersonally meaningful to students.
Paradoxicilly, comp,iter representations
may even be more manageable,
fleiible, and extensible than" their
physical counterparts (Clements &
Miuilt.n.
1996,.'students who use
phvsical and software manipulatives
bemonstrate a greater
"than mathematical
do
control
sophistication
gr6up students who use physical
frranipulativesalone (Olson, IgBB).
Good manipulativesare those that are
meaningful"and to the learner, provide
'learner,
flefbility to the
control
have characteristics'that mirror, or
are consistent with coenitive and
mathematicalstructures,aid assistthe
leaJnerin making,connectionsbetween
various piecesand types of knowledge.
lor example, computer sorrware can
dynamically connett pictured obiects,
slch as bise ten bloiks, to symbolic
representations.
Computer manipulatives
cah play those roles.They help children
generalize and abstracl experiences
ivith physicalmanipulatives.

Recommendationsfor
ClassroomPractice
Researchprovides several recommendations for meeting the needs of
all studentsin mathematlcseducation.
4. KeeV exyectations reasonable,
but not low.
Low exoectations are esoeciallv
oroblematic 6.."ur" students *tro ti"'.
in poverry,studentswho are not native
spiakers- of English, students with
disabiiities, females, and many nonwhite students have traditionally been
far more likely than their counterparts
in other . demog.raphicgroups to be
the vrctrms ot low exDectatlons.
Exoectationsmust be raisdd because
"rnathematics can and must be learned
continuedon page32
Perspectives,Summer2000 31

TranslatingLessonsfrom Researchinto MathematicsClassrooms

continuedfrom yage 34
by all students" (NCTM, 2000).
Raisine standards includes increased
empha"sison conducting experiments,
authentic problem iolving, and
proiect-based[earninq (McLIuehlin.
Nolet, Rhim, & Hende"rson,1999\.
2. Partently
hely
students
develoVconcepttal understanding and
skills.
Students who have difficulw in
mathematics may need additibnal
resourcesto support and consolidate
the underlying-concepts and skills
beine learied." They' benefit from
multiple experienceswith models and
reiterition bf the linkage of models
with abstract,numericaliranipuiations.
Expand time for mathematics.In
general, the traditional curriculum
Zioesnot allow adequatetime for the
many. instructional , and .learning
strateglesnecessaryfor the mathernahcal
succeis of leamine disabled students
Qemer,1997).
Students with disabilities mav
also need increasedtime to compleie
assignments.Finally, they may also
benetlt trom more tlme or tewer
exampleson tests or from the use of
oral rither than written assessments.
3. Build on children's ?.tr?ngths.
This statementoften is litde hore
than a trite pronouncement. But
teacherscan reinvigorateit when they
make a conscientioirseffort to build oh
what children know how to do,
relying on children'sown strengthsto
addreistheir deficits.

Shiah, 1991). However, students

should not learn to use manipulatives
rn a rote manner (Clements &
McMillen, 1990. Make sure students
explain what they are doine and link
th6ir work wit6 manioulatives to
underlying conceptsand Formalskills.
7. . U:, technologt dyly.
It rs rmDortant that all students
have opportunities to use technology
in appropriateways so that they have
access to interesting and important
mathematical ideis. Acceis to
technology must not become yet

I
In general,the traditional
curriculumdoesnot allow
adequate
time for the
manuinstructionaland
leamingstrategies
for the
necessaru
mathematicalsuccess
of
learningdisabledstudents.

skills
in
a
5. Develop
meaningfal and yuryoseful fashion.
Practiceis important, but practice
at the problein solving'level
is preferied whenever p-ossible.
Meamngfuf purp,osefulpracti.S gives
us two tor the Drlce ot one.
Meaninsless drill mhv actuallv be
harmful"to these children (Bar6ody,
1999:Swanson& Hoskyn, 1998).

another dimension of educational

inequity (NCTM, 2000). Computers
can servemany purposes(Clements&
Nastasi, 1992; Mastropieri et aI., 1991.;
P a g l i a r o .l 9 9 B : S h a w , D u r d e n , &
Baker,1998).Computerswith voicerecognitionor voice-creationsoftware
can 6ffer teachersand peersaccessto
the mathematicalideasand arquments
developedbv studentswith disabilities
who would otherwise be unable to
share their thinking. Computers can
also serve as a val"uableextension to
traditional manipulatives that might be
particularly helbful to specialieeds
itudents(i.f. Weir, 1987).'
Students should learn countins
and arithmetical strategiesbut should
also learn to use calculatorsfor some
pfrposes (Leqer, 1.997).For students
who can demonstrate a clear
understanding of an operation, the
calculatormieht be the prrmary means
of computation (Parmir & Cawley,
1,997\.

6. Use manipulatives wisely.

Manipulatives can help leaming
disabledsiudents leam both concept:
-&
and skills (Mastropieri, Scruggs,

8. Make connections.
Integrate concepts and skills.
Help children link iymbols, verbal
descriptions. and work with

4. Build on children's infotmal

sttategies,
Even severely learrung disabled
children can invent quite sofhisticated
counting strategies(Baroody. 1996).
lntormal strategresprovlde a startlng
placefor develoipingbothconceptsanil
proceoures.

32 Perspectives,
Spummer2000

,h^^\

manipulatives. Use every possible

social situation to provide me'anineful
situations for mathematical oroblem
solving opporturuties. (Baroody,1999;
Parmai & Caw\ey,1997).
,. Adiust instructional formats
to individual learning styles or
sVecrfic learning needs.
Formats might include modeling,
demonstration,Ind feedback;guidinlg
and teaching strategies;mnemonji
s t r a t e . g i e sf o r l e a r n i n g n u m b e r
c o m b l n a t l o n s :a n d D e e rm e d r a t l o n
(Gersten, 1,985; Lerner, 1,997;
Mastropieri et al., 199I). Use
prolects and ,games to help ,the
teacher gurcle leamlng, rather than
relying iolelv on "tellinq" Garoodv,
Iyyy). Ihe tradltlonal sequenceof
direct teacher explanations,.strategy
lnstructron, relevant practrce, and
feedback and reinforcement is often
effective.but the potential of students
to learn through problem solving
should not be'ignored..Too often]
direct instruction approachessqueeze
'direct
out other possibilidies.
Use
-onlv
instruction
when students are
unable to inverit their own srraregles.
In all cases,help them make stratdgies
explicit (Kame'enui& Camine, 199).
. ^

^ , v

- 1

10. EmVhasizestatistks, geome\,

and flteasurenteflt as well as
arithmertc toyics (Parmar & Cawley,

4997).

A11studentsneed accessto varied

topics in mathematics.Topics beyond
arithmetic are increasingly important
in our dav-to-davlives.
Oveiall, solve problems,encourage
reasoning, ,and r-isemodeling.Wi[h
Dattenceancl support. tnese Drocesses
ire aiso ln the rdath of mosr ihildr.n.

References
Baroody,A. L. 0996). An investigative
approach to the mathematlcs
inslructionof childrenclassifiedas
learningdisabled.In D. K. Reid &
W. P. Flresko & H. L. Swanson
(Eds.), Cog,nitiveapproaches Io
learningdishbilities(pp. 5a7-615).
Austin. TX: Pro-ed.
Baroody, A.l. (1999).The development
ot. ,baslc.countlng,,numbrer,and
arithmetic knowledge among
children classified as mentallt
handicapped.In L. M. Glidden(Id.),
Interuatiitialreviewof research
in ieniil
retardarion
$lol. 22, fp. 5 I - I 03).New
York: AcademicPrds's.
continuedon yage 33

TranslatingLessonsfrom Researchinto MathematicsClassrooms

continuedfrom Vage 32
T. P.,Franke,M. L., Jacobs,
Carpenter,
-V.
R., Fennema,E., & Empson,S.
B (1997) A longitudinal dtudy of
rnvenilon ano unoerstanolng ln
children's multidieit additionlnd
subtraction.Journil for Researchin
29, 3-20.
Education,
Mathematics
Clements, D. H., & McMillen, S.
(,99q. Rethinking uconcrete"
manipulatives. Tea1hingChitdren
M athematic, 2(5),270-279 .
Clements, D. H., & Nastasi, B. K.
(1992). Computers and early
ihildhood educarion. In M.
& S. N. Elliott g T. R.
Gettineer
,
.
Y
Kratochwill (Eds.), Advancesin
schoolpsychology' Preschooland
earlv chi[dhood.treatmentdirections
(pp lB7-246). Hillsdale, NJ'
LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
within
Driscoll, M. l. (1983).Research
reach:Elementary
schoolmathematics
and reading. St. Louis: CEMREL,
lnc.

NationalCenterfor EducationStadsncs.
NCES
Pursuing
excellence,
099q.
,Y
A- -i^
,,
97-198 (initial findings from
the Third Internationaf Mathematics and Science Studv).
w w w . e d . e o v / N C E S / t i m s s:
WashingtonD.C.: U.S. Govemment
\Jmce.
rnnnng
"Council
National
of Teachers of
and
Mathematics.(2000).Principles
standardsfor school mathematics.
Reston,VA: Author.
Oison,. I. K. (1988, August).
Microcom?utersmabe manipulatives
meaningfil.P3perpresentedat the
meetine of the International
Mathematics
Congre"ss of
Education,Budapest,Hungary.
C. M. (1998).Mathematics
Pagliaro,
reform in the education of deaf
and hard of hearing students.
AmericanAnnalsof theDeaf, 143(I),

22-28.
Parmar,R..S.,& Cawley,J. F. (1997).
Preparing
Gersten,R. (1985).Direct instruction
. teaching, to teach
mathematrcsto students wlth
with soecialeducationstudents:A
learning disabilities.Journalof
review of evaluationresearch.The
30(2), 18819,
41LearninfDisabilities,
of
Syecial
Education,
Journal
1,97.
58.
M. (1989).
Raphael,
D., & Wahlstrom,
Greabell,L. C. (1978).The effect of
The influenceof instructional
aids
stimuli input on the ac.quisitionof
on mathematicsachievement.
tntroductory geometnc concepts
in Mathematics
bv elementariz school childrin.
Journalfor Research
20, 773-I90.
Education,
S-choolScienci and Mathematics,
7B(4),320-326.
Shaw,K. L., Durden,P.,& Baker,A.
(1998).Learninghow Amanda,a
Hiebert, l. C. (1999). Relationships
palsystudent,
highschoolcerebral
berween researchand the NCTM
un?erstands
ansles.'
Sch'ool
Science
Standards.Journal for Researchin
98,I9B-204.
andMathematu;
Mathematics
Education.
30. 3-19.
Sowell, E. J. (989). Effects of
Kame'enui, E. I., & Carnine, D. W
(1998) Effectiv,eteac.hingsrrateg,ies
manioulative materials in
IhaI a((0mm0daledNerse learners.
mathbmaticsinstruction.Journal
Upper SaddleRiver, NJ: Prenticefor Research in Mathematics
.
Education.
20. 498-505
Hall.
Lerner, l. (1997). Learning disabilities. Stigler,
J.W., & Hiebert,J.0999).The
teachinggap:
Best ideasfrom the
Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin
-teachers
world'{
Company.
fo, inproving,
in
the
classrooz.
New
education
Mastropieri,M. A., Scruggs,T. E., &
Free
Press.
York
The
Shiah, S. (1991). Mathematics
Suydam,M N (1980. Manipulative
instruction for learninq disabled
students: A review oF research.
Learnine Disabilities Research&
Practice,6, 89-98.
Mclaughlin, M. J., Nolet, V., Rhim, L.
M; & Henderson, K. (1,999).
Teaching exceptional children.
Councilfor ExceptionalChildren,31,
66-71.
.

materlals

and

Note:
Time ro nrenarethis material
was partially provided by tvvo
National Science Foundation (NSF)
Research Crants, ESI-9230804,
"Building Biocks-Foundations for
PreThinking,
Mathematical
Kindergartento Grade 2: Researchbased Materials Development" and
"Pianning
for
ESI-981,42I8:
Professional Development in PreSchool Mathematics: Meeting the
Challenge of Standards2000." Any
opinions, findings, and conclusions or
recommendations expressed in this
publicationare those of the author and
do not necessarilyreflect the views of
the NSF.

of
Douglas H. Clements, Professor
Mathematics, Early Childhood, and
Computer Education at SUNY/Buffalo,
has conductedresearchand published
widely in the areas of the learningand
teachingof geometrycomyuteraVplications
and the effeas of sotial interactionson
seueralNSF
learnina.He has co-directed
yroiects, Vroducing Logo Ceometry,
Investigationsin Numbel Data, and
Syace,and morethan /0 referredresearch
articles.Activein the NCTM, he is editor
and author of the NCTM Addenda
materialsand was an authord NCTM's
Princiyles and Standards for School
Mathematics(2000).He was chair of the
Editorial Panel of NCTM's research
journal, the Journal for Researchin
MathematicsEducation. In his current
NSF-funded project, Building BlocbsFoundationsfor Mathematkal Thinbing
to Crade 2: ResearchPre-Kinderparten
heandJulie
basedMatirials Develoyment,
Sarama are develoying mathematics
softwareand activitiesfor young,children.

acnrevemen[.

33(6), 10, 32.

Aithmetic Teacher,
Swanson,H. L., &. Hoskyn, M. (1998).
Experimental intervention research
learning
on students with
disabilities: A meta-analysis oT
treatment outcomes. Review of
68(3),277-32I.'
El uationatResearch,

Perspectives,
Summer2000 33