Enhancing Mathematical Cognitive Development Through Educational Interventions

  • Lori Kroeger
  • Rhonda Douglas Brown
Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter, we presents theory and research on mathematical interventions, which are programs used to provide supplementary opportunities to children who are struggling with learning mathematical concepts, facts, and procedures either in small groups or individually (Tiers 2 and 3 of the Response to Intervention framework). Fifteen mathematical interventions and curricula for students in Pre-Kindergarten through Post-Secondary levels are listed that meet the Institute of Education Sciences’ What Works Clearinghouse’s standards, with scientific evidence of potentially positive effects on mathematical outcomes. Three additional programs with digital components are highlighted: The Number Race; Fluency and Automaticity through Systematic Teaching with Technology (FASTT Math); and SRA Number Worlds® with Building Blocks®. For each of these programs, we provide an overview, describe the user’s experience, and summarize theoretical frameworks and efficacy studies. Furthermore, we describe how components of the programs are related to neuroscience theory and research on mathematical cognition and development, particularly Dehaene and colleagues’ triple-code model of numerical processing.

Keywords

Mathematical interventions Response to intervention The Number Race FASTT Math Number Worlds Building Blocks Triple-code model 

References

  1. Ashcraft, M. H. (1992). Cognitive arithmetic: A review of data and theory. Cognition, 44, 75–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(92)90051-I CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Baroody, A. J., Bajwa, N. P., & Eiland, M. (2009). Why can’t Johnny remember the basic facts? Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 15, 69–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/ddrr.45 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrows, H. S., & Kelson, A. M. (1993). Problem-based learning: A total approach to education. Springfield, IL: Southern Illinois University School of Medicine.Google Scholar
  4. Case, R. (1992). Neo-Piagetian theories of child development. In R. J. Sternberg & C. A. Berg (Eds.), Intellectual Development. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Clements, D. H. (2002). Computers in early childhood mathematics. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 3(2), 160–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clements, D. H. (2007). Curriculum research: Toward a framework for “research-based curricula”. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38, 35–70.Google Scholar
  7. Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (Eds.). (2004). Engaging young children in mathematics: Standards for early childhood mathematics education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  8. Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2007). Effects of a preschool mathematics curriculum: Summative research on the Building Blocks project. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(2), 136–163. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.proxy.libraries.uc.edu/stable/30034954
  9. Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2008). Experimental evaluation of the effects of a research-based preschool mathematics curriculum. American Educational Research Journal, 45(2), 443–494. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.proxy.libraries.uc.edu/stable/30069453 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2011). Early childhood mathematics intervention. Science, 333(6045), 968–970. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1204537 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2014). Learning and teaching early math: The learning trajectories approach (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., Spitler, M. E., Lange, A. A., & Wolfe, C. B. (2011). Mathematics learned by young children in an intervention based on learning trajectories: A large-scale cluster randomized trial. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 42(2), 127–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., Wolfe, C. B., & Spitler, M. E. (2013). Longitudinal evaluation of a scale-up model for teaching mathematics with trajectories and technologies: Persistence of effects in the third year. American Educational Research Journal, 50(4), 812–850. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831212469270 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dehaene, S. (1992). Varieties of numerical abilities. Cognition, 44(1–2), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(92)90049-N CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Dehaene, S. (2011). The number sense: How the mind creates mathematics (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Dehaene, S., & Cohen, L. (1995). Towards an anatomical and functional model of number processing. Mathematical Cognition, 1, 83–120.Google Scholar
  17. Dehaene, S., & Cohen, L. (1997). Cerebral pathways for calculation: Double dissociation between rote verbal and quantitative knowledge of arithmetic. Cortex, 33(2), 219–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70002-9 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Dehaene, S., Piazza, M., Pinel, P., & Cohen, L. (2003). Three parietal circuits for number processing. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20(3–6), 487–506. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643290244000239 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. FASTT Math Next Generation Research Foundation paper. (2012). New York, NY: Scholastic Inc. Retrieved from http://www.hmhco.com/products/fastt-math/files/FASTTMathNG_FoundationPaper.pdf
  20. Fleischner, J. E., Garnett, K., & Shepard, M. J. (1982). Proficiency in arithmetic basic facts computation of learning disabled children. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 4, 47–56.Google Scholar
  21. Fosnot, C. T., & Dolk, M. (2001). Young mathematicians at work: Constructing number sense. Westport, CT: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  22. Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., & Hollenbeck, K. (2007). Extending responsiveness to intervention to mathematics at first and third grades. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22(1), 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Craddock, C., Hollenbeck, K. N., Hamlett, C. L., & Schatschneider, C. (2008). Effects of small-group tutoring with and without validated classroom instruction on at-risk students’ math problem solving: Are two tiers of prevention better than one? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 491–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fuchs, L. S., Powell, S. R., Seethaler, P. M., Cirino, P. T., Fletcher, J. M., Fuchs, D., … Zumeta, R. O. (2009). Remediating number combination and word problem deficits among students with mathematics difficulties: A randomized control trial. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 561–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fuchs, L. S., Powell, S. R., Seethaler, P. M., Cirino, P. T., Fletcher, J. M., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C. L. (2010). The effects of strategic counting instruction, with and without deliberate practice, on number combination skill among students with mathematics difficulties. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 89–100. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2009.09.003.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Fuchs, L. S., Seethaler, P. M., Powell, S. R., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Fletcher, J. M. (2008). Effects of preventative tutoring on the mathematical problem solving of third-grade students with math and reading difficulties. Exceptional Children, 74, 155–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fuson, K. C. (1982). An analysis of the counting-on procedure in addition. In T. H. Carpenter, J. M. Moser, & T. H. Romberg (Eds.), Addition and subtraction: A cognitive perspective (pp. 67–78). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  28. Fuson, K. C. (1988). Children’s counting and concepts of number. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fuson, K. C. (1992). Research on whole number addition and subtraction. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 243–275). New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  30. Geary, D. C., Bailey, D. H., Littlefield, A., Wood, P., Hoard, M. K., & Nugent, L. (2009). First-grade predictors of mathematical learning disability: A latent class trajectory analysis. Cognitive Development, 24, 411–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2009.10.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Griffin, S. (2004). Building number sense with Number Worlds: A mathematics program for young children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19(1), 173–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2004.01.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Griffin, S. (2009). Learning sequences in the acquisition of mathematical knowledge: Using cognitive developmental theory to inform curriculum design for pre-K-6 mathematics education. Mind, Brain, and Education, 3(2), 96–107. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.2009.3.issue-210.1111/j.1751-228X.2009.01060.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Griffin, S. (2015). Number Worlds: A prevention/intervention math program for Grades PreK-8. Columbus, OH: SRA/McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  34. Griffin, S., & Case, R. (1997). Re-thinking the primary school math curriculum: An approach based on cognitive science. Issues in Education, 3, 1–49.Google Scholar
  35. Hasselbring, T. S., Goin, L., & Bransford, J. D. (1988). Developing math automaticity in learning handicapped children: The role of computerized drill and practice. Focus on Exceptional Children, 20, 1–7.Google Scholar
  36. Kamii, C. (2000). Young children reinvent arithmetic: Implications of Piaget’s theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  37. Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  38. Kroeger, L. A., Brown, R. D., & O’Brien, B. A. (2012). Connecting neuroscience, cognitive, and educational theories and research to practice: A review of mathematics intervention programs. Early Education and Development, 23(1), 37–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2012.617289 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lyon, G. R., Fletcher, J., Fuchs, L., & Chhabra, V. (2006). Learning disabilities. In E. Marsh & R. Barkley (Eds.), Treatment of childhood disorders (3rd ed., pp. 512–594). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  40. Räsänen, P., Salminen, J., Wilson, A. J., Aunio, P., & Dehaene, S. (2009). Computer-assisted intervention for children with low numeracy skills. Cognitive Development, 24, 450–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2009.09.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2009). Early childhood mathematics education research: Learning trajectories for young children. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Siegler, R. S. (1988). Strategy choice procedures and the development of multiplication skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 258–275. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.117.3.258 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Simon, M. A. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26, 114–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. SRA Number Worlds: Research and efficacy. (2015). McGraw Hill Education. Retrieved from http://ecommerce-prod.mheducation.com.s3.amazonaws.com/unitas/school/program/number-worlds-2015/nw-2015-research-brochure.pdf
  45. Swanson, H. L. (2008). Neuroscience and RTI: A complementary role. In E. Fletcher-Janzen & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Neuropsychological perspectives on learning disabilities in the era of RTI: Recommendations for diagnosis and intervention (pp. 28–53). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.Google Scholar
  46. Torbeyns, J., Verschaffel, L., & Ghesquière, P. (2004). Strategy development in children with mathematical disabilities: Insights from the choice/no-choice method and the chronological-age/ability-level–match design. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(2), 119–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194040370020301 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Vaidya, S. R. (2004). Understanding dyscalculia for teaching. Education, 124, 717–720.Google Scholar
  48. Van de Walle, J. A., Karp, K. S., & Bay-Williams, J. M. (2010). Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally (7th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education Inc.Google Scholar
  49. Wilson, A., & Dehaene, S. (2004). How it works: Scientific background. Retrieved from http://www.thenumberrace.com/nr/nr_bgnd.php?lang=en
  50. Wilson, A. J., Revkin, S. K., Cohen, D., Cohen, L., & Dehaene, S. (2006). An open trial assessment of “The Number Race,” an adaptive computer game for remediation of dyscalculia. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 2(20). https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-9081-2-20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wright, R. J., Ellemor-Collins, D., & Tabor, P. D. (2012). Developing number knowledge: Assessment, teaching & intervention with 7-11 year-olds. London, England: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lori Kroeger
  • Rhonda Douglas Brown
    • 1
  1. 1.Developmental & Learning Sciences Research CenterSchool of Education, University of CincinnatiCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations