Advertisement

Mathematical Learning and Its Difficulties in Southern European Countries

  • Maria Gracia-BafalluyEmail author
  • Miguel Puyuelo-San Clemente
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter describes and discusses the current situation in mathematics education in the countries of Southern Mediterranean Europe: France, Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain. Most of these countries feature decentralized education policies and include regions and school centers with autonomy to describe guidelines, materials, and resources.

Nevertheless, the European Union has established some common guidelines and a guide to mathematics, among other subjects. They allow these countries to share some definitions and common concepts, together with some suggestions for procedures related to identification, assessment, and intervention when mathematics difficulties are observed in the classroom.

This chapter outlines the current policies, educational system, definitions of mathematics learning difficulties (MLD), diagnostic criteria, and some standard tests elaborated within each of the aforementioned countries and in their corresponding languages, along with some remediation resources.

Keywords

Educational policies Mathematics Southern Europe Diagnostic criteria Educational system 

Notes

Acknowledgements

M. Gracia-Bafalluy would like to thank the following people for their assistance: Àngels Colomé, M. Isabel Núñez-Peña, Elisabet Tubau, and Eric D. Johnson, from the University of Barcelona, for collaborating in the preparation of the material related to the Spanish situation; Giannis Karagiannakis and Maria Chiara Passolunghi, for providing some material on Greece and Italy, respectively; Joan Oliart, head of the Indicators and Statistics Department of Education at the Generalitat de Catalunya; Pablo Santamaría, from TEA Editorial (Spain), for providing relevant information regarding their tests; and the designer Jakub Marian, for the elaboration of Figs. 11.1 and 11.2.

References

  1. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. B.O.E. (1995). Real Decreto 696/1995, de 28 de abril. B.O.E. 131, §§16179–16185.Google Scholar
  3. B.O.E. (2006). Ley Orgánica 2/2006, de 3 de mayo. B.O.E. 106, §§17158–17207.Google Scholar
  4. Biancardi, A., & Nicoletti, C. (2004). BDE, batteria per la valutazione della discalculia evolutiva. Turin, Italy: Omega Edizioni.Google Scholar
  5. Biancardi, A., Pulga, S., & Savelli, E. (2008). Potenziare le abilità numeriche e di calcolo. Trento, Italy: Erickson.Google Scholar
  6. Bortolato, C. (2008). La linea del 100. Trento, Italy: Erickson.Google Scholar
  7. Bortolato, C. (2011). La linea del 20. Trento, Italy: Erickson.Google Scholar
  8. Bulletin Officiel n. 31 du 1er septembre 2005. Dispositifs d’aide et de soutien pour la réussite des élèves à l’école. Décret n° 2005-1014. 24 August 2005.Google Scholar
  9. Camarero, F. J., Santos, J., García, J., et al. (2003). Mathematikoi III: manual técnico. Oviedo, Spain: Consejería de Educación y Cultura de Asturias.Google Scholar
  10. CIMETE Group. (1995). Compétences et incompétences en arithmétique: une aide au diagnostic et à l’action pédagogique particulièrement destinée aux enfants affectés de difficultés sévère d’apprentissage. In ANAE, Hors série dyscalculies (pp. 58–63).Google Scholar
  11. Cornet, M. C., Goerlich, S., Vanmuysen, A., & Van Nieuwenhoven, C. (2001). AD-math. Manuel général. Paris: Éditions du Centre de Psychologie Appliquée.Google Scholar
  12. Cornoldi, C., & Cazzola, C. (2004). AC-MT 11–14. Test di valutazione delle abilità di calcolo e problem solving dagli 11 ai 14 anni. Trento, Italy: Erickson.Google Scholar
  13. Cornoldi, C., Lucangeli, D., & Bellina, M. (2002). AC-MT. Test di valutazione delle abilità di calcolo. Trento, Italy: Erickson.Google Scholar
  14. Dehaene, S. (1992). Varieties of numerical abilities. Cognition, 44, 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dehaene, S. (2001). Précis of the number sense. Mind & Language, 16, 16–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dehaene, S., Piazza, M., Pinel, P., & Cohen, L. (2003). Three parietal circuits for number processing. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20, 487–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Deloche, G., Seron, X., Baeta, E., Basso, A., Salinas, D. C., Gaillard, F., et al. (1993). Calculation and number processing: the EC301 assessment battery for brain-damaged adults. In F. J. Stachowiak (Ed.), Developments in the assessment and rehabilitation of brain damaged patients (pp. 401–406). Tubingen, Germany: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
  18. Departamento de Educación del Gobierno de Navarra. Servicio de Igualdad de Oportunidades, Participación Educativa y Atención al Profesorado (CREENA). (2012). Entender y atender al alumnado con trastornos de aprendizaje en las aulas. Pamplona, Spain: Gobierno de Navarra Departamento de Educación.Google Scholar
  19. Dias, P., & Santos, L. (2009). Auto-avaliação regulada em matemática: dizer antes de fazer [Self-regulating assessment in mathematics: saying before doing]. Bolema, 33, 51–68.Google Scholar
  20. Duquesne, F. (2003). L’ECPN: des situations-problèmes pour évaluer les principales fonctions du nombre. Glossa, 83, 1–17.Google Scholar
  21. European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (Eurydice). (2011). Mathematics education in Europe: common challenges and nacional policies. Brussels, Belgium: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency.Google Scholar
  22. European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (Eurydice). (2016). Education and training monitor—2016. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/strategic-framework/et-monitor_en. Accessed 20 Nov 2016.Google Scholar
  23. European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (Eurydice). (2017). Support mechanisms for evidence-based policy-making in education. Eurydice report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  24. Fernandes, A., Miranda, L., & Cruz-Santos, A. (2014). Perceção de professores face à educação de alunos com necessidades educativas especiais: um estudo no norte de Portugal. Revista Educação Especial, 27, 11–26.Google Scholar
  25. Gaillard, F., Segura, M., & Taussik, I. (2000). Numerical: test neurocognitif pour l’apprentissage du nombre et du calcul. Lausanne, Switzerland: Institut de Psychologie.Google Scholar
  26. García-Vidal, J., & González-Manjón, D. (2003). Batería psicopedagógica evalua. Madrid, Spain: EOS.Google Scholar
  27. García-Vidal, J., González-Manjón, D., García-Ortiz, B., & Jiménez-Fernández, A. (2010). Evamat: batería para la evaluación de la competencia matemática. Madrid, Spain: EOS.Google Scholar
  28. Gazzetta Ufficiale N. 244 del 18 Ottobre. (2010). Legge 8 ottobre 2010, n. 170. Nuove norme in materia di disturbi specifici di apprendimento in ambito scolastico.Google Scholar
  29. Girelli, L., Bizzaro, M., Krinzinger, H., & Willmes, K. (2015). Tedi-Math: manuale (Italian adaptation). Firenze, Italy: Giuntios.Google Scholar
  30. Grégoire, J., Noël, M. P., & Van Nieuwenhoven, C. (2001). Le Tedi-Math. Test diagnostique des compétences de base en mathématiques. Paris: Éditions du Centre de Psychologie Appliquée.Google Scholar
  31. Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (Inserm). (2007). Dyslexie, dysortographie, dyscalculie. bilan des données scientifiques. Paris: Les Éditions Inserm.Google Scholar
  32. Karagiannakis, G., & Baccaglini-Frank, A. (2014). The DeDiMa battery: a tool for identifying students’ mathematical learning profiles. Health Psychology Report, 2, 291–297.  https://doi.org/10.5114/hpr.2014.46329 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Koumoula, A., Tsironi, V., Stamouli, V., Bardani, I., Siapati, S., Annika, G., et al. (2004). An epidemiological study of number processing and mental calculation in Greek schoolchildren. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 377–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Legifrance. (2016). Le service public de la diffusion du droit. In: Code de la santé publique. Available via Legifrance. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?idArticle=LEGIARTI000006687625&cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006072665&dateTexte=20100401. Accessed 12 Jan 2017.
  35. Lucangeli, D., Molin, A., Poli, S., Tressoldi, P. E., & Zorzi, M. (2009). Discalculia test: Test per la valutazione delle abilità e dei disturbi del calcolo. Trento, Italy: Erickson.Google Scholar
  36. Lucangeli, D., Poli, S., & Molin, A. (2003). L’intelligenza numerica. Trento, Italy: Erickson.Google Scholar
  37. Lucangeli, D., Tressoldi, P. E., & Fiore, C. (1998). Test ABCA: Test delle abilità di calcolo aritmetico. Trento, Italy: Erickson.Google Scholar
  38. Martínez-Berruezo, M. A. (2015). Instrumentos de valoración de la discalculia. In P. Martín-Lobo & E. Vergara-Moragues (Eds.), Procesos e instrumentos de evaluación neuropsicológica educativa, coord (pp. 194–206). Catálogo de publicaciones del ministerio. Available via https://sede.educacion.gob.es/publiventa/descarga.action?f_codigo_agc=17195
  39. McCloskey, M., Caramazza, A., & Basili, A. (1985). Cognitive mechanism in number processing and calculation: Evidence from dyscalculia. Brain and Cognition, 4, 171–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Meljac, C., & Lemmel, G. (1999). UDN-II. Construction et utilisation du nombre. Paris: Éditions du Centre de Psychologie Appliquée.Google Scholar
  41. Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca. (2012). Strumenti d’intervento per alunni con bisogni educativi speciali e organizzazione territoriale per l’inclusione scolastica. Ministerial guideline published on 17 January 2013. Rome: Ministero dell’Istruzione.Google Scholar
  42. Ministero della Salute. (2011). Disturbi specifici dell’aprendimento. Consensus Conference, Rome, 6–7 December 2010.Google Scholar
  43. Miranda-Casas, A., Arlandis, P., & Soriano, M. (1997). Instrucción en estrategias y entrenamiento atribucional. Efectos sobre la resolución de problemas y el autoconcepto de estudiantes con dificultades en el aprendizaje [Instruction on strategies and attributional training: Effects on problem solving and self-concept of students with learning difficulties]. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 80, 37–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Miranda-Casas, A., Marco, R., Soriano, M., Meliá, A., & Simó, P. (2008). Aplicación de nuevas tecnologías con estudiantes con dificultades de aprendizaje en la solución de problemas matemáticos: la “escuela submarina” [Application of new technologies for students with learning difficulties in mathematical problem solving: the “submarine school”]. Revista de Neurologia, 46(Suppl 1), S59–S63.Google Scholar
  45. Molin, A., Poli, S., Tressoldi, P. E., & Lucangeli, D. (2009). Discalculia trainer. Trento, Italy: Erickson.Google Scholar
  46. Noël, M. P. (2007). Bilan neuropsychologique de l’enfant. Wavre, Belgium: Mardaga.Google Scholar
  47. OECD (2014, December). Focus on inequality and growth. https://www.oecd.org/social/Focus-Inequality-and-Growth-2014.pdf. Accessed 20 Nov 2016.
  48. OECD. (2016). Trends shaping education. Paris: OECD Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1787/trends_edu-2016-en CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Poli, S., Molin, A., & Lucangeli, D. (2017). I numeri e lo spazio con la lim. Trento, Italy: Erickson.Google Scholar
  50. Poli, S., Molin, A., Lucangeli, D., & Cornoldi, C. (2006). Memocalcolo. Programma per l’aprendimento delle tabelline e altri fatti numerici. Trento, Italy: Erickson.Google Scholar
  51. Riccardi-Ripamonti, I. (2014). Tabelline e difficoltà aritmetiche. Trento, Italy: Erickson.Google Scholar
  52. Riccardi-Ripamonti, I., & Ripamonti, C. (2007). Numelline. Trento, Italy: Erickson.Google Scholar
  53. Société Française de Pédiatrie. (2009). Difficultés et troubles des apprentissages chez l’enfant à partir de 5 ans. Guide pratique. Paris: Société Française de Pédiatrie.Google Scholar
  54. Sueiro, M. J., & Pereña, J. (2005). Tedi-Math. Test para el diagnóstico de las competencias básicas en matemáticas (Spanish adaptation). Madrid, Spain: TEA.Google Scholar
  55. Syriopoulou-Delli, C. K. (2010). A historical review of educational policy in Greece for children with pervasive developmental disorders, behavioral difficulties and other special educational needs. Review of European Studies, 2(1), 2–14.Google Scholar
  56. UNESCO. (2015). Education for all 2015. National review report: Greece. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002299/229950E.pdfGoogle Scholar
  57. von Aster, M. G., & Dellatolas, G. (2006). Zareki-R: batterie pour l'évaluation du traitement des nombres et du calcul chez l'enfant. French adaptation. Paris: Éditions du Centre de Psychologie Appliquée.Google Scholar
  58. Wilson, A., Dehaene, S., Pinel, P., Revkin, S. K., Cohen, L., & Cohen, D. (2006). Principles underlying the design of “The Number Race”, an adaptive computer game for remediation of dyscalculia. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 30, 2–19.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-9081-2-19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. World Health Organization. (1992). The ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioural disorders. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  60. Yuste, C., & Martínez, R. (2012). BADyG. Batería de aptitudes diferenciales y generales. Madrid, Spain: CEPE.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Gracia-Bafalluy
    • 1
    Email author
  • Miguel Puyuelo-San Clemente
    • 2
  1. 1.Barcelona City Council Health DepartmentUniversity of ZaragozaHuescaSpain
  2. 2.Department of Psychology and SociologyUniversity of ZaragozaHuescaSpain

Personalised recommendations