Advertisement

Beyond the “Third Method” for the Assessment of Developmental Dyscalculia: Implications for Research and Practice

  • Vivian Reigosa-CrespoEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

There has been a continuous debate on different criteria on assessment of mathematical learning disability (MLD). Originally, MLD was defined as an unexpected failure to acquire basic mathematics skills despite normal intelligence, adequate schooling, and absence of neurological or psychiatric disorders. This approach, based on a discrepancy between the intelligence and the academic skills, has been largely criticized. One of the strongest candidates to replace this approach has been the response-to-intervention (RTI) instruction model, where the focus has been in the student’s learning in optimal learning conditions, for example, when participating in an evidence-based intervention program. However, the RTI approach does not sufficiently take into account the individual factors that affect the responsiveness to a mathematical intervention and does not have effective algorithms for differential diagnosis of specific MLD and low attainment in mathematics. Therefore, a third alternative in assessment has focused on cognitive patterns of strengths and weaknesses (PSW). The PSW model offers several theoretical and empirical advances to the previous models. However, there is also strong evidence supporting a view that severe forms of MLD would stem from a core deficit that is independent of the comorbid, but individually varying, cognitive disorders. The selected approach also has direct implications for educational policy and practice in classrooms.

Keywords

Assessment Discrepancy model Response to intervention Cognitive patterns of strengths and weaknesses Mathematical learning disability Dyscalculia School-based program Neurocognitive development 

References

  1. Booth, J. L., & Siegler, R. S. (2008). Numerical magnitude representations influence arithmetic learning. Child Development, 79(4), 1016–1031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Butterworth, B. (2003). Dyscalculia screener. London, England: NferNelson.Google Scholar
  3. Butterworth, B., & Kovas, Y. (2013). Understanding neurocognitive developmental disorders can improve education for all. Science, 340(6130), 300–305.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1231022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Butterworth, B., & Reigosa-Crespo, V. (2007). Information processing deficits in dyscalculia. In D. B. Berch & M. M. M. Mazzocco (Eds.), Why is math so hard for some children? The nature and origins of mathematical learning difficulties and disabilities (pp. 65–81). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
  5. Butterworth, B., Varma, S., & Laurillard, D. (2011). Dyscalculia: From brain to education. Science, 332.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1201536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dolan, C. (2007). Mathematical development in children with specific language impairments. In D. B. Berch & M. M. M. Mazzocco (Eds.), Why is math so hard for some children? The nature and origins of mathematical learning difficulties and disabilities (pp. 151–172). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
  7. Dubinsky, J. M. (2010). Neuroscience education for prekindergarten-12 teachers. The Journal of Neuroscience, 30(24), 8057–8060.  https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2322-10.2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fletcher, J. M., Denton, C., & Francis, D. J. (2005). Validity of alternative approaches for the identification of learning disabilities: Operationalizing unexpected underachievement. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 545–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Geary, D., & Hoard, M. (2005). Learning disabilities in arithmetic and mathematics: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. In J. I. D. Campbell (Ed.), Handbook of mathematical cognition (pp. 253–268). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  11. Goswami, U. (2008). Foresight mental capital and wellbeing project. Learning difficulties: Future challenges. Retrieved from London.Google Scholar
  12. Gross-Tsur, V., Manor, O., & Shalev, R. S. (1996). Developmental dyscalculia: Prevalence and demographic features. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 38(1), 25–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Halberda, J., Mazzocco, M. M. M., & Feigenson, L. (2008). Individual differences in nonverbal number acuity predict maths achievement. Nature, 455, 665–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Howard-Jones, P. A., Varma, S., Ansari, D., Butterworth, B., De Smedt, B., Goswami, U., et al. (2016). The principles and practices of educational neuroscience: Comment on bowers (2016). Psychological Review, 123(5), 620–627.  https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hyde, D. C., Khanum, S., & Spelke, E. S. (2014). Brief nonsymbolic, approximate number practice enhances subsequent exact symbolic arithmetic in children. Cognition, 131, 92–107.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.12.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kearns, D. M., & Fuchs, D. (2013). Does cognitively focused instruction improve the academic performance of low-achieving students? Exceptional Children, 79, 263–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Landerl, K., Bevan, A., & Butterworth, B. (2004). Developmental dyscalculia and basic numerical capacities: A study of 8 – 9-year-old students. Cognition, 93, 99–125.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2003.11.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2002). Effective instruction for special education (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
  19. Mazzocco, M. M. M. (2007). Defining and differentiating mathematical learning disabilities and difficulties. In D. B. Berch & M. M. M. Mazzocco (Eds.), Why is math so hard for some children? The nature and origins of mathematical learning difficulties and disabilities (pp. 29–60). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
  20. Monuteaux, M. C., Faraone, S. V., Herzig, K., Navsaria, N., & Biederman, J. (2005). ADHD and dyscalculia: Evidence for independent familial transmission. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 86–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Obersteiner, A., Reiss, K., & Ufer, S. (2013). How training on exact or approximate mental representations of number can enhance first-grade students’ basic number processing and arithmetic skills. Learning and Instruction, 23, 125–135.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.08.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Panel, L. D. A. O. A. L. E. (2014). Critical issues in response-to-intervention, comprehensive evaluation, and specific learning disabilities identification and intervention: An expert white paper consensus. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 20(2), 61–72.Google Scholar
  23. Pickering, S. J., & Howard-jones, P. (2007). Educators ’ views on the role of neuroscience in education : Findings from a study of UK and international perspectives. Mind, Brain, and Education, 1, 109–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Reeve, R., Reynolds, F., Humberstone, J., & Butterworth, B. (2012). Stability and change in markers of core numerical competencies. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 141(4), 649–666.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reigosa-Crespo, V., González-Alemañy, E., León, T., Torres, R., Mosquera, R., & Valdés-Sosa, M. (2013). Numerical capacities as domain-specific predictors beyond the early mathematics learning: A longitudinal study. PLoS One.Google Scholar
  26. Reigosa-Crespo, V., Valdes-Sosa, M., Butterworth, B., Estevez, N., Rodriguez, M., Santos, E., et al. (2012). Basic numerical capacities and prevalence of developmental dyscalculia: The Havana Survey. Developmental Psychology, 48(1), 123–135.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Stoiber, K. C., Gettinger, M. (2016). The science and practice of multi-tiered systems of support. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds), Handbook of response to intervention (2nd ed.) (pp. 121–141). Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Santos, E., Reigosa-Crespo, V., García-Liashenko, K., Echemendía, A., Plasencia, E., Pujols, G., et al. (2015). A system to support regional screening programs to identify school-age children at risk of neurodevelopmental disorders. World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Toronto, Canada Volume 51 of the series IFMBE Proceedings, pp 1469–1473.Google Scholar
  29. Siegler, R. S., & Ramani, G. B. (2008). SPECIAL SECTION: THE DEVELOPMENT OF MATHEMATICAL playing linear numerical board games promotes low-income children’s numerical development. Developmental Science, 5, 655–661.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00714.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. UNESCO-IBE. (2016). Intentional ICT: Curriculum, education and development. Retrieved from Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  31. Zirkel, P. A. (2013). The Hale position for a “third method” for specific learning disabilities identification: A legal analysis. Learning Disability Quarterly, 36(2), 93–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Educational Neuroscience LabCuban Center for NeurosciencesHavanaCuba

Personalised recommendations