Fact Retrieval Deficits in Low Achieving Children and Children With Mathematical Learning Disability

Geary, David C.; Hoard, Mary K.; Bailey, Drew H.

doi:10.1177/0022219410392046

Cited by 170 publications

(117 citation statements)

References 54 publications

(114 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

105

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, as more problems were answered correctly in the second week of practice and the difference between conditions also became greater, children appear to become more efficient in ignoring distractors the longer they practise. This was the case for all maths ability levels, including those with lower ability who are more likely to have difficulty in inhibiting competing answers (Geary et al, 2012). In short, the choice method -whereby children have to ignore distractors that represent common multiplication errors -appears to be more efficient than conventional recall tasks in terms of the frequency of correct problem-answer connections made in relation to the amount of time spent during practice.…”

Section: Practice With Choice Tasksmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…Performance on these tasks thus depends to a degree on the ability to inhibit such interference (Barrouillet, Fayol, & Lathulière, 1997;Passolunghi, Cornoldi, & De Liberto, 1999). Unfortunately, many children have difficulty with this, and persistent fact retrieval deficits in low-achieving students and children with mathematical learning disabilities are characterised by poor inhibition of irrelevant information during retrieval (Geary et al, 2012). Consequently, there could be benefit in developing practice materials that could improve fluency by training children to inhibit competing answers.…”

Section: Learning Multiplication Factsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If, however, the choice method leads to strengthening of incorrect associations and thereby increased interference, performance should be slower and less accurate. Given that low-achieving students often have difficulty in inhibiting interference from irrelevant information (Geary et al, 2012), it is possible that effects differ for higher and lower ability students. To investigate this possibility, maths ability is also taken into account.…”

Section: Choice Tasksmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Deficiencies in this area are a defining feature of persistent mathematics difficulties (Geary, Hoard, & Bailey, 2012;Jordan, Hanich, & Kaplan, 2003;Mabbott & Bisanz, 2008). In international studies with nationally representative populations also, Grade 4 students' knowledge of basic arithmetic facts, concepts and procedures lags behind their application and reasoning skills in a third of participating countries, and this situation does not improve greatly by Grade 8 (Mullis, Martin, Foy, & Arora, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Improving multiplication fact fluency by choosing between competing answers

Reed¹,

Gemmink

Broens-Paffen³

et al. 2014

Research in Mathematics Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Developing fluency in arithmetic facts is instrumental to mathematics learning. This study compares the effects of two practice conditions on children's fluency in simple multiplication facts. Third and fourth graders in the Netherlands (N = 282) practised in either a conventional recall condition where they produced answers to problems, or a choice condition where they had to choose between competing answers that included common multiplication errors. Practice in the choice condition was faster and as accurate as recall practice but was not more beneficial to performance on speed tests of practised facts. For more experienced students, recall practice led to greater improvement on a conventional recall fluency test. Differential effects of practice conditions on test performance are explained in terms of practice-to-test transfer demands. The relative merits of recall and choice tasks in multiplication fact learning are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Practice With Choice Tasksmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Learning Multiplication Factsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Choice Tasksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Improving multiplication fact fluency by choosing between competing answers

Reed¹,

Gemmink

Broens-Paffen³

et al. 2014

Research in Mathematics Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The student can also have developed strategies that they use fluently. Problems reproducing mathematical facts -whether automated or using strategies -is a common characteristic of students with difficulties in mathematics (Geary, Hoard, & Bailey, 2012).…”

Section: Arithmetic Abilities and Its Significance For Mathematics Dementioning

confidence: 99%

Learning Declarative Knowledge in Special Education Treatment Group

Östergren¹,

Lindgren²,

Samuelsson³

2018

JET

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An organizing structure that in recent years has had a major impact on how to work with students who don't respond to regular instruction is Response to Intervention (RTI). Efforts in RTI are divided into three different tiers of instruction: primary, secondary and tertiary. In our study, we investigate the impact of intensive secondary-tier instruction on students' knowledge of basic combinations of digits in addition. We also focus on how the students develop their use of more advanced calculations in addition during the intervention.The results showed that students became faster at performing simple addition tasks, which indicates that their fluency -declarative knowledge -developed during the intervention phase. Our results thereby strengthen suggestions that a secondary-tier intervention level should take place in a small group of students 20-40 minutes four to five times a week. Meanwhile, the students developed their ability to solve two-digit arithmetic tasks in addition and subtraction, which could be explained by the fact that students had automated simple number combinations and thus could focus on the calculation procedure.

show abstract

Academic Outcomes 2 Years After Working Memory Training for Children With Low Working Memory

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCE Working memory training may help children with attention and learning difficulties, but robust evidence from population-level randomized controlled clinical trials is lacking.OBJECTIVE To test whether a computerized adaptive working memory intervention program improves long-term academic outcomes of children 6 to 7 years of age with low working memory compared with usual classroom teaching. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSPopulation-based randomized controlled clinical trial of first graders from 44 schools in Melbourne, Australia, who underwent a verbal and visuospatial working memory screening. Children were classified as having low working memory if their scores were below the 15th percentile on either the Backward Digit Recall or Mister X subtest from the Automated Working Memory Assessment, or if their scores were below the 25th percentile on both. These children were randomly assigned by an independent statistician to either an intervention or a control arm using a concealed computerized random number sequence. Researchers were blinded to group assignment at time of screening. We conducted our trial from March 1, 2012, to February 1, 2015; our final analysis was on October 30, 2015. We used intention-to-treat analyses. INTERVENTION Cogmed working memory training, comprising 20 to 25 training sessions of 45 minutes' duration at school. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESDirectly assessed (at 12 and 24 months) academic outcomes (reading, math, and spelling scores as primary outcomes) and working memory (also assessed at 6 months); parent-, teacher-, and child-reported behavioral and social-emotional functioning and quality of life; and intervention costs. RESULTSOf 1723 children screened (mean [SD] age, 6.9 [0.4] years), 226 were randomized to each arm (452 total), with 90% retention at 1 year and 88% retention at 2 years; 90.3% of children in the intervention arm completed at least 20 sessions. Of the 4 short-term and working memory outcomes, 1 outcome (visuospatial short-term memory) benefited the children at 6 months (effect size, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.25-0.62]) and 12 months (effect size, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.28-0.70]), but not at 24 months. There were no benefits to any other outcomes; in fact, the math scores of the children in the intervention arm were worse at 2 years (mean difference, −3.0 [95% CI, −5.4 to −0.7]; P = .01). Intervention costs were A$1035 per child. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEWorking memory screening of children 6 to 7 years of age is feasible, and an adaptive working memory training program may temporarily improve visuospatial short-term memory. Given the loss of classroom time, cost, and lack of lasting benefit, we cannot recommend population-based delivery of Cogmed within a screening paradigm.

show abstract

Fact Retrieval Deficits in Low Achieving Children and Children With Mathematical Learning Disability

Cited by 170 publications

References 54 publications

Improving multiplication fact fluency by choosing between competing answers

Improving multiplication fact fluency by choosing between competing answers

Learning Declarative Knowledge in Special Education Treatment Group

Academic Outcomes 2 Years After Working Memory Training for Children With Low Working Memory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About