1. TEACHING EARLY
MATHEMATICS IN SCHOOL
USING ICT
AN EVIDENCE-BASED INTERVENTION
UNIVERSITY OF CADIZ, SPAIN
DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY
J.I. NAVARRO, E. ARAGON & M. AGUILAR
UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO, USA
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
R. HOWELL
http://www.uca.es/grup-invest/psicologia
(Study supported by Spanish Grant # EDU2011-22747 )

2. IMPORTANCE
MATH is a GATEWAY to:
•Employment Options
•Income
•Work Productivity
MATH has more impact than
reading and general intelligence
on a person’s future

3. PREVALENCE
Significant percentage of
students have difficulty in
math:
Global Learning Disabilities =
5%-9%
Math underperformers in NM =
50% (Anglos)
80% (Hispanic, Indian)

4. INTRODUCTION STATEMENTS
1.Some 5-year-old children have a
well-developed basic number sense
for their age:
• For example, they know that when
we add 1 or substract 1, the result
is always the previous or the
following number

5. INTRODUCTION
• They have an informal awareness
of doubling the first digits up to
10 (2+2, 3+3, 4+4, 5+5)
• They can read and write the
first 10 digits forwards.
• They can count numbers up to
20 both forwards and
backwards.

6. INTRODUCTION
2. However other children:
•Only know the first 10 digits
•When they count forwards, they
always start from 1
•They cannot count backwards from
10 to 1
Some studies show that individual differences
increase during early school years

7. INTRODUCTION
3. Some early arithmetic
learning difficulties continue
during childhood, adolescence
and adult life.

8. INTRODUCTION
4. When they persist in
children, it sometimes means
a negative attitude to
anything related to “number
literacy”

9. Goals
1. What can we do to reduce the
impact of early math learning
disabilities or under-achievement?
2. Use a new piece of software for
learning early math intervention
with pre-school students in order
to reduce low math performance.

10. Participants:
• 128 third preschool year.
•Girls: 58 (45.3 %)
•Boys: 70 (54.7 %)
• Age range: 59 to 72 months
• Mean age: 65.8 (3.3 sd) months
• Social level: middle and
low-middle class

11. Participants
ENT-r-A SCORE < 19
Experimental group
Control group
30
98
OUT OF 45

12. Assessment
“THE UTRECHT EARLY
NUMERACY TEST-R” (ENT-R)
SPANISH EXPERIMENTAL ON LINE
VERSION
ORIGINAL VERSION:
Utrechtse Getalbegrip Toets-R
Johannes E. H. van Luit, &
Bernadette A. M. van de Rijt.
www.graviant.nl

13. Procedure
Phase A
ENTENT-A
Phase B
INTERVENTION PROGRAM
NOV. 2011
• Number of sessions = 30
• Time per session = 30 - 45 m.
• Small group (6 students)
• One laptop per student
Phase C
ENTENT-B
JUNE 2012

14. 2.0
Early Mathematical
Learning Software

15. Based on …
• Previous experience developing
educational software
• Cognitive and Behavioural Theories
of Learning
• Counting theory by Gelman &
Gallistel
• Preschool and 1st grade Spanish
Curriculum

16. Designing Characteristics
• Motivating for students &
easy FRIENDLY use
• Reinforcing & interactive
• Different complexity levels
• Adapted to the target
population
• To develop appropriate skills to
access early math knowledge

17. Target population
• Last 2 years in kindergarten (46)
• First year primary school
education (6-7)
• Pupils with low math
performance

18. BASIC SOFTWARE STRUCTURE
7
ACTIVITIES

19. COMPARISON
- SKILLS TO DISCOVER DIFFERENCES AND
SIMILARITIES BETWEEN 2 OR MORE
STIMULI.
- TASKS FOR
DISCRIMINATION
BETWEEN
STIMULI, AND BY
“MATCH TO
SAMPLE”
DIFFERENTIATION

20. CLASSIFICATION
TASKS FOR
GROUPING STIMULI
BY ONE
CHARACTERISTIC

21. SERIATION
TASKS TRAINING
SKILLS ORGANIZING
STIMULI BY ONE
CHARACTERISTIC.
SOME STIMULI ARE
ORDERED, SOME ARE
NOT.
TASKS FOR ORDERING
NUMBERS LOWER
THAN 20

22. PART/WHOLE COMBINATIONS
MATHMATH-BASED PROBLEM SOLVING TASKS
1. STUDENT HAS DATA ABOUT PARTS AND IS
ASKED ABOUT WHOLE
2. STUDENT HAS ONE PART AND WHOLE AND IS
WHOLE,
ASKED ABOUT THE OTHER PART

23. NUMBER DISCRIMINATION
SKILLS FOR
INHIBITION AND
NUMBER SENSE

24. PARTITION
SKILLS FOR
DIVIDING
NUMBERS
BETWEEN
DIFFERENT
PARTS

25. NUMBER LINE
TASKS TO
ESTIMATE
POSITION
FROM 0
TO 100

26. RESULTS
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
EXPERIMENTAL
GROUP
n = 30
CONTROL
GROUP
n = 90
POSTPOST-
14.33 (2.6) 26.0 (5.4)
24.35 (5.5) 25.4 (5.1)
BETWEEN GROUP COMPARISION
INTRA GROUP COMPARISION
PREPRE-

27. PRE AND POST TEST EXP. & CONTROL GROUPS
30
30
PIAGETIAN SUBTESTS
25
**26
MEAN SCORE
15
14,33
**13,9 **
12
25
24,3
TOTAL TEST
p < 0,001
20
10
25,4
NUMERICAL SUBTESTS
20
12,6
11,60
12,5 12,90
9,2
15
10
5,10
5
5
0
0
PRETEST
POSTEST
EXPERIMENTAL GROUP
PRETEST
POSTEST
CONTROL GROUP

28. MEAN INCREASE ENT SCORES
MEAN INCREASE IN ENT SCORES AFTER TRAINING
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Piagetian
Numerical
Total Test ENT-R
11.67
t” COMPARISON PRE & POST TESTS FOR EXP.
GROUP
t
gl
Sig
-13.037
29
.001
-9.290
29
.001
-9.039
29
.001
4.73
0.73
Experimental Group
4.73
0.73
11.67
0,3
0,3
1.13
Control Group
0.3
0.3
1.13

29. CONCLUSIONS
1. TRAINING WAS USEFUL.
EXPERIMENTAL GROUP
INCREASED ENT-B SCORES
2. INTERVENTION DRAMATICALLY
REDUCES DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN GOOD AND BAD
MATH PERFORMERS

30. CONCLUSIONS-2
3. TRAINING WAS BETTER FOR
PIAGETIAN THAN NUMERICAL
TASKS
4. NO GENDER DIFFERENCES WERE
FOUND
5. ESTIMATION TASK WAS THE MOST
DIFFICULT TASK

31. GENERAL CONCLUSION
• PLAYING WITH NUMBERS-2.0
SOFTWARE WAS EFFICIENT
AND REDUCED DIFFERENCES IN
NUMBER SENSE FOR EARLY
STUDENTS.

32. jose.navarro@uca.es
rhowell@unm.edu
http://hum634.uca.es/
Thank you!