LEARNING AND TEACHING

EARLY MATH

The third edition of this significant and groundbreaking book summarizes current research on
how young children learn mathematics and illustrates how best to develop foundational know-
ledge to realize more effective teaching.
Using straightforward, practical language, early math experts Douglas Clements and Julie
Sarama show how learning trajectories help teachers understand children’s level of mathemat-
ical understanding and lead to better teaching. By focusing on the inherent delight and curiosity
behind young children’s mathematical reasoning, learning trajectories ultimately make teaching
more joyous: helping teachers understand the varying levels of knowledge exhibited by indi-
vidual students allows them to better meet the learning needs of all children.
This thoroughly revised and contemporary third edition of Learning and Teaching Early Math
remains the definitive, research-based resource to help teachers understand the learning trajec-
tories of early mathematics and become confident, credible professionals. The new edition
draws on numerous new research studies, offers expanded international examples, and includes
updated illustrations throughout.
This new edition is closely linked with Learning and Teaching with Learning Trajectories—
[LT]2—an open-access, web-based tool for early childhood educators to learn about how chil-
dren think and learn about mathematics. Head to LearningTrajectories.org for ongoing updates,
interactive games, and practical tools that support classroom learning.

Douglas H. Clements is Distinguished University Professor, the Kennedy Endowed Chair in

Early Childhood Learning, and co-Executive Director of the Marsico Institute of Early Learning,
at the University of Denver.

Julie Sarama is Distinguished University Professor, the Kennedy Endowed Chair in Innovative
Learning Technologies, and co-Executive Director of the Marsico Institute of Early Learning, at
the University of Denver.
Studies in Mathematical Thinking and Learning
Alan H. Schoenfeld, Series Editor

Artzt/Armour-Thomas/Curcio Becoming a Reflective Mathematics Teacher: A Guide for Observa-

tion and Self-Assessment, Second Edition
Artzt/Armour-Thomas/Curcio/Gurl Becoming a Reflective Mathematics Teacher: A Guide for
Observation and Self-Assessment, Third Edition
Baroody/Dowker (Eds.) The Development of Arithmetic Concepts and Skills: Constructing Adap-
tive Expertise
Boaler Experiencing School Mathematics: Traditional and Reform Approaches to Teaching and
Their Impact on Student Learning
Carpenter/Fennema/Romberg (Eds.) Rational Numbers: An Integration of Research
Chazan/Callis/Lehman (Eds.) Embracing Reason: Egalitarian Ideals and the Teaching of High
School Mathematics
Cobb/Bauersfeld (Eds.) The Emergence of Mathematical Meaning: Interaction in Classroom
Cultures
Cohen Teachers’ Professional Development and the Elementary Mathematics Classroom: Bring-
ing Understandings to Light
Clements/Sarama Learning and Teaching Early Math: The Learning Trajectories Approach
Clements/Sarama/DiBiase (Eds.) Engaging Young Children in Mathematics: Standards for Early
Childhood Mathematics Education
English (Ed.) Mathematical and Analogical Reasoning of Young Learners
English (Ed.) Mathematical Reasoning: Analogies, Metaphors, and Images
Fennema/Nelson (Eds.) Mathematics Teachers in Transition
Fennema/Romberg (Eds.) Mathematics Classrooms That Promote Understanding
Fernandez/Yoshida Lesson Study: A Japanese Approach to Improving Mathematics Teaching
and Learning
Greer/Mukhopadhyay/Powell/Nelson-Barber (Eds.) Culturally Responsive Mathematics Education
Kaput/Carraher/Blanton (Eds.) Algebra in the Early Grades
Kitchen/Civil (Eds.) Transnational and Borderland Studies in Mathematics Education
Lajoie Reflections on Statistics: Learning, Teaching, and Assessment in Grades K-12
Lehrer/Chazan (Eds.) Designing Learning Environments for Developing Understanding of Geom-
etry and Space
Li/Huang (Eds.) How Chinese Teach Mathematics and Improve Teaching
Ma Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics: Teachers’ Understanding of Fundamental
Mathematics in China and the United States, Anniversary Edition
Martin Mathematics Success and Failure Among African-American Youth: The Roles of Sociohis-
torical Context, Community Forces, School Influence, and Individual Agency
Martin (Ed.) Mathematics Teaching, Learning, and Liberation in the Lives of Black Children
Petit/Laird/Marsden A Focus on Fractions: Bringing Research to the Classroom
Petit/Laird/Marsden/Ebby A Focus on Fractions: Bringing Research to the Classroom, Second
Edition
Petit/Laird/Wyneken/Huntoon/Abele-Austin/Sequeira A Focus on Ratio and Proportions: Bring-
ing Mathematics Research to the Classroom
Reed Word Problems: Research and Curriculum Reform
Remillard/Herbel-Eisenmann/Lloyd (Eds.) Mathematics Teachers at Work: Connecting Curriculum
Materials and Classroom Instruction
Romberg/Fennema/Carpenter (Eds.) Integrating Research on the Graphical Representation of
Functions
Romberg/Carpenter/Dremock (Eds.) Understanding Mathematics and Science Matters
Romberg/Shafer The Impact of Reform Instruction on Mathematics Achievement: An Example of
a Summative Evaluation of a Standards-Based Curriculum
Sarama/Clements Early Childhood Mathematics Education Research: Learning Trajectories for
Young Children
Schliemann/Carraher/Brizuela (Eds.) Bringing Out the Algebraic Character of Arithmetic: From
Children’s Ideas to Classroom Practice
Schoenfeld How We Think: A Theory of Goal-Oriented Decision Making and its Educational
Applications
Schoenfeld (Ed.) Mathematical Thinking and Problem Solving
Senk/Thompson (Eds.) Standards-Based School Mathematics Curricula: What Are They? What Do
Students Learn?
Sherin/Jacobs/Philipp (Eds.) Mathematics Teacher Noticing: Seeing Through Teachers’ Eyes
Solomon Mathematical Literacy: Developing Identities of Inclusion
Sophian The Origins of Mathematical Knowledge in Childhood
Sternberg/Ben-Zeev (Eds.) The Nature of Mathematical Thinking
Stylianou/Blanton/Knuth (Eds.) Teaching and Learning Proof Across the Grades: A K-16
Perspective
Sultan & Artzt The Mathematics That Every Secondary Mathematics Teacher Needs to Know
Sultan & Artzt The Mathematics That Every Secondary School Math Teacher Needs to Know,
Second Edition
Watson Statistical Literacy at School: Growth and Goals
Watson/Mason Mathematics as a Constructive Activity: Learners Generating Examples
Wilcox/Lanier (Eds.) Using Assessment to Reshape Mathematics Teaching: A Casebook for
Teachers and Teacher Educators, Curriculum and Staff Development Specialists
Wood/Nelson/Warfield (Eds.) Beyond Classical Pedagogy: Teaching Elementary School
Mathematics
Zaskis/Campbell (Eds.) Number Theory in Mathematics Education: Perspectives and Prospects
Hulbert/Petit/Ebby/Cunningham/Laird A Focus on Multiplication and Division: Bringing Research
to the Classroom
Ebby/Hulbert/Broadhead A Focus on Addition and Subtraction: Bringing Mathematics Education
Research to the Classroom
Clements/Sarama Learning and Teaching Early Math: The Learning Trajectories, Third Edition
LEARNING AND
TEACHING EARLY MATH
The Learning Trajectories Approach
Third Edition

Douglas H. Clements and Julie Sarama

Third edition published 2021
by Routledge
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017

and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

© 2021 Douglas H. Clements and Julie Sarama

The right of Douglas H. Clements and Julie Sarama to be identified as authors

of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78
of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or

utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any
information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the
publishers.

Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or

registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.

Second edition published by Routledge, 2014

First edition published by Routledge, 2009

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Clements, Douglas H., author. | Sarama, Julie, author.
Title: Learning and teaching early math : the learning trajectories approach /
Douglas H. Clements and Julie Sarama.
Description: Third edition. | New York, NY : Routledge, 2021. | Series: Studies in
mathematical thinking and learning | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2020029015 | ISBN 9780367538552 (hardback) |
ISBN 9780367521974 (paperback) | ISBN 9781003083528 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Mathematics–Study and teaching (Early childhood) |
Educational psychology. | Child development. | Curriculum planning.
Classification: LCC QA135.6 .C55 2021 | DDC 372.7/049–dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020029015
ISBN: 978–0–367–53855–2 (hbk)
ISBN: 978–0–367–52197–4 (pbk)
ISBN: 978–1–003–08352–8 (ebk)

Typeset in Interstate
by River Editorial Ltd, Devon, UK

Visit the author hosted companion website: www.LearningTrajectories.org

We wish to dedicate this book to those who taught us, including the
thousands of children and teachers who shared their lives and think-
ing with us, and to our closest teachers, our families. We also thank
our graduate students, post-doctoral fellows, and colleagues who
provided valuable feedback.
CONTENTS

Preface xi
Acknowledgments xv
What is Learning and Teaching with Learning Trajectories—[LT]2? xviii

1 Young Children and Mathematics Learning 1

2 Quantity, Number, and Subitizing 18

3 Verbal and Object Counting 36

4 Comparing, Ordering, and Estimating 67

5 Arithmetic: Early Addition and Subtraction and Counting Strategies 88

6 Arithmetic: Composition of Number, Place Value, Multidigit Addition and

Subtraction, Multiplication and Division, and Fractions 114

7 Spatial Thinking 161

8 Shape 185

9 Composition and Decomposition of Shapes 223

10 Geometric Measurement: Length 246

11 Geometric Measurement: Area, Volume, and Angle 260

12 Other Content Domains: Patterns, Structure, and Algebraic Thinking: Classification

and Data 279

13 Mathematical Processes and Practices 303

x Contents

14 Cognition, Affect, and Equity 312

15 Early Childhood Mathematics Education: Contexts and Curricula 338

16 Instructional Practices and Pedagogical Issues 358

References 405
Index 460
PREFACE

Who dares to teach must never cease to learn.

(John Cotton Dana, 1856–1929)

Mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical ideas.

(Albert Einstein, 1879–1955)

Think of the biggest number you can. Now add five. Then, imagine if you had that many
Twinkies. Wow, that’s five more than the biggest number you could come up with!
(Child, age 6)

Everyone knows that effective teaching involves “meeting the students where they are” and
helping them build on what they know. But that’s easier said than done. Which aspects of math
are important, which less so? How do we diagnose what a child knows? How do we build on
that knowledge—in which directions, and in what ways?
We believe that “learning trajectories” help answer these questions and help teachers
become more effective professionals. Just as importantly, they open up windows to seeing
young children and math in new ways, making teaching more joyous because the mathematical
reasoning of children is both impressive and delightful.
Learning trajectories have three parts: (a) a specific mathematical goal, (b) a path along
which children develop to reach that goal, and (c) a set of instructional activities fine-tuned for
each step along said path that help children reach the following step. So, teachers who under-
stand learning trajectories understand the math, the way children think and learn about math,
and how to help children learn it better.
Learning trajectories connect research and practice. They connect children to math. They
connect teachers to children. They help teachers understand the level of knowledge and think-
ing of their classes and the individuals in their classes as key in serving the needs of all chil-
dren. (Equity issues are important to us and to the nation. This entire book is designed to help
you teach all children, but equity concerns are discussed specifically and at length in Chapters
14, 15, and 16.) Learning and Teaching Early Math will help you understand the learning trajec-
tories of early math in order to become a quintessential professional.
Learning and teaching, of course, take place in a context. For the last two decades, we have
had the honor and advantage of working with several hundred early childhood teachers who
xii Preface

have worked with us on creating new ideas for teaching and have invited us into their class-
rooms to test these ideas with the children in their charge. We wish to share with you a bit
about this collaborative work.

Background
In 1998, we began a 4-year project funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF). The pur-
pose of “Building Blocks—Foundations for Mathematical Thinking, Pre-Kindergarten to Grade 2:
Research-Based Materials Development” was to create and evaluate math curricula for young
children based on a theoretically sound research and development framework. Based on theory
and research on early childhood learning and teaching, we determined that Building Blocks’
basic approach would be finding the mathematics in, and developing mathematics from, chil-
dren’s activity. To achieve this, all aspects of the Building Blocks project have been based on
learning trajectories. Teachers have found this combination of the Building Blocks’ approach
and learning trajectories to be a powerful teaching tool.
More than 20 years later, we are still finding new opportunities for exciting research and develop-
ment in early math. Funding from the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sci-
ences (IES), National Science Foundation (NSF), Heising-Simons Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation, and Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) has allowed us to work closely with
thousands of teachers and tens of thousands of children. All of these agencies and individuals have
contributed ideas to this book and its companion. In addition, these projects have increased our
confidence that our approach, based on learning trajectories and rigorous empirical testing at
every step, can, in turn, make a contribution to all educators in the field of early math. The model
for working with educators in all positions—from teachers to administrators, trainers to researchers—
has been developed with IES funding to our TRIAD (Technology-enhanced, Research-based Instruc-
tion, Assessment, and professional Development)1 project.

The “Companion” Books

We believe that our successes are due to the people who have contributed to our projects, as well
as to our commitment to grounding everything that we have done in research. Because the work
has been so drenched in research, we initially decided to publish two books. The companion to the
first edition of the present book—Early Childhood Mathematics Education Research: Learning Trajec-
tories for Young Children (Sarama & Clements, 2009)—reviews extensively the research underlying
our original learning trajectories, emphasizing the research that describes the paths of learning; that
is, children’s natural progressions in developing the concepts and skills within a certain domain of
math (most research citations for these are in the companion book, although we have added recent
ones to this edition). The present book describes and illustrates how these learning trajectories can
be implemented in the classroom and brings the research and the learning trajectories up to date.

What’s New and Different about this Edition

Early childhood math education continues to be of great interest, so there are abundant new
research and resources, all of which we share in this edition. International work is particularly
 Preface xiii

highlighted. We appreciate the suggestions our readers have provided, and we tried to put
every one into practice.
One of the most important enhancements to this book is our incorporation of our new Learn-
ing and Teaching with Learning Trajectories tool (www.LearningTrajectories.org). Readers can
now see videos of children’s thinking at each level of each topic or learning trajectory, and of
classroom and home videos of teachers and caregivers helping children learn that topic. Along
with hundreds of other resources, this will revolutionize the way one can learn about and use
learning trajectories. See more about this tool on pp. 11–14.

Reading this Book

In straightforward, no-nonsense language, we summarize what is known about how children
learn and how to build on what they know. In Chapter 1, we introduce the topic of math educa-
tion for very young children. We discuss why people are particularly interested in engaging
young children with math. Next, we describe the idea of learning trajectories in detail. We end
with an introduction to the Building Blocks project and explain how learning trajectories are at
its core.
Most of the following chapters address one math topic, and we describe how children under-
stand and learn about that topic. These descriptions are brief summaries of the more elaborate
reviews of the research that can be found in the aforementioned companion book, Early Child-
hood Mathematics Education Research: Learning Trajectories for Young Children (Sarama &
Clements, 2009), as well as updates to those bodies of research. Next, we describe how experi-
ences—from the beginning of life—and classroom-based education affect children’s learning of
the topic. Chapters 2 to 11 then culminate in a detailed description of learning trajectories for
the chapter’s topic.
Read more than the topic chapters, even if you just want to teach a topic! In the last three
chapters, we discuss issues that are important for putting these ideas into practice. In Chapter
14, we describe how children think about math and how their feelings are involved. Equity con-
cerns complete that chapter. In Chapter 15, we discuss the contexts in which early childhood
education occurs and the curricula that are used. In Chapter 16, we review what we know about
specific instructional practices. The topics of these three chapters are unique to this book.
Because there are no corresponding chapters in the companion book for these three important
chapters, we review more research in this book. We have made the implications for practi-
tioners clear.
To teach children with different needs, and to teach effectively, make sure you read Chapters
14, 15, and especially 16. Some readers may wish to read those chapters immediately after
having read Chapter 1! Whichever way you choose, please know that the learning trajectories
that describe children’s learning and effective teaching for each topic are only part of the story—
the other, critical part is found in those final three chapters.
This is not a typical book of “cute teaching ideas.” (OK, many of the teaching ideas and activ-
ities, and especially children’s reactions to them, are very cute!) We believe, however, that it
may be the most practical book that you, as a teacher of early math, could read. The many
teachers with whom we have worked claim that, once they understood the learning trajectories
and ways to implement them in their classrooms, they—and the children they teach—were
xiv Preface

changed for the better forever. Moreover, they also changed their beliefs, shedding the unfortu-
nate misconceptions that many teachers hold about early math education, such as:

1. Young children are not ready for mathematics education.

2. Mathematics is for some bright kids with mathematics genes.
3. Simple numbers and shapes are enough.
4. Language and literacy are more important than mathematics.
5. Teachers should provide an enriched physical environment, step back, and let the children
play.
6. Mathematics should not be taught as a stand-alone subject matter.
7. Assessment in mathematics is irrelevant when it comes to young children.
8. Children learn mathematics only by interacting with concrete objects.
9. Computers are inappropriate for the teaching and learning of mathematics.
(From Sun Lee & Ginsburg, 2009)

Note
1 Like many acronyms, TRIAD almost works … we jokingly ask people to accept the “silent p” in “profes-
sional development.”
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Appreciation to the Funding Agencies

We wish to express our appreciation for the funding agencies that have not only provided finan-
cial support but also intellectual support, in the form of guidance from program officers (most
notably and recently, Caroline Ebanks and Christina S. Chhin from the IES and Edith S. Gummer
and Finbar “Barry” Sloane from the NSF), as well as opportunities to collaborate with other pro-
jects and attend conferences to exchange ideas with colleagues.
The ideas and research reported here have been supported by all of the following grants. Any
opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of
the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding agencies.
xvi Acknowledgments

Grants
Barrett, J., Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. A longitudinal account of children’s knowledge of measurement.
Awarded by the NSF (Directorate for Education & Human Resources (EHR), Division of Research on Learn-
ing in Formal and Informal Settings (DRL)), award no. DRL-0732217. Arlington, VA: NSF.
Barrett, J., Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., & Cullen, C. Learning trajectories to support the growth of measure-
ment knowledge: Prekindergarten through middle school. Awarded by the NSF (EHR, DRL), award no. DRL-
1222944. Arlington, VA: NSF.
Clements, D. H. Conference on standards for preschool and kindergarten mathematics education. Supported in
part by the NSF (EHR, ESIE) and the ExxonMobil Foundation, award no. ESI-9817540. Arlington, VA: NSF. In
Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., & DiBiase, A.-M. (Eds.). (2004). Engaging young children in mathematics: Stand-
ards for early childhood mathematics education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. Building blocks—Foundations for mathematical thinking, prekindergarten to
Grade 2: Research- based materials development. Awarded by the NSF (EHR, Division of Elementary, Sec-
ondary & Informal Education (ESIE), Instructional Materials Development (IMD) program), award no. ESI-
9730804. Arlington, VA: NSF.
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. Scaling up TRIAD: Teaching early mathematics for understanding with trajector-
ies and technologies—Supplement. Awarded by the IES as part of the Interagency Education Research Initia-
tive (IERI) program, a combination of the IES, the NSF (EHR, Division of Research, Evaluation and
Communication (REC)), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development (NICHD)). Washington, D.C.: IES.
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. Deepening and Extending the Learning and Teaching with Learning Trajectories
Tool ([LT]2). Awarded by the Heising-Simons Foundation. Grant #2015-157. 6/1/16 – 5/31/18. ($510,401).
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. Learning and Teaching with Learning Trajectories ([LT]2). Awarded by the Bill &
Melinda Gates Foundation. Grant #OPP1118932. 12/1/14 – 11/30/16. (24 months; $679,550).
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. Math and Executive Function Project (EF). Awarded by the Heising-Simons Foun-
dation. Grant #2014-156 (through Stanford University, #60875796-118042). 12/1/14 – 6/30/16. (19 months;
$114,136).
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. Preschool-Elementary-Coherence Project (COHERE). Awarded by the Heising-
Simons Foundation. Grant #2014-156 (through Stanford University, #60875796-118042). 12/1/14 – 6/30/1.
(19 months; $1,968,961).
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. Scalable Professional Development in Early Mathematics: The Learning and
Teaching with Learning Trajectories Tool. Awarded by the Heising-Simons Foundation. Grant #2013-79. 11/
25/13 – 5/31/16. ($500,000).
Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., & Baroody, A. J. Background Research for the NGA Center Project on Early Math-
ematics. Awarded by the National Governors Association. 7/22/2013-11/30/2013. (4 months; $25,000).
Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., Baroody, A. J., & Purpura, D. Evaluating the Efficacy of Learning Trajectories in
Early Mathematics. Awarded by the U.S. Department of Education, IES (Institute of Education Sciences).
Grant No. R305A150243. 8/1/2015. (4 years; $3,500,000).
Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., Bodrova, E., & Layzer, C. Increasing the efficacy of an early mathematics curricu-
lum with scaffolding designed to promote self-regulation. Awarded by the IES, Early Learning Programs and
Policies program, award no. R305A080200. Washington, D.C.: NCER, IES.
Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., Klein, A., & Starkey, P. Scaling up the implementation of a pre-kindergarten math-
ematics curricula: Teaching for understanding with trajectories and technologies. Awarded by the NSF as
part of the IERI program, a combination of the NSF (EHR, REC), the IES, and the NIH (NICHD). Arlington, VA:
NSF.
Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., & Layzer, C. Longitudinal study of a successful scaling-up project: Extending
TRIAD. Awarded by the IES (Mathematics and Science Education program), award no. R305A110188. Wash-
ington, D.C: National Center for Education Research (NCER), IES.
Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., & Lee, J. Scaling up TRIAD: Teaching early mathematics for understanding with
trajectories and technologies. Awarded by the IES as part of the IERI program, a combination of the IES, the
NSF (EHR, REC), and the NIH (NICHD). Washington, D.C.: IES.
 Acknowledgments xvii

Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., & Ready, D. Learning Trajectories as a Complete Early Mathematics Intervention:
Achieving Efficacies of Economies at Scale. Awarded by the U.S. Department of Education, IES (Institute of
Education Sciences). Grant No. 1908889. July 1, 2019 – June 30, 2024. (5 years, $4,575,683).
Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., & Tatsuoka, C. Using rule space and poset-based adaptive testing methodologies
to identify ability patterns in early mathematics and create a comprehensive mathematics ability test.
Awarded by the NSF, award no. 1313695 (previously funded under award no. DRL-1019925). Arlington, VA:
NSF.
Clements, D. H., Watt, D., Bjork, E., & Lehrer, R. Technology-enhanced learning of geometry in elementary
schools. Awarded by the NSF (EHR, ESIE), Research on Education, Policy and Practice (REPP) program.
Arlington, VA: NSF.
Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. Planning for professional development in pre-school mathematics: Meeting the
challenge of Standards 2000. Awarded by the NSF (EHR, ESIE), Teacher Enhancement (TE) program, award
no. ESI-9814218. Arlington, VA: NSF.
Sarama, J., Clements, D. H., Day-Hess, C. A., & Watt, T. W. Evaluating the Efficacy of an Interdisciplinary Pre-
school Curriculum (EPIC). Awarded by the U.S. Department of Education, IES (Institute of Education Sci-
ences). Grant No. R305A190395. 7/1/2019. (4 years; $3,295,431).
Sarama, J., Clements, D. H., Duke, N., & Brenneman, K. Early childhood education in the context of mathemat-
ics, science, and literacy. Awarded by the NSF, award no. 1313718 (previously funded under award no. DRL-
1020118). Arlington, VA: NSF.
Starkey, P., Sarama, J., Clements, D. H., & Klein, A. A longitudinal study of the effects of a prekindergarten
mathematics curriculum on low-income children’s mathematical knowledge. Awarded by the Office of Edu-
cational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education, as Preschool Curriculum Evalu-
ation Research (PCER) project. Washington, D.C: OERI.
Vinh, M., Lim, C., Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. Special Education Educational Technology Media, and Materials
for Individuals with Disabilities. Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP, U.S. Dept. of Education). Fed-
eral Award No: H327G180006 Subaward No: 5112267, $1,968,961 for subcontract from University of North
Carolina). 1/1/2019 – 12/31/2023.

APPRECIATION TO SRA/MCGRAW-HILL
The author and publisher wish to express appreciation to SRA/McGraw-Hill for kindly giving
permission for the many screen shots provided by them for use throughout this title.
WHAT IS LEARNING AND
TEACHING WITH LEARNING
TRAJECTORIES—[LT]2?

• [LT]2 is a web-based tool for early childhood educators to learn about how children think
and learn about mathematics, and how to teach mathematics to young children “their way”
(birth to age 8).
• [LT]2 allows teachers, caregivers, and parents to see the learning trajectories for math as
they view short video clips of classroom instruction and children working on math problems
in a way that clearly reveals their thinking.
 What is Learning and Teaching with Learning Trajectories—[LT]2? xix

[LT]2 is a new open-access tool for early math teaching and learning, closely linked to this book
and developed thanks to funding from the Heising-Simons Foundation and the Bill and Melinda
Gates Foundation, along with decades of research conducted by professors Julie Sarama and
Douglas H. Clements. Large-scale studies show that the learning trajectories and [LT]2 work, as
validated by the “What Works Clearinghouse” and praised on the cover of The New York Times
and in the Wall Street Journal. Read about two teachers’ use of [LT]2 – https://bit.ly/2oQ1Yq4 &
https://bit.ly/2veu83O.
xx What is Learning and Teaching with Learning Trajectories—[LT]2?

[LT]2 runs on all technological platforms, addresses new ages—birth to age 8 years—and
includes alignments with standards and assessments, as well as software for children. [LT]2
enables teachers to help children find the mathematics in—and develop the mathematics
from—their everyday activities, including art, stories, puzzles, and games. Head to Learning
Trajectories.org for on-going updates, interactive games, and practical tools that support
classroom learning.
1 Young Children and
Mathematics Learning

Snow was falling in Boston and preschool teacher Sarah Gardner’s children were coming
in slowly, one bus at a time. She had been doing high-quality math all year, but was still
amazed at her children’s ability to keep track of the situation: The children kept saying,
“Now, 11 are here and 7 absent. Now, 13 are here and 5 absent. Now ….”

Why have so many people become interested in math for very young children lately? Because
early math is surprisingly important.
First, math is increasingly important in a modern global economy, but math achievement in many
countries has not kept up. Our own country, the USA, has fewer high-performing and more low-
performing students than many other countries, especially in math (http://ncee.org/pisa-2018-les
sons/). These differences appear as early as first grade, kindergarten … and even preschool (Gerofsky,
2015b; Mullis, Martin, Foy, & Arora, 2012b; OECD, 2014). Although some high-performing countries are
showing improvements, many like the USA are not (Mullis et al., 2012b). This is one reason interest in
improving early childhood math education has emerged from around the globe, such as in Africa,
South and Latin America, and Asia. These increased interests are often paired with a special focus on
children who have not been provided opportunities to learn (McCoy et al., 2018b).
Many young children do not even get the chance to learn the more advanced math taught in
many other countries. If each child is given such opportunities, all people in each country bene-
fit, economically and socially, because everyone contributes more to social and technological
advancements.

During most of the 20th century, the United States possessed peerless mathematical
prowess—not just as measured by the depth and number of the mathematical specialists
who practiced here but also by the scale and quality of its engineering, science, and finan-
cial leadership, and even by the extent of mathematical education in its broad population.
But, without substantial and sustained changes to its educational system, the United
States will relinquish its leadership in the 21st century.
The National Mathematics Advisory Panel1 (NMP, 2008, p. xi)
2 Young Children and Mathematics Learning

Second, these early childhood years have been found to be surprisingly important for develop-
ment through life. That is, what math children know when they enter kindergarten predicts their
math achievement for years to come (Duncan et al., 2007). Math also predicts later success in read-
ing (Duncan et al., 2007; Duncan & Magnuson, 2011), so, math appears to be a core component of
cognition. Further, knowledge of math in the early years is the best predictor of graduating high
school (McCoy et al., 2017; Watts, Duncan, Siegler, & Davis-Kean, 2014). One more argument for
early childhood math is that number and arithmetic knowledge at age 7 years predicts socioeco-
nomic status at age 42 (even controlling for all other variables, Ritchie & Bates, 2013).
These predictions may show that math concepts and skills are important to all of school and
life. Math provides a new way to see the world, the beauty of it, and the way you can solve
problems that arise within it. However, math is much more: Math is critical thinking and problem
solving, and high-quality math experiences also promote social, emotional, literacy, and general
brain development (Aydogan et al., 2005b; Clements, Sarama, Layzer, Unlu, & Fesler, 2020a;
Dumas, McNeish, Sarama, & Clements, 2019; Sarama & Clements, 2019b; Sarama, Lange, Clem-
ents, & Wolfe, 2012b)! No wonder they predict later success.
Third, although the math-achievements gap between countries is troubling, an even larger
and more damaging gap lies between children growing up in higher- and lower-resource com-
munities. Both the income gap and the achievement gap have been increasing for decades
(Bachman, Votruba-Drzal, El Nokali, & Castle Heatly, 2015; Reardon, 2011). Children shouldn’t be
at a disadvantage just because their communities lack resources to provide charging stations
for learning math—and they do not have to be. They would think and learn just as well if they
have the same opportunities to learn math early. That’s why we are working to make good
early math learning resources available to children in all communities.
Fourth, if our country’s children have limited math knowledge initially and achieve less later in
school compared to children in other countries, can there possibly be bright spots? Yes. From
their first years, children have boundless interest and curiosity in math … and the ability to learn
to think like mathematicians. In high-quality early childhood education programs, young children
can engage in surprisingly deep investigations of math ideas. They can learn skills, problem solv-
ing, and concepts in ways that are natural and motivating to them. This brings us to the main
reason to engage young children in math: Young children love to think mathematically. They
become exhilarated by their own ideas (like the 6-year-old quoted at the beginning of the preface)
and the ideas of others. To develop the whole child, we must develop the mathematical child.
Fifth, teachers enjoy the reasoning and learning that high-quality math education brings forth
from their children. High-quality math throughout early childhood does not involve pushing elem-
entary arithmetic onto younger children. Instead, good education allows children to experience
math as they play in and explore their world. A higher proportion of children are in early care and
education programs every year. We teachers are responsible for bringing the knowledge and intel-
lectual delight of math to all children, especially those who have not yet had many high-quality
educational experiences. Good teachers can meet this challenge with research-based “tools.”

Most children acquire considerable knowledge of numbers and other aspects of mathemat-
ics before they enter kindergarten. This is important, because the mathematical knowledge
that kindergartners bring to school is related to their mathematics learning for years
 Young Children and Mathematics Learning 3

thereafter—in elementary school, middle school, and even high school. Unfortunately, most
children from low-income backgrounds enter school with far less knowledge than peers
from middle-income backgrounds, and the achievement gap in mathematical knowledge
progressively widens throughout their pre-K-12 years.
The National Math Advisory Panel (NMP, 2008, p. xvii)

Fortunately, encouraging results have been obtained for a variety of instructional programs
developed to improve the mathematical knowledge of preschoolers and kindergartners,
especially those from low-income backgrounds. There are effective techniques—derived from
scientific research on learning—that could be put to work in the classroom today to improve
children’s mathematical knowledge.
The National Math Advisory Panel (NMP, 2008, p. xvii)

These tools include specific guidance on how to help children learn in ways that are both
appropriate and effective. In this book, we pull that knowledge together to provide a core tool:
“learning trajectories” for each major topic in early math.

What are Learning Trajectories?

Children follow natural developmental progressions in learning and development. As a simple
example, they learn to crawl, then walk, then run, skip, and jump with increasing speed and dexter-
ity. These are levels in the developmental progression of movement. Children follow natural devel-
opmental progressions in learning math, too, by learning math ideas and skills in their own way.
Teachers who understand these developmental progressions for each major domain or topic
of math, and base their instruction on them, build math learning environments that are particu-
larly developmentally appropriate, effective, and meaningful (Figure 1.1). These developmental
paths are the basis for this book’s learning trajectories. Learning trajectories help us answer
several questions: What goals or objectives should we hold? Where do we start? How do we
know where to go next? How do we get there?
Learning trajectories have three parts: (a) a math goal, (b) a developmental path along which
children progress to reach that goal, and (c) teaching practices, including the educational environ-
ment, interactions, and activities, matched to each of the levels of thinking in that path, that help
children develop ever-higher levels of thinking. Let’s examine each of these three parts.

Goals: The Big Ideas of Math

The first part of a learning trajectory is a math goal. Our goals include the “big ideas of math”:
clusters of concepts and skills that are mathematically central and coherent, consistent with
children’s thinking, and generative of future learning. These big ideas come from mathemat-
icians, researchers, and teachers (CCSSO/NGA, 2010; Clements, 2004; NCTM, 2006; NMP,
2008). They include math content but also research on students’ thinking about and learning of
math. As an example, one big idea is that counting can be used to find out how many in
a collection.
4 Young Children and Mathematics Learning

Figure 1.1 Carmen Brown encourages a preschooler to “mathematize”

Development Progressions: The Paths of Learning

The second part of a learning trajectory consists of levels of thinking, each more sophisticated
than the last, through which children develop on their way to achieving the math goal. That is,
the developmental progression describes a typical path that children follow in developing an
understanding and skill about that math topic.

Humans are born with a fundamental sense of quantity.

(Geary, 1994, p. 1)

This development of math abilities begins when life begins. As we will see, young children have
certain math-like competencies in number, spatial sense, and patterns from birth. However,
young children’s ideas and their interpretations of situations are uniquely different from those of
adults. For this reason, good early childhood teachers are careful not to assume that children
“see” situations, problems, or solutions the way adults do. Instead, good teachers interpret what
the child is doing and thinking and attempt to see the situation from the child’s point of view.
Similarly, when they interact with the child, these teachers also consider the environment, activ-
ities, and their own actions from the child’s point of view so they can help the child develop the
next level of thinking. This makes early childhood teaching both demanding and rewarding.
Our learning trajectories provide simple labels and examples for each level of each develop-
mental progression. The “Developmental Progression” column in Table 1.1 describes three main
 Young Children and Mathematics Learning 5

Table 1.1 Samples from the Learning Trajectory for Counting (the full text for each level, the full learning tra-
jectory, and links to resources are described in Chapter 3)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Activities

(years)2

1 Number Word Sayer: Foundations Verbal No Number Talk: Associate number words with quan-
verbal counting. tities and as components of the counting sequence.
Diez Amigos Finger Play and Two Little
Names some number words with no Butterflies Finger Play: Finger plays like this one
sequence. are a fun way to teach children about counting
and numbers.
1–2 Chanter Verbal Chants number words in “sing- Verbal counting, songs, finger plays, and more:
song” fashion and may run them together. The Repeated experience with the counting sequence
number words may be indistinguishable from one in varied context. This can include songs; finger
another. plays, such as “This Old Man”; counting going up
and down stairs; and just verbal counting for the
After watching and adult put one to six “food fun of it (how high can you go?)!
tokens” into an animal puppet, imitates the Counting with Maracas and More, Use maracas
puppet-feeding with attention to number. or other percussion instruments to support the
development of number concepts and counting.
3 Reciter (10) Verbal Verbally counts to ten with Count, Clap, and Stomp: Have all children count
some correspondence with objects but may from one to ten or an appropriate number,
either continue an overly rigid correspondence making motions with each count. For example,
or exhibit performance errors (e.g., skipping, say, “one” [touch head], “two” [touch shoulders],
double counting). “three” [touch head], etc.
“One [points to first], two [points to second],
three [starts to point], four [finishes pointing,
but is now still pointing to third object], five, …
nine, ten, eleven, twelve, ‘firteen,’ fifteen …”
4 Counter (Small Numbers) Accurately counts Mr. MixUp: The puppet Mr. MixUp makes a lot of
objects in a line to five and answers the “how counting mistakes such as saying the wrong
many” question with the last number counted, word for “how many” after counting; children
understanding that this represents the total help Mr. MixUp by catching his mistake.
number of objects (the cardinal principle).

levels of thinking in the counting learning trajectory. Under the descriptions are examples of
children’s thinking and behavior for each level.

Teaching Practices: The Paths of Teaching

The third part of a learning trajectory consists of a set of teaching practices, including educational
environments,3 interactions, and instructional activities, linked to each of the levels of thinking in
the developmental progression. These tasks are designed to help children learn the ideas and skills
needed to construct the next level of thinking. That is, as teachers, we can use these tasks to pro-
mote children’s growth from the previous level to the goal level. The last column of Table 1.1 pro-
vides example instructional activities. (Again, the complete learning trajectory in Chapter 3 includes
not only all the developmental levels but also many more instructional tasks for each level.)
How do activities help children build each level of thinking? Although teaching and learning
resist simple descriptions, we try to embody the mental “actions on objects” that enables think-
ing at a level in children’s actions with manipulatives or their bodies (again, Chapter 3 will have
6 Young Children and Mathematics Learning

more detail; the following are but brief examples). Count All Day! in Table 1.1 develops verbal
counting with enjoyable activities such as counting in books, songs, finger plays, and clapping
or marching up steps. Each allows children to actively produce the verbal counting sequence,
with most illustrating the notion of counting-words-as-indicators-of-increasing-quantity (more
fingers or higher stairs). The actions are producing number words from an ordered list along
with physical action of clapping or marching.
Kitchen Counter’s actions include verbal counting, but the computer supports that—the child can
focus on the goal of clicking on each object once and only once—an action of attention (like pointing)
directed at physical items. The “bite” out of the piece of food and error messages as necessary
(“You already took a bite out of that one!”) to scaffold this one-to-one correspondence activity.
The Counter (Small Numbers) level includes a more challenging concept: The last number
word reached while counting a set tells you how many in the set. Adults find this “obvious,” but
the concept—cardinality, or “how-manyness” in counting—is a significant insight that children
must construct. Let’s examine the activity How Many in My Hand? in more detail (see Figure 1.2).
For comparison, first consider that many teachers practice counting with a group by laying out,
say, four cubes and asking children to “count with me,” leading them in verbal counting as they
point to each block, “1, 2, 3, 4.” Children do get practice with verbal counting, but the one-to-one
correspondence is done by the teacher and may not be noticed by children, and the notion of
cardinality is nowhere to be found.

Figure 1.2 The “How Many in My Hand?” activity

 Young Children and Mathematics Learning 7

In contrast, How Many in My Hand? engages children with the concept of cardinality and
the cardinality principle in counting (last counting word is “how many”) in several ways (see
Figure 1.2):

1. Starting by hiding cubes behind the teacher’s back immediately makes children curious
about cardinality: How many are back there?
2. Removing the cubes one at a time evokes children’s recognition of small numbers (See
Chapter 2). When they count “one” they see one, and when they count “two,” they see two,
so the “last number counted” is telling the number they see.
3. The teacher gestures around the set and repeats: “Yes, I could hold four.” Again, reinfor-
cing the notion that the last number word tells how many were counted.
4. The teacher challenges the children to try it themselves, motivating them to figure out how
many they can hold and making them, not the teacher, the main actors. (They will be motiv-
ated—one way or the other—to hold more than four!)

These simple but powerful characteristics of the How Many in My Hand? activity help children
build the cardinality concept: They learn the mental actions of unifying the group (understand-
ing the objects as a group) and assigning a number to the group—quantifying it.
In summary, learning trajectories describe the goals of learning, the thinking and learning pro-
cesses of children at various levels along the developmental progression, and the learning activ-
ities in which they might engage. People often have several questions about learning trajectories.
You may wish to read our responses to those questions that interest you now and return to this
section after you have read more about specific learning trajectories in the chapters that follow.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) about Learning Trajectories

Why Use Learning Trajectories? Learning trajectories allow teachers to support the math of chil-
dren—the thinking of children as it develops naturally. Because the trajectories are formed on
research of children’s natural thinking, we know that all the goals and activities are within the
developmental capacities of children. We also know that each level provides a natural developmen-
tal building block to the next level. We know that the activities provide the mathematical building
blocks for school success because the research on which they are based typically involves more
children who have had the educational advantages that allow them to do well at school.
When are Children “At” a Level? Children are identified to be “at” a certain level when most
of their behaviors reflect the thinking—ideas and skills—of that level. Usually, they show a few
behaviors from the next and previous levels as they learn. And we have new empirical evidence
that the learning trajectories approach is more effective than other approaches (Clements,
Sarama, Baroody, & Joswick, 2020a; Clements, Sarama, Baroody, Joswick, & Wolfe, 2019).
Can Children Work at More Than One Level at the Same Time? Yes, although most children
work mainly at one level (and are starting to learn the next one; of course, if they are tired or
distracted, they may operate at a lower level). Levels are not “absolute stages.” They are
“benchmarks” of complex growth that represent distinct ways of thinking. So, another way to
think of them is as a sequence of different patterns of thinking and reasoning. Children are con-
tinually learning within levels and then moving from one level to the next.
8 Young Children and Mathematics Learning

Can Children Jump Ahead? Yes, especially if there are separate “subtrajectories” within
a trajectory. For example, we have combined many counting competencies into one “counting”
sequence with subtrajectories, including verbal counting and object counting. Many children
learn to count to 100 at age 6 after learning to count objects to ten or more; however, some
may learn that verbal skill earlier. The subtrajectory of verbal counting skills would still be fol-
lowed. There is another possibility: Children may learn deeply and thus appear to jump ahead
several “levels” after a rich learning experience.
Are all Levels Similar in Nature? Most levels are levels of thinking—a distinct period of
time of qualitatively distinct ways, or patterns, of thinking. However, a few are merely “levels
of attainment,” similar to a mark on a wall to show a child’s height; that is, a couple signify
simply that a child has gained more knowledge. For example, consider reading numerals such
as “2” or “9.” Children do follow a learning trajectory of first matching, then recognizing,
then naming numerals (Wang, Resnick, & Boozer, 1971). However, once they have reached
that level, children must learn simply to name (and write) more numerals, which usually
does not require deeper or more complex thinking. Thus, some trajectories are more tightly
constrained by natural cognitive development than others. Often a critical component of
such constraints is the mathematical development in a domain; math is a highly sequential,
hierarchical domain in which certain ideas and skills often have to be learned before
others.
How are Learning Trajectories Different from just a Scope and Sequence? They are related,
of course. But they are not lists of everything children need to learn, because they don’t cover
every single “fact” and they emphasize the “big ideas.” Further, they are about children’s levels
of thinking, not just about the ability to answer a math question. So, for example, a single math
problem may be solved differently by students at different (separable) levels of thinking, even if
they all get it right (or wrong!).
Does Every Trajectory Represent Just “One Path”? As mentioned, some trajectories have
“subtrajectories.” In some cases, the names make this clear. For example, in Comparing and
Ordering, some levels are about the “Comparer” levels and others about building a “mental
number line.” Similarly, the related subtrajectories of “Composition” and “Decomposition”
are easy to distinguish. Sometimes, for clarification, subtrajectories are indicated with a
note in italics after the title. For example, in Shapes, “Parts” and “Representing” are subtra-
jectories within the Shapes trajectory. Some children may be further ahead in one subjec-
tory that another.
A more complex question is whether there is one path every child follows. Generally, children
develop similarly through these broad levels of thinking (they are not narrow “lockstep” move-
ments!). However, there are many factors, from cultural to individual, that may account for
some children altering that path, usually in small ways (e.g., level 5 before 4).

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) about Using Learning Trajectories

How Do These Developmental Levels Support Teaching and Learning? The levels help teachers
(as well as curriculum developers) understand children’s thinking; the ability to create, modify,
or sequence activities. Teachers who understand learning trajectories (especially the develop-
mental levels that are at their foundation) are more effective, efficient, and fun for everyone.
 Young Children and Mathematics Learning 9

Through planned teaching and also by encouraging informal, incidental math, teachers help chil-
dren learn at an appropriate and deep level.
There are Ages in the Charts. Should I Plan to Help Children Develop Just the Levels that
Correspond to my Children’s Ages? No! The ages in the table are typical ages at which children
develop these ideas. But these are rough guides only—children differ widely. Furthermore, the
children achieve much later levels with high-quality education. So, these are approximate “start-
ing levels,” not goals. Children who are provided high-quality math experiences are capable of
developing to levels one or more years beyond their peers.
Are the Instructional Tasks the Only Way to Teach Children to Achieve Higher Levels of
Thinking? No, there are many ways. In some cases, however, there is some research evidence
that these are especially effective ways. In other cases, they are simply illustrations of the kind
of activity that would be appropriate to reach that level of thinking. Further, teachers need to
use a variety of pedagogical strategies in teaching the content, presenting the tasks, guiding
children in completing them, and so forth.
Are Learning Trajectories Consistent with Teaching the Common Core? Unfortunately, some
people have interpreted that “teaching the Common Core” means only teaching each standard
directly and then moving on. But learning is not an all-or-nothing acquisition of knowledge or
skills (Sarama & Clements, 2009c; Sophian, 2013). The Common Core goals are benchmarks, but
good curricula and teaching always work up to those goals and weave the learning opportun-
ities throughout children’s lives. They learn the ideas at higher levels of sophistication and gen-
erality. Finally, when we wrote the Common Core, we started by writing learning trajectories—at
least the goals and developmental progressions. Thus, learning trajectories are at the core of
the Common Core. And learning trajectories are not based on the idea to “directly teach it once
and drop it.”
Before we leave the Common Core, we note that misconceptions and misinformation about
the CCSSM standards abound, especially the erroneous idea that they are “developmentally
appropriate” for the youngest children. We know if children have opportunities to learn, they
can meet and exceed all those standards. If you need accurate information about the CCSSM,
please see our many articles on the topic (Clements, Fuson, & Sarama, 2017a; 2017b, 2019;
Fuson, Clements, & Sarama, 2015).

Other Critical Goals: Strategies, Reasoning, Creativity, and

a Productive Disposition
Learning trajectories are organized around topics, but they include far more than concepts,
facts, and skills. Processes, or math practices, and attitudes are important in every one. Chapter
13 focuses on general processes, such as problem solving and reasoning. But these and other
general processes are also an integral part of every learning trajectory. Also, specific processes
are involved in every learning trajectory. For example, the process of composition—putting
together and taking apart—is fundamental to both number and arithmetic (e.g., adding and sub-
tracting) and geometry (shape composition).
Finally, other general educational goals must never be neglected. The “habits of mind” men-
tioned in the box include curiosity, imagination, inventiveness, risk-taking, creativity, and per-
sistence. These are some of the components of the essential goal of productive disposition.
10 Young Children and Mathematics Learning

Children need to view math as sensible, useful, and worthwhile and view themselves as capable
of thinking mathematically. Children should also come to appreciate the beauty and creativity
that is at the heart of math. Remember Albert Einstein’s quote at the beginning of the preface:
“Mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical ideas.”
All these should be involved in a high-quality early childhood math program. These goals are
included in the suggestions for teaching throughout this book. Further, Chapters 14, 15, and 16
discuss how to achieve these goals. These chapters discuss different learning and teaching con-
texts, including early childhood school settings and education, equity issues, affect, and instruc-
tional strategies.

As important as mathematical content are general mathematical processes such as prob-

lem solving, reasoning and proof, communication, connections, and representation; specific
mathematical processes such as organizing information, patterning, and composing, and
habits of mind such as curiosity, imagination, inventiveness, persistence, willingness to
experiment, and sensitivity to patterns. All should be involved in a high-quality early child-
hood mathematics program.
(Clements, 2004, p. 57)

Learning Trajectories and the “Building Blocks” Project

The “Building Blocks” project was funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF)4 to develop
pre-kindergarten (pre-K) to Grade 2 software-enhanced, math curricula. Building Blocks was
designed to enable all young children to build math concepts, skills, and processes. The name
“Building Blocks” has three meanings (see Figure 1.3). First, our goals are to help children
develop the main mathematical building blocks—that is, the big ideas described previously.
Second is the related goal to develop cognitive building blocks: general cognitive and metacog-
nitive (higher-order) processes such as moving or combining shapes to higher-order thinking
processes such as self-regulation. The third is the most straightforward: Children should be
using building blocks for many purposes, but one of them is for learning math.
Based on theory and research on early childhood learning and teaching (Bowman, Donovan,
& Burns, 2001; Clements, 2001), we determined that Building Blocks’ basic approach would be
finding the mathematics in, and developing mathematics from, children’s activity. To do so, all
aspects of the Building Blocks project are based on learning trajectories. Many of the examples
of learning trajectories stemmed from our work developing, field-testing, and evaluating curric-
ula from that project. Praised on the cover of The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal
and validated by the “What Works Clearinghouse,” this project was the genesis of this book as
well as the web-based tool that we turn to next.

The overriding premise of our work is that throughout the grades from pre-K through 8 all
students can and should be mathematically proficient. [p. 10]
 Young Children and Mathematics Learning 11

Mathematical proficiency … has five strands:

1 conceptual understanding—comprehension of mathematical concepts, operations, and

relations
2 procedural fluency—skill in carrying out procedures flexibly, accurately, efficiently, and
appropriately
3 strategic competence—ability to formulate, represent, and solve mathematical
problems
4 adaptive reasoning—capacity for logical thought, reflection, explanation, and
justification
5 productive disposition—habitual inclination to see mathematics as sensible, useful, and
worthwhile, coupled with a belief in diligence and one’s own efficacy.
(Kilpatrick, Swafford, & Findell, 2001, p. 5)

The Learning and Teaching with Learning Trajectories Tool

To help teachers understand and teach the Building Blocks curriculum, we created an
Internet site that featured descriptions and videos of children’s thinking and instructional
activities that developed it (e.g., see Sarama & Clements, 2003). Teachers found it so
useful that we created a new site, the Learning and Teaching with Learning Trajectories5

Figure 1.3 The Building Blocks project was named because we wanted to use manipulatives like chil-
dren’s building blocks (on and off the computer) to help children develop mathematical
and cognitive building blocks—the foundations for later learning (see http://building
blocksmath.org)
12 Young Children and Mathematics Learning

tool at www.LearningTrajectories.org. There you can see videos of children’s thinking at

each level of each topic (learning trajectory) as in Figure 1.4, as well as classroom and
home videos of teachers and caregivers helping children learn that level of thinking. Each
instructional activity has PDF files, that you can print out and use, fully describing the
activity, along with materials (e.g., shape printouts) to accompany the activities, and links
and notes on how to make sure all children, including children with disabilities, can fully
engage in each activity. [LT]2 also features an extensive Resource section with videos, art-
icles, and links on teaching and on particular topics and issues of teaching (e.g., dual lan-
guage learners).

(a)

Figure 1.4 The Learning and Teaching with Learning Trajectories (LTLT, OR [LT]2) tool at www.Lear
ningTrajectories.org. (a) presents the home screen of [LT]2
 Young Children and Mathematics Learning 13

(b)

(c)

Figure 1.4 (continued) (b) [LT]2 includes full research—validated learning trajectories for all topics
in early math and alignments with many national and state standards and assessments.
(c) For each topic, once “opened” a “Learn about …” section teaches users about the
goal, and a full list of levels of the developmental progression
14 Young Children and Mathematics Learning

(d)

Figure 1.4 (continued) (d) For each level, [LT]2 provides a definition, one or more videos, and
descriptions of children’s thinking for each level of each developmental progression,
and then instructional activities that teach that level

We encourage you, as you read about each level, to go to [LT]2 and see videos of children
that illustrate that level of thinking and then see (and use!—when appropriate) videos and other
resources for instructional activities that help children build that level of thinking.

Final Words
Against this background, let us explore the learning trajectories in Chapters 2 through 12. Chapter 2
begins with the critical topic of number. When do children first understand number? How do they do
it? How can we help children’s initial ideas develop? Throughout, we emphasize math processes, or
practices, and attitudes. Further, the last few chapters provide guidance regarding understanding
children, communities, and cultures, and tools such as effective teaching strategies. You may want
to at least skim Chapter 13 before reading the following chapters on learning trajectories.
 Young Children and Mathematics Learning 15

(e)

Figure 1.4 (continued) (e) For each of instructional activity, [LT]2 provides directions, videos, and
a set of downloadable, carefully formatted PDF files of the activity as well as materials
for the activities in English and Spanish

Remember, we encourage you to go to [LT]2 at LearningTrajectories.org and actually see

children at each level of development and the activities that helped them develop each level.
Before we move forward, let’s review the reasons early math is surprisingly important.

The Surprising Importance of Early Math: A Summary

1 Math is important, but math teaching and learning has not improved in the USA,
including in the youngest children. Better early math for all helps everyone: strong
math skills = social progress.
2 Early math learning, from birth, is critical for all future learning … and living. Early
math promotes math, but also social, emotional, literacy, and general brain develop-
ment. There is much to gain and nothing to lose from high-quality early mathematics.
16 Young Children and Mathematics Learning

3 All children deserve fair opportunities to learn. We need powerful “charging stations”
for math in all communities. Math should be purposeful, relevant, and fun for all chil-
dren, not passive, irrelevant, and tedious for some.
4 From their first years, children have boundless interest in and curiosity for math …
and the ability to learn to think like mathematicians. Math is a language best learned
early. And young children love to think mathematically, to see the world through
a mathematical lens in new and powerful ways.
5 Teachers and families enjoy all that high-quality math brings to their children. And
research provides the tools math makes math easier, more effective, and more enjoyable.

(f)

Figure 1.4 (continued) (f) [LT]2 provides a variety of resources for all users, including videos
about various issues and topics for a variety of users, guides for professional develop-
ers, and so forth
 Young Children and Mathematics Learning 17

Notes
1 One of the authors, Douglas Clements, was a member of the NMAP and co-author of the report, which
can be found at www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/.
2 The ages in the tables are typical ages at which children develop these ideas. However, children vary
widely and just as important, with high-quality education, children achieve much later levels.
3 Environments and interactions are important—for infants and toddlers, foundations for math are embed-
ded in rich materials and structures in the environments and interesting, everyday interactions with
adults and peers. This continues throughout early childhood education but the role of intentional activ-
ities increases as developmentally appropriate—engaging, meaningful, challenging-but-achievable!
4 The “Building Blocks—Foundations for Mathematical Thinking, Prekindergarten to Grade 2: Research-
based Materials Development” project was funded by the NSF (award no. ESI-9730804; granted to
D. H. Clements and J. Sarama) to create and evaluate math curricula for young children based on
a theoretically sound research and development framework. We describe the framework and research in
detail in Chapter 15. For the purposes of full disclosure, note that we have subsequently made this cur-
riculum available through a publisher and thus receive royalties. All research was conducted with inde-
pendent assessors and evaluators.
5 Funded by the Heising-Simons Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Learning and
Teaching with Learning Trajectories is also known by its initials, LTLT, or, therefore, as [LT]2 (one of
those “math jokes” almost totally devoid of actual humor).
2 Quantity, Number, and
Subitizing

Three pictures hang in front of a 6-month-old child. The first shows two dots, the others
show one dot and three dots. The infant hears three drumbeats. Her eyes move to the
picture with three dots.

Before you read further, what do you make of this startling research finding? How in the world
could such a young child do this? At some intuitive level, this infant has recognized number
and a change in number. When developed, and connected to verbal number names, this ability
is called subitizing—recognizing the numerosity of a group quickly, from the Latin “to arrive sud-
denly.” In other words, people can see a small collection and almost instantly tell how many
objects are in it. Research shows that this is one of the first and main abilities very young chil-
dren should develop (Aunio & Räsänen, 2015a; Baroody & Purpura, 2017a; Clements, Sarama, &
MacDonald, 2019; Hannula-Sormunen, Lehtinen, & Räsänen, 2015). Children from low-resource
communities and those with special needs often lag in subitizing ability, harming their math
development. This is why the first learning trajectory we discuss involves children’s “approxi-
mate number system” (ANS) and subitizing.

The Development of Quantity, Number, and Subitizing

The Earliest Number Competence: The ANS
Both animals and people can represent number across senses without language. For example,
monkeys and birds can be trained to discriminate both large and small sets (of visual dots or
sounds) that differ in a 1:2 (or greater) ratio (but not 2:3) (Starr, Libertus, & Brannon, 2013). For
example, they can determine if there are more white or gray dots in Figure 2.1. Even more inter-
esting and fun, see the video from these researchers’ laboratory on [LT]2 in the Number
Senser: Foundations level for Subitizing.
Baby chicks, shown four objects going behind a screen on the right, then one going beyond a
screen on the left, then one moved from the right to the left, go immediately to the screen on
the right (Vallortigara, 2012).
Most children without specific disabilities (e.g., Williams syndrome) have these competencies,
which form one of the innate abilities that support later numerical knowledge. Six-month-olds
can discriminate the 1:2 ratio (as in Figure 2.1) but by 9 months of age, they can also distinguish
sets in a 2:3 ratio (e.g., 10 compared to 15). ANS correlates with math competencies in
 Quantity, Number, and Subitizing 19

Figure 2.1 The task is to say whether there are more white or gray dots

preschoolers, even with age and verbal ability controlled (Libertus, Feigenson, & Halberda,
2011a; Mazzocco, Feigenson, & Halberda, 2011). This effect is stronger for those who are low in
math knowledge (Bonny & Lourenco, 2013). Nevertheless, studies show these abilities can be
developed (e.g., by special video games in which children make similar comparisons).
However, we do not know a lot about how the ANS supports later math and what math it
supports. It may only support intuitive math (Baroody & Purpura, 2017a). Also, it may be that
measures of ANS are tapping into other abilities, such as executive functions (Baroody &
Purpura, 2017a). Yet another possibly is that ANS is a sign of, and ANS training leads to,
greater interest and engagement in math-related activities or heightened attention to math-
related learning opportunities, which in turn improve math abilities (Libertus, 2019) or increase
the ability to focus on number instead of conflicting stimulus features. (Fuhs, McNeil, Kelley,
O’Rear, & Villano, 2016).

Types of Subitizing
Recognition of number and subitizing differ from the ANS in that the goal is to determine the
exact number of items in a set. When you “just see” how many objects are in a very small
collection, you are using perceptual subitizing (Clements, 1999b). For example, you might see
three dots on a die and quickly say “three.” You perceive the three dots intuitively and
simultaneously.
How is it you can see an eight-dot domino and “just know” the total number, when evidence
indicates that this lies above the limits of perceptual subitizing? You are using conceptual subitiz-
ing—seeing the parts and putting together the whole. That is, you might see each side of the
domino as composed of four individual dots and as “one four.” You see the domino as composed
of two groups of four and as “one eight.” All of this can happen quickly—it is still subitizing—and
often is not conscious.
Another categorization involves the different types of things people can subitize. Spatial pat-
terns such as those on dominoes are just one type. Other patterns are temporal and kinesthetic,
including finger patterns, rhythmic patterns, and spatial-auditory patterns. Creating and using
these patterns through conceptual subitizing helps children develop abstract number and arith-
metic strategies. For example, children use temporal patterns when counting on. “I knew there
20 Quantity, Number, and Subitizing

were three more so I just said, nine … ten, eleven, twelve” (rhythmically gesturing three
times, one “beat” with each count). They use finger patterns to figure out addition problems.
For example, for 3 + 2, a child might put up a finger pattern they know as three, then put
up two more (rhythmically—up, up) and then recognize the resulting finger pattern as “five.”
Children who cannot subitize conceptually are handicapped in learning such arithmetic pro-
cesses. Children may be limited to subitizing small numbers at first, but such actions are
useful “stepping stones” to the construction of more sophisticated procedures with larger
numbers.

Subitizing and Mathematics

The ideas and skills of subitizing start developing very early, but they, as every other area of
math, are not just “simple, basic skills.” Subitizing introduces basic ideas of cardinality—“how
many,” ideas of “more” and “less,” ideas of parts and wholes and their relationships, beginning
arithmetic, and, in general, ideas of quantity. Developed well, these are related, forming webs of
connected ideas that are the building blocks of math through elementary, middle, and high
school, and beyond. Early ANS supports early calculation, and subitizing supports counting
(Soto-Calvo, Simmons, Willis, & Adams, 2015).
As we discuss the details of children’s initial learning of subitizing, let’s not lose the whole—
the big picture—of children’s math future. Let’s not lose the wonderment over the fact that
children so young can think, profoundly, about math.

Moving along the Learning Trajectory

Increasing the Number

A 5-year-old walking with her mother, casually notes, “That truck had seven apples on it.”
Mom just barely caught the picture on the side of the truck as it zoomed out of sight. “Oh, yes!
How did you count that so fast?”
“I didn’t count. I subitized.”
Mom: “You what?”

An important, even if obvious, factor in determining the difficulty of subitizing tasks is the size
of the collection. Children begin this phase even before 2 years of age, distinguishing between
collections with one and more than one objects and naming the number in very small sets. For
some time, this applies mainly to the word “two,” a bit less to “one,” and with considerably less
frequency, “three” (Clements et al., 2019).
Such early attention to “two” served preschool-age children’s ability to begin attending to sub-
groups of “two” when conceptually subitizing larger sets of items (e.g., four, five, MacDonald, 2015;
MacDonald & Shumway, 2016; MacDonald & Wilkins, 2017). Symmetrical orientations and orienta-
tions with a large space between subgroups of “two” seemed to afford these children opportunities
to attend to both subgroups. Symmetrical orientations freed children’s working memory resources,
as they only needed to describe one “two” when building towards the total set of four. Individual’s
 Quantity, Number, and Subitizing 21

subitizing activity has been found to be affected by the space between the items in an orientation
and was found to support young children’s attention to the subgroups of the entire group of items
(Gebuis & Reynvoet, 2011; MacDonald & Wilkins, 2017). That is, space between groups of “twos” and
“threes” afforded individuals more effective subitizing of four or more items. By 4 or 5 years of
age, most children recognize collections up to four, and then subitizing and counting become con-
nected, a point to which we return in Chapter 3.

Arrangement of the Objects

Another factor is the spatial arrangement of objects. In general, for young children, objects in a line
spaced separately and not too close together (and in different colors at the beginning, only for per-
ceptual separation) are easiest, next easiest are rectangular (pairs of objects in rows), then “dice,”
or “domino” arrangements, then scrambled arrangements (Kim, Pack, & Yi, 2017). Further, when
items are not arranged in rectangular or canonical arrangements, and the items increase in their
relative size, children and adults have more difficulties subitizing these items accurately (Leibovich,
Katzin, Harel, & Henik, 2016). More specifically, children make fewer errors for ten dots than for
eight with the “domino five” arrangement, but fewer errors for eight dots for the “domino four”
arrangement. We will illustrate these in the learning trajectory at the end of this chapter.

Experience and Education

Two preschoolers are watching a parade. “Look! There’s clowns!” yells Paul. “And three
horses!” exclaims his friend Nathan.

Both friends are having a good experience. But only Nathan is having a mathematical experi-
ence at the same time. Other children see, perhaps, a brown, a black, and a dappled horse.
Nathan sees the same colors, but also sees a quantity—three horses. The difference is probably
this: At school and at home, Nathan’s teachers and family notice and talk about numbers.
Although children are sensitive to quantity, interactions with others is essential to learning sub-
itizing, it does not develop “on its own” (Baroody, Li, & Lai, 2008). Children who spontaneously
focus on number and subitizing number are more advanced in their number skills (Edens &
Potter, 2013; Hannula-Sormunen et al., 2015; Nanu, McMullen, Munck, & Hannula-Sormunen,
2018b).
Let’s first discuss the sensitivity to quantity, such as the ANS. Making judgments of the number
in sets of all sizes (including number of movements, tones, etc.) will probably help strengthen chil-
dren’s ANS systems (Libertus, Feigenson, & Halberda, 2013; Wang, Odic, Halberda, & Feigenson,
2016). These are usually not labeled with number words but, rather, with vocabulary such as
“more” and “fewer” (for dots) or “more” and “less” (for lengths of distance or durations of time—
see Chapter 4). For the youngest children, intersensory redundancy—for example, you see a ball
bouncing more times, it takes longer, you hear more noises—helps focus attention on number
(Jordan, Suanda, & Brannon, 2008). Computer activities in which children indicate which of two
22 Quantity, Number, and Subitizing

displays has more may also be useful (Park, Bermudez, Roberts, & Brannon, 2016; Van Herwegen &
Donlan, 2018), and may be especially important for children from low-resource communities who
may not have had many learning opportunities (Fuhs et al., 2016; Szkudlarek & Brannon, 2018).
However, there is also research that shows that learning number words while subitizing and count-
ing (Chapter 3) predicts later ANS more than ANS predict counting and subitizing (Mussolin, Nys,
Content, & Leybaert, 2014)! Similarly, symbolic skills play a more potent and long-lasting role than
non-symbolic skills (Toll & Van Luit, 2014b). Once children know numerals, learning more about
exact numbers and numerals promotes ANS, but not the reverse (Lyons, Bugden, Zheng, De Jesus, &
Ansari, 2018). And time spent on specific ANS-type activities is time not spent in learning
number words (Baroody & Purpura, 2017a). So, we recommend the everyday experiences but
are more cautious toward virtual games targeted to ANS-type comparisons.
Next let’s talk about subitizing as naming the exact number in sets. Parents, teachers, and
other caregivers should begin naming very small collections with numbers after children
have established names and categories for some physical properties such as shape and color
(Sandhofer & Smith, 1999). Numerous experiences naming such collections help children build
connections between quantity terms (number, how many) and number words, then build word-
cardinality connections (“two” is • •), and finally build connections among the representations
of a given number. Nonexamples are important, too, to clarify the boundaries of the number
(Baroody, Lai, & Mix, 2006). For instance, “Wow! That’s not two horses. That’s three horses!”
For children who are less interested and competent in math, it is especially important for
teachers to talk to them about number; for example, extending their interest in manipulating
objects to include math ideas such as number and shape (Edens & Potter, 2013).
In contrast to this research-based practice, mis-educative experiences (Dewey, 1938/1997)
may lead children to perceive collections as figural arrangements that are not exact. Richardson
(2004) reported that for years she thought her children understood perceptual patterns, such
as those on dice. However, when she finally asked them to reproduce the patterns, she was
amazed that they did not use the same number of counters. For example, some drew an “X”
with nine dots and called it “five” (see Figure 2.2) Thus, without appropriate tasks and close
observations, she had not seen that her children did not even accurately imagine patterns, and
their patterns were certainly not numerical. Such insights are important in understanding and
promoting children’s math thinking.

Figure 2.2 Children had only seen a single pattern for five—on the left. When asked to make a pat-
tern of five, some incorrectly produced arrangements like those on the right (e.g., “X”
and square)
 Quantity, Number, and Subitizing 23

Textbooks and “math books” often present sets that discourage subitizing. Their pictures
combine many inhibiting factors, including complex embedding, different units with poor form,
lack of symmetry, and irregular arrangements (Carper, 1942; Dawson, 1953). For example, they
may show five birds, but have different types of birds spread out on a tree with branches,
leaves, flowers, a sun shining overhead—you get the idea. Such complexity hinders conceptual
subitizing, increases errors, and encourages simple one-by-one counting.
Due to their curriculum, or perhaps their lack of knowledge of subitizing, most teachers do
not do sufficient subitizing work. One study showed that children regressed in subitizing from
the beginning to the end of kindergarten (Wright, Stanger, Cowper, & Dyson, 1994). How could
that be? Probably, the following type of interaction was common. A child rolls a die and says
“five.” Looking on, the teacher says, “Count them!” The child counts them by ones. What has
happened? The teacher thought her job was to teach counting. But the child was using subitizing—
which is more appropriate and better in this situation! However, the teacher is unintentionally
telling the child that her way is not good, that one must always count.
In contrast, research provides guidelines for helping children develop subitizing. Naming
small groups with numbers, before counting, helps children understand number words and their
cardinal meaning (“how many”) without having to shift between ordinal (counting items in
order) and cardinal uses of number words inherent in counting (cf. Fuson, 1992a). Briefly, such
naming of small, subitized groups can more quickly, simply, and directly provide a wide variety
of examples and contrasting counterexamples for number words and concepts (Baroody, Lai, &
Mix, 2005). These can be used to help infuse early counting with meaning (see Chapter 3 on
counting). So, teachers who say, “Count them!” inappropriately not only hurt children’s subitiz-
ing, but they also hurt their development of counting and number sense.1
Another benefit of number recognition and subitizing activities is that different arrange-
ments suggest different views of that number (Figure 2.3).

Developing Early Number Recognition—Foundations of Subitizing

For everyone, but especially teachers of toddlers and 3-year-olds, do you want to hear the easi-
est, but most important “activity” you can do to help children recognize numbers of objects?
Use small number words in your everyday interactions as frequently as you can. Instead of
saying, “Clear the cups off the table so we have room for this,” simply say, “We need more
area on the table for this, would you please take those three cups off the table?” There is no
need to be “artificial” in this kind of talk. Simply use number words up to about five every time
it makes sense. And give your children’s parents the same advice. Such simple but powerful

Figure 2.3 Arrangements for conceptual subitizing that may suggest 5 as 4 + 1, 2 + 1 + 2, 2 + 3, or 5

24 Quantity, Number, and Subitizing

interactions also increase children’s spontaneous focus on number (Rathé, Torbeyns, Hannula-
Sormunen, De Smedt, & Verschaffel, 2016).
Other activities include Numbers On Me (only one and two) and Numbers Me (one to about four) in
which the teacher asks children how old they are. They might respond by saying the number and
showing that many fingers. Then ask children how many arms they have. Have them wave their arms.
Repeat with hands, fingers, legs, feet, toes, head, nose, eyes, and ears. Include motion when possible,
such as “Wiggle your ten fingers,” and have fun! Make silly, incorrect statements. For example, “I
have four ears … three feet … five eyes.” Mix them with correct statements. Have children say
whether or not you are correct. When children disagree, ask: How many do I have? How do you
know?

Specific Subitizing Activities

Many number activities can promote perceptual and then conceptual subitizing. Perhaps the
most direct activity is known as “Quickdraw” (Wheatley, 1996) or “Snapshots” (Clements &
Sarama, 2007a) or simply “Subitize!” As an example, tell children they have to quickly take a
“snapshot” of how many they see—their minds have to take a “fast picture.” Show them a col-
lection of counters for 2 seconds or less, and then cover it. Then, ask children to construct a
collection with the same number or say the number. If you have them say the number, have
them think-pair-share. This is an important teaching strategy that we use all the time, but due
to space constraints won’t write it into every activity in the book.
Think-pair-share goes like this. You ask a question or pose a problem. Children think silently
by themselves first. Then they “pair up” and each share their answer and solution strategy (when
there is one—for perceptual subitizing, there isn’t) with their partner. That is the important
sharing, but the teacher can select a couple children to share with the whole group or just
summarize what they heard.
Back to Snapshots: Consistent with what research shows, first use straight lines of objects,
then rectangular arrangements, and then dice arrangements, all with small numbers. Separating
these typical dice arrangements with a large space promotes children’s attention to subgroups
for Perceptual Subgroup Subitizing (Kim et al., 2017). As children learn, use different arrange-
ments and larger numbers.
What type of objects? This is tricky. Children may answer more quickly if the objects are dif-
ferent colors and shapes (Clements et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2017). However, we do not want chil-
dren to try to “memorize” items as individuals—we want them to see them as a number of
items in a collection. So, move to simple, high-contrast items as soon as possible (e.g., black
dots on white paper plates).
There are many worthwhile variations of the “Snapshots” activity.

• Have students construct a quick—image arrangement with manipulatives (and watch for any
misconceptions such as shown in Figure 2.2).
• Play Snapshots on the computer (see [LT]2 software for multiple subitizing levels; several
levels are show in Figure 2.4).
• Play finger-placement game on the computer. For example, pieces of fruit are shown briefly
and the child has to place that many fingers on the screen with one or two hands
 Quantity, Number, and Subitizing 25

Figure 2.4a An early level of the activity “Subitize” from [LT]2. First, children are shown an
arrangement of dots for 2 seconds

Figure 2.4b They are then asked to click on the corresponding set. They can “peek” for 2 more
seconds if necessary. They are given feedback verbally, the planet gets closer, and
the gauge showing them their progress advances

(Barendregt, Lindström, Rietz-Leppänen, Holgersson, & Ottosson, 2012; Sedaghatjou &

Campbell, 2017).
• Play a matching game. Show several cards, all but one of which have the same number. Ask
children which does not belong (this also teaches early classification; see Chapters 12 and 13).
26 Quantity, Number, and Subitizing

Figure 2.4c Several representations are offered, such as finger patterns

• Play concentration-type games (we call them “memory” games) with cards that have differ-
ent arrangements for each number and a rule that you can only “peek” for 2 seconds. (See
the resource, “Introducing and Using Games” on [LT]2.)
• Give each child cards with zero to ten dots in different arrangements. Have students spread
the cards in front of them. Then announce a number. Students find the matching card as fast
as possible and hold it up. Have them use different sets of cards, with different arrange-
ments, on different days. Later, hold up a written numeral as their cue. Adapt other card
games for use with these card sets (see Clements & Callahan, 1986). Familiarity and interest
in numerals is a significant predictor of later math abilities (Rathé, Torbeyns, De Smedt, &
Verschaffel, 2019b).
• Place various arrangements of dots on a large sheet of poster board. With students gath-
ered around you, point to one of the groups as students say its number as fast as possible.
Rotate the poster board on different sessions.
• Challenge students to say the number that is one (later, two) more than the number on the
quick image. They might also respond by showing a numeral card or writing the numeral.
Or, they can find the arrangement that matches the numeral you show.
• Encourage students to play any of these games as a free-time or station activity.
• Remember that patterns can also be temporal and kinesthetic, such as rhythmic and auditory
patterns. A motivating subitizing and numeral writing activity involves auditory rhythms. Scat-
ter children around the room on the floor with individual chalkboards. Walk around the room,
then stop and make a number of sounds, such as ringing a bell three times at a steady beat.
Children should write the numeral 3 (or hold up three fingers as in Figure 2.5) on their chalk-
boards and hold it up. These can also develop conceptual subitizing. For example, how many
claps: <clap>, <clap>, <clap> [pause], <clap>, <clap>, <clap>? (See Hearing Numbers at the “Percep-
tual Subitizer to 5” and “Conceptual Subitizer to 5” in Table 2.1 and in [LT]2.)
 Quantity, Number, and Subitizing 27

Figure 2.5 Children hear three bell tones and hold up three fingers

Table 2.1 A Learning Trajectory for Recognition of Number and Subitizing

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Activities (Designed to Help Children

(years)4 Achieve this Level)

0–1 Number Senser: Foundations: Has inborn Number Peekaboo, [LT]2: Peekaboo is a classic infant-
specific “sensers” for number from the caregiver interaction because young children enjoy the
first months of life without explicit know- novelty of slight variations after becoming comfortable
ledge of number. Intuitively distinguishes with one interaction. While children will enjoy seeing
between groups of one and of two (and one toy over and over, they may find it particularly
possibly two and three). Also shows sensi- funny when the one toy changes to two toys.
tivity to ratios of quite large numbers. Noticing collections: Besides providing a rich sen-
(Approximate Number System, or ANS). sory, manipulative environment, use words such as
These are pre-math, foundational abilities. “more” and perform actions of adding objects, which
direct attention to comparisons of numbers.
Shown many groups of three, a child
“habituates” to them (i.e., becomes
uninterested, relaxed) but immediately
shows interest when then shown a
group of two.
1–2 Very Small Number Recognizer Begins Numbers On Me, [LT]2: See main text, p. 24. Only one
connecting small quantities to number and two. Move parts of their body.
words to form an explicit idea of cardinality, Naming Numbers, [LT]2: Gesture to a small group of
or “how-many-ness.” Following the child’s objects (one or two). Say, “There are two balls. Two!”
first birthday, the number words “one” and When the children are able, ask them how many there
“two” are often learned. Other general are. This should be a natural part of interaction
terms such as “more” and “less” usually throughout the day at school and at home.
follow. Only over time do they begin to
understand that all groups labeled with the
same number word have the same amount.
Shown a pair of shoes, a 2-year old
says, “Two shoes.”
2–3 Maker of Small Collections Makes a small Get the Number, [LT]2: Ask children to get the right
collection (usually one to two and possibly number of crackers (etc.) for two to three children.
three) with the same number as another col- Make Groups, [LT]2: Lay out a small collection, say
lection (via mental model; i.e., not necessarily two blocks. Cover them. Ask children to make a group
by matching—for that process, see Compare that has the same number of blocks as your group has.
Number). Might also be verbal but often is After they have finished, hide their version as well.
not. May not recognize spatial structures at Then uncover both groups, yelling “Ta-da!” Compare
first, and may count this (Nes, 2009). the two groups and ask children if they are the same.
Name the number (e.g., “Both have three!”).
When shown a collection of three,
makes another collection of three in the
same arrangement.

(Continued )
28 Quantity, Number, and Subitizing

Table 2.1 (Cont.)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Activities (Designed to Help Children

(years)4 Achieve this Level)

2–3 Small Collection Namer Names groups of Numbers On Me (Small Collection Namer), [LT]2: See
one, two, and three with increasing accur- main text, p. 24. Only one and two. Move parts of their
acy. Most children of about 34–39 months body Small Collection Namer.
of age can accurately name groups of one, I See Numbers, [LT]2: Gesture to a small group of
two, and three. Many children learn to rec- objects (one to three whenever the children are cap-
ognize and name groups of four about 6 able). When the children are able, ask them how many
months later. For a Maker of Small Collec- there are. This should be a natural part of interaction
tions (the previous level), the child may throughout the day at school and at home.
rely on matching strategies to make their Name collections as “two.” Also include nonexam-
small collection. In Small Collection Namer, ples as well as examples, saying, for instance, “That’s
the child is actually able to recognize small not two. That’s three!” Or, put out three groups of two
groups without relying on a model or and one group of three and have the child find out “the
matching strategy. one that is not like the others.” Discuss why.
Board Games—Small Numbers, [LT]2: Play board
Three dogs walk by, child says, “Three games with a special die (number cube) or spinner that
doggies!” shows only one, two, and three dots (then add zero to
it). See the resource, “Introducing and Using Games”
on [LT]2.
Start Subitizing Small Sets: Make your own groups
in canonically structured arrangements—such as the
following for three—and see how fast children can
name them.

3–4 Perceptual Subitizer to 4 Instantly recog- Snapshots (to 4), [LT]2: Play “Snapshots” with collec-
nizes collections up to four briefly shown tions of one to four objects, arranged in line or other
and verbally names the number of items. simple arrangement, asking children to think-pair-
share and respond verbally with the number name. Use
When shown four objects briefly, says any of the bulleted modifications on pp. 24–25. Start
“four.” with the smaller numbers and easier arrangements,
moving to those of moderate difficulty only as children
are fully competent and confident.

Subitize! Planets: Perceptual Subitizer to 4, [LT]2: Play

on the computer with matching items as in Figures 2–4.

(Continued )
 Quantity, Number, and Subitizing 29

Table 2.1 (Cont.)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Activities (Designed to Help Children

(years)4 Achieve this Level)

4 Perceptual Subitizer to 5 Instantly recog- Snapshots (Perceptual Subitizer to 5), [LT]2: Play with
nizes briefly shown collections up to five dot cards, starting with easy arrangements, moving to
and verbally names the number of items. more difficult arrangements as children are able.
Recognizes and uses spatial and numeric
structures beyond the situations in which
they were already experienced (i.e., in
which they were initially learned).
Shown five objects briefly, says “five.”

Fantastic Five (Tricky Two), [LT]2: Children subitize

the number of counters hidden under a moving
container.
Hearing Numbers, [LT]2). See p. 26.
Subitize! Planets: Perceptual Subitizer to 5): Play [LT]2
’s “Subitize” on computer with matching dots to
numerals with groups up to and including five.

4 Conceptual Subitizer to 5 Verbally labels Snapshots (Conceptual Subitizer to 5), [LT]2: Use dif-
all arrangements to about five, shown only ferent arrangements of the various modifications of
briefly, by seeing the parts and quickly “Snapshots” to develop conceptual subitizing and
knowing the whole. Conceptual subitizing ideas about addition and subtraction. The goal is to
refers to the ability of children to identify a encourage children to see the addends and the sum as
whole quantity as a result of composing in “two olives and two olives make four olives” (Fuson,
smaller quantities (recognized through per- 1992b, p. 248). With conceptual subitizing, their think-
ceptual subitizing) that make up the whole. pair-share discussion can provide their answer and
how they knew, as in the example to the left.
“Five! Why? I saw 3 and 2 and so I said
five.”

(Continued )
30 Quantity, Number, and Subitizing

Table 2.1 (Cont.)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Activities (Designed to Help Children

(years)4 Achieve this Level)

Hearing Numbers, [LT]2). See p. 26.

Subitize! Planets: Conceptual Subitizer to 5, [LT]2’s
Play on computer with matching dots to numerals.
4–6 Conceptual Subitizer to 7 Verbally labels Snapshots (to 7), [LT]2: Use different arrangements of
all arrangements to six, then seven, when the various modifications of “Snapshots” to develop
shown only briefly. conceptual subitizing and ideas about addition and
subtraction.
“Seven! Cause five and that two are
seven.”
5–6 Conceptual Subitizer to 10 Verbally labels Snapshots to 10, [LT]2: Play “Snapshots,” showing five
most briefly shown arrangements of all to ten large dots in different arrangements to suggest
numbers two to ten. Children may know all pairs of numbers and asking children, “How many
some familiar ones (“five and five make dots in this picture?”
ten” is common) early, but this level is Subitize! Planets: Conceptual Subitizer to 10, [LT]2’s
reached when most combinations of all Play on computer with matching dots or fingers to
numbers up to ten are recognized (e.g., numerals. The computer version’s feedback empha-
seven and two seen as nine; five and three sizes that “three and four make seven.”
seen as eight; etc.). Uses structures such as
tens frames to recognize larger quantities.
“In my mind, I made a group of six and
then a group of three there, so …nine.”

6–7 Conceptual Subitizer to 20 Verbally Subitize Dots to 20, [LT]2: Use a fives and tens frame
labels structured arrangements of to 20, to help children visualize addition combinations, but
shown only briefly, by seeing the parts and also move to mental arithmetic. (Make sure children
quickly knowing the whole. Spontaneously can reproduce such frames on their own, as well. See
makes use of a top-down strategy to subi- “spatial structuring” in Chapters 11 and 12.)
tizing large quantities (Nes, 2009). Children
may know some familiar ones (“ten and ten
make 20” is common) early, but this level is
reached when most all combinations of
numbers from one to ten are recognized (e.
g., seven and nine is seen as 16).
“I saw three fives, so ten and five … 15”

Subitize! Planets: Conceptual Subitizer to 20, [LT]2:

Play on computer with matching dots to numerals.

(Continued )
 Quantity, Number, and Subitizing 31

Table 2.1 (Cont.)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Activities (Designed to Help Children

(years)4 Achieve this Level)

7 Conceptual Subitizer with Place Value Subitize! Planets: Conceptual Subitizer Place Value, [LT]2:
Verbally labels structured arrangements, Play on computer with matching dots to numerals.
shown only briefly, using groups, skip
counting, and place value.
“I saw two groups of tens and three
groups of twos, so 40 … 46!”

Snapshots (to 50), [LT]2: Play Snapshots with struc-

tured groups that support the use of increasingly sophis-
ticated mental strategies and operations, such as asking
children, “How many dots in the following picture?”
8 Conceptual Subitizer with Place Value Snapshots, [LT]2: Play “Snapshots” with structured
and Multiplicative Thinking Verbally labels groups that support the use of increasingly sophisti-
structured arrangements, shown only cated mental strategies and operations, such as asking
briefly, using groups, multiplicative think- children, “How many dots in the following picture?”
ing, and place value. This level builds on the
previous level, such that children are able
to use the base-ten system to conceptually
subitize larger numbers. Children are able
to verbalize the quantity of tens they see.
A child sees a group of 62 dots and
says, “I saw groups of tens and threes,
so I thought, 5 tens is 50 and 4 threes is
12, so 62 in all.”

Subitize! Planets: Conceptual Subitizer Place Value,

[LT]2: Play on computer with matching dots to
numerals.

Across many types of activities, from class discussions to textbooks, show children displays
of numbers that encourage conceptual subitizing. Follow these guidelines to make groups:
(a) groups should not be embedded in pictorial context; (b) simple forms such as homogeneous
groups of circles or squares (rather than pictures of animals or mixtures of any shapes) should
32 Quantity, Number, and Subitizing

be used for the units; (c) regular arrangements should be emphasized (most including sym-
metry, with linear arrangements for preschoolers and rectangular arrangements for older stu-
dents being easiest); and (d) good figure-ground contrast should be provided.
To develop strong conceptual subitizing, go beyond simply showing pictures. Have children
experience many real-life situations such as finger patterns, arrangements on dice and dominoes,
egg cartons (for “double-structures”), arrays (rows and columns—see an extended discussion in
Chapter 11), and other structures. Have them discuss and especially build arrangements to “make it
easy to see how many.” Such thoughtful, interactive, constructive experiences are effective ways
of building spatial sense and connecting it to number sense (Nes, 2009). For example, they might
draw flowers with a given number of petals or draw or build pictures with manipulatives of houses
with a certain number of windows so that they and others can subitize the number.
Encourage and help students advance to more sophisticated addition and subtraction (see
also Chapters 5 and 6 for more on this, and also for learning trajectories that address this
more advanced conceptual subitizing). For example, a student may add by counting on one or
two, solving 4 + 2 by saying “4, 5, 6,” but be unable to count on five or more, as would be
required to solve 4 + 5 by counting “4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.”
Counting on two, however, gives them a way to figure out how “counting on” works. Later,
they can learn to count on with larger numbers by developing their conceptual subitizing or by
learning different ways of “keeping track.” Eventually, students come to recognize number pat-
terns as both a whole (as a unit itself) and a composite of parts (individual units). At this stage,
a student is capable of viewing number and number patterns as units of units (Steffe & Cobb,
1988). For example, students can repeatedly answer what number is “ten more” than another
number. “What is ten more than 23.” “33!” “Ten more?” “43!”
In later chapters (12 and beyond), we discuss the importance of children seeing patterns
(including spatial patterns) and structures—and these extend our discussions of subitizing.

Meeting Special Needs

Special populations, including children with disabilities, find subitizing particularly difficult and
deserve special attention to subitizing. Only a minority (31%) of children with moderate mental
handicaps (chronological ages 6 to 14 years) and a slight majority (59%) of children with mild
mental handicaps (ages 6 to 13) successfully subitize sets of three and four (Baroody, 1986b;
see also Butterworth, 2010). Some children with learning disabilities could not subitize even at
10 years of age (Koontz & Berch, 1996). Early deficits in spatial pattern recognition may be the
source of difficulty (Ashkenazi, Mark-Zigdon, & Henik, 2013b). Subitizing in preschool is a better
predictor of later math success for children with ASD (autism spectrum disorder) than for typic-
ally developing children (Titeca, Roeyers, Josephy, Ceulemans, & Desoete, 2014).
Because conceptual subitizing often depends on accurate enumeration skill, teachers should
remedy deficiencies in both perceptual subitizing and counting early (Baroody, 1986b). Teachers
should cultivate familiarity of regular patterns by playing games that use number cubes or dominoes
and avoid taking basic number competencies, such as subitizing, for granted in special populations.
Pattern recognition of fives and tens frames, such as illustrated in Figure 2.7, can assist stu-
dents with mental handicaps and learning disabilities as they learn to recognize the five- and
ten-frame configuration for each number. “These arrangements … help a student first to
 Quantity, Number, and Subitizing 33

Figure 2.7 Pattern recognition of fives and tens frames

recognize the number and use the model in calculating sums. It is this image of the number
that stays with the student and becomes significant” (Flexer, 1989). Visual-kinesthetic finger
patterns can similarly help, especially with the critical number combinations that sum to ten.

Learning Trajectory for Recognition of Number and Subitizing:

Putting It All Together
The learning trajectory for subitizing is fairly straightforward. However, because subitizing is often a
neglected quantifier, it is often not well represented in standards. For example, the CCSSM does not
emphasize subitizing as much as we believe it should, although you can find this clear statement in
the introduction to Kindergarten: “Students choose, combine, and apply effective strategies for
answering quantitate questions, including quickly recognizing the cardinalities of small sets of
objects” (CCSSO/NGA, 2010, p. 9, emphasis added). Head Start’s Early Learning Outcomes Frame-
work (ELOF) has more extensive coverage of subitizing, but even here, they do not mention it soon
enough (as we saw, it begins in the first year of life, and children learn their first number words by
18 months), and they do not mention conceptual subitizing with larger numbers. Remember, to see
how CCSSM, ELOF, and many other standards and assessments align with the learning trajectories,
use the alignment tool in [LT]2 as illustrated in Figure 2.8. Notice that learning trajectories not only
34 Quantity, Number, and Subitizing

give far more details for each level, but they also provide levels in between those of the ELOF—essen-
tial for guiding children’s educational experiences.
Therefore, we state our own goal simply here: Children recognize and then subitize (recog-
nize quickly) the number in a group without counting. This starts from the first years and devel-
ops to multidigit numbers in the primary grades.2 Subitizing is for all young children.
To meet that goal, Table 2.1 provides the two additional components of the learning trajectory,
the developmental progression and the instructional tasks. (Note that the ages in all the learning
trajectory tables are only approximate, especially because the age of acquisition usually depends
heavily on experience. Children who receive high-quality education progress one or more years
beyond the “typical” ages in these learning trajectories.) Using the “Snapshots” activity described
above as one basic instructional task, the learning trajectory shows different number and arrange-
ments of dots that illustrate instructional tasks designed to promote that level of thinking. Although
the activities in the learning trajectories presented in this book constitute a research-based core of
an early childhood curriculum, a complete curriculum includes more (e.g., relationships between
trajectories and many other considerations; for example, see Chapter 15).

Figure 2.8 Click on the green alignment tool and select a standard (or assessment—here we
selected the ELOF) to see how learning trajectory levels align with those standards.
Then hover your cursor over one to see the specific standard or click on a level to see
it on that level’s page
 Quantity, Number, and Subitizing 35

We strongly recommend that you fully read and study the learning trajectory in Table 2.1. If
you simply “glance through it,” you will miss the key knowledge that is packed into the levels of
thinking and the tightly related instructional activities.
Just as important, remember to go to our new tool, the Learning and Teaching with Learning
Trajectories3 tool at LearningTrajectories.org. There you can see videos of children’s thinking at each
level of subitizing as well as classroom and home videos of teachers and caregivers helping children
learn that level of thinking. There are many additional instructional activities on [LT]2 as well.

Extending the Subitizing Learning Trajectory

As an extension, later primary-grade students can improve numerical estimation with modifica-
tions of “Snapshots.” For example, show students arrangements that are too large to subitize
exactly. Encourage them to use subitizing in their estimation strategies. Emphasize that using
good strategies and being “close” is the goal, not getting the exact number. Begin with organ-
ized geometric patterns but include scrambled arrangements eventually. Encourage students,
especially those in higher grades, to build more sophisticated strategies: from guessing to
counting as much as possible and then guessing to comparing (“It was more than the previous
one”), to grouping (“They are spread about four in each place. I circled groups of four in my head
and then counted six groups. So, 24!”). Students do perform better, using more sophisticated
strategies and frames of reference, after engaging in such activities (Markovits & Hershkowitz,
1997). For these and for all subitizing activities, stop frequently to allow students to share their
strategies. If students do not quickly develop more sophisticated strategies based on place value
and arithmetic operations, estimation activities may not be a good use of instructional time.
“Guessing” is not math thinking. (See Chapter 4.)

Final Words
“Subitizing is a fundamental skill in the development of students’ understanding of number”
(Baroody, 1987a, p. 115) and must be developed. However, it is not the only way to quantify groups. In
many ways, counting is a more general and powerful method, and we turn to this topic in Chapter 3.

Notes
1 “Number sense” includes a large number of competencies, including composing and decomposing num-
bers, recognizing the relative magnitude of numbers, dealing with the absolute magnitude of numbers,
using benchmarks, linking representations, understanding the effects of arithmetic operations, inventing
strategies, estimating, and possessing a disposition toward making sense of numbers (Sowder, 1992b).
2 Later grades use subitizing in many ways, such as in supporting the development of counting concepts
and skills and solving arithmetic problems. These goals will be highlighted in subsequent chapters.
3 Funded by the Heising-Simons Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Learning and
Teaching with Learning Trajectories is also known by its initials, LTLT, or, therefore, as [LT]2 (one of
those “math jokes” almost totally devoid of actual humor).
4 The ages in the table are typical ages at which children develop these ideas. However, children vary widely
and just as important, with high-quality education, children achieve much later levels. See p. 9 in Chapter 1.
3 Verbal and Object Counting

Before her fourth birthday, Abby was given five train engines. She walked in one day with
three of them. Her father said, “Where’s the other ones?” “I lost them,” she admitted.
“How many are missing?” he asked. “I have 1, 2, 3. So [pointing in the air] foooour, fiiiive …
two are missing, 4 and 5. [Pauses] No! I want these to be [pointing at the three engines]
1, 3, and 5. So, 2 and 4 are missing. Still two missing, but they’re numbers 2 and 4.”

Abby thought about counting and numbers—at least small numbers—abstractly. She could assign
1, 2, and 3 to the three engines, or 1, 3, and 5! Moreover, she could count the numbers (not just
the engines). That is, she applied counting … to counting numbers! What are the ideas and skills
that develop in such sophisticated counting? What do most young children know about counting?
What more might they learn?

Changing Views of Counting

In the middle of the 20th century, Piaget’s research on number strongly influenced views of
early math. Among the many positive influences were an appreciation for children’s active role
in learning and the depth of the math ideas they constructed. One unfortunate influence was
the belief that, until children can conserve number, counting is meaningless. For example, asked
to give themselves the same number of “candies” as an interviewer has, 4-year-olds might use
matching as shown in Figure 3.1.
But, when the interviewer spreads their objects out, as in Figure 3.2, the children may claim
that the interviewer now has more. Even asking children to count the two collections may not
help them determine the correct answer.
The Piagetians believed that children needed to develop the logic that underlies conservation
of number before counting was meaningful. This logic consists of two types of knowledge. First
was “hierarchical classification,” such as knowing that, if there are 12 wooden beads, eight blue
and four red, there are more wooden beads than blue beads. What does that have to do with
number and counting? To understand counting, Piagetians argued, children must understand
that each number includes those that came before, as illustrated in Figure 3.3.
The second type of logical knowledge is “sequencing.” Children have to both properly pro-
duce number words in sequence and sequence the objects they count, so that they count each
object exactly once (no easy task for young children, especially if faced with an unorganized
group). Also, children have to understand that each counting number is quantitatively one more
 Verbal and Object Counting 37

Figure 3.1 After an adult makes the bottom row of “candies” and asks the child to give herself the
same number, the child uses one-to-one correspondence

Figure 3.2 The adult spreads his “candies” out, and the child now states that he has more than
she does

Figure 3.3 The hierarchical inclusion of numbers (cardinality, or “how many?” property)

than the one before, as shown in Figure 3.4. However, children have inborn capabilities to build
on. In fact, so do other animals—in some tasks, such as see numerals 0 to 8 for less than an eye
blink, trained chimpanzees do better than people (Angier, 2018).
Both these notions have much truth in them. Children must learn these ideas to understand
number well. However, children learn much about counting and number before they have mastered
these ideas. And, in fact, rather than requiring these ideas before counting is meaningful, counting

Figure 3.4 The ordinal, or sequencing, property of numbers

38 Verbal and Object Counting

may help children make sense of the logical ideas. That is, counting can help develop knowledge of
classification and seriation (Clements, 1984).

The Development of Counting

Verbal Counting
The Mathematics of Verbal Counting
Although counting to small numbers is universal in human cultures, counting to large numbers
requires a system to keep track. Our Hindu–Arabic numeral system is based on two ideas (Wu,
2011). First, there are only ten symbols called “digits” (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). Second, all possible
counting numbers are created by using those ten digits in different places—the concept of “place
value.” Any number, then, is the sum of the products of each “face” (digit) and its “place”; for
example, 1,926 is 1 thousand, 9 hundreds, 2 tens, and 6 ones. When we count, we get up to 9, and
then signify the next number with the digit 1 in the tens place and the digit 0 as a “placeholder” in
the ones place: 10. Then, we work through ten digits in the ones place, 10 to 19, at which point we
run out again, so we put in the tens place: 20. Twenty one means we cycled through 0 to 9 twice,
so we knew we counted 20 times plus one more time.

Children’s Development of Verbal Counting

This brief mathematical description suggests why we use the term “verbal counting” rather
than “rote counting”—after 20, children need to use mathematical patterns and structures, not
just “rote memory.” Further, children who can count starting at any number performed better
on all numerical tasks, so fluent verbal counting is not rote, but, rather, is based on their recog-
nition of the structure of numbers—the patterns of verbal counting. After 71 … is 72 … children
recognize the pattern of “one … two” and apply it here.
There are other reasons verbal counting is not rote. Without verbal counting, quantitative
thinking does not develop. As an example, children who can continue counting when starting at
any number are better on all number tasks. Children learn that numbers derive order and mean-
ing from their embeddedness in a system, and they learn a set of relationships and rules that
allows the generation, not recall, of the appropriate sequence. Even in the “rote” portion of
verbal counting—1 to 20 (in English and Spanish)—children recognize that numbers that come
later are “bigger” (they don’t think that when reciting the ABCs).
Language is important. As an example, people who are deaf and sign, but do not have
access to a usable model for language, spoken or signed, do not consistently extend the correct
number of fingers when communicating about sets greater than three, nor do they always cor-
rectly match the number of items in one set to a target set when that target set is greater than
three (Spaepen, Coppola, Spelke, Carey, & Goldin-Meadow, 2011). Similarly, cross-cultural studies
indicate that learning of counting varies with the language in which the number system is
learned (see the companion book). For example, Chinese, like many East Asian languages, has
a more regular sequence of number words than English. In both English and Chinese, the num-
bers 1 through 10 are arbitrary and the numbers after 20 follow a regular pattern of naming the
decade name and then the digit name (e.g., “twenty-one”). However, in Chinese (and in many
 Verbal and Object Counting 39

Asian languages), there are two important differences. First, the tens numbers directly mirror
the single-digit number names (“two-tens” rather than “twenty”; “three-tens” rather than
“thirty”) and the numbers from 11 to 20 also follow a regular pattern (comparable to “ten-one,”
“ten-two,” etc.) instead of the obscure “eleven, twelve ….” Through 3 years of age, children in
the various cultures learn 1 through 10 similarly; however, those learning English learn the
“teens” more slowly and with more errors, especially with 13 and 15. Only US children make
errors such as “twenty-nine, twenty-ten, twenty-eleven …”; Chinese children do not make that
kind of mistake. (See place value in Chapter 6.) But also note that there are many intertwined
factors, such as cultural practices. For example, in China, relatives are known as “Brother No. 1,
Brother No. 2 …,” days are labeled “Weekday No. 1, Weekday No. 2, Weekday No. 3 …,” and so
forth (Ng & Rao, 2010).
Second, Asian number words can be pronounced more quickly, providing another significant
cognitive advantage (Geary & Liu, 1996). They do not provide the same burden on working
memory that English and Spanish words do (Ng & Rao, 2010), and they may make learning one-
to-one correspondence easier in object counting. Dutch children are one group that has it even
more difficult than English children: Their “twenty-two” is translated to “two and twenty,” put-
ting the ones first through the number sequence.
Learning verbal counting occurs over years. At first, children can only say some numbers in
words, but not necessarily in sequence. Then, they learn to count verbally by starting at the
beginning and saying a string of words, but they do not even “hear” counting words as separate
words (children similarly might say “l-m-n-o-p” as one word). (Interestingly, around this level
they can duplicate a series of actions with attention to number without verbal counting, another
early foundation for object counting, Sella, Berteletti, Lucangeli, & Zorzi, 2016.) Then, they do
separate each counting word and they learn to count up to 10, then 20, then higher. Only later
can children start counting from any number, what we call the “Counter from N (N + 1, N – 1)”
level. Even later, they learn to skip count and count to 100 and beyond. Finally, children learn
to count the number words themselves (e.g., to “count on”; see Chapter 4). These levels are
summarized in Table 3.2.

Object Counting
As shown in Chapter 2, naming how many items are in small configurations of items requires
experiences in which the configurations are labeled with a number word by adults or older chil-
dren (“Here are two blocks”), which enable children to build meaning for number words: They
tell how many. The earliest levels of counting, even object counting, do not have that meaning
for children.
An important milestone in early numerical knowledge is achieved when children connect the
counting of objects in a collection to the number of objects in that collection. Initially, children may
not know how many objects there are in a collection after counting them. If asked “How many are
there?” they typically count again, as if the “how many?” question is a directive to count rather
than a request for how many items are in the collection. Children must learn that the last number
word they say when counting refers to how many items have been counted. This is more complex
than simply “repeating” that last counting word. When children enumerate, it’s about ordering:
Keep the objects in order, keep the counting words in order, follow the procedure of enumeration
40 Verbal and Object Counting

one-by-one in sequence… However, at the end of counting, children have to switch from the order
of individuals to the cardinality, or “how-manyness” of the whole group. This is the count to cardinal
transition, and it’s not obvious.
Thus, to count a set of objects, children must not only know verbal counting, but also learn
(a) to coordinate verbal counting with objects by pointing to or moving the objects and (b) that
the last counting word names the cardinality of (“how many objects in”) the set. This process is
illustrated in Figure 3.5.
Understanding the cardinal principle is necessary to develop the later levels of counting
(Spaepen, Gunderson, Gibson, Goldin-Meadow, & Levine, 2018), as well as other LTs such as
Comparing Number and Adding/Subtracting. More striking, research shows that acquiring the
cardinal principle by kindergarten is too late! Preschoolers need to gain this knowledge and skill
(Geary et al., 2017).
Meaningful counting such as this is basic in many ways. It is the method for quantifying
groups larger than small subitizable collections. It is the necessary building block for all further
work with number.
Also, counting is the first and most basic and important algorithm. That is, most everything
else in number, algebra, and beyond depend in some way on counting. Why is it an algorithm—a
word usually used for ways to represent and process arithmetic with multidigit numbers (e.g.,
“column addition”)? Because an algorithm is a step-by-step procedure that is guaranteed to
solve a specific category of problems. Counting is the first step-by-step procedure that children
learn that solves certain problems—determining how many elements are in a finite set. The
math of object counting, therefore, is that every set that yields the same “last counting word”
has the same number of items in it.
The easiest type of collection for 3-year-olds to count has only a few objects arranged in
a straight line that can be touched as children proceed with their counting. Between 3 and 5 years
of age, children acquire more skill as they practice counting, and most become able to cope with
numerically larger collections.
There are many additional counting skills children need to learn. They need to produce
a collection of a given number, that is, “count out” a group. To adults, that may seem to be no
more difficult than counting a collection. However, to produce 4, children have to keep track of
the number word they are on, and keep one-to-one correspondence, and compare the number
word they said to the 4 with each count. Before they reach that level of competence, they
often just keep going!
Next, children learn to count objects in different arrangements, keeping track of which they
have and have not yet counted. They learn to count collections without needing to touch or

Figure 3.5 Object counting, including one-to-one correspondence and cardinality (“how many
uses?”)
 Verbal and Object Counting 41

move objects during the act of counting. Eventually, they have to count objects they cannot
see! As an example, researcher Les Steffe was working with 5-year-old Brenda. He showed her
three squares and told her four more were covered under a cloth. He asked her how many
squares there were in all. Brenda tried to raise the cloth. Steffe stopped her. Brenda counted
the three visible squares.

Brenda: One, two, three. (Touches each visible item in turn.)

Les Steffe: There’s four here (tapping the cloth).
Brenda: (Lifts the cloth, revealing two squares.) Four, five. (Touches each and puts
cloth back.)
Les Steffe: OK, I’ll show you two of them. (Shows two.) There’s four here, you count them.
Brenda: One, two … (then counts each visible) three, four, five.
Les Steffe: There’s two more here (taps the cloth).
Brenda: (Attempts to lift the cloth.)
Les Steffe: (Pulls back the cloth.)
Brenda: Six, seven (touches the last two squares).

Brenda’s attempt to lift the cloth indicates that she was aware of the hidden squares and
intended to count the collection. But she could not count because she did not experience them.
She could take perceived items as being countable but could not count imagined items. Later,
she counted the interviewer’s fingers instead of six items he was hiding. When he pointed out
he had six marbles hidden, Brenda said, “I don’t see no six!” Later in development, children can
mentally produce items to count. Brenda had not yet reached that level.
Finally, don’t neglect numerals as representing a count! Children’s knowledge of symbols
such as “3” or “9” is more predictive of later success in math than other aspects of counting
(Martin, Cirino, Sharp, & Barnes, 2014). Indeed, children’s spontaneous attention and interest in
numerals is important (Rathé et al., 2019), and reading numerals is completely developmentally
appropriate for even 3- and 4-year-olds. So, playing a game such as “Number Jump”, teachers
might display figures (see Figure 3.6) or numerals.

Counting Strategies
Children also learn to quickly tell how many there are in a collection if one is added or
removed by counting up or down. That is, knowing there are four balls in a box, when another
one is put in, they learn to say “five”—the next counting number. Perhaps that seems obvious
to adults, but it is a watershed moment in children’s understanding of number (Baroody &
Purpura, 2017). That is, it leads to children learning sophisticated counting strategies, such as
“counting on” or “counting backward” to solve arithmetic problems (we discuss this in detail in
Chapter 4).
Children learn to modify the acts of counting in multiple ways, from counting on to counting
“counts” (remember Abby’s engines) to skip counting and much more. These are counting strat-
egies and will be the focus of using counting in many of the forthcoming chapters.
42 Verbal and Object Counting

Figure 3.6 Counting events as well as objects. In “Number Jump,” children count or subitize the
number of fingers they see, and then count as they jump up that many times

Whether they are at the higher object counting or counting strategies levels, children
should be supported in developing more advanced levels of counting, as only the advanced
levels predict later math achievement.
(Nguyen et al., 2016)

Zero and Infinity

Five-year-old Dawn was changing the speed of moving objects on the computer screen by enter-
ing commands. The command “SETSPEED 100” made them go fast. “SETSPEED 10” made them
go slower. She tried speed limits such as 55 and very slow speeds like 5 and 1. Suddenly, she
excitedly called her friend and then her teacher. Visitor Seymour Papert and the teacher were
confused. What was exciting? Nothing was happening.
They found out that “Nothing” was happening. Zero! She had entered “SETSPEED 0” and the
object stopped. Dawn talked about how it was “moving,” but the speed was zero. Zero was a
number! Not “none” or “nothing,” but a real number. Papert concluded that such discoveries lie
at the heart of learning math. This story also reveals that zero is not an obvious concept. It was
invented by people far later than were the counting numbers. However, even children as young
as 3 or 4 years of age can learn to use zero to represent the absence of objects.
Children think about zero in different ways and build special rules to account for this excep-
tional number. The same attributes that make zero difficult may also make it serve children’s
math development. Zero may play a special role in children’s increasingly algebraic knowledge of
 Verbal and Object Counting 43

number. Because they have to be conscious of the rules for zero, such experiences may build
a foundation for the creation of generalized rules in the structures of arithmetic.
During dinner, a father asked his second grader what he had learned in school:

Son: I learned that if you multiply or divide by zero, the answer is always zero.
Dad: What would be the answer if you multiplied two by zero?
Son: Zero.
Dad: What if you divided two by zero?
Son: Zero.
Dad: What is two divided by two?
Son: One.
Dad: What is two divided by one? How many ones are there in two?
Son: Two.
Dad: What is two divided by one-half? How many halves are there in two?
Son: Four.
Dad: What is two divided by one-quarter?
Son: Eight.
Dad: What seems to be happening as we divide by numbers closer to zero?
Son: The answer is getting bigger.
Dad: What do you think about the idea that two divided by zero is zero?
Son: It’s not right. What is the answer?
Dad: It doesn’t look like there is an answer. What do you think?
Son: Daddy, wouldn’t the answer be infinity?
Dad: Where did you learn about infinity?
Son: From Buzz Lightyear.
(adapted from Gadanidis, Hoogland, Jarvis, & Scheffel, 2003)

Asked to count backward, label a number line, and so forth, first graders showed different
ideas of zero (Bofferding & Alexander, 2011). Some treated zero as an endpoint, refusing to
label marks to the left of zero or labeling all marks to the left with zeros. Others left zero off
the number line. Such results suggest we need better conversations such as the one above
about zero and negative numbers (even if they are not emphasized in standards until later
grades).

Summary
Early numerical knowledge includes several interrelated aspects, including recognizing and
naming how many items are in a small configuration (small number recognition and, when done
quickly, subitizing), learning the names of and eventually ordering list of number words to ten
and beyond, enumerating objects (i.e., saying number words in correspondence with objects),
understanding that the last number word said when counting refers to how many items have
been counted, and learning counting strategies to solve problems. Children learn these aspects,
often separately through different kinds of experiences, but gradually connect them during the
44 Verbal and Object Counting

preschool years (cf. Linnell & Fluck, 2001; Nunes, Bryant, Evans, & Barros, 2015; Reikerås, 2016).
For example, very young children may learn to focus on the number in small groups and, separ-
ately, learn verbal counting while enumerating these and other groups (initially without accur-
ate correspondence) as a verbal string. As these abilities grow, they motivate the use of each
type of quantification, and become increasingly interrelated, with recognition motivating verbal
counting, as well as building subitizing ability that supports object counting skills of correspond-
ence and cardinality (Batchelor & Gilmore, 2015; Eimeren, MacMillan, & Ansari, 2007). Skilled
object counting then motivates and supports more advanced perceptual and conceptual subitiz-
ing abilities. Each of the four aspects begins with the smallest numbers and gradually includes
larger numbers. In addition, each includes significant developmental levels.
For example, small number recognition moves from nonverbal recognition of one or two
objects, to quick recognition and discrimination of one to four objects, to conceptual subitizing
of larger (composed) groups. As children’s ability to subitize grows from perceptual to concep-
tual patterns, so too does their ability to count and operate on collections grow from perceptual
to conceptual.

Experience and Education

Many early childhood teachers, working with the youngest children1 through first-grade students
and beyond, underestimate children’s ability to do, and to learn more about, interesting counting.
Too often, children learn little or nothing about counting from preschool to first grade. Textbooks
“introduce” counting skills that children already possess and spend considerable time on one
number, such as 3, eventually moving to 4, then 5 … usually neglecting numbers above 10. Some
also teach these topics by rote. A study showing that Finland’s preschoolers knew much more
about counting than those in Iran also showed that only Finns learned counting meaningfully with
objects and connections to real life (Aunio, Korhonen, Bashash, & Khoshbakht, 2014). Research sug-
gests several positive alternatives to limited scope and rote memorization.

Verbal Counting
Initial verbal counting involves learning the list of number words that—from one to ten and usually
twenty—is an arbitrary list for speakers of English and Spanish. There are few salient patterns
(Fuson, 1992a). Initially, the counting words are a “song to sing” (Ginsburg, 1977). Children learn at
least some of this list as they do general language or the ABCs. Thus, rhythms and songs can play
a role, although attention should be given to separating the words from each other and under-
standing each as a counting word (e.g., some children initially tag two items with the two syllables
of “se-ven”).
If the words are arbitrary, why did we say that we do not like the term “rote counting”?
Because verbal counting should be meaningful and part of a system of number, even for young
children (Pollio & Whitacre, 1970). Children can learn to recognize that counting words reference
how in an intuitive way, that the higher you count, the “more you have” or “larger” the
number is, and so forth, even with numbers up to 20. Beyond these, the patterns and structure
of verbal counting should be emphasized by making the base-ten, place value, and structure of
number names more accessible to young children (Miller, Smith, Zhu, & Zhang, 1995). Familiarize
 Verbal and Object Counting 45

U.S. children with Arabic numerals at an earlier age than is expected at present. Further, both
anecdotal reports and a study (Van Luit & Van der Molen, 2011) support counting with English
words and, once in a while, English translations of East Asian structures (“ten-one [for 11], ten-
two, ten-three … two-tens, two-tens-one [21], two-tens-two …”). Research shows this helps children
map the single-digit to decade terms (Magargee, 2017; Van Luit & Van der Molen, 2011), both to
facilitate the counting sequencing and to mitigate potential harmful effects on children’s belief
systems if they experience this early math task as being confusing and arbitrary, demanding
mostly memorization (Fuson, 1992a). Indeed, research suggests that language effects are not all-
pervasive (Mark & Dowker, 2015); instead, high-quality teaching of challenging tasks (e.g., count-
ing up or down; see “Counter from N (N + 1, N – 1)”) is more important than the language used in
counting (Laski & Yu, 2014).
If children make mistakes, emphasize the importance of accuracy and encourage students to
count slowly and carefully (Baroody, 1996). Invite children to count with you. Then ask them to
do it (the same task again) alone. If necessary, have the child mirror you, number by number.
“Say each number after I say it. ‘One’” (pause). If they do not respond, repeat “one” and then
tell the children to say “one.” If children say “two,” then say “three” and continue, allowing
them to mirror you or continue your counting. If children still make the mistake when counting
on their own, mark this as a special “warm-up” exercise for the child every day.

Language Before Object Counting

Number words play a role in naming very small collections (recall subitizing in Chapter 2) and
orienting children to attend to numerical aspects of situations. They bring number to con-
scious awareness. For example, a girl was sitting with her dog when another dog wandered
into the yard. She says, “Two doggie!” She then asked her mother to give her “two treats”
and gave one to each. As another example, researcher Grayson Wheatley was interacting with
a 4-year-old with dominoes. The child would build and make shapes with them but did not
attend to the number of dots. Wheatley began to talk as he put pieces together, saying,
“These two go together because there are three dots on each.” After doing this for a while,
as he was still building, he began to attend to the dots and put together pieces that had the
same number of dots. He had made a start at abstracting the idea of “three.” Research sug-
gests provision of multiple experiences such as these before any major focus on object
counting.

Subitizing and Object Counting—A Great Relationship

When trying to develop subitizing concepts, consciously try to connect experiences with count-
ing and subitizing. Young children may use perceptual subitizing to make units for counting and
to build their initial ideas of cardinality. For example, their first cardinal meanings for number
words may be labels for small sets of subitized objects, even if they counted the sets first
(Fuson, 1992b; Steffe, Thompson, & Richards, 1982).
Use many ways to link counting objects to children’s recognition of the numbers in small
collections. One effective teaching activity, “How Many in a Hand?” emphasizes that counting
tells “how many” (from Clements & Sarama, 2007a—see [LT]2, Counter (Small Numbers)). With
four counters out of sight in your hand behind your back, tell children you saw some wooden
46 Verbal and Object Counting

inch cubes (or another similar size item) and you thought, “I wonder how many I can hold in
one hand?” Tell them you put as many as you can hold in the hand behind your back. Ask
children to help you count to find out how many cubes you have hidden in your hand. Remove
one with the other hand, placing it in front of the children so they see and focus on this one
(keep the others hidden). Repeat until you have counted out all four cubes. Display your now-
empty hands. Gesture around all the cubes and ask children how many there were in all.
Agree that “There are four [gesturing again]! We counted and there are four.” Notice that
children hear each counting word as it is spoken in enumeration while observing the corres-
ponding collection containing that number of objects—a number you have already taught them
to subitize. So, a child who does not yet know the cardinality principle will see: When we say
one, I see one. When we say “two,” I know that’s two! … and so forth, so at four, that idea has
been clearly illustrated (that’s why we bring out one at a time, instead of pointing to them in
a visible line). Also, gesturing around them and repeating “There are four” reinforces that
important idea. We then challenge children to see how many fit in their hand during play time,
saying, “Your hand is smaller, I don’t think you can hold as many as me.”
Are there other characteristics that make this activity better than rote-like counting of
object in a line? Yes, we start with a question, “How many in my hand?”, that counting
answers. Also, asking children to do it themselves is more motivating and meaningful (and,
we bet you can guess, will lead to counting higher than 4, as they struggle to beat the
teacher).
Another technique would be to ask children to count a collection they can subitize, then add
or subtract an object and have the children count again. In both activities, subitizing helps
imbue counting with cardinality.
Counting can also support subitizing. Children can use many processes, including perceptual
subitizing, counting, and patterning abilities, to develop conceptual subitizing. This more
advanced ability to quickly group and quantify sets in turn supports their development of
number sense and arithmetic abilities. A first grader explains the process for us.

Seeing a 3 by 3 pattern of dots, she says “nine” immediately. Asked how she did it, she
replies, “When I was about four years old, I was in nursery school. All I had to do was
count. And so, I just go like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and I just knew it by heart and I kept on
doing it when I was five too. And then I kept knowing 9, you know. Exactly like this [she
pointed to the array of nine dots].
(Ginsburg, 1977, p. 16)

Object Counting, Continued

Of course, children also need substantial experience counting along with others and counting
by themselves. Counting objects takes considerable practice to coordinate and can be facili-
tated by having children touch objects as they count and by counting objects organized into
a row. However, children are also well prepared for such coordination, especially if rhythm is
 Verbal and Object Counting 47

introduced, although they must concentrate and try hard to achieve continuous coordination
throughout the whole counting effort. Such effort increases their accuracy substantially (Fuson,
1988) and asking children to “slow down” and “try very hard to count just right” should be the
first intervention to use when you observe an error in counting. Parents and some teachers
may discourage pointing at objects or assume that when children use correspondence in simple
tasks, they do not need help using it in more complex tasks (Linnell & Fluck, 2001). However,
errors increase when the indicating act is eye fixations and such errors may be internalized.
Therefore, allow—and encourage parents to allow—children to point to objects, and encourage it
as another early intervention when counting errors are observed (Fuson, 1988, 1992a; Linnell &
Fluck, 2001). Emphasize finger counting—it is fundamental to representing number and teaching
counting and arithmetic concepts (Crollen & Noël, 2015)! Encourage children with special diffi-
culties, such as learning disabilities, to work slowly and carefully and to move objects to a new
location (Baroody, 1996).
Cardinality is one of the most frequently neglected aspects of counting instruction, and its
role may not be appreciated explicitly by teachers or parents (Linnell & Fluck, 2001). Develop
subitizing ability first for small numbers (Paliwal & Baroody, 2020). Then use the “How Many in
a Hand?” approach, which was designed to emphasize the ordinal–cardinal connection in several
ways. In addition, when observing children, teachers are often satisfied by accurate enumer-
ation and do not ask children “how many?” following enumeration. Use this question when
teaching and assessing to help prompt children to make the count to cardinal transition. Have
them count first and then ask them how many (Paliwal & Baroody, 2020). Seek to understand
your children’s conceptualizations and the benefits of discussing counting and its purposes
and creating opportunities for both adult- and child-generated situations that require
counting.
To develop these concepts and skills, children need extensive experience in contexts where
they have to know “how many.” Parents may ask, “How many?”, but only as a request to enu-
merate, not to address the count-to-cardinal transition (Fluck, 1995; Fluck & Henderson, 1996).
Expert teachers notice that difference—and that makes a big difference (Anantharajan, 2020).
Then they engage children in activities such as those in Table 3.2, which emphasize the cardinal
value of the counted collection. The activities demand that the cardinality be known, and some
of the activities hide the objects so the request to tell “how many” will not be misinterpreted as
a request to recount the collection.
Many teachers and parents use counting books, but many have problems. The books give
children limited opportunity to learn the number 0 and numbers beyond 10, as well as limited
exposure to multiple representations of number (number words, “twenty”; numerals, “20”; and
quantities, 20 pictures) necessary to build strong number understanding and counting skills.
Use high-quality books (see a list in [LT]2’s Resources).
An important caution: Children can learn counting procedures without the critical concepts.
For example, they may identify that skipping an object or starting a count with 2 or 3 (on the
first object) are “incorrect” but still maintain that the last number word tells how many in the
set (Nunes et al., 2015). Don’t assume that counting behaviors indicate understanding, engage
in math talk to assess and develop those meaningful concepts.
48 Verbal and Object Counting

Research from the field (Baroody, 1996; Baroody & Purpura, 2017) and from the Building
Blocks project suggests the following teaching strategies are useful when children make errors.
See Box 3.1.

Box 3.1 Teaching Strategies for Specific Counting Errors

• One-to-one errors (includes keeping-track-of-what’s-been-counted errors): Emphasize

the importance of accuracy and encourage the children to count slowly and carefully
to “count each item exactly once.” When relevant, explain a keeping-track strategy. If
moving objects is possible and desirable in the activity, suggest the strategy of
moving items to a different pile or location. Otherwise, explain making a verbal plan,
such as “Go from top to bottom. Start from the top and count every one”—then carry
out the plan together.If the children return and re-count objects (e.g., in a circular
arrangement):
• Stop and tell them they counted that item already. Suggest that they start on
one they can remember (e.g., one at the “top” or “the corner” or “the blue
one”—whatever makes sense in the activity; if there is no identifier, highlight an
item in some way).
• Ask the children to click on items as they count in the computer activity “Kitchen
Counter” (see Table 3.2, p. 36), providing highlighting to the object, marking it. If they
click on a highlighted item, the character immediately says they counted that item
already.Playing board games, if children start counting the space their token starts on
as “one” or make other one-to-one errors:
• Stop and remind them that they are counting jumps—move the token with them
making an exaggerated jump as you count “onnnnne…” and so forth.
• Tell children that they (their token) is on zero. Say “zero” and then make the jump
and say “one” and so forth.
• Help children realize that if they are “passing” another player, they have to count the
space the other player’s token occupies.
• Use straight paths rather than long, curved paths and, if necessary, give each child
their own game board.
• Have children count out, or produce, counters (disks) for the number they rolled, and
place them on the path ahead of their token, then move the token to the last counter.
• For the easiest game, have students count out, or produce, counters (disks) for the
number they rolled and fill the spaces on their own game board, organized into a grid,
such as two rows of five (Moomaw, 2015).

Cardinality (the “how many?” rule) errors: Ask the children to re-count. Demonstrate the car-
dinality rule on the collection. That is, count the collection, pointing to each item in turn,
stretch out the last counting word (“One, two, three, four, fiiiivvve”) then gesture at them all,
saying, “Five in all!” (Note: You have to count and then say how many in the set—doing one or
the other doesn’t help, Baroody & Purpura, 2017.) Demonstrate the cardinality rule on a small
(subitizable) collection in an easily recognizable arrangement (see the Snapshots activities in
 Verbal and Object Counting 49

Chapter 2). Use the “How many in my Hand?” activity in [LT] at the level Counter (Small
2

Numbers).

• Cardinality errors (production tasks—knowing when to stop): Remind the children of

the goal number and ask to re-count. Count the collection, say that is not the
requested number, and ask the children to try again. If there were too few, count the
existing collection quickly and ask the children to put on another object, saying when
that has been done, “And that makes—.” Allow the children to add more than one as
long as this does not exceed a total. If there were too many, ask the children to
remove one or more items, and then re-count. So, count the existing collection quickly
and say, “There are too many. Take some away so that we have—.” Demonstrate.
• Guided counting sequence (when the above are not sufficient): Ask the children to
count out loud as they point to each object. Suggest a keeping-track strategy if neces-
sary. If there are still errors after this remediation, say, “Count with me,” and name
the keeping-track strategy you will model. Have the children point to each item and
say the correct counting word, thus walking the children through the counting. Dem-
onstrate the cardinality rule—repeat the last counting number, gesture in a circular
motion to all the items, and say, “That’s how many there are in all.” For “Counter to”
activities, emphasize the goal number, saying, “[Five!] That’s what we wanted!”
• Skip Counting:

Say: “Try again.” (Remind them of the goal number.)

Say: “Count with me. Count by [tens].” (If you are counting items, move the appro-
priate amount with each count.)
Say: “Count by [tens] like this: (demonstrate). Now, count with me.”

Solving Problems and Counting Strategies

Why count? To find out how many. Why? Too often, children do it because someone asked
them to! Much more meaningful, and educationally powerful, is to count to solve problems.
Some involve only object counting, such as “Get Just Enough” activities, for example, in which
children count the number of children at their table and get that many napkins (see [LT]2 Pro-
ducer (Small Numbers) and Counter and Producer (10+)). But even here, there is a purpose for
counting. Further, there is natural feedback—if you counted correctly, when you return to the
table, you can give everyone exactly one napkin and have none left over.
Children should especially count when there is a purpose for counting. Asking children to get
you four pens, and so on, are situations that emphasize awareness of plurality, a particular car-
dinal goal, and the activity of counting. In this way, most counting tasks should emphasize the
situation and goal and the cardinal result of counting, not just the procedures of counting
(Steffe & Cobb, 1988). How many chairs are at the table (so how many kids can sit there)? How
many kids are at the block center?
Of course, children love to count even when adults do not (quite!) see the purpose. They
love to count how many steps they climb and especially how many times they can “do some-
thing”—such as keeping a ball in the air by hitting it up to each other. How many blocks can we
50 Verbal and Object Counting

count? How many bricks in that wall? One study indicated that collaborative counting, in which
pairs of kindergartners counted a set of materials, contributed to individual cognitive progress
by allowing an expansion of the range and sophistication of the children’s strategies, such as
a heightened explicit awareness of the need to keep track of one’s counting acts when counting
items of a hidden collection (Wiegel, 1998). An important feature of the tasks was that they
were designed on a research-based developmental progression of counting.
Similarly, Japanese preschools teach children counting and other math effectively by embed-
ding it in everyday activities, such as signing, arts and crafts, taking attendance, and exercising.
The following is an example involving crafts (many more are in the article).

The teacher walks around the classroom distributing red strips of paper (crab feet) to each
child. The teacher asks the children, “How many feet are each of you supposed to receive?
Please count the number of crab feet that you have received.” One boy reports to the
teacher, “I have eight!” and confirms this by counting the feet one by one, “one, two,
three…eight.” … After all children have received their materials, the teacher addresses the
whole class: “Well, let me ask you. Who has five feet? Who has six?” Only a few children
hold up their hands. When the teacher asks, “Who has eight?” many children cheerfully
raise their hands…
(Sakakibara, 2014, p. 22)

Critical however, is this author’s concluding statement: “the teacher must be sensitive to the
children’s current state of mathematical development” (Sakakibara, 2014, p. 24). Everyday activ-
ities will not effectively teach math unless learning trajectories and the children’s levels of think-
ing are known and used. Once you do know the levels, though, talk math! At home and
especially at school, the more math talk you engage in the better children do in counting,
including at more advanced levels (Ramani, Rowe, Eason, & Leech, 2015).
Approaches to math education differ for East Asian countries other than Japan. In China,
teaching math is planned and intentional (Li, Chi, DeBey, & Baroody, 2015). For example, com-
pared to 27% of U.S. teachers who did not set any goals and 20% who did not use a curriculum
or any resources for math, only 3% of Chinese teachers were in these categories.
The following section also emphasizes counting for a reason and developing counting strat-
egies. As mentioned, more on teaching counting strategies is provided in the next couple of
chapters.

Language, Numbers, and Object Counting

Subitizing and counting rely on careful and sustained application of number words. Seeing mul-
tiple examples of the same number that differ in all aspects except numerosity, and nonexam-
ples, is particularly helpful (Baroody et al., 2006).
Similarly, using numerals (“1” or “4”) meaningfully helps children develop number concepts.
Children may begin to use written representations for number as early as 3 years of age or as
late as 6 years, depending on the home and preschool environments (Baroody et al., 2005).
Number and numeral games such as “Tins” are motivating for children and emphasize
 Verbal and Object Counting 51

representations of number. A different number of objects is placed in each of four covered tins,
which are scrambled. The child must find the tin with the number of objects the teacher states.
Soon after introducing the game, the teacher introduces a new feature: Children can write on
sticky notes to help themselves find the correct tin (Hughes, 1986). Children can use iconic rep-
resentations or, better, numerals.
Indeed, several curricula use games of various types to develop counting abilities in young
children (see Chapter 15). Children as young as 3 years of age can successfully play such games
with peers after they have been introduced by an adult (Curtis, 2005). Instruction in counting
and naming numerals can help children transfer their knowledge to other areas, such as add-
ition and subtraction (but may not transfer to other skills such as comparison, Malofeeva, Day,
Saco, Young, & Ciancio, 2004). Therefore, include “racing” or board games and other activities
in your counting learning trajectory (see also Chapter 4).
Are such board games useful because “children practice counting”? Yes, but that is not
their most important contribution. Consider all that happens when a child rolls a five on
a die. They first have to count (or subitize) the dots (or read and understand the numeral
“5” if that is the cube they are using). Then they have to move that many, counting the
jumps, not the spaces (about a third of children incorrectly count the space they start on as
“one,” Moomaw, 2015). They have to stop when they reach five jumps. Also, consider how
that experience differs if they roll a three. They see and count fewer dots for three than
five. They jump fewer times. They move a shorter distance on the path, and all this takes
less time. That’s a powerful set of experiences comparing five to three. Children not only
count different things (dots and jumps) but build intuitive relationships between quantities of
five and quantities of three. So, again include “racing” or board games and other activities in
your counting learning trajectory and encourage families to play them as well.
Two more tips. First, if you are working in small groups, and can provide substantial scaffold-
ing to children, consider Race to Space at the Mental Number Line to 10 (and 100) level(s) of
the Comparing LT as an introduction to games using a straight path. Second, please see the
resource, “Introducing and Using Games” on [LT]2.
Computer activities are another effective approach (Moyer-Packenham et al., 2015). After
introducing numerals with games similar to “Tins,” the computer activities can ask children to
respond to questions by clicking on a numeral (numerals are written on “cards” that initially
have fives-and-tens frame dot representations as well), or read a numeral to know what size
collection to produce (see computer activities on [LT]2). Children using these and other activ-
ities outperformed comparison groups that also were taught numerals (Clements & Sarama,
2007a). For kindergartners and older children, the use of Logo activities has a similar facilitative
effect on the use of numerals, including connecting them to quantitative concepts (Clements,
Battista, & Sarama, 2001; Clements & Meredith, 1993).
There are four pedagogically significant characteristics of these activities. First, the symbols
have a quantitative meaning that children understand, and they build upon verbal representa-
tions. Second, children create their own representations initially. Third, the symbols are useful
in the context of the activity. Fourth, children can translate from the situation to the symbols
and back again.
52 Verbal and Object Counting

Written numerals can play a valuable role in focusing children on representing and reflect-
ing on numbers. The use of symbols with understanding may have an impact on number con-
cepts through its role in providing a common cognitive model that facilitates communication
about number, especially between young children and older people, and possibly in becoming
part of the child’s cognitive model of number (Munn, 1998). However, children probably should
have considerable experience with concrete situations and verbal problem solving with numer-
ical operations, such as adding and subtracting, before relying on symbols as the sole commu-
nicative tool. Slow, informal, meaningful uses in pre-K are more effective than traditional
school methods, which lead to procedural approaches with less quantitative meaning (Munn,
1998).
Therefore, help children explicitly connect verbal and written symbols to each other and to
“sensory-concrete” (see p. 380 in Chapter 16) quantitative situations. Encourage them to use
numerals as symbols of situations and symbols for reasoning. The emphasis should always be
on thinking mathematically, using symbols to do so when appropriate.

Teaching Zero
Education can make a difference in children’s learning of zero. For example, one university pre-
school, compared to others, increased children’s development of idea about zero by one full year
(Wellman & Miller, 1986). Because situations and problems involving zero are often solved differ-
ently by young children (Evans, 1983), specific use of the term “zero” and the symbol “0,” con-
nected to the development of the concept—discussions of real-world knowledge of “nothing” or the
number in set with no elements—should begin early. Activities might include counting backward to
zero, naming collections with zero (a time for the motivation of silliness, such as the number of
elephants in the room), subtracting concrete objects to produce such collections, and discussing
zero as the smallest whole number (non-negative integer). Eventually, such activities can lead to
a simple generalized rule, such as adding zero does not change the value, and an integration of
their knowledge of zero with knowledge of other numbers. Remember Dawn’s SETSPEED 0, which
was a powerful educational experience.

Learning Trajectory for Counting

The learning trajectory for counting is more complex than that for subitizing in Chapter 2. First,
there are many conceptual and skill advancements that make levels more complicated. Second,
there are subtrajectories within counting. That is, the three subtrajectories for counting are verbal
counting, object counting, and counting strategies. These are related but can develop somewhat
independently. For example, if a child was taught and asked by her parents only to count verbally,
she may be well advanced in verbal counting (“I can count to 300!”) but not skilled in counting
objects with understanding. Most of the levels deal with counting objects (and thus are not labeled
further), but those that are mainly verbal counting skills are labeled “Verbal,” and those that tend
to begin as mainly verbal skills but also can be applied to object counting situations are labeled
“Verbal and Object.” Those labeled “Strategy” are particularly important in supporting comparison
(Chapter 4) and arithmetic skills and become increasingly integrated with (even identical to) the
arithmetic strategies described in Chapter 5 (counting is a main predictor of children’s arithmetic
 Verbal and Object Counting 53

competence; see Passolunghi, Vercelloni, & Schadee, 2007; Spaepen et al., 2018; Stock, Desoete, &
Roeyers, 2009).
The importance of the goal of increasing children’s ability to count verbally, count objects
meaningfully, and learn increasingly sophisticated counting strategies is clear. See Table 3.1,
which describes the standards from the CCSSM, but also remember to see how CCSSM, ELOF,
and many other standards and assessments align with the learning trajectories, use the align-
ment tool in [LT]2. Notice that learning trajectories not only give far more details for each level,
but they also provide levels in between those of the standards—essential for guiding children’s
educational experiences.

Table 3.1 Goals for Counting the Common Core State Standards (CCSSM)

Counting and Cardinality (K.CC in CCSSM)

Know number names and the count sequence.

1. Count to 100 by ones and by tens.

2. Count forward beginning from a given number within the known sequence (instead of having to
begin at 1).
3. Write numbers from 0 to 20. Represent a number of objects with a written numeral 0–20 (with 0 rep-
resenting a count of no objects).

Count to tell the number of objects.

1. Understand the relationship between numbers and quantities; connect counting to cardinality.
(a) When counting objects, say the number names in the standard order, pairing each object with
one and only one number name and each number name with one and only one object.
(b) Understand that the last number name said tells the number of objects counted. The number of
objects is the same regardless of their arrangement or the order in which they were counted.
(c) Understand that each successive number name refers to a quantity that is one larger.
2. Count to answer “how many?” questions about as many as 20 things arranged in a line, a rectangular
array, or a circle, or as many as ten things in a scattered configuration; given a number from 1–20, count
out that many objects.

Measurement and Data (K.MD in CCSSM)

Classify objects and count the number of objects in each category.

1. Classify objects into given categories; count the numbers of objects in each category and sort the cat-
egories by count. [Limit category counts to be less than or equal to 10.]
Operations and Algebraic Thinking (1.0A in CCSSM)
Add and subtract within 20.

1. Relate counting to addition and subtraction (e.g., by counting on 2 to add 2).

2. Add and subtract within 20, demonstrating fluency for addition and subtraction within 10. Use strategies
such as counting on; making ten (e.g., 8 + 6 = 8 + 2 + 4 = 10 + 4 = 14); decomposing a number leading to
a ten (e.g., 13 − 4 = 13 − 3 − 1 = 10 − 1 = 9); using the relationship between addition and subtraction (e.g.,
knowing that 8 + 4 = 12, one knows 12 − 8 = 4); and creating equivalent but easier or known sums (e.g.,
adding 6 + 7 by creating the known equivalent 6 + 6 + 1 = 12 + 1 = 13).
Number and Operations in Base Ten (1.NBT in CCSSM)

(Continued )
54 Verbal and Object Counting

Table 3.1 (Cont).

Extend the counting sequence.

1. Count to 120, starting at any number less than 120. In this range, read and write numerals and represent
a number of objects with a written numeral.
Operations and Algebraic Thinking (2.0A in CCSSM) Work with equal groups of objects to gain foundations for
multiplication.
2. Determine whether a group of objects (up to 20) has an odd or even number of members, e.g., by pairing
objects or counting them by twos; write an equation to express an even number as a sum of two equal
addends.
Number and Operations in Base Ten (2.NDT in CCSSM) Understand place value.
3. Count within 1,000; skip count by fives, tens, and hundreds.

With those as the goals, Table 3.2 provides the two additional components of the learning
trajectory, the developmental progression and the instructional tasks. (Note that the ages in all
the learning trajectory tables are only approximate, especially because the age of acquisition
usually depends heavily on experience.)

Table 3.2 Learning Trajectory for Counting

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Activities

(years)

1 Number Word Sayer: Number Talk, [LT]2: Associate number words with quan-
Foundations Verbal No verbal counting. tities (see the initial levels of the “Recognition of
Number and Subitizing” learning trajectory in Chapter
Names some number words with no 2 and [LT]2) and as components of the counting
sequence. sequence.
Diez Amigos Finger Play and Two Little Butterflies
Finger Play, [LT]2: Finger plays like this one are a fun
way to teach children about counting and numbers.
Counting Books (Foundation), [LT]2: Books help
build familiarity with counting words and beginning
concepts.

1–2 Chanter Verbal Chants number words in Verbal counting, songs, finger plays, and more:
“sing-song” fashion and may run them Repeated experience with the counting sequence in
together. The number words may be indis- varied context. This can include songs; finger plays,
tinguishable from one another (“onetwo- such as “This Old Man”; counting going up and down
three,” Fuson, 1988). stairs; and just verbal counting for the fun of it (how
May begin a nonverbal object “counting” high can you go?)!
such as copying an adult’s item-by-item Counting with Maracas and More, [LT]2: Use mara-
placement of objects (Sella et al., 2016). cas or other percussion instruments to support the
development of number concepts and counting.
After watching an adult put one to six Feel the Beat, [LT]2: Children count beyond the
‘food tokens’ into an animal puppet, imi- numbers they already know while doing a variety of
tates the puppet-feeding with attention rhythmic motions as they count.
to number.

(Continued )
 Verbal and Object Counting 55
Table 3.2 (Cont).

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Activities

(years)

2 Reciter Verbal Verbally counts with distinct Acting Out Songs and Finger Plays, [LT]2: Children act
words, not necessarily in the correct order out songs as they sing along to practice counting
above “five.” groups of objects/animals. See When I Was One in
“One, two, three, four, five, seven.” [LT]2.
If knows more number words than Catch the Mistake (to 5), [LT]2: The teacher asks the
number of objects, rattles them off quickly children to help a puppet, Mr. MixUp, correct his verbal
at the end; if more objects, “recycles” counting mistakes.
number words (inflexible list exhaustion).
Uses number words (“My dad is 20
years.”)
Puts objects, actions, and words in
many-to-one (age 1; 8; i.e., about 1 year, 8
months) or overly rigid one-to-one corres-
pondence (age 2; 6).
3 Reciter (10) Verbal Verbally counts to ten Note: All the activities from the previous levels can be
with some correspondence with objects but adapted for this level by counting to 10. Also, see [LT]2
may either continue an overly rigid corres- for finger plays and songs (Baker’s Truck, This Old
pondence or exhibit performance errors Man).
(e.g., skipping, double counting). Count, Clap, and Stomp, [LT]2: Have all children
count from 1 to 10 or an appropriate number, making
“One [points to first], two [points motions with each count. For example, say, “one”
to second], three [starts to point], four [touch head], “two” [touch shoulders], “three” [touch
[finishes pointing, but is now still head], etc.
pointing to third object], five, … nine,
ten, eleven, twelve, ‘firteen,’ fifteen …”
Asked for 5, counts out 3, saying, “one,
two, five.”

Corresponder Keeps one-to-one corres- Rhythmic Counting (Corresponder), [LT]2: Children

pondence between counting words and count using different rhythms and movements for each
objects (one word for each object), at least count. This is similar to earlier verbal counting activ-
for small groups of objects laid in a line. ities but move slowly and deliberately so the children
do maintain the correspondence.
• • • • Simon Says, [LT]2: Children play Simon Says with
“1, 2, 3, 4” every command involving a number (tap your head
May answer a “how many?” question by three times). The game also develops the executive
re-counting the objects or violate 1–1 or function of inhibition.
word order to make the last number Ding Clink Bam, [LT]2: Children practice one-to-one
word be the desired or predicted word. correspondence by counting to the chimes of
a xylophone or another repeated sound.
Counting Wand (Corresponder), [LT]2: Children use
a counting wand to count the number of children in
a group, focusing on the one-to-one correspondence.
Kitchen Counter: In this Building Blocks activity, chil-
dren click on objects one at a time while the numbers
from 1 to 10 are counted aloud. For example, they click
on pieces of food and a bite is taken out of each as it is
counted.

(Continued )
56 Verbal and Object Counting
Table 3.2 (Cont).

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Activities

(years)

4 Counter (Small Numbers) Accurately How Many in My Hand? See pp. 6–7 and [LT]2. This
counts objects in a line to 5 and answers relies on subitizing so make sure subitizing of small
the “how many” question with the last numbers is developed first (Paliwal & Baroody, 2020).
number counted, understanding that this Shake Them Up, [LT]2: Children predict whether the
represents the total number of objects (the number of counters stays the same when they are
cardinal principle). hidden in a bag.
Cubes in Boxes, [LT]2: Have the child count a small
• • • • set of cubes. Put them in the box and close the lid.
“1, 2, 3, 4 … four!” Then ask the child how many cubes you are hiding. If
the child is ready, have him/her write the numeral
(otherwise, write it yourself) on a sticky note and label
the box. Dump them out and count together to check.
Repeat with two boxes and two different sets. After
both are labeled, ask children to “Find the box with
three cubes.” Say “Three! Ta-da!” once the correct box
is opened.
Which Color Is Missing?, [LT]2: Assign each child in
a small group a different color. Have each choose five
crayons of that color. Once they have checked each
other, have them put their crayons into the same large
container. Then choose one child to be the “sneaky
mouse.” With everyone’s eyes closed, the sneaky
mouse secretly takes out one crayon and hides it. The
other children have to count their crayons to see which
color the mouse has hidden.
Help the Turtle Get Home: Counter (Small Numbers),
see [LT]2: Students identify number amounts (from 1
through 5) on a die (physical game board) or dot frame
(computer version shown here) and move forward
a corresponding number of spaces on a game board.
Always play every board game off-computer, too.
Option: Make a cube with shapes on it and children
count the sides of the shapes.

Mr. MixUp (Counter (Small Numbers)), [LT]2:

Mr. MixUp makes a lot of counting mistakes such as
saying the wrong word for “how many” after counting;
children help Mr. MixUp by catching his mistake.
Note: See [LT]2 for many more activities.
Counter (10) Counts arrangements of Note: [LT]2 has many more activities than just those
objects to 10 with understanding of the car- listed here.
dinal principle. May be able to read and Counting Towers (Up to 10), [LT]2: A day before,
write numerals to represent 1–10. read Shape Space. Ask what shapes work well in which
part of a tower (e.g., would the “tip on the triangle

(Continued )
 Verbal and Object Counting 57
Table 3.2 (Cont).

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Activities

(years)

Accurately counts a line of nine blocks block” make it a good base?). Set up stations with dif-
and says there are nine. ferent objects to stack. Encourage children to stack as
many as they can, and to count them to see how many
May be able to tell the number just after they stacked.
or just before another number, but only by
counting up from 1.
What comes after 4? “1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Five!”
Verbal counting to 20 is developing.

Counting Books: Read good counting books, such as

Anno’s Counting Book by Mitsumasa Anno. Ask children
if they ever count how many blocks they can stack in
a tower. Have children work at a station and build
a tower as high as they can. Ask them to estimate how
many blocks are in their tower. Count the blocks with
them before they knock it down. Try to get a larger
number in the tower. Read One Was Johnny by Maurice
Sendak. Talk about how the room is getting crowded,
because when you count each number, one more is
added to the room (and then subtracted later in the
book). Act out the story with groups of children.
Counting Jar (Counter 10), [LT]2: A “counting jar”
holds a specified number of items for children to count
without touching the items. Use the same jar all year,
changing its small amount of items weekly. Have chil-
dren spill out the items to count them. They may wish
to write and post their count on sticky notes.
Help the Turtle Get Home: Counter (10), [LT]2: Stu-
dents play a board game up to 10 with a friend (on the
[LT]2 computer activity with a friend or the computer).

Dino Shop 1: Students identify the numeral that rep-

resents a target number of dinosaurs in a number
frame.

(Continued )
58 Verbal and Object Counting
Table 3.2 (Cont).

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Activities

(years)

Concentrate!: Counting Cards to Counting Cards 1–6,

[LT]2: Children match counting cards (each with
a numeral and corresponding dot cluster) within the
framework of a “Concentration” card game. Notice chil-
dren have to say if they match or not, unlike many com-
puter games that just encourage random clicking
because the computer decides! Also play these games
off-computer.

Concentrate: Tens Frame to Numeral 1–6, [LT]2:

Similar game, now matching dots to numerals. Rewards
include a filled-in picture.

Number Line Race: Give children number lines of dif-

ferent colors. Player 1 rolls a die and asks the banker
for that many counters. The banker gives that number
and Player 1 places the counters in order along his/her
number line while counting. S/he then moves his/her
playing piece along the counters, counting out loud
again, until the piece is on the last counter. Ask chil-
dren who are closest to the goal, and how they know it.
Producer (Small Numbers) Counts out Note: [LT]2 has many more activities than just those
objects to 5. Recognizes that counting is listed here.

(Continued )
 Verbal and Object Counting 59
Table 3.2 (Cont).

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Activities

(years)

relevant to situations in which a certain Number Moves, [LT]2: While waiting during transi-
number must be placed. tions, have children count how many times you jump,
Produces a group of four objects. clap, or some other motion. Then have them do those
motions the same number of times. Initially, count the
actions with children. Later, do the motions but model
and explain how to count silently. Children who under-
stand how many motions will stop, but others will con-
tinue doing the motions.
Help the Turtle Get Home: Producer (Small Num-
bers), [LT]2: Building on the earlier computer activities,
children have to move the turtle to a space, which
helps give them the idea of producing a set.

Cookie Game—Math Plus!, [LT]2, a special activity

that also develops executive function, see [LT]2 for
many more details: Children play in pairs. Player 1 rolls
a number cube and puts that many toppings (counters)
on his/her plate. Player 1 asks Player 2, “Am I right?”
Player 2 must agree that Player 1 is correct. At that
point, Player 1 moves the counters to the circular spaces
for chocolate chips on his/her cookie. Players take turns
until all the spaces on their cookies are filled.

Shopkeeper Fill Orders to 5, [LT]2: One child is the

shopkeeper, while the other children come to the shop
to purchase items with play money. The shopkeeper
matches the order by giving each shopper the correct
number of items.
5 Counter and Producer (10+) Counts and Note: [LT]2 includes three “Math Plus!” activities for
counts out objects accurately to 10, then this level. These are rich, multiple-session activities
beyond (to about 30). Has explicit under- that promote math at this level and executive function.
standing of cardinality (how numbers tell They are worth a close look:
how many). Keeps track of objects that
have and have not been counted, even in 1 Cookie Game—Math Plus!, [LT]2
different arrangements. Writes or draws to 2 Magician’s Trick—Math Plus! !, [LT]2
represent 1 to 10 (then, 20, then 30). 3 Change Game—Math Plus! !, [LT]2

(Continued )
60 Verbal and Object Counting
Table 3.2 (Cont).

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Activities

(years)

Counts a scattered group of 19 chips, Knock It Down (Beyond 10), [LT]2: (See basic directions
keeping track by moving each one as above.) To allow children to count to 20 and beyond,
they are counted. have them make towers with other objects, such as
coins. Children build a tower as high as they can, pla-
Gives next number (usually to 20s or cing more coins, but not straightening coins already in
30s). Separates the decade and the ones the tower. The goal is to estimate and then count to
part of a number word and begins to relate find out how many coins are in your tallest tower. To
each part of a number word/numeral to the count higher, have children make pattern “walls.”
quantity to which it refers. They build a pattern block wall as long as they can.
Recognizes errors in others’ counting This allows them to count to higher numbers.
and can eliminate most errors in own count- Variations:
ing (point-object) if asked to try hard.
1 Pairs can play a game in which they take turns
placing coins.
2 Roll a number cube to determine how many coins
to put on the tower.
3 Adopt this activity to any number of settings. For
example, how many cans of food, such as soup (or
other heavy objects) can two children hold when
each holds two corners of a towel? Repeat this with
very large or small cans. With your guidance, they
could also try to make a tower of the cans (ordering
them by size, with the largest on the bottom).

Number Jump with Numerals: Hold up a numeral

card and have children first say the numeral. Together,
children do a motion you pick (such as jump, nod head,
or clap) that number of times. Repeat with different
numerals. Be sure to use 0 (zero).
Mr. MixUp Counting: Use a somewhat goofy puppet
called “Mr. MixUp.”

(Continued )
 Verbal and Object Counting 61
Table 3.2 (Cont).

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Activities

(years)

Tell children that Mr. MixUp frequently makes mis-

takes. Ask children to help Mr. MixUp count. They listen
to Mr. MixUp, catch his mistake, correct him, and then
count with him to help him “get it right.” Have
Mr. MixUp make mistakes such as the following, in
approximately this developmental order:
Verbal counting mistakes
Wrong order (1, 2, 3, 5, 4, 6)
Skipping numbers (…12, 14, 16, 17)
Repeat numbers (…4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 8)
Object counting mistakes
One-to-one mistakes, such as skipping objects;
count-point, i.e., saying one number word but pointing
twice or vice versa (but points are 1–1 with objects);
point-object, i.e., pointing once but indicating more
than one object or pointing more than once to one
object (but counting words are 1–1 with pointing)
Cardinality/Last number mistakes
Saying the wrong number as the “final count” (e.g.,
counting three objects, counting “1, 2, 3 [correctly, but
then saying], there’s 4 there!”)
Keeping-track-of-what’s-been-counted mistakes
Double counting, i.e. “coming back” and counting an
item again. Skipping objects when counting objects not
in a line.
Concentrate [LT]2: Children match different repre-
sentations of number, on-computer (pictured here) and
off. There are Concentrate games at this level: ççç and
Tens Frame to Domino Patterns 1–12.

Counter Backward from 10 Verbal and Count and Move—Forward and Backward: Have all chil-
Object Counts backward from 10 to 1, ver- dren count from 1 to 10 or an appropriate number,
bally, or when removing objects from making motions with each count, and then count back-
a group. ward to zero. For example, they start in a crouch, then
stand up—bit by bit—as they count up to 10. Then they
“10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1!” count backward to zero (sitting all the way down).
Blast Off!: Children stand and count backward from
10 or an appropriate number, crouching down a bit with
each count. After reaching zero, they jump up yelling,
“Blast off!” See the similar activities, all on [LT]2, such
as Growth Spurt, Blooming Flowers, and others.
Countdown Game, [LT]2 : Children play a version of
“Duck, Duck, Goose” by counting down from 5, then 10.
No More Monkeys Jumping on the Bed!: The classic
finger play, from 5, but also down from 10.
Magician’s Trick—Math Plus!, [LT]2: Focus on count-
ing backwards.

6 Counter from N (N + 1, N – 1) Verbal and How Many in the Box Now? [LT]2: Have the children
Object Counts verbally and with objects count objects as you place them in a box. Ask, “How
from numbers other than 1 (but does not yet many are in the box now?” Add one, repeating the
keep track of the number of counts). question, and have children think-pair-share (see

(Continued )
62 Verbal and Object Counting
Table 3.2 (Cont).

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Activities

(years)

Asked to “count from 5 to 8,” counts “5, Chapter 2, p. 24). Then check the children’s responses
6, 7, 8!” by counting all the objects. Repeat, checking occasion-
ally. (See also, How Many Now? Sneaky Swiper in
Immediately determines numbers just after [LT]2.)
or just before. Variations: Place coins in a coffee can. Declare that
Asked, “What comes just before 7?” a given number of objects is in the can. Then have the
says, “Six!” children close their eyes and count on by listening as
additional objects are dropped in.
I’m Thinking of a Number: Using counting cards,
choose and hide a secret number. Tell children you hid
a card with a number and ask them to guess which it is.
When a child guesses correctly, excitedly reveal the
card. Until then, tell children whether a guess is more
or less than the secret number. As children become
more comfortable, ask why they made their guess, say
“I knew 4 was more than the secret number and 2 was
less, so I guessed 3!” Repeat, adding clues, such as
your guess is two more than my number. Do this activ-
ity during transitions.

Magician’s Trick—Math Plus!, [LT]2: See Chapter 4.

Build Stairs: Build stairs with connecting cubes first,
then have children close their eyes and hide one. Chil-
dren identify the missing step.

(Continued )
 Verbal and Object Counting 63
Table 3.2 (Cont).

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Activities

(years)

Skip Counter by tens to 100 Verbal and Skip Counting Ourselves, [LT]2: Children, one at a time,
Object Skips counts by tens up to 100 or raise their arms above their head while the class chor-
beyond with understanding; e.g., “sees” ally yells, “two” (then four, six …). Repeat showing one
groups of ten within a quantity and counts hand at a time for skip counting by fives (or both hands
those groups by ten (this relates to multipli- simultaneously for skip counting by tens).
cation and algebraic thinking; see Chapters Busy Beaver 10s, [LT]2: Children count by tens to
7 and 13). 100 using bundles of ten sticks.
“10, 20, 30 … 100.”
Counter to 100 Verbal Counts to 100. Count the Days of School, [LT]2: Each day of school,
Makes decade transitions (e.g., from 29 to add a numeral to adding machine tape, taped to the
30) starting at any number. wall, which will eventually surround the classroom.
Count from 1 each day and then add that day’s numeral.
“… 78, 79 … 80, 81 …” Write the multiples of 10 in red. Some days (e.g., on day
33), count just these red numerals—10, 20, 30 … and
then continue with the final “ones”—31, 32, 33. Count
the red numbers two ways: “ten, twenty, thirty,
forty …” and, sometimes, as “one ten, two tens, three
tens, four tens.”
Numbers with Pizzazz (to 100), [LT]2: Children prac-
tice skip counting by tens, counting by ones, and count-
ing on from any number, both with and without
a hundreds chart.
Number Flip (to 100), [LT]2: Children count forward
and backward through the decade transitions as they
flip numeral cards in sequence.
Counter On Using Patterns Strategy Keeps How Many in the Box Now? (Patterns), [LT]2: Main direc-
track of counting acts, but only by using tions above, but now add 2, 3, or even 4. Repeat this type
numerical patterns (spatial, auditory, or of counting activity in a variety of settings, adding more
rhythmic) for adding 1 to about 3. objects at a time (starting with 0 to 3). Use story settings
for the problems; for example, sharks eating small fish
“How much is 3 more than 5?” Child (children can be “sharks” eating actual fish crackers at
feels three “beats” as they count, “5 … the snack table), toy cars and trucks parking on a parking
6, 7, 8!” ramp, a superhero throwing bandits in jail, etc.
Teacher Suggestion: Act incredulous, saying, “How
do you know that? You can’t even see them?” Have
children explain.
Teaching Note: If they need help, suggest that chil-
dren count and keep track using their fingers.
Help the Turtle Get Home: Counter On Using Pat-
terns: Students are given a numeral and a frame with
dots. They count on from this numeral to identify the
total amount, and then move forward a corresponding
number of spaces on the game board.

Follow Me, [LT]2: Children follow teacher in counting

up from a given number.

(Continued )
64 Verbal and Object Counting
Table 3.2 (Cont).

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Activities

(years)

Skip Counter Verbal and Object Counts by Skip Counting, [LT]2: Besides counting by tens, count
fives and twos with understanding. groups of objects with skip counting, such as pairs of
shoes by twos, or number of fingers in the class by
Child counts objects, “2, 4, 6, 8 … 30.” fives. See also Skip Counting with Cubes, [LT]2.
Counter On Keeping Track Strategy Counts Count on with Objects, [LT]2: The teacher shows coun-
forward or back from a given number keep- ters (say five), covers them, and puts out (say four)
ing track of counting acts numerically, first more. Children use counting strategies to continue
using objects, then by “counting counts.” counting on from a given number, at first by laying out
four objects and counting up (“fiiivvvee … 6, 7, 8, 9!”),
How many is 3 more than 6? “6 … 7 then with mental counting strategies.
[puts up a finger], 8 [puts up another Easy as Pie: On a (any) game board, using numeral
finger], 9 [puts up third finger]. 9.” cubes, students add two numerals to find a total
What is 8 take away 2? “8 … 7 is one, number (sums of 1 through 10), and then move forward
and 6 is two. 6.” a corresponding number of spaces on a game board.
The game encourages children to “count on” from the
larger number (e.g., to add 3 to 4, they would count
“4 … 5, 6, 7!”).

Eggcellent: On a (any) game board, students use

strategies to identify which two of three numbers,
when added together, will enable them to reach the
final space on a game board in the fewest number of
moves. Often, that means the sum of the largest two
numbers, but sometimes other combinations allow you
to hit a positive or avoid a backward action space.

Counter of Quantitative Units/Place How Many Eggs?, [LT]2: Using plastic eggs that break
Value Understands the base-ten numer- into halves, show some whole eggs and some halves
ation system and place value concepts, and ask “how many?” Repeat in “play store” settings,
including ideas of counting in units and mul- with different materials (e.g., crayons and broken cray-
tiples of hundreds, tens, and ones. When ons, and so forth).
counting groups of ten, can decompose into Buying Candy Bars (Counter of Quant), [LT]2: Chil-
10 ones if that is useful. dren use varying currencies ($1, $5, $10) to pretend to
buy items.

(Continued )
 Verbal and Object Counting 65
Table 3.2 (Cont).

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Activities

(years)

Understands value of a digit according

to the place of the digit within a number.
Counts by tens and ones to determine
the total.
Counts unusual units, such as “wholes”
when shown combinations of wholes and
parts.
Shown three whole plastic eggs and four
halves, counts and says there are five
whole eggs.
Counter Beyond 100 Verbal and Object Count the Days of School, [LT]2: Extend the previous
Accurately counts beyond 100, recognizing activity (p. 63).
the patterns of ones, tens, and hundreds. Beavers and Sticks, [LT]2: Children count bundles of
sticks by ten past 100 emphasizing good decade and
“After 159 comes 160 because after 5 hundred transitions.
tens comes 6 tens.”
7 Number Conserver Consistently conserves The Tricky Fox, [LT]2: Tell a story using stuffed animals.
number (i.e., believes number has been The fox is tricky and tells the other animals that they
unchanged), even in face of perceptual dis- should take the row of food with the most—and he
tractions such as the spreading out of spreads one row out, but not the other, actually more
objects in a collection. numerous, row. Ask children how to avoid being
tricked.
Counts two rows that are laid out across
from each other and says they are the
same. Adult spreads out one row. Says,
“Both still have the same number; one’s
just longer.”
Counter Forward and Back Strategy (See Chapter 5 for most activities for this competence.)
Counts “counting words” (single sequence Adding Subtracting Hundreds Chart, [LT]2: Children
or skip counts) in either direction. Recog- use a “hundreds chart” to add (and later subtract) mul-
nizes that decades sequence mirrors single- tidigit numbers using the structure of the hundreds
digit sequence. chart and place value. (See full directions and materials
on [LT]2.)
What’s 4 less than 63? “62 is 1, 61 is 2, Jumping on Number Line, [LT]2: Children use the
60 is 3, 59 is 4 … so, 59.” “open number line” to count forward and back using
What is 15 more than 28? “2 tens and 1 place value. (See Chapter 5 and full directions and
ten is 3 tens. 38, 39, 40, and there’s 3 materials on [LT]2.)
more … 43.” Figure the Fact: Students add numeric values from 1
Switches between sequence and com- through 10 to values from 0 through 99 to reach
position views of multidigit numbers easily. a maximum total of 100. That is, if they are “on” 33 and
get an 8, they have to enter 41 to proceed to that space
Counts backward from 20 and higher because the spaces are not marked with numerals, at
with meaning. least until they move through them.

Jumping on Number Line, [LT]2: Children use

a number line to add (and later subtract) multidigit
numbers.
66 Verbal and Object Counting

We strongly recommend that you carefully read the learning trajectory in Table 3.2. Counting
is a key competence, and these learning trajectory tables go far beyond simply “presenting
activities.” They summarize the key knowledge of the levels of thinking in counting and the
tightly related instructional activities. Study the developmental progression and think about
why each activity will help children develop each level of thinking.
Also, remember to go to our new tool, the Learning and Teaching with Learning Trajectories
tool at LearningTrajectories.org. We encourage you, as you read about each level, to go to [LT]2
and see videos of children that illustrate that level of thinking and then see (and use!—when
appropriate) the instructional activities that help children build that level of thinking. There are
many additional instructional activities on [LT]2 as well.

Final Words
Counting is the first and most basic mathematical algorithm children learn. Early counting predicts
later mathematic success and even later reading fluency (Koponen, Salmi, Eklund, & Aro, 2013).
Every child should be helped to learn counting—in all its complex splendor—early and well (Geary
et al., 2017). Remember, advanced, not basic, counting predicts later school success (Nguyen
et al., 2016).
Subitizing and counting are the main ways children determine the number of a collection of
objects. In many situations, they need to do more, including comparing, using number relation-
ships, and place value (Chapter 4), as well as using counting strategies for arithmetic (Chapter 5).

Note
1 Research confirms recommended practice: Math education should start from the earliest years (Hojnoski,
Caskie, & Miller Young, 2018).
4 Comparing, Ordering, and
Estimating

Jeremy and his sister Jacie were arguing about who had more dessert. “She has more!”
declared Jeremy. “I do not!” said Jacie, “We have the same.” “No. See, I have one, two,
three, four, and you have one, two, three, four, five.” “Listen, Jeremy. One of my cookies
broke in half. You can’t count each half. If you’re counting pieces, I could break all yours
in half, then you would have way more than me. Put the two halves back together and
count. One, two, three, four. Four! We have the same.”

Jacie went on to argue that she would prefer one whole cookie to the two broken halves
anyway, but that’s another story. Which “count”—Jeremy’s or Jacie’s—do you think was better,
and why? In what situations should you count separate things, and in what situations might
that lead you astray?
Chapter 2 introduced the notion that children possess or develop some ability to compare
amounts in the first year of life. However, accurately comparing can be challenging in many
situations, especially those in which people might think of either discrete quantities (items
countable with whole numbers) or continuous quantities (magnitudes that are divisible, such as
length or the amount of matter, see Chapter 10, especially footnote 1), as in Jeremy and Jacie’s
cookie debate. In this chapter, we discuss comparing, and two closely related actions, ordering—
in which one must compare multiple quantities to sequence them from least to greatest—and
estimating discrete quantity, in which one must compare a quantity to a benchmark or an intui-
tive sense of a discrete number of objects (Chapters 10 and 11 discuss continuous quantity).

The Mathematics of Ordering Numbers and Ordinal Numbers

Ordering numbers is the process of determining which of two numbers is “larger than” the
other. Formally, given two whole numbers a and b, b is defined as larger than a if, in counting
(see Chapter 3) a precedes b. One relationship must pertain to any such two numbers: a = b, a < b,
or b < a. Equals in this case means equivalent, that is, not necessarily “exactly the same” (some
comparisons are equal in that sense, such as 6 = 6), but at least equal in value (4 + 2 is equiva-
lent in value to 6). This relationship of equivalence is reflexive (something equals itself, x = x),
symmetric (x = y means that y = x), and transitive (if x = y and y = z then x = z).
We can also define (and think about) ordering numbers on a “number line”—a line on which
points are uniquely identified with numbers. This gives a geometric/spatial model for number.
Usually, the number line is constructed with a horizontal straight line, with a point designated
68 Comparing, Ordering, and Estimating

Figure 4.1 A section of a number line

as zero. To the right of 0, equally spaced points are labeled 1, 2, 3, 4 … such as on a ruler. The
whole numbers are identified with these points (see Figure 4.1). The line segment from 0 to 1 is
called the “unit segment” and the number 1 is called the “unit.” Once we have determined this,
all the whole numbers are fixed on the line (Wu, 2011b).
Thus, a < b also means that the point a on the number line is to the left of b as we define the
number line. Statements such as a < b and b > a are called “inequalities.” When whole numbers are
used to put items in order, or in a sequence, they are “ordinal numbers.” Often, we use the ordinal
terms “first, second, third …,” but not always: A person who is “number 5” in a line is labeled by
a word that is no less ordinal in its meaning because it is not expressed with the word “fifth.”
Relating ordering numbers to counting (see Chapter 3), we can see that if a and b are whole
numbers and b has more digits than a, then a < b (so, 99 < 105). If a and b have the same
number of digits, then moving from the left, if for the first digit in which they do not agree, a’s
digit < b’s digit, then a < b (215 < 234).
The ability to use this type of reasoning explicitly develops over years, and, of course, chil-
dren do not necessarily use the procedure we just described to do the comparisons. But they
can and do learn a lot about comparing and ordering.

The Development of Comparing, Ordering, and Estimating

Comparing and Equivalence: Two Quantities
As we saw in Chapter 2, infants begin to construct relationships between numbers. For example,
as long as the numbers differ enough (in a 1:2 or 2:3 ratio), the infants are sensitive and
attracted to differences in large numbers. See this by watching the video in [LT]2 from Libertus
and Brannon’s laboratory again in the Comparing Number learning trajectory at the “Comparison
Senser: Foundations” level. Infants also build equivalence relations between very small sets, pos-
sibly by intuitively establishing correspondences, as early as the first year of life.
Later, they learn to compare the number of objects in two sets by matching them one to
one. They also learn to explicitly tell which of two sets has more perceptually (“just by looking”)
as long as one set is considerably more than the other.
This ability develops considerably, especially as children learn number words, subitizing, and
then counting. For example, they can explicitly compare sets as early as 2 or 3 years of age in
certain everyday situations but show only the beginnings of such competence on teacher-given
tasks at 2½ to 3½ years of age. They do this even before they count the sets with understand-
ing (i.e., know the “cardinality principle” in Chapter 3) if they can recognize or subitize the num-
bers in the collections (Batchelor & Gilmore, 2015a). Most children learn to answer questions
such as “Which is more, 6 or 4?” by age 4 or 5 years. All children must learn to reason that if
the counts of two collections are 9 and 7, the collection with 9 has more because 9 comes later
 Comparing, Ordering, and Estimating 69

in the counting sequence than 7. The complexity of math thinking is highlighted in research
that shows that in comparing sets of dots, the further apart they are, the faster people can say
which is larger. But with numerals, they are faster if the numerals are closer, suggesting that
people use different systems for these two types of comparisons (Mulligan et al., 2018).
On number conservation tasks that involve comparing two sets (see p. 36 of Chapter 3),
even asking children to count the two sets may not help them determine the correct answer.
Or, if children deal out items to two puppets, and the teacher counts out one set, they still may
not know how many the other puppet has. Such tasks may overwhelm their “working memory,”
and children may not know how to use counting for comparisons. Only in the primary school
grades do many children achieve success across such a wide range of tasks.
As we saw in previous chapters, both non-symbolic (e.g., comparing two sets of dots) and
symbolic (comparing two number words such as “four” said out loud or symbols such as “4”)
comparison competencies are important for math learning. They support each other and help
children learn other math competencies (Toll, Van Viersen, Kroesbergen, & Van Luit, 2015).
However, of the two, the symbolic comparisons are more important and should be encouraged
(rather than considered “developmentally inappropriate”).
Another set of symbols that are often confused in later grades are relational symbols: =, <,
and >. Equals (=) is sometimes understood with simple examples (4 = 4) but less often in more
complicated number sentences (3 + 6 = _ - 5), which we will discuss in later arithmetic chapters.
But the greater than (>) and less than (<) symbols challenge many people. Even teachers are
confused by distractions; for example, which symbol to put between 4 and 6 (Hassidov & Ilany,
2017). People also get confused about “which way is the symbol supposed to go.” Teachers
often use the “mouth” metaphor (the “crocodile wants to eat the biggest number,” so the
mouth is open toward the bigger number, 4 < 6). We have two suggestions. First, research
shows that children are far more accurate saying “4 is smaller than 6” or “6 is bigger” than
placing the correct symbol between them. If understanding is our goal, why spend a lot of time
with placing the symbol in the early grades? Second, once the symbols do become important,
Herb Gross suggests first talking about the equal sign (=): Why was it chosen? Two equal length
lines … parallel so equal distant apart! What if one side was smaller? Perhaps … we bring the
lines together: Ah! 4 < 6.

Ordering and Ordinal Numbers: Multiple Numbers

Ordering Numbers

A female chimpanzee called Ai has learned to use Arabic numerals to represent numbers. She
can count from zero to nine items, which she demonstrates by touching the appropriate
number on a touch-sensitive monitor, and she can order the numbers from zero to nine in
sequence.
(Kawai & Matsuzawa, 2000)
70 Comparing, Ordering, and Estimating

Well, the ability to order or sequence numbers is certainly not too developmentally advanced
for preschoolers! As they learn to count, they can learn to order multiple quantities (e.g., on dot
cards) or numerals.
However, if denied high-quality learning experiences, even 5- and 6-year-olds may be unable
to do so or to figure out which number, 6 or 2, is closer to 5 (Griffin, Case, & Siegler, 1994).
They may not have developed the “mental number line” representation of numbers as well as
their more advantaged peers. (Although some have claimed that mental number lines are
innate, “bootstrap” abilities, this does not seem to be the case. We have a sense of quantity,
not all of which is spatial, but must build the mental number line through experiences; Núñez,
2011; Núñez, Doan, & Nikoulina, 2011)
Subtle, but important: We use the common phrase “mental number line” but it is not
a mathematical number line for children for many years. That being said, it is astounding how
early the foundations for it develop. For example, 7-month-old infants prefer sequences of
arrays that are in order and left to right (McCrink & de Hevia, 2018)! This is then affected by
culture and experience, but even in the preschool years, it is really a mental number path or list
in that it includes sets of a discrete number of objects, not continuous quantities (e.g., all frac-
tions), as described at the beginning of the chapter.
Finding out how many more (or fewer) there are in one collection than another is more
demanding than simply comparing two collections to find which has more. Children have to
understand that the number of elements in the collection with fewer items is contained in the
number of items in the collection with more items. That is, they have to mentally construct
a “part” of the larger collection (equivalent to the smaller collection) that is not visually pre-
sent. They then have to determine the “other part” or the larger collection and find out how
many elements are in this “left-over amount.”

Ordinal Numbers
Ordinal numbers, usually (but not necessarily) involving the words “first, second …” indicate
position in a series or ordering. As such, they have different features (e.g., their meaning is con-
nected to the series they describe). Most children in typical U.S. circumstances learn terms such
as “first,” “second,” and “last” early, but learn others only much later. East Asian languages
use the same terms for cardinal and ordinal numbers which may help those children learn the
names sooner (Ng & Rao, 2010), but they may understand the difference between ordinal and
cardinal meanings later.

Estimation
An estimation is not merely a “guess”—it is at least a mathematically educated “guess.” Estima-
tion is a process of solving a problem that calls for a rough or tentative evaluation of
a quantity. There are many types of estimation, which—along with the common confusion
between an estimate and (often wild) “guesses”—has resulted in poor teaching of this skill. The
most common types of estimation discussed are measurement, numerosity, and computational
estimation (Sowder, 1992a). Measurement estimation, such as “about how wide is this room?”
 Comparing, Ordering, and Estimating 71

will be addressed in Chapters 11 and 12. Computational estimation, such as “about how much is
17 × 22?” has been most widely researched (see Chapter 6).
Numerosity estimation often involves procedures similar in ways to measurement and com-
putational estimation procedures. To estimate the number of people in a theater, for example,
a person might take a sample area, count the people in it, and multiply by an estimate of the
number of such areas in the theater. Early numerosity estimation may involve similar procedure
(e.g., try to “picture ten” in a jar then count by tens as you visually “mark off” each group), or
even a straightforward single estimate based on benchmarks (10 “looks like this”; 50 “looks like
that”) or merely intuition.
One more type of estimation is “number line estimation”; for example, the ability to place
numbers on a number line of arbitrary length, given that the ends are labeled (say, 0 to 100).
The ability to build such a mental structure appears particularly important for young children,
so we begin with this estimation type.

Number Line (Path) Estimation

Building an increasingly sophisticated “mental number line” is an important math goal. Such
competencies support development and performance of arithmetic, estimation, and other math
processes. The first skill after learning a mental number list—the first and critical step—may be
to form a linear representation of numbers. But most people tend to exaggerate the distances
between numbers at the lower end of a given number line—numbers that are more familiar—and
underestimate the distances between numbers at the high end. So, rather than represent num-
bers as on a number line, such as shown in Figure 4.1, they tend to represent them as shown in
Figure 4.2, below, due to the greater experience and thus familiarity with smaller numbers.
(Think how “far apart” one thousand and one million are for you; are one billion and one trillion
similarly spaced or are they each just “very big numbers”?) People need to become fluent with
the numbers in the sequence and develop strategies for partitioning it to improve their number
line estimates (Hurst, Monahan, Heller, & Cordes, 2014).
Improving children’s number line estimation may have a broad beneficial effect on their rep-
resentation, and therefore knowledge, of numbers. Further, the estimates of preschoolers from
low-resource communities often reveals a lack of experience with numerical magnitudes, so
facilitating their learning of number line estimation is particularly important.

Estimation of Numerosities
Once children learn to subitize (Chapter 2) and count (Chapter 3), can they then estimate the
number of objects in a collection? Perhaps surprisingly, not well. Children may need to learn

Figure 4.2 Children initially internally represent smaller numbers as “further apart” than larger
numbers
72 Comparing, Ordering, and Estimating

such foundation skills well and build mental images of both numbers and “benchmark” collec-
tions (e.g., what “ten objects” looks like) to perform numerosity estimation accurately. That is,
children need to be able to subitize or count to the number to be estimated to have some
sense of it; so, early numerosity estimate may have to wait for those competencies to develop
to avoid meaningless guessing.

Experience and Education

Comparing Two Quantities or Numbers
Very early conversations about “which is more” can be beneficial for all ages. Comparing the
quantities in sets of all sizes strengthens children’s ANS systems and informal number sense,
and should be a regular part of informal, incidental experiences (Libertus, Feigenson, & Hal-
berda, 2011b). Vocabulary such as “more” and “fewer” (for dots) or “more” and “less” (for
lengths of distance or durations of time) should be used and developed. Intersensory redun-
dancy—for example, you see a ball bouncing more times, it takes longer, you hear more noises—
helps the youngest children attend to and build strong quantitative foundations for number
(Jordan et al., 2008).
To compare numbers, young children need to learn other competencies. For example, inviting
3-year-olds to play with containers that provoke one-to-one correspondence (wiffle balls and
a muffin tin) improves their abilities on challenging number-matching tasks (matching a card
with two flowers to one with two turtles, not the card with three flowers) more than free play
with the balls without the muffin tin (Mix, Moore, & Holcomb, 2011).
Children also need to learn about the significance of the results of counting. To help them
generalize, provide a variety of meaningful tasks (i.e., familiar, everyday comparisons such as
the number of treats) and situations in which counting is a relevant strategy and inferences
must be made. Prompt children to count in these comparing situations and then verify that
counting led to correct judgments.
Of course, children also have to realize how to use counting to compare the number in two
collections. They must be able to think, “I counted six circles and five squares, so there are
more circles, because 6 comes after 5 when we count.” To do this, children also must under-
stand that each counting number is quantitatively one more than the one before (recall the
“Counter from N (N + 1, N − 1)” level in Chapter 3, pp. 39, 61–62).
Language, even in supposedly “simple” situations, can be surprisingly complex but—used well—
supportive of learning. A 5-year-old was told she had 7¢ and asked what she could buy (Lansdell,
1999). Later, she used the phrase “one more”; that is, an item costing 8¢ was “one more” than
she had. Then, for an item costing one less cent, she said she had “one more less.” She thought
she could buy that item (for 6¢) with her 7¢. The teacher gave her the 7¢ to hold, and the girl
talked herself into thinking that it was OK, she could buy the item. Then the teacher introduced
the term change: “You’d have 1 penny left, wouldn’t you. One penny change. So that would be
nice….” The teacher then asked about a 5¢ purchase, and the girl said, “I’d have 2 pennies
change.”
The next day she confused this terminology, but not the concept. The teacher corrected her
use of language, confirming her computational accuracy, but mirroring the correct language.
 Comparing, Ordering, and Estimating 73

Soon thereafter, change was used to mean changing pennies to other coins. Impressively, the
girl was still able to use change correctly in both senses, with increased confidence.
The researcher claimed that the informal talk and language were the most important aspects
of these interactions, but the clarification or introduction of math terminology is also important.
Many math terms may be ambiguous, usually due to their having non-mathematical meanings,
and the teacher’s closed questions and direct statements helped the child agree on specific new
mathematical meanings. In addition, open questions helped the teacher understand the child’s
meanings and concepts.
Thus, we teachers need to be aware of such potentially ambiguous words, introduce
new words and meanings after concepts are understood, and be careful and consistent in
our use of the words. To do this, we should observe children’s use of the words, build on
the child’s own language, and negotiate new meanings through practical experiences
(Lansdell, 1999).

Order and Ordinal Numbers

Ordinal number words are potentially more confusing than the verbal counting words, and the
two series are often difficult to relate. However, some repeated experiences with everyday
activities are easy to implement, such as who is first, second, third … in lining up. Also, explicitly
discuss the correspondences (e.g., “Who’s second? ‘Second’ means number two in line”) and
plan activities that invite such connections. For example, in the Building Blocks curriculum
(Clements & Sarama, 2007c), children build and label stairs with connecting cubes and, on the
computer, with squares and numerals. They also insert missing steps. These activities encour-
age children to note that the second step is number 2 (has two cubes), and so forth. Summative
evaluations revealed strong positive effects on children’s understanding and skill with ordinal
relations and sequencing.
Children may also learn about ordinal relations from observing the consequences of adding
and taking away objects (Cooper, 1984; Sophian & Adams, 1987). This suggests that multiple
experiences adding and subtracting small numbers (especially repeated additions/subtractions
of 1) will help build ordinal relations as well as arithmetic competencies. For children who have
difficulty, including those with learning disabilities, analogies are helpful. For example, if children
cannot identify which of two collections is more, relate the numbers to children’s ages, as in,
“Who is older, Jack who is 7 years old or Sue who is 5? … How do you know?”
Finally, experiences such as these help children understand and practice conservation of
number. Surprisingly, strategy diversity (using different strategies to find a solution) also
typifies children’s approach to this task (Siegler, 1995b). This study included three training
conditions; correctness feedback, feedback with requests to justify one’s reasoning, and
feedback with requests to justify the researcher’s reasoning. The last was the most effective
(although order of feedback/explanation were confounded, as were, in the last condition,
seeing another’s perspective and explaining a correct response). Children use multiple types
of explanations, and those explaining the researcher’s reasons gave a greater variety than
those who explained their own reasons. Again, then, the benefits of verbalizations and strat-
egy diversity are evident.
74 Comparing, Ordering, and Estimating

Number Line Estimation

Having children place numerals on a number line may be helpful for first and second graders,
but it can be confusing for younger children. Playing board (“racing”) games can develop all
children’s ability to do number line estimation, as well as to order magnitudes, count, and rec-
ognize numerals. Encourage parents to play such games at home as well. Board games
(“racing” type board games such as Candyland or Chutes and Ladders) may be beneficial
because they provide multiple cues to both the order of numbers and the numbers’ magnitudes
(Siegler & Booth, 2004). In such games, the greater the number in a square, the greater the
distance that the child has moved the token, the greater number of discrete moves the child
has made, the greater number of counting words the child has spoken, and the greater amount
of time since the game began—intersensory redundancy again. Board games can be easily and
successfully integrated into classrooms as young as preschool (Ramani, Siegler, & Hitti, 2012).
But wait! Before you pull out Candyland, learn this: The usual way we play these games can be
near useless! For Candyland especially, one spins a spinner, gets a color and moves to that color.
No math is learned (Siegler & Booth, 2004). Further, even if you use dice or spinners with dots or
numerals, mental number lines do not develop well unless there are numerals on the board’s path
(as in Chutes and Ladders). And this is the most difficult to “re-learn.” You can’t play the usual way:
If you are on 14, and roll a 3, you count “1, 2, 3….” This does little to promote reading numerals
(children ignore them) and develop a mental number line. Instead, children must read the numerals
as they move over them, as in “15, 16, 17!” (Laski & Siegler, 2014). This is odd to most of us as
adults, but it is necessary for developing number relationships and the mental number line. See
“Race to Space Game” as an example at three different levels in Table 4.2 and especially on [LT]2.
See the resource, “Introducing and Using Games” on [LT]2 too.
The goal is to build number sense, which includes but is not limited to placing numbers on
a line or playing a board game. For one, involve children’s whole bodies: First graders who esti-
mated the position of target numbers on a 0–100 number line by walking to the estimated pos-
ition improved in both number line estimation and addition more than those who estimated
distances on a screen (Link, Moeller, Huber, Fischer, & Nuerk, 2013). Further, many competen-
cies help build a mental number line, especially children’s familiarity with numbers in the range
considered; for example, their ability to spontaneously subitize (Chapter 2, Nanu et al., 2018b)
or to be a “Counter from N (N + 1, N – 1)” (Chapter 3, Ebersbach, Luwel, & Verschaffel, 2015).
Finally, building number sense through number line estimation is not the same as having chil-
dren work with “number lines” or to solve problems using number lines. That model can actually
be difficult for children to use, perhaps because children are confused by the dual representa-
tion of number as points and distances (or vectors) (Gagatsis & Elia, 2004). Using a printed
number line is not an easy or obvious tool for kindergartners (Skoumpourdi, 2010).
And, in fact, it may be that solving arithmetic problems in a given range is another, possibly
most effective, way of developing number line estimation. Incrementing and decrementing num-
bers may build that kind of number sense (Laski & Yu, 2014c, see Chapters 5 and 6).

Estimation of Numerosities
Although some have claimed success in promoting numerosity estimation through activities, the
limited effects of others suggest caution in devoting much time to these activities in the earliest
 Comparing, Ordering, and Estimating 75

years. Any time that is given, probably in the primary grades, might best follow several guide-
lines. First, ensure that subitizing, counting, and especially number line (like a board game path)
estimation skills are well developed. Subitizing skills should be developed at least for small num-
bers, and counting and number line estimation skills should be developed at least up to the
numbers to be estimated. Second, help children develop and understand benchmarks well (“I
know what ten counters looks like”). Again, benchmarks might be beneficially developed in
number line estimation tasks initially, and then expanded to include images of collections of
objects of those sizes (in different arrangements, see Chapter 2). Third, within a short instruc-
tional unit, expect development to occur more within a level of the learning trajectory. Fourth—
and this is important for arithmetic as well—make sure children learn to connect quantities to
numerals. This skill appears to be important for developing increasingly sophisticated strategies
for basic arithmetic combinations (“facts”) (Vanbinst, Ghesquiere, & Smedt, 2012). Note, again,
that both exact recognition (perceptual and conceptual subitizing) and approximate estimation
contribute to later arithmetic learning (Obersteiner, Reiss, & Ufer, 2013).

Learning Trajectory for Comparing, Ordering, and Estimating

Numbers
The learning trajectory for comparing, ordering, and estimating numbers, like that for counting,
is complex because there are many conceptual and skill advancements and, more obviously,
there are subtrajectories for each subdomain.

Table 4.1 Goals for Comparing, Ordering, and Estimating Numbers from the Common Core State Standards
(CCSS)

Counting and Cardinality (K.CC in CCSS)

Compare numbers.

1. Identify whether the number of objects in one group is greater than, less than, or equal to the number
of objects in another group, e.g., by using matching and counting strategies. [Include groups with up to
ten objects.]
2. Compare two numbers between 1 and 10 presented as written numerals.

Number and Operations in Base Ten (1.NBT in CCSS)

Understand place value.

3. Compare two two-digit numbers based on meanings of the tens and ones digits, recording the results of
comparisons with the symbols >, =, and <.

Number and Operations in Base Ten (2.NBT in CCSS)

Understand place value.

4. Compare two three-digit numbers based on meanings of the hundreds, tens, and ones digits, using >, =,
and < symbols to record the results of comparisons.

Measurement and Data [2.MD in CCSS]

Measure and estimate lengths in standard units.

5. Estimate lengths using units of inches, feet, centimeters, and meters.

76 Comparing, Ordering, and Estimating

The importance of goals for this domain is clear for comparing, ordering, and at least some
aspects of estimation (see Chapter 6 for more on comparison of multidigit numbers and Chap-
ter 10 for length). The places these goals appear in the CCSS are shown in Table 4.1. Remember,
to see how CCSSM, ELOF, and many other standards and assessments align with the learning
trajectories, use the alignment tool in [LT]2.
This learning trajectory is a bit complex, so we added something new to our learning trajec-
tory table. We don’t want you “lose the forest for the trees.” So, we have added a column that
encourages you to think of the big picture, the broad levels of thinking. Keep these broad level
in mind and you will not let the “trees”—the instructional important but numerous!—levels dis-
tract you from the major developments your children will make.
With the goals stated above, then, Table 4.2 shows the two additional components of the
learning trajectory, the developmental progression and the instructional tasks. (Note that the
ages in all the learning trajectory tables are only approximate, especially because the age of
acquisition usually depends heavily on experience.)

Final Words
In many situations, people wish to compare, order, or estimate the number of objects. Another
common type of situation involves putting collections—and the numbers of these collections—
together and taking them apart. These operations of arithmetic are the focus of Chapter 5.

Table 4.2 Learning Trajectory for Comparing, Ordering, and Estimating Numbers

Age Broad Developmental Progression Instructional Activities

0–1 Comparison Senser: Foundations: Activities encourage explorations of and talk,

From the first months of life, children often first modeled by an adult, about quan-
are sensitive to a change in the tities (many, only one, more, fewer, less, etc.)
number, either of a change of very everywhere possible in natural conversations.
small collections, such as 1 vs. 2, or See examples in [LT]2.
large changes in larger collections,
such as double the number. There-
fore, we know infants have an uncon-
scious, innate sensitivity to such
simple equivalence comparisons.
1 Many-to-One Corresponder Compar- Informal matching, [LT]2. Provide rich sensory,
Object Match- ing: Recognizes that two very small manipulative environments that include
ing—Visual, collections have the “same number” objects that provoke matching. Activities
Physical by intuitively making a correspond- encourage children to match sets intuitively, as
ence between the items in each col- in putting clothes on each doll, and discussing
lection. At this level, in certain what they are doing.
situations, children may also put
objects, words, or actions in one-to-
one or many-to-one correspondence
or a mixture.
Puts one or a couple blocks in
each muffin tin.

2 One-to-One Object Corresponder One-to-one correspondences: Discuss the cor-

Comparing: Puts objects into one-to- respondences the child makes or could make.

(Continued )
 Comparing, Ordering, and Estimating 77
Table 4.2 (Cont.)

Age Broad Developmental Progression Instructional Activities

one correspondence when it is clear “Does every doll have a block to sit on?” “Does
the materials are a physical “pair.” In every child have a drink?” Put out identical
other situations, such as setting the simple cut-out pictures of an animal (e.g., eight
table, may start to do one-to-one, but ducks), and have children put one rubber duck
then may keep on passing out items on each one.
until they are all dispersed, or may
skip some (due to the lack of clear
matching, such as cups “near”
plates) (Tirosh, Tsamir, Levenson, &
Barkai, 2020).
Puts one block in each muffin tin
but is disturbed that some blocks
remain so finds more tins to put
every last block in something.
Implicitly sensitive to the relation
of “more than/less than” involving
very small numbers (from 1 to 2
years of age). Uses words to include Put Them Together [LT]2: Children put just
“more,” “less,” or “same.” enough of one group of objects to match
another group where the relationship is clear
as in one-to-one provoked correspondences,
such as an egg carton and plastic eggs that fit
exactly or objects inside others (Tirosh et al.,
2020). See research on the benefits and
another example about wiffle balls and muffin
tins on p. 72 (Mix et al., 2011).
One-to-one puzzles, [LT]2: Provide knob or
simple shape puzzles in which each shape is to
be placed inside a corresponding hole in the
puzzle.
2–3 Object Corresponder Comparing: Put Them Together [LT]2, see above, is also
Puts objects into one-to-one corres- useful as needed.
pondence, although may not under- Match Them Up, [LT]2: Children get enough
stand that this creates equal groups of one group of objects to match another
(age 2; 8). group, such as setting the table.
Setting the Table, [LT]2: Children give one
Put a straw in each carton item to each person at a small table. If children
(doesn’t worry if extra straws are have difficulties, joining the play and talking
left) but doesn’t necessarily know about the one-to-one correspondence can be
there are the same number of helpful. Also, use only 3–4 to begin with (Tirosh
straws and cartons. et al., 2020).
Perceptual Comparer Comparing: Which Has More? and Who Has More?, [LT]2:
Compares collections that are quite Show two sets and ask children to judge which
different in number (e.g., one is at has more (or less).
least twice the other).
Shown ten blocks and 25 blocks,
points to the 25 as having more.
Compares similar collections but only
Visual involving very small numbers. Com-
Comparison pares collections using number
words “one” and “two” (age 2; 8).
Shown groups of two and four,
points to the group of four as
having more.
3 First–Second Ordinal Counter Who’s Up First?, [LT]2: Discuss who wishes to
Ordinal Number: Identifies the “first” be first and second in line (or up to bat, etc.).

(Continued )
78 Comparing, Ordering, and Estimating
Table 4.2 (Cont.)

Age Broad Developmental Progression Instructional Activities

and often “second” objects in Gradually extend this to higher ordinal

a sequence. numbers.
3 Early Comparer of Similar Items Is it Fair? (Similar), [LT]2: Show children a small
(1–4 items) Comparing: Compares col- number of similar objects given to two people
lections of 1–4 items verbally or non- (dolls, stuffed animals …) and ask if it’s fair—if
verbally (“just by looking”). The items they both have the same number.
must be the same. May compare the Compare Snapshots (Similar Items), [LT]2:
small collections using number words Secretly place two counters on one plate and
“two” and “three” (approximately age four counters on another plate. Using a dark
3; 2), and “three” and others (age 3; 6). cloth, cover the plate that has four counters.
Some do this before they can accur- Show children both plates, one covered. Tell
ately count by using recognition of children to watch carefully and quietly, keeping
number/subitizing for these quantities. their hands in their laps, as you quickly reveal
May transfer an ordering relation from the covered plate so they can compare it to
one pair of collections to another. the other plate. Ask children: “Do the plates
have the same number of counters?”
Identifies ••• and ••• as equal and
different from •• or • •.

3–4 Early Comparer of Dissimilar Items Is it Fair? (Dissimilar), [LT]2: As above with dis-
Comparing: Matches small, equal col- similar items.
lections consisting of different items,
showing that they are the same
number.
Matches collections of three
shells and three dots, then
declares that they “have the
same number.”
4 Matching Comparer Comparing: Comparing by Matching, [LT]2. Ask children to
Compares groups of 1–6 by matching. determine whether there are the same number
of spoons as plates, rocks in two piles (and
Gives one toy bone to every dog many other similar situations). Provide feed-
and says there are the same back as necessary. Talk to them about how
number of dogs and bones. they knew “for sure” and how they figured it
out. Talk with children to begin to develop the
idea that one-to-one matching creates equal
groups: “If you know the number in one of the
groups, then you know the number in the
other.”
Goldilocks and the Three Bears: Read or tell
Goldilocks and the Three Bears as a flannel
board story. Discuss the one-to-one corres-
pondence of bears to other things in the story.
Ask: “How many bowls are in the story?” “How
many chairs?” “How do you know?” Then ask,
“Were there just enough beds for the bears?
How do you know?”
Summarize that one-to-one match can
create equal groups. That is, “If you know the
number of bears in one group, then you know
the number of beds in the other group.”
Tell children they can retell the story and
match props later in center time.
Party Time 1: Students practice one-to-one
correspondence by matching party utensils to
placemats. Discuss how many there are of
each.

(Continued )
 Comparing, Ordering, and Estimating 79
Table 4.2 (Cont.)

Age Broad Developmental Progression Instructional Activities

Counting Comparer (Same Size) Flip to Compare, [LT]2: A game like “War,” in
Comparing: Accurately compares via which two players compare the card they
counting, but only when objects are flipped over.
about the same size and groups are Compare Snapshots (Same Size), [LT]2:
small (up to about five). Similar to the above, but with two important
differences. 1. Higher numbers are used, up to
Counts two piles of five blocks 5 and more as children gain confidence. 2. We
each, and says they are the same. use counting to check explicitly. For example:
Not always accurate when the larger Secretly place three counters on a plate and
collection’s objects are smaller in five counters on another plate. Using a dark
size than the objects in the smaller cloth, cover the plate that has five counters.
collection. Show children both plates, one covered. Tell
children to watch carefully and quietly, keeping
Accurately counts two equal col- their hands in their laps, as you quickly reveal
lections, but, when asked, says the covered plate so they can compare it to
the collection of larger blocks has the other plate. Uncover the plate for 2
more. seconds and cover it again. Ask children: “Do
the plates have the same number of coun-
ters?” Because the answer is “no,” ask: “Which
plate has more?” Have children point or say
the number on the plate. “Which plate has
fewer counters?” If needed, repeat the reveal.
Uncover the plate indefinitely. Ask children
how many counters are on each plate. Confirm
that five is more than three because five
comes after three when counting.
Compare Game: For each pair of children
Counting
playing, two or more sets of counting cards
Comparison
(1–5) are needed. Teach children to mix the
cards (e.g., by mixing them all up when they
are face down), and then deal them evenly
(one to the first player, then one to the second
player …) and face down to both players.
Players simultaneously flip their top cards
and compare to find out which is greater. The
player with the greater amount says, “I have
more,” and takes the opponent’s cards. If card
amounts are equal, players each flip another
card to determine a result.
The game is over when all cards have been
played, and the “winner” is the player with
more cards.

(Continued )
80 Comparing, Ordering, and Estimating
Table 4.2 (Cont.)

Age Broad Developmental Progression Instructional Activities

Use cards with dot arrays and numerals at

first, then just dot arrays. Start with small num-
bers and slowly add larger numbers. Play the
game on computers, too (as below).
5 Spatial Extent Estimator—Small/ The Estimating Jar (Small/Big), [LT]2: Put
Big Numerosity Estimation: Esti- objects in a clear plastic jar and secure the lid.
mates which set is more or less if the Tell children this is an “Estimating Jar,” and
differences are clear (e.g., one is that they will estimate how many items are in
double the other). Names a “small it, recording their estimates and their names
number” (e.g. from 1–4) for sets that on self-sticking notes to post by the jar. At the
cover little space and a “big number” end of the week, spill the items out, count
(10–20 or more) for sets that cover them, and compare the counts to the
a lot of space. Children classify num- estimates.
bers “little”/“big” idiosyncratically,
and this may change with the size of
the to-be-estimated objects.
Shown nine objects spread out for
1 second, and when asked, “How
many?”, responds, “Fifty!”
5 Counting Comparer (5) Comparing: Get Just Enough (Counting Comparer 5), [LT]2:
Compares with counting, even when Children get just enough of one group of
larger collection’s objects are smal- objects to match another group; e.g., a pair of
ler. Later, figures out how many scissors for each child at their table. At this
more or less. level, make sure they have to go across the
room to get the scissors, so they have to
Accurately counts two equal col- count. The same can be done with “Setting the
lections, and says they have the Table” (see above)—make sure counting is
same number, even if one collec- necessary.
tion has larger blocks. Memory Game—Number: For each pair of chil-
dren, one set of dot cards and one set of
numeral cards are needed. Place card sets face
down in two separate arrays. Players take
turns choosing, flipping, and showing a card
from each array. If the cards do not match,
they are returned face down to the arrays. If
they match, that player keeps them.

Concentrate!: Counting Cards to Counting

Cards 1–6, [LT]2: Children match counting cards
(each with a numeral and corresponding dot
cluster) within the framework of
a “Concentration” card game. Notice children
have to say if they match or not, unlike many

(Continued )
 Comparing, Ordering, and Estimating 81
Table 4.2 (Cont.)

Age Broad Developmental Progression Instructional Activities

computer games that just encourage random

clicking because the computer decides!
Find the Number—Compare: Before children
get to the center, conceal several pizzas (paper
plates), each under its own opaque container
and each with a different number of pepperoni
slices (round counters) under its container. Dis-
play one pizza with three to five pepperoni
slices. The goal is for children to find the
hidden match to the pizza on display.
4 Mental Number Line to 5 Number Who is Older?, [LT]2: Ask children who is older,
Line Estimation: Uses knowledge of a 2-year-old or a 3-year-old. Provide feedback
counting number relationships to as necessary. Ask them to explain how they
determine relative size and position know.
when given perceptual support. Help the Turtle Get Home: Counter (Small
Numbers), see [LT]2: See Chapter 3, p. 56.
Shown a 0 at one end of a line Race to Space (5), [LT]2: Make a board
segment and a 5 at the other, game with numbers 1 to 10 in consecutively
places a “3” approximately in the numbered, linearly arranged, equal-size
middle. squares ([LT]2 has full directions and resources
for this). Children roll or spin a “1” or a “2.”
They move that many while they say each
number their token lands on (e.g., if they are
on the numeral “5” and rolled a “2” they would
move and say “Six, seven!” Also see the two
sections on games in the Resources, for guide-
lines for introducing/teaching and using
games.
What’s the Missing Step?, [LT]2: Show chil-
dren a growing and shrinking cube staircase
tower (1, 2, 3, 4, 3, 2, 1). Have children close
their eyes while you remove the first tower of
three cubes. Now ask them which step they
think is missing. Ask why they selected that
Mental Number step. Did they count? Did they just know?
Line Show the missing step and count the cubes.
Repeat, but, this time, remove the second
tower of three cubes. Ask for their answers;
ask why they think that.
Serial Orderer to 5 (Comparing Crowded Room!, [LT]2: Children order, or seri-
Number) Comparing/Ordering: ate, five lengths with countable connecting
Orders quantities (dots) or numerals cubes.
up to 5. Similarly orders lengths Order Cards (5), [LT]2: Place dot cards 1 to
marked into units. 5 so they are left to right from the children’s
perspective. Ask children to describe the pat-
Given cards with 1 to 5 dots, puts tern. Tell children to keep counting out loud,
in order. predicting the next number as you continue to
Given towers of cubes, puts in lay out the next dot card in the pattern. Then
order (1 to 5). have children mix up these cards and then put
them in order on their own (including in cen-
ters). They can work together or race to put
two sets of cards in order and so forth.

5 Ordinal Counter Ordinal Number: Ordinal Construction Company: Students learn

Identifies and uses ordinal numbers ordinal positions (first through tenth) by
from “first” to “tenth.” moving objects between the floors of
a building.
Can identify who is “third in line.”

(Continued )
82 Comparing, Ordering, and Estimating
Table 4.2 (Cont.)

Age Broad Developmental Progression Instructional Activities

5 Counting Comparer (10) Comparing: Mr. MixUp—Comparing, [LT]2: Tell children that
Compares with counting, even when Mr. MixUp needs help comparing. Compare col-
larger collection’s objects are smal-lections of objects of different sizes. For
ler, up to 10. example, show four blocks and six much smal-
ler items, and have Mr. MixUp say, “The blocks
Accurately counts two collections are bigger so that’s the bigger number.” Ask
of nine each, and says they have children to count to find out which group really
the same number, even if one col- has more items and explain to Mr. MixUp why
lection has larger blocks. he is wrong.
Flip to Compare, [LT]2: For each pair of chil-
dren playing, two or more sets of counting
(with dots and numerals, and, soon thereafter,
just dots) cards (1–10) are needed. Mix and deal
cards evenly face down. Players simultan-
eously flip their top cards and compare to find
out which is greater. The player with the
greater amount says, “I have more,” and takes
the opponent’s card. If card amounts are equal,
players each flip another card to determine
a result. The game is over when all cards have
been played.

(Continued )
 Comparing, Ordering, and Estimating 83
Table 4.2 (Cont.)

Age Broad Developmental Progression Instructional Activities

Cube Towers—Which Has More, Which Has

Fewer?, [LT]2: Show two towers: one made of
eight identical blocks on the floor and another
made of seven similar identical blocks on
a chair. Ask children which tower is taller. Dis-
cuss any strategies they invent. Summarize
that, although the tower on the chair is higher,
from the bottom of the tower to the top of the
tower it is shorter because it consists of fewer
blocks than the tower on the floor.
Mental Number Line to 10 Number Race to Space (10), [LT]2: See the directions
Line Estimation: Uses internal images above but especially the complete directions
and knowledge of number relation- and set of resources on [LT]2.
ships to determine relative size and I Have More (Flip to Compare), [LT]2: See
position. above.
What’s the Missing Step?, [LT]2: As above,
Which number is closer to 6: 4 1–10.
or 9? Help the Turtle Get Home: Counter (10),
[LT]2: See Chapter 3, Counter (10), p. 56.
I’m Thinking of a Number (Number Line to
10), [LT]2: Using counting cards from 1 to 10,
choose and hide a secret number. Tell children
you hid a card with a number and ask them to
guess which it is. When a child guesses cor-
rectly, excitedly reveal the card. Until then, tell
children whether a guess is more or less than
the secret number.
As children become more comfortable, ask
why they made their guess; for example, “I
knew 4 was more than the secret number and
2 was less, so I guessed 3!”
Repeat, adding clues, such as, “Your guess
is two more than my number.” Do this activity
during transitions.
Rocket Blast 1: Students estimate the place-
ment of a tick mark on a 1–20 number line to
the nearest whole number.

6 Serial Orderer to 6+ (Number) Com- Build Stairs (6+): Have children make “stairs”
paring/Ordering: Orders quantities with connecting cubes. Encourage them to
(dots) or numerals to 6 and beyond. count each step. Ask them to describe the
Similarly orders lengths marked into numbers.
units. Extensions: Have someone hide one of the
stairs and you figure out which one is hidden,
Given cards with 1 to 12 dots, puts then you insert it.
in order. Have them mix up the steps and put them
Given towers of cubes, puts in back in order.
order (1 to 10).

(Continued )
84 Comparing, Ordering, and Estimating
Table 4.2 (Cont.)

Age Broad Developmental Progression Instructional Activities

Order Cards (6+), [LT]2: ln small groups or cen-

ters, challenge students to put dot cards 1 to 10
(or more) in order. They can work together or
race to put two sets of cards in order and so
forth.
Magician’s Trick, [LT]2 (this is a rich, Math +
(math + executive function) activity; please see
the extensive resources on [LT]2): Place count-
ing cards 1 to 10 in numerical order so that chil-
dren see them in left-to-right order and count
them with children. Then place the cards face
down, still in order. Ask a volunteer to point to
any of the cards. Using your “math magic”
(really, counting from 1 to the chosen card), tell
children which card it is. The volunteer flips the
card to show you are correct, and then
replaces it face down.
Ask children to use their math magic in
a similar manner after you point to one of the
cards. Remind them where “1” is, then point to
“2.” Have children spontaneously say what they
think the card is. Turn it over to check. Have
children take turns playing independently.

(Continued )
 Comparing, Ordering, and Estimating 85
Table 4.2 (Cont.)

Age Broad Developmental Progression Instructional Activities

Variations: This variation encourages counting

forward and backward from numbers. Start as
before. Tell children this is a new way to play,
by keeping the cards showing after they are
guessed. Play with them, and after one card is
left face up, point to the next card right after
the face-up card. Ask children to use their
“math magic,” and then to tell how they figured
it out. Discuss that you could count forward
from the face-up card. Keeping both cards face
up, repeat with a face-down card that comes
right before another card. Have children take
turns playing independently.
Spatial Extent Estimator Numerosity The Estimating Jar, [LT]2: Put 5–15 objects in
Estimation: Extends sets and number a clear plastic jar and secure the lid. Tell chil-
categories to include “small numbers,” dren this is an “Estimating Jar,” and that they
which are usually subitized, not esti- will estimate how many items are in it, record-
mated; “middle-size numbers” (e.g., ing their estimates and their names on self-
10–20); and “large numbers.” The sticking notes to post by the jar. At the end of
arrangement of the to-be-estimated the week, spill the items out, count them, and
set affects the difficulty. compare the counts to the estimates. Start
with large items so 5–10 fit in the jar, then
Shown nine objects spread out for move to smaller (and thus more numerous)
1 second and asked, “How items. Talk to children about their strategies as
many?”, responds, “Fifteen.” they are estimating and at the end of the week.
Estimate How Many (Spatial Extent), [LT]2:
In specifically designed instructional situations
(e.g., a whole-group lesson in which a large
chart is covered with a number of dots) or
other setting (e.g., noting a large flock of birds
on the playground), ask children to estimate
the number. Discuss strategies, having some-
one demonstrate each, then challenge children
to apply them to new situations. Encourage
them to use benchmarks (“I know 10 is about
this many, so I thought, 10, 20, 30 …”).
7 Place Value Comparer1 Comparing: Equal Shmequal and Balance Scales, [LT]2.
Compares numbers with place value Read Equal Shmequal by Virginia Kroll, in
understandings. which animals try different properties (e.g.,
meat-eating or not) to find a fair way to play
“63 is more than 59 because 6 tug-of-war and decide on weight. While reading
tens is more than 5 tens even if it, put a balance scale on the table. Have chil-
there are more than 3 ones.” dren put base-ten blocks on the trays to repre-
sent the plot (e.g., 3 ones for 3 small animals
vs. 3 tens for 3 large animals). Then have chil-
dren compare other multidigit numbers and
explain their reasoning, making connections to
the story and to the balance scale. (This is
adapted from Larson & Rumsey, 2018, who
include many other books and ideas.)
Which Number is Greater?, [LT]2: Write two
numbers, such as 64 and 47 or 35 and 58, on
the board. Ask children which number is
greater than the other. Write another pair of
two-digit numbers on the board. Cover up the
tens place with a note card or piece of

(Continued )
86 Comparing, Ordering, and Estimating
Table 4.2 (Cont.)

Age Broad Developmental Progression Instructional Activities

construction paper. Discuss and encourage

them to explain their strategies. Repeat with
the ones place hidden.
What is the Largest/Smallest Number I Can
Make?, [LT]2: Using numeral cards, students con-
struct numbers from 0–99 and determine which
number combination makes the greatest number
and which number combination makes the smal-
lest number (see [LT]2 for full instructions).
Snapshots Compare with place value
models. See also activities in Chapter 6 dedi-
cated to place value (pp. 128–130).

Mental Number Line to 100 Number Race to Space (100), [LT]2: See the directions
Line Estimation: Uses knowledge of above but especially the complete directions and
number relationships and mental set of resources on [LT]2. (Laski & Siegler, 2014).
images, including how ones can be I’m Thinking of a Number (100), [LT]2: As
embedded in tens, to determine rela- above, but done verbally or with an “empty
tive size and position. number line”—a line segment initially labeled
only with 0 to 100, filled in with each of the
Asked, “Which is closer to 45: 30 children’s estimates.
or 50?”, says, “45 is right next to Rocket Blast (100), [LT]2: Students estimate
50, one five away, but 30 isn’t.” the placement of a tick mark on a 1–100
number line to the nearest whole number.
The activities in Chapter 6 dedicated to
place value (pp. 128–130) and those at the
higher levels of the learning trajectories in that
chapter develop these abilities as well.
7 Scanning with Intuitive Quantifica- Estimate How Many (Scanning), [LT]2: See
tion Estimator Numerosity Estima- above.
tion: Scans a group of objects and
relates the results to a mental
number line to perform a useful
numerosity estimation.
Shown 40 objects spread out for
1 second and asked, “How
many?”, responds, “About thirty.”

7-8 Mental Number Line to 1000 I’m Thinking of a Number (1000), [LT]2: As
Number Line Estimation: Uses above, 0 to 1000.
internal images and knowledge of Rocket Blast (1000), [LT]2: Students esti-
number relationships, including place mate the placement of a tick mark on a 1–1000
value, to determine relative size and number line to the nearest whole number.
position. Some computer games give useful feedback on
guesses.
Asked, “Which is closer to 3500:
2000 or 7000?”, says, “70 is
double 35, but 20 is only 15 from
35, so 20 hundreds, 2000, is
closer.”

(Continued )
 Comparing, Ordering, and Estimating 87

Table 4.2 (Cont.)

Age Broad Developmental Progression Instructional Activities

8 Benchmarks Estimator Numerosity Estimate How Many (Benchmark), [LT]2: (see

Estimation: Counts a portion of the above) Emphasize strategies at this level or
to-be-estimated collection and uses the next.
that as a benchmark from which an
estimate is made, intuitively or using
repeated addition or multiplication.
Scanning can be linked to recalled
benchmarks.
Shown 11, says, “It looked closer
to 10 than 20, so I guess 12.”
Shown 45 objects spread out
for 1 second and asked, “How
many?”, responds, “About 5 tens—
fifty.”
Composition Estimator Numerosity Estimate How Many (Composition), [LT]2: (see
Estimation: Decomposes or partitions above) Emphasize strategies at this level.
the to-be-estimated set into conveni-
ent subset sizes, then recomposes
the numerosity. Initially, this is done
with regular arrangements using
repeated addition or multiplication.
Later, the process can be done with
irregular arrangements and children
more consistently use multiplication
skills to recompose.
Shown 87 objects spread out and
asked for an estimate responds,
“That’s about 20—so, 20, 40, 60,
80. Eighty!”

Note
1 See Chapter 6 for much more information about place value.
5 Arithmetic
Early Addition and Subtraction
and Counting Strategies

Alex is 5 years old. Her brother, Paul, is 3. Alex bounds into the kitchen and announces:

Alex: When Paul is 6, I’ll be 8; when Paul is 9, I’ll be 11; when Paul is 12, I’ll be 14 (she
continues until Paul is 18 and she is 20).
Father: My word! How on earth did you figure all that out?
Alex: It’s easy. You just go “three-FOUR-five” (saying the “four” very loudly, and clap-
ping hands at the same time, so that the result was very strongly rhythmical, and
had a soft-LOUD-soft pattern), you go “six-SEVEN-[clap]-eight,” you go “nine-TEN-
[clap!]-eleven.
(Davis, 1984, p. 154)

Is this small, but remarkable, scene a glimpse at an exceptional child? Or, is it an indication
of the potential all young children have to learn arithmetic? If so, how early could instruction
start? How early should it start?

The Earliest Arithmetic

We saw that children have a sense of quantity from birth. Similarly, they appear to have some
sense of arithmetic. For example, they appear to expect that, if you add one, you have one
more. Figure 5.1 illustrates an experiment that provides an example of this. After seeing
a screen hide one doll, and a hand places another doll behind the screen, 5-month-olds look
longer when the removal of the screen reveals an incorrect, rather than a correct, outcome (a
violation-of-expectations procedure; Wynn, 1992).
Research on subitizing (Chapter 2) and early arithmetic suggests that infants intuitively
represent a small collection (e.g., 2) as individual objects that they “track,” but not as
a group. In contrast, they represent large numbers (e.g., 10) as groups, but not as individual
objects. However, they can combine images of such groups and intuitively expect a certain
outcome. For example, shown two groups of five dots combined—picture for yourself five
dots appearing in place of the doll in Figure 5.1, then another five dots added, slipping
behind the screen—they discriminate between the outcome of 5 (incorrect, like the “impos-
sible” outcome in Figure 5.1) and 10 (correct). Also, by 2 years of age, children show signs
 Early Arithmetic: Counting Strategies 89

Figure 5.1 An experiment revealing 5-month-olds’ sensitivity to adding one object

of understanding that adding increases, and taking away decreases, quantity. The intuitive
quantity estimators they use may be innate, and facilitate later-developing, explicit arith-
metic. However, they do not appear to directly lead to and determine this explicit, accurate
arithmetic.
Across many studies, research suggests that children develop an initial explicit understand-
ing of addition and subtraction with small numbers by about 3 years of age. However, it is not
until 4 years of age that most children can solve addition problems involving even slightly
larger numbers with accuracy (Huttenlocher, Jordan, & Levine, 1994).
Most children do not solve larger-number problems without the support of concrete objects
until about 5½ years of age. However, this is not so much an age, or biological, limitation, as an
experiential, limitation. That is, with experience, preschoolers and kindergartners can learn
“counting-all” and even basic “counting-on” strategies.

Arithmetic: Mathematical Definitions and Properties

Mathematically, we can define addition in terms of counting (Wu, 2011b). This connects arithmetic
to counting (especially incrementation, also known as the successor operation, the addition of 1 to
a number). The sum 3 + 8 is the whole number that results from counting eight numbers starting at
3: 3 … 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 (Wu, 2011b). One would not welcome the task, but the sum 37 + 739 is
the number that results from counting 739 numbers starting at 37: 37 … 38, 39 … 774, 775, 776. In
90 Early Arithmetic: Counting Strategies

general, for any two whole numbers a and b, the sum a + b is the number that results by counting
b more numbers starting at the number a (Wu, 2011b).
We can also skip count. If we do skip counting by tens ten times, we have 100. Similarly, skip
counting by 100s ten times results in 1000, and so forth. All this is consistent with what we
learned about counting in Chapters 3 and 4. Thus, 47 + 30 can be solved by skip counting by
tens: 47 … 57, 67, 77. Place value is fundamental to arithmetic, which we discuss in more detail
in Chapter 6.
From the earliest levels, arithmetic depends on two properties:

1. The associative law of addition: (a + b) + c = a + (b + c). For example, this allows a mental add-
ition strategy that simplifies some computations, such as: 4 + 4 + 6 = 4 + (4 + 6) = 4 + 10 = 14.
2. The commutative law of addition: a + b = b + a. Illustrating commutativity, think how odd it
would be if the number of toy vehicles you put in an empty toy box depended on whether
you put the trucks or the cars in first.

Young children usually do not know these laws explicitly but learn to use them intuitively. How-
ever, some studies indicate that children do understand the concept of commutativity when
using it in counting strategies (Canobi, Reeve, & Pattison, 1998).
Subtraction does not follow these laws. Subtraction is defined mathematically as the inverse
of addition; that is, subtraction is the additive inverse—a for any a, such that a + – a = 0. Or, for
8 – 3, the difference is the number that, when added to 3, results in 8. So, c – a = b means that
b is the number that satisfies a + b = c. Thus, although it seems cumbersome, one can think of
(8 – 3) as ((5 + 3) – 3) = 5 + (3 – 3) = 5 + 0 = 5. Or, since we know that subtraction and addition
are inverses of each other, saying:

8–3=□
means the same as:
8=3+□

That is, asking “What is 8 – 3?” means the same as “What number added to 3 gives 8?”
Subtraction can also be intuitively understood through counting: The difference 8 – 3 is the
whole number that results from counting backward 3 numbers starting at 8 – 8 … 7, 6, 5. This
process is consistent with the “take away” notion of subtraction. All of these notions are
equivalent, and to us they seem natural. For students coming to grips with subtraction, seeing
them all as the “same thing” takes time and many experiences.
Addition and subtraction can therefore be understood through counting, and that is one way
in which children come to learn more about these arithmetic operations. This way of under-
standing arithmetic is the focus of this chapter.

Addition and Subtraction Problem Structures (And Other

Factors that Affect Difficulty)
In most cases, the larger the whole numbers, the more difficult the problem. This is so even for
single-digit problems, due to the frequency one has experienced the arithmetic computations
and the strategies one must use. For example, children use a more sophisticated strategy to
 Early Arithmetic: Counting Strategies 91

solve subtraction combinations whose minuend (the “whole” from which a part is subtracted)
are larger than 10 than for those that are smaller than 10.
Beyond the size of the number, it is the type, or structure of the word problem that mainly
determines its difficulty. Type depends on the situation and the unknown. There are four dif-
ferent situations, shown in the four rows of Table 5.1. The names in quotation marks are those
some people consider useful in classroom discussions. For each of these categories, there are
three quantities that play different roles in the problem, any one of which could be the

Table 5.1 Addition and Subtraction Problem Types

Category Start/Part Unknown Change/Difference Result/Whole Unknown

Unknown

Join (“Change Add Start Unknown Change Unknown Result Unknown

To”) □ + 6 = 11 5 + □ = 11 5+6=□
An action of joining Al had some balls. Then Al had 5 balls. He Al had 5 balls and gets
increases the number he got 6 more. Now he has 11 bought some more. Now 6 more. How many does
in a set. balls. How many did he start he has 11. How many did he he have in all?
with? buy?

Separate (“Change Start Unknown Change Unknown Result Unknown

Take Away”) □–5=4 9–□=4 9–5=□
An action of separ- Al had some balls. He Al had 9 balls. He gave Al had 9 balls and
ating decreases the gave 5 to Barb. Now he has some to Barb. Now he has gave 5 to Barb. How
number in a set. 4. How many did he have to 4. How many did he give to many does he have left?
start with? Barb?
Part–Part–Whole Part (“Partner”) Unknown Part (“Partner”) Unknown Whole (“Total”)
(“Collection”) Unknown#
Two parts make
a whole, but there is
no action—the situ-
ation is static.

Al has 10 balls. Some are Al has 10 balls; 4 are

blue, 6 are red. How many blue, the rest are red. How Al has 4 red balls and
are blue? many are red? 6 blue balls. How many
balls does he have in all?
Compare Smaller Unknown Difference Unknown Larger Unknown
The numbers of
objects in two sets are
compared.

Al had 7 balls. Barb has 2 “Won’t get”: Al has 7 Al has 5 marbles. Barb
fewer balls than Al. How dogs and 5 bones. How has 2 more than Al. How
many balls does Barb have? many dogs won’t get many marbles does Barb
(More difficult language: a bone? have?
“Al has 2 more than Barb.”) Al has 6 balls. Barb has (More difficult lan-
4. How many more does Al guage: “Al has 2 marbles
have than Barb? less than Barb.”)
(Also: How many fewer
balls does Barb have?)
92 Early Arithmetic: Counting Strategies

unknown. In some cases, such as the “parts” of Part–Part–Whole problems, there is no real
difference between them. In others, such as the Result Unknown, Change Unknown, or Start
Unknown of Join problems, the differences in difficulty are large. Result Unknown problems
are easy, Change Unknown problems are moderately difficult, and Start Unknown are the
most difficult. This is due in large part to the increasing difficulty children have in modeling,
or “acting out,” each type. Study these problem types so that you can reliably classify any
word problem.

The Development of Arithmetic Counting Strategies

Most people can invent strategies for solving such problems. The strategies of young children
are notably creative and diverse. For example, preschool to first-grade children can invent and
use a variety of covert and overt strategies, including counting fingers, finger patterns (i.e., con-
ceptual subitizing, see Chapter 2), verbal counting, retrieval (“just knowing” a combination),
derived combinations (“derived facts”; e.g., “doubles plus 1”: 7 + 8 = 7 + 7 + 1 = 14 + 1 = 15).
Children are flexible strategists, using different strategies on problems they perceive to be
easier or harder. This chapter focuses on counting-based strategies.

Children’s Modeling and Counting Strategies

Strategies usually emerge from children’s modeling the problem situation. That is, children as
young as preschool and kindergarten can solve problems using concrete objects or drawings
(see the section Manipulatives and “Concrete” Representations in Chapter 16). Children with
fewer experiences engaging in math have more difficulty solving verbally presented problems.

Counting Strategies
Preschoolers, 3 and 4 years of age, were told stories in which they were asked, for example, to
help a baker. They were shown an array of goods, which they counted. Then the array was hidden,
and one, two, or three more goods were added or subtracted. Children were asked to predict, and
then count to check. Even the 3-year-olds understood the difference between predicting and
counting to check a prediction. All were able to offer a number that resulted from an addition or
subtraction that was consistent with the principles that addition increases numerosity and subtrac-
tion decreases numerosity. They made other reasonable predictions. Their counts were usually
correct and children preferred them to their predictions (Zur & Gelman, 2004).
Developmentally, most children initially use a “counting-all” strategy. As illustrated in Figure
5.2, given a situation of 5 + 2, such children count out objects to form a set of five items, then
count out two more items, and, finally, count all those starting again at “one” and—if they make
no counting errors—report “7.” These children naturally use such counting methods to solve
story situations as long as they understand the language and situation in the story.
After children develop such methods, they eventually curtail them. On their own, 4-year-olds
may start “counting on”; for example, solving the previous problem by counting, “Fiiiive … six,
seven. Seven!” The elongated pronunciation may be substituting for counting the initial set one
by one. It is as if they counted a set of five items. Some children first use transitional strategies,
such as the “shortcut-sum” strategy, which is like counting-all strategy, but involves only one
 Early Arithmetic: Counting Strategies 93

Figure 5.2 Using the “counting-all” procedure to solve an addition problem (5 + 2)

count; for example, to solve 4 + 3, 1, 2, 3, 4…, 5, 6, 7 and answer 7. Importantly, children pass
through an intermediate stage in which they can count on in situations only when prompted
(Tzur & Lambert, 2011). They have to construct the ability to anticipate the counting actions of
starting at the number in one set and to stop after counting on the number in the second set
(especially if items are not present).
Children then typically move to the “counting-on-from-larger” strategy, which is preferred by
most children once they invent it. Presenting problems such as 2 + 23, where counting on saves
the most work, often prompts children to invent or adopt this strategy. Thus, counting skills—
especially sophisticated counting skills—play an important role in developing competence with
arithmetic. Counting easily and quickly predicts arithmetic competence in kindergarten and
later. Knowing the next number (“Counter from N (N + 1, N – 1),” in Chapter 3) predicts arith-
metic achievement and addition speed in Grades 1 and 2.
“Counting on” when increasing collections, and the corresponding “counting-back-from” when
decreasing collections, are powerful numerical strategies for children. However, they are only begin-
ning strategies. In the case where the amount of increase is unknown, children use “counting-up-to”
to find the unknown amount. If six items are increased so that there are now nine items, children
may find the amount of increase by counting, “Siiiix; 7, 8, 9. Three.” And if nine items are decreased
so that six remain, children may count from 9 down to 6 to find the unknown decrease (Separate
Change Unknown), as follows: “Nine; 8, 7, 6. Three.” However, counting backward, especially more
than three counts, is difficult for most children unless they have high-quality instruction in this skill.
Instead, children in many parts of the world learn “counting-up-to” the total to solve
a subtraction situation because they realize that it is easier. For example, the story problem “8
apples on the table. The children ate 5. How many now?” could be solved by thinking, “I took
away 5 from those 8, so 6, 7, 8 (raising a finger with each count), that’s 3 more left in the 8.”
When children fully realize that they can find the amount of decrease (e.g., 9 – □ = 6) by putting
the items back with the 6 and counting from 6 up to 9, they begin to establish that subtraction
is the inversion of addition and can use addition instead of subtraction. This understanding
develops over several years but may emerge in the preschool years and can be used by kinder-
gartners with good instruction.

Metacognitive Strategies and Other Knowledge

There is much more to solving even simple word problems than just knowing counting strategies.
Children must understand the language, including the semantics and the syntax, and be familiar
94 Early Arithmetic: Counting Strategies

with the situations the language represents. Also, solutions of word problems occur in various
social-cultural contexts and those, too, affect children’s solutions. For example, some teaching acts
can lead to children using unproductive “coping strategies,” or may even involve direct teaching
of unfortunate strategies that limits children’s problem-solving abilities. As an example, some chil-
dren come to use, or are taught to use, “key-word” approaches, such as finding the word “left” or
“less” in a problem and then subtracting a small from a larger number they find in the text. This
does not work, of course, if the problem is: Frank gave away 3 cookies and still has 7 left. How
many did he have to start with? Even children not taught to use the flawed key-word approach
need to avoid that trap, using the executive function of inhibitory control (Chapter 14).
When children consider problems for which they have no immediate strategy, they often do
not apply “heuristics,” or general strategies or representations that may serve as guides.
Teaching of heuristics such as “make a drawing” or “break the problem down into parts” have
not been remarkably successful. However, metacognitive or self-regulatory teaching, often
including heuristics, shows more promise (Verschaffel, Greer, & De Corte, 2007). Chapter 13
focuses on such problem-solving processes.

Summary
Babies are sensitive to some situations that adults see as arithmetical. They may be using an
innate ANS or subitizing ability that is limited to very small numbers, such as 2 + 1. Or they may
be individuating and tracking individual objects. In any case, they possess a far richer founda-
tion for arithmetic than traditional Piagetian accounts suggested.
Only later in preschool can children solve problems with larger numbers (but not yet large;
e.g., 3 + 2), using concrete objects and subitizing and/or counting. Later again, children
develop more sophisticated counting and composition strategies as curtailments of these
early solution strategies. That is, children learn to count from a given number (rather than
starting only from one), generate the number before or after another number, and eventually
embed one number sequence inside another. They think about the number sequence, rather
than just saying it (Fuson, 1992a). Such reflection empowers counting to be an effective and
efficient representational tool for problem solving. Thus, educators must study the processes
children use as well as the problems they can solve to understand both their strengths and
limitations at various ages. Learning involves a complex development of knowledge, under-
standing, and skill, usually involving the use of a mix of strategies. More sophisticated strat-
egies are learned, strategies are selected more effectively, and speed and accuracy of
executing these strategies increases (NMP, 2008).

Experience and Education: Arithmetic Counting Strategies

At every age, children need opportunities to learn arithmetic. In the U.S., virtually all chil-
dren need better opportunities than those presently provided to solve addition and subtrac-
tion problems, building on their competencies with subitizing, modeling, and counting.
Because this unfortunate state of affairs is so common, we begin this section by discussing
roadblocks to high-quality instruction (see also Davenport, Henry, Clements, & Sarama,
2019b).
 Early Arithmetic: Counting Strategies 95

Roadblocks to High-quality Experience and Education

Limiting Beliefs
Children can learn arithmetic from 3 years of age, and, in limited contexts, even earlier. Yet
most preschool teachers and other professionals do not believe arithmetic is appropriate, and
do not believe very young children can think arithmetically. Thus, it is unsurprising that young
children do not receive high-quality educational experiences with arithmetic.

Typical Instruction
Instruction often helps students perform arithmetic procedures, but at the expense of conceptual
understanding. Children are initially competent at modeling different problem types. Schooling
makes them ask, “What do I do, add or subtract?” and makes them perform more wrong-operation
errors. Instead, informal modeling and understanding the situations need to be encouraged and
instruction needs to build on informal knowledge (Frontera, 1994). Children need experience with all
problem types (Artut, 2015a).

Textbooks
In too many traditional U.S. textbooks, only the simplest meanings are given for addition and sub-
traction problems Join or Separate, Result Unknown (Stigler, Fuson, Ham, & Kim, 1986). Indeed,
both curricula and teachers in many countries present only the simplest problem types (Saribaş &
Arnas, 2017). That is unfortunate, because (a) most kindergartners can already solve these prob-
lem types and (b) other countries’ first-grade curricula include all the types in Table 5.1 (p. 91).
Textbooks also do little with subitizing or counting, automatization of which aids arithmetical
reasoning, and de-emphasize the use of sophisticated counting strategies. The younger the chil-
dren, the more problematic these instructional approaches become. No wonder that American
schooling has a weak positive effect on children’s accuracy on arithmetic, but an inconsistent
effect on their use of strategies.
In addition, textbooks offer an inadequate presentation of problems with anything but small
numbers. In one kindergarten text, only 17 of the 100 addition combinations were presented,
and each of these only a small number of times.

Teaching Arithmetic Counting Strategies

There are other reasons to believe that present practice is inadequate with regard to
teaching arithmetic counting strategies. For example, longitudinal studies suggest that in
spite of the gains many younger children make through adopting efficient mental strat-
egies for computation in the first years of school, a significant proportion of them still rely
on inefficient counting strategies to solve arithmetical problems mentally in the upper
years of primary school (Carr & Alexeev, 2011; Clarke, Clarke, & Horne, 2006; Gervasoni,
2005; Perry, Young-Loveridge, Dockett, & Doig, 2008). Early use of more sophisticated
strategies, including fluency and accuracy in second grade, appears to influence later arith-
metical competence. Children using manipulatives continue to need to use manipulatives
(Carr & Alexeev, 2011).
96 Early Arithmetic: Counting Strategies

How might we do better? Teachers want children to advance in their sophistication, but
effective advances usually do not involve replacing initial strategies with school-based algo-
rithms, such as “column addition” (see Chapter 6). Instead, effective teaching helps children cur-
tail and adapt their early inventions and strategies.

General Approaches
As we shall see repeatedly, one of the main lessons from research for arithmetic is to connect
children’s learning of skills, facts, concepts, and problem solving. So, work with children to pose
problems, make connections, and then work out these problems in ways that make the connec-
tions visible. Encourage children to use increasingly sophisticated counting strategies, seek pat-
terns, and understand the relationship between addition and subtraction (cf. Davenport et al.,
2019b; Gervasoni, 2018b).
Other studies confirm the advantages in children inventing, using, sharing, and explaining dif-
ferent strategies for more demanding arithmetic problems. The number of different strategies
children understand and employ predicts their later learning.

Counting On
Encourage children to invent new strategies. To begin, help children learn the “Counter from N (N + 1,
N – 1)” level of counting well. This helps because children often use the knowledge that n + 1 tasks can
be solved by the “number-after” strategy (the counting word after n is the sum) to invent the count-
ing-on strategy. If children, especially those with a learning disability, need help with the number-
after skill, provide and then fade a “running start.” All children benefit from instruction that targets
discovering rules for n + 1 and 1 + n as well as for n + 0 = n and 0 + n = n, and this can be delivered
with computers (Baroody, Eiland, Purpura, & Reid, 2012, 2013). Also, to spur children to start using
the counting-on-from-larger strategy, pose problems in which its use would save considerable
effort, such as 1 + 18. Children originally can count on only when prompted—initially by others and
then sometimes by their own self-reflection (“Oops! I already knew how many in that group!”) and
may revert to counting all. Providing children with tasks such as these (e.g., 8 + 1 to get started on
n + 1; or 3 + 21 to encourage them to use counting on in more problems) and prompt them to use
counting on (“Can you start with 21 and count up for a faster way?”). This will serve to support
their internalization and improved understanding of the process and their knowledge that such
strategies yield the same answer as counting all with increased efficiency (Tzur & Lambert, 2011).
If some children do not then invent “counting on” for themselves and always use “counting
all,” encourage understanding of the connection between counting and arithmetic by emphasiz-
ing the successor principle—adding 1 gives a total that is “the next counting number.” Children
can often invent this concept and skill with good activities (see Chapter 3 for activities as well
as Table 5.2) and minimal guidance (Baroody, Purpura, Eiland, & Reid, 2015).
If some children need more assistance, this is an admittedly time-consuming but very suc-
cessful method: teach understanding and use of the subskills. For example, lay out numerals
“6” and “4” and ask a child to lay out that number of counters. Ask him to count to find how
many in all. As he is counting, right as he reaches “six,” point to the last counter of the first
group (the sixth object). When he counts that last counter, point to the numeral card and say,
 Early Arithmetic: Counting Strategies 97

Table 5.2 Goals for Addition and Subtraction (Emphasizing Counting Strategies) from the Common Core State
Standards—Mathematics (CCSSM)

Operations and Algebraic Thinking [K.0A in CCSSM]

Understand addition as putting together and adding to and understand subtraction as taking apart and
taking from.

1. Represent addition and subtraction with objects, fingers, mental images, drawings, sounds (e.g., claps),
acting out situations, verbal explanations, expressions, or equations. [Drawings need not show details
but should show the mathematics in the problem. (This applies wherever drawings are mentioned in
the Standards.)]
2. Solve addition and subtraction word problems, and add and subtract within 10, e.g., by using objects or
drawings to represent the problem.
3. For any number from 1 to 9, find the number that makes 10 when added to the given number, e.g., by
using objects or drawings, and record the answer with a drawing or equation.

Operations and Algebraic Thinking [1.0A in CCSSM]

Represent and solve problems involving addition and subtraction.

1. Use addition and subtraction within 20 to solve word problems involving situations of adding to, taking
from, putting together, taking apart, and comparing, with unknowns in all positions, e.g., by using objects,
drawings, and equations with a symbol for the unknown number to represent the problem. [The CCSSM
refers to their Glossary, Table 1, which has information very similar to this chapter’s Table 5.1.]
2. Solve word problems that call for addition of three whole numbers whose sum is less than or equal to
20, e.g., by using objects, drawings, and equations with a symbol for the unknown number to represent
the problem.

Understand and apply properties of operations and the relationship between addition and subtraction.

1. Apply properties of operations as strategies to add and subtract. Examples: If 8 + 3 = 11 is known, then
3 + 8 = 11 is also known. (Commutative property of addition.) To add 2 + 6 + 4, the second two num-
bers can be added to make a ten, so 2 + 6 + 4 = 2 + 10 = 12. (Associative property of addition.) [Stu-
dents need not use formal terms for these properties.]
2. Understand subtraction as an unknown-addend problem. For example, subtract 10 – 8 by finding the
number that makes 10 when added to 8. Add and subtract within 20.

1. Relate counting to addition and subtraction (e.g., by counting on 2 to add 2).

2. Add and subtract within 20, demonstrating fluency for addition and subtraction within 10. Use strat-
egies such as counting on; making ten (e.g., 8 + 6 = 8 + 2 + 4 = 10 + 4 = 14); decomposing a number
leading to a ten (e.g., 13 – 4 = 13 – 3 – 1 = 10 – 1 = 9); using the relationship between addition and
subtraction (e.g., knowing that 8 + 4 = 12, one knows 12 – 8 = 4); and creating equivalent but easier or
known sums (e.g., adding 6 + 7 by creating the known equivalent 6 + 6 + 1 = 12 + 1 = 13).

Work with addition and subtraction equations.

1. Understand the meaning of the equal sign and determine if equations involving addition and subtraction
are true or false. For example, which of the following equations are true and which are false? 6 = 6, 7 =
8 – 1, 5 + 2 = 2 + 5, 4 + 1 = 5 + 2.
2. Determine the unknown whole number in an addition or subtraction equation relating to three whole
numbers. For example, determine the unknown number that makes the equation true in each of the
equations 8 + ? = 11, 5 = ? – 3, 6 + 6 = ?.

Operations and Algebraic Thinking [2.0A in CCSSM]

Add and subtract within 20.

1. Fluently add and subtract within 20 using mental strategies. [See standard 1.0A.6 for a list of mental
strategies.] By end of Grade 2, know from memory all sums of two one-digit numbers. [See the follow-
ing chapter in this book.]

(Continued )
98 Early Arithmetic: Counting Strategies

Table 5.2 (Cont.)

Work with equal groups of objects to gain foundations for multiplication.

1. Determine whether a group of objects (up to 20) has an odd or even number of members, e.g., by
pairing objects or counting them by twos; write an equation to express an even number as a sum of
two equal addends.

Measurement and Data [2.MD in CCSSM]

Measure and estimate lengths in standard units.

1. Measure to determine how much longer one object is than another, expressing the length difference in
terms of a standard length unit.

Work with time and money.

1. Solve word problems involving dollar bills, quarters, dimes, nickels, and pennies, using $ and ¢ symbols
appropriately. Example: If you have 2 dimes and 3 pennies, how many cents do you have?

Represent and interpret data.

1. Draw a picture graph and a bar graph (with single-unit scale) to represent a data set with up to four
categories. Solve simple put-together, take-apart, and Compare problems using information presented in
a bar graph. [The CCSSM refers to their Glossary, Table 1, which has information very similar to this chap-
ter’s Table 5.1.]

“See this is 6 also. It tells how many counters there are here.” Have him count again, and interrupt
him sooner, until he understands that when he reaches that object, he will have counted 6. Next,
point to the first counter of the second group (addend), and say, “See, there were six counters here,
so this one (exaggerated jump from last counter in the first addend to first counter in the second
addend) gets the number seven.” If need be, interrupt the child’s counting of the first addend with
questions: “How many here (first addend)? So, this dot (last of first) gets what number? And this one
(first of second)?” Continue until the child understands these ideas and can answer easily.
Such teaching of counting strategies can be especially effective for children with math diffi-
culties. It is most effective to follow the teaching with deliberate planned practice (Fuchs et al.,
2010, who also promoted retrieval whenever possible).
“Counting all” and other strategies, such as “counting-up-to” and “counting-down-to,” are
not just good strategies for finding answers. They also develop Part–Part–Whole relationships
more effectively than teaching paper-and-pencil algorithms (Wright, 1991).
Other arithmetic concepts are foundational to the development of children’s strategies and
to their math learning (Aunio & Räsänen, 2015a).

Adding Zero (Additive Identity)

This is simply the understanding that adding zero to any number results in that number, or n +
0 = n (zero is called the additive identity). Children can learn this as a general rule, and thus do
not need to practice combinations involving zero.
Commutativity often develops without explicit teaching. Presenting tasks such as 3 + 5 near
the commuted problem 5 + 3, and doing so systematically and repeatedly, is useful.
 Early Arithmetic: Counting Strategies 99

Inversion
In a similar vein, children’s use of arithmetical principles, such as the inverse principle, before
formal schooling should be considered when planning curriculum and teaching (most curricula
do not do so, Baroody, 2016a). Once kindergartners can verbally subitize small numbers and
understand the additive and subtractive identity principle, they can solve inversion problems
using 1 (n + 1 – 1 = _?) and slowly work up to 4. A useful teaching strategy is to first add or
take away the same objects, discuss the inversion principle, and then pose problems in which
you add several objects, and take away the same number, but not the same objects. Research
suggests that children do better on inversion problems than others, especially when the tasks
use pictures to represent the problem (Gilmore & Papadatou-Pastou, 2009).
Research also suggests that discussing the inverse relationship between addition and sub-
traction explicitly with second and third graders helps them understand and use that concept
(Nunes, Bryant, Evans, Bell, & Barros, 2011). Children saw a cartoon representation of story
problems (e.g., a mail carrier had some letters, delivers 12, now has 29 left. How many did he
start with?). They were then asked to show how they could solve the problem with a calculator,
because this challenged children to apply inversion before doing any calculating. The children
solved inversion problems better than a control group. Those who were taught with inversion
and direct (non-inversion) problems mixed together performed better than those who were
taught inversion problems in a block (Nunes et al., 2011).

Invention or Direct Instruction?

Some argue that children must invent their own arithmetic strategies. Others claim that chil-
dren making sense of mathematical relations is key, but the exact teaching approach matters
less. Research suggests the following:

• Challenge preschoolers to build subitizing, counting, and other competencies and then
work on arithmetic problems in concrete settings.
• Later, ask children to solve semi-concrete problems, in which children reason about
hidden but previously manipulated or viewed collections.
• Encourage children to invent their own strategies—with peers and with your active
guidance—discussing and explaining their strategies.
• Encourage children to adopt more sophisticated, beneficial strategies as soon as possible.
• Avoid a dichotomy between child-invented (“constructivist”) approaches and direct
instruction. For some children, at some point in the learning process, presenting clear
models, explicit math talk by the child and teachers, and practice of each new concept,
strategy, or skill with immediate feedback is beneficial.

(Gersten et al., 2015)

100 Early Arithmetic: Counting Strategies

Representations
Forms of representation are important factors in young children’s arithmetic problem solving.

Representations in Curricula
Primary-grade students tend to ignore decorative pictures, such as a picture of a bus (and nothing
else) with a word problem about the number of children getting on and off the bus. Children attend
to, but are not always helped by, pictures containing information required for solution of the prob-
lem; that is, when they must also interpret a diagram to glean necessary information that is not in
the text (these are more difficult; Elia, Gagatsis, & Demetriou, 2007). Decorative pictures should be
avoided. Students should be taught to use informational pictures when that is an instructional goal.
Students often ignore, or are confused by, number line representations as well. If number
lines are to be used to teach arithmetic, students should learn to move between number line
and symbolic representations. One study suggested that carefully guided peer tutoring on using
the number line to solve missing addend problems (e.g., 4 + _ = 6) was successful and was
appreciated by both teachers and the students, who were first graders. The tutors were taught
to use a teaching procedure, a shortened version of which follows.

1. What is the sign?

2. Which way do you go? [on the number line]
3. Is the blank before or after the equal sign? [the former is “tricky”]
4. What’s the first number; put your pencil on it; it tells you where to start.
5. Identify the second number as the goal.
6. How many jumps?
7. Put that number in the blank and read the entire number sentence to check.

There are other important specifics. First, the intervention only helped when peer tutors demon-
strated and guided use of the number line—the number line was not useful by itself. Also, the
accuracy of children who just solved missing addend problems decreased, indicating that prac-
ticing errors is not helpful. There was anecdotal evidence that it was important for peers to
give feedback to the students they were tutoring. Thus, present, typical instruction on use of
representations, especially geometry/spatial/pictorial representations, may be inadequate for
most students and should receive more attention.
Finally, successful models are more often number paths with steps (discrete, countable
models) not number lines (see Chapter 4). In arithmetic, too, this kind of representation,
guided by the teacher, can be very helpful to preschoolers just learning arithmetic (Banse
et al., 2020).

Language: Always Important

Of course, a key representational tool is the child’s oral language. It is useful to have children
name the problem type. This takes time, but research indicates it is useful (Schumacher &
Fuchs, 2012). Children can role play the situation, describe it in their own words, and use any of
the representations discussed in this section (manipulatives, diagrams, etc.). They can then
 Early Arithmetic: Counting Strategies 101

express the relationship in the problem with a math expression, such as B – s = D, where “B” is
the bigger number, “s” the smaller number, and “D” the difference. Encourage children to
describe problems and their solution strategies to each other and to the class. Reflect their
ideas back to them, elaborating them with clear, consistent math vocabulary and, when appro-
priate, explanations.
Use relational language. This is especially important when discussing Compare problems.
Teachers should provide explicit instruction on the meanings of relational terminology and the
symmetrical relationship between more and less/fewer within a word-problem context (adapted
from Schumacher & Fuchs, 2012). For example, after identifying Compare problem types, pro-
vide instruction on the specific meanings of “more,” “less,” and “fewer.” Discuss how to identify
which quantity is more or less. Consider the problem from Table 5.1, “Al had 7 balls. Barb has 2
fewer balls than Al. How many balls does Barb have?” The statement “Barb has 2 more than
Al” should be simplified to “Barb has more than Al” to ensure the relation is understood. Also,
teach children to say or write an alternative relational statement, so that “Barb has 2 fewer
balls than Al” becomes “Al has 2 more balls than Barb.”
In the study, second graders were taught this and then the following sequence. After identifying
the problem type and the appropriate math expression, B – s = D, they identified the unknown in
the Compare problem they were solving and placed “x” under that part of the expression. Next, the
students identified and wrote in the other numbers. They then solved the problem by finding “x.”
These children outperformed others taught regularly and those in a special “calculation” interven-
tion (Schumacher & Fuchs, 2012).

Manipulatives1
What about manipulatives, whether counters or fingers? Many teachers view these strategies as
crutches and discourage their use too soon (Fuson, 1992a). Paradoxically, those who are best at
solving problems with objects, fingers (Crollen & Noël, 2015b), or counting are least likely to use
those less sophisticated strategies in the future, because they are confident in their answers
and so move toward accurate, fast retrieval or composition (Siegler, 1993). Thus, help and
encourage all children, and especially those from lower-income communities, to use these strat-
egies until they are confident.
Trying to move children too fast to retrieval ironically makes this development slow and
painful. Instead, move as soon as possible—but not sooner—to counting strategies, and discuss
how and why strategies work and why a new strategy is desirable; this will help children build
meaning and confidence.
For what period are manipulatives necessary? For children at any age they can be necessary
at certain levels of thinking. Preschoolers initially need them to give meaning to arithmetical
tasks and the number words involved. In certain contexts, older children require concrete repre-
sentations as well. For example, Les Steffe asked first grader Brenda to count six marbles into
his hand. Then he covered them up, showed one more, and asked how many he had in all. She
said one. When he pointed out he had six marbles hidden, Brenda said adamantly, “I don’t see
no six!” For Brenda, there could be no number without things to count (Steffe & Cobb, 1988).
Successful teachers interpret what the child is doing and are thinking and attempting to see the
situation from the child’s point of view. Based on their interpretations, they conjecture what the
102 Early Arithmetic: Counting Strategies

child might be able to learn or abstract from his or her experiences. Similarly, when they inter-
act with the child, they also consider their own actions from the child’s point of view. Brenda’s
teacher, for example, might hide four marbles and then encourage Brenda to put up four fin-
gers and use them to represent the hidden marbles.

Fingers—the Best Manipulative?

Fingers are especially important (Crollen & Noël, 2015b). Teaching useful finger addition
methods accelerates children’s single-digit addition and subtraction as much as a year over
traditional methods in which children count objects or pictures (Fuson, Perry, & Kwon, 1994).
The particular strategy in this study was to use the non-writing hand to perform counting-
on-keeping-track tasks (even for subtraction). The index finger represents 1, the middle
finger 2, and so forth up to 4. The thumb represents 5 (all other fingers are raised), the
thumb and index finger 6, and so forth. Children would then count on using fingers to keep
track of the second addend. Most children moved to mental methods by second grade; more
children from low-resource communities used the finger method throughout the second
grade, but they were proud to be able to add and subtract large numbers. Educators should
note that different cultures, such as traditional U.S., Korean, Latino, and Mozambican have
different informal methods for representing numbers with fingers (Draisma, 2000; Fuson
et al., 1994).
As we saw previously, if teachers try to eliminate use of fingers too soon, children just put
them “under the desk” where they are not visually helpful, or they adopt less useful and more
error-prone methods. Further, the most sophisticated methods are not crutches that held chil-
dren back.

Moving beyond Manipulatives

Once children have established successful strategies using objects as manipulatives, they can
often solve simple arithmetic tasks without them. To transition to more abstract strategies, ask
children to count out five toys and place them into an opaque container, count out four more
toys and place them into the container, and then figure out how many toys in all without peek-
ing at them.
Drawings and diagrams that children produce are important representational tools. For
example, to solve 6 + 5, children might draw 6 circles, then 5 circles, and then circle 5 of the 6
along with the second 5 to make 10, and then announce that the total is 11. As another example,
consider the diagrams in Table 5.1 on p. 91. Karen Fuson found that the second diagrams for
the “Collections” problem types were more useful for children (Fuson, 2018b). They called them
“math mountains” and introduced them with stories of “Tiny Tumblers,” some of whom tumbled
down one side and some the other side of the mountain. They would draw dots in circles on
each side and then make different combinations. Their number sentences for this problem type
started with the total (e.g., 10 = 4 + 6) and would record all the combinations they could make
(10 = 0 + 10; 10 = 1 + 9 …). Chapter 13 presents other research on children’s use of diagrams in
problem solving, but those in Table 5.1 have been used successfully in hundreds of classrooms
(Fuson, 2018b).
 Early Arithmetic: Counting Strategies 103

Use Numerals
Although worksheets of facts and time tests are not recommended for preschoolers (see Chap-
ter 6), numerals are helpful representations. That is, numerals representing quantities to be
added or subtracted, such as a “4” and a “5” (not necessarily as “4 + 5”) help children remem-
ber and operate on those numbers (Alvarado, 2015). They should not be thought of as “too
abstract” for young children. Another study found a similar benefit of “counting cards”—each of
which has both a numeral and dots in a five-and-tens frame (Banse et al., 2020). Beyond just
numerals, kindergartners can recognize the familiar number sentences (3 + 4 = 7) but may
have a hard time producing them. First graders can do both, but recognition of unfamiliar
number sentences (7 = 3 + 4) is challenging (Mark-Zigdon & Tirosh, 2017c).

Teaching Arithmetic Problem Solving

A main issue for teaching is knowing the sequence in which to present the problem types. The
broad developmental progression is as follows.

1. (a) Join, Result Unknown (change plus); (b) Part–Part–Whole, Whole Unknown; and (c) Separate,
Result Unknown (change minus). Children can directly model these problems’ actions, step by
step. For example, they might solve a Join problem as follows: “Morgan had 3 candies (child
counts out 3 counters) and then got 2 more (child counts out 2 more). How many does he have
in all?” (The child counts the counters and announces “five.”) Attention should be paid to the
math vocabulary, for example, that “altogether” means “in all” or “in total.”
2. Join, Change Unknown and Part–Part–Whole, Part Unknown. A three-phase developmental
progression occurs leading to the ability to solve these types. First, children learn to solve
the first two problems types (a and b in #1 above) with “counting on.” Second, they
learn to solve the last problem type (c in #1), Separate, Result Unknown problems, using
“counting on” (thinking of 11 – 6 as 6 + ☐ = 11, and “counting-up-to” 11, keeping track of
the 5 counts) or “counting back” (which students can do if they have well-developed
skills in counting backward). In either case, intentional instruction is needed. The count-
ing backward solution might work best if all early childhood teachers, preschool and up,
developed that skill conscientiously. The “counting-up” method might work best if you
explicitly help children see how to transform the subtraction to a missing-addend add-
ition problem. This represents another advantage of this approach—the relationship
between addition and subtraction is highlighted.
Third, and finally, they learn to apply that strategy to solve these two new types; for
example, counting on from the “start” number to the total, keeping track of the number
of counts on the fingers, and reporting that number.
3. “Start Unknown and Compare” (Artut, 2015a). Children can use commutativity to change
the Join, Start Unknown problems to those that yield to “counting on” (e.g., ☐ + 6 = 11
becomes 6 + ☐ = 11, and then count on and keep track of the counts). Or, they use reversal
to change ☐ – 6 = 5 to 6 + 5 = ☐. At this point, all of these types of problems can be solved
by new methods that use derived combinations (using a known combination, such as 5 + 5 =
10, to figure out another combination; such as 6 + 5 as “one more” or 11—discussed in detail
in Chapter 6).
104 Early Arithmetic: Counting Strategies

Compare type problems present children with several unique difficulties, including vocabulary
challenges. Many children interpret “less” or “fewer” as synonyms for “more” (Fuson, 2018b).
They hear the larger term in many situations (taller, longer) more frequently than the smaller
term (shorter), so they need to learn several vocabulary terms. Comparisons can be expressed
in several ways, and one way is easier. The order “Jonah has 6 candies” then “Juanita has 3
more than Jonah” is easier than “He has 3 fewer than Juanita” in figuring out how many
candies Juanita has. Research shows that for “There are 5 birds and 3 worms,” the question,
“How many birds won’t get a worm?” is easier than “How many more birds than worms are
there?” (Hudson, 1983). Thus, such wording might be used to introduce these problems. Chil-
dren can also be encouraged to draw matching diagrams, such as Figure 5.3.
Later, children could use the type of bar diagrams shown in Table 5.1 on p. 91, which have
been successful in hundreds of classrooms (Fuson, 2018b). Similar wording changes in initial
presentations of comparison problems help children, such as changing the question, “How many
more does A have than B?” to “How many would B have to get to have the same number as
A?” Eventually, ask students to rephrase questions, including changing a “fewer” to a “more”
statement. Further, although textbooks often model the use of subtraction to solve comparison
problems, more students think of comparisons using an unknown addend count on or add on.
Counting or adding on models the comparison situation because the two addends (the small
quantity and the difference quantity) are added on one side of the equation and they then bal-
ance the large quantity which is written alone on the other side of the equation.
Schema-based approaches are similar with explicit attention to naming the problem type, as in
Table 5.1 (Jitendra, 2019). Students are taught to find the problem type, organize information in the
problem using a schema diagram, plan how to solve the problem, and solve the problem. This has
been shown to be useful for third graders with or without mathematical difficulties (Jitendra, 2019).
In summary, children benefit from instruction in two aspects of problems. First is understand-
ing situations, including understanding “what’s going on” in the contexts as well as the language
used to describe them. Second is understanding the math structure, such as learning Part–Whole
relationships via fact families or solving missing addend problems such as ☐ + 3 = 8 – 2. Children
who are novices, poor performers, or who have cognitive impairments or learning difficulties,

Figure 5.3 A matching diagram for comparison problems

 Early Arithmetic: Counting Strategies 105

may benefit particularly from situational training. More experienced and higher-performing chil-
dren may profit more from math training. Such math training should be combined with help trans-
ferring their Part–Whole knowledge to problem settings by including both in the same
instructional settings and discussing the similarities (e.g., “What do we know? Right, the whole
and one part. How much in the whole? The part? What are we trying to find? Right! The other
part. So, what strategy should we use? …”).
As a similar combination, specifically designed story contexts can help students develop an
abstract understanding of Part–Whole problems (which most curricula do not do, Baroody, 2016a).
For example, one teacher told stories about a grandfather who sent presents to his two grandchil-
dren or, later, about the two children sending presents to him. Another story was about children
who live on two islands and travel by boat to school. Children represented these with a Part–Part–
Whole board (similar to the Part–Part–Whole diagrams in Table 5.1). They are guided to understand
the complement principle in terms of Part–Whole relations; that is, if parts 5 and 8 make the whole
13, then subtracting one part from the whole leaves the other part (Baroody, 2016a).

Implications—A Brief Summary

Provide a full range of activities appropriate to the age (from at least 3 years on), covering subitizing,
counting, counting strategies, and an increasing range of addition and subtraction situations (problem
types), which should cover all problem types by the end of first grade. Emphasis should be on meaning
and understanding, enhanced through discussions. Slow and inefficient learning occurs when prin-
ciples are not understood. The tedious and superficial learning of school-age children is too often the
product of not understanding the goals and relationships in arithmetic problems. Meaning for the child
must be the consistent focus. A few additional implications are highlighted below and, of course, they
are woven into the chapter’s learning trajectory.

• The most important way to keep arithmetic meaningful, challenging, and enjoyable is,
unsurprising—to teach with learning trajectories. In arithmetic, we have conducted studies
that show the advantage of teaching with learning trajectories as compared to teaching the
goal skills and procedures. (Clements et al., 2020a).
• For the youngest children, use physical objects related to the problem (rather than struc-
tured “math manipulatives”), which supports their use of informal knowledge to solve the
arithmetic problems.
• Begin instruction with children’s solution methods, ensuring initial semantic analysis of prob-
lems, that is, “What is happening in this situation?” and build more sophisticated numerical and
arithmetic strategies in tandem with the development of conceptual understanding.
• Build multiple supporting concepts and skills. Subitizing is an important support to counting
strategies such as counting on, and, as discussed in the following section, for small-number
composition/decomposition approaches to addition and subtraction. Simple counting practice
transfers to addition and subtraction, but counting skills should also include effortlessly count-
ing forward and backward, counting in either direction starting with any number, naming the
number before or after another number, “counting on using patterns,” “counting on keeping
track” of the number of counts, and eventually embedded quantities within counting
sequences.
106 Early Arithmetic: Counting Strategies

• Provide a variety of experiences, including children creating, using, sharing, and explaining
different strategies to help children develop their adaptive expertise with arithmetic.
• Avoid pictures and illustrations that are merely decorative, as they are ignored by (or con-
fuse) children and do not support problem solving, but only add to the length of textbooks
(NMP, 2008).
• If children have difficulty with a certain problem type, use “you-language”; for example, instead
of “Al had 7 balls. Barb has 2 fewer balls than Al. How many balls does Barb have?” pose it as
“I have 7 balls. You have 2 fewer balls than me. How many balls do you have?” (Artut, 2015a).
• Provide instruction on the use of representations, especially geometry/spatial/pictorial
representations.
• Ask children to explain and justify solutions rather than to merely “check” their work. With-
out guidance, requests to “check” are often not helpful to most young children, but justifi-
cation, such as explaining to others “why you are right,” both builds concepts and
procedures and serves as a meaningful introduction to checking one’s work.
• Here is an example of checking well done and a model for children’s initial explorations.
Briefly, having children explore problems on their own and then providing instruction was
not as effective as first providing instruction (Loehr, Fyfe, & Rittle-Johnson, 2014b). How-
ever, asking children to explore problems, then providing instruction, and then asking
them to check their answers and mark if they were correct or put a new answer down was
more effective than first providing instruction. This is “productive failure” followed by an
opportunity to integrate knowledge, think more deeply, and apply what was learned
(Loehr et al., 2014b).
• Choose curricula that avoid the difficulties of too many U.S. textbooks; instruction should
mitigate any limitations of any curriculum used.

In summary: Present children with a range of addition and subtraction types and encourage
them to invent, adapt, use, discuss, and explain a variety of solution strategies that are meaningful
to them. Most children can begin to do this even in pre-K, and most can develop such understand-
ings and skills through the kindergarten and first-grade years. Children at the level of counting per-
ceptual units may need to be encouraged to put two collections into one box and count all the
items to establish the act of uniting and quantifying the sum. Most children can quickly learn to
reprocess two collections and conceive of it as one quantifiable collection. They can then solve
problems with an increasingly diverse range of strategies. Having them add one or two more to
a collection encourages their awareness of increasing the number in a collection and encourages
them to connect their counting and adding schemes (similar for counting backward, taking away,
and subtraction). Some children need to re-count, but most, even in the pre-K year, can learn to
count up with experience. In all cases, the emphasis should be on children’s use of strategies that
are meaningful to them. Approaches that emphasize understanding, meaningfulness, patterns, rela-
tions, and invention of strategies, if used consistently and patiently, also work with children with
special needs (Baroody, 1996). Informal strategies such as knowing how to add 0 or 1 should be
encouraged; research shows that, if paced appropriately, children classified as learning-disabled
can be taught to use such patterns and strategies (see Chapters 15 and 16 for more on children
with special needs). Additional specific implications are woven into the following learning trajector-
ies in this and other chapters.
 Early Arithmetic: Counting Strategies 107

Table 5.3 Learning Trajectory for Addition and Subtraction (Emphasizing Counting Strategies)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Activities

1 Arithmetic Senser: Foundations Very young chil- Everyday foundational experiences with addition
dren are sensitive to combining or separating per- and subtraction situations, [LT]2: Besides providing
ceptual groups. An infant may observe, point, or richly sensory, manipulative environments of quan-
make sounds while someone else introduces tities that change, use of words such as “more”
a quantity of objects. They will notice the effects of and actions of adding objects directs attention to
increasing or decreasing small collections by one comparisons and combinations.
item and may also be sensitive to the results of
combining larger groups.
An infant, shown two groups of five dots hidden
behind a screen one at a time, acts more sur-
prised and interested when the screen is taken
away to show only five dots (an incorrect
amount) than if it is removed to reveal ten dots
(a correct amount).
2–3 Preverbal +/– Adds and subtracts very small collec- Solving nonverbal Join, Result Unknown or Separ-
tions (totals up to 3), often making a collection ate, Result Unknown (take away) using the smallest
rather than answering verbally. numbers: For example, children are shown 2
objects then 1 object going under a napkin, and
Shown 2 objects then 1 object going under then asked to show how many, [LT]2.
a napkin, makes a set of 3 objects to “match.”

4 Small Number +/– Finds sums for Join, Result Word Problems, [LT]2: Have children solve simple
Unknown and Separate, Result Unknown problems Join, Result Unknown or Separate, Result Unknown
with totals up to 5 by “counting all” with objects. (take away) problems with toys that represent the
objects in the problems. Use totals up to 5. Ask chil-
Asked, “You have 2 balls and get 1 more. How dren how they got their answer.
many in all?” counts out 2, then counts out 1 Tell children you want to buy 3 toy Triceratops
more, then counts all 3: “1, 2, 3 … 3!” and 2 toy Tyrannosauruses. Ask how many dino-
saurs that is altogether.
Finger Word Problems, [LT]2: Challenge children
to solve simple problems with their fingers. Chil-
dren should place their hands in their laps between
each problem.
Children show 3 fingers on one hand and 2 fin-
gers on the other and count them to find how
many altogether.
4–5 Find Result +/– Finds sums for Join, Result Word Problems, [LT]2: Children solving all the
Unknown problems (“You had 3 apples and get 3 above problem types using manipulatives or their
more, how many do you have in all?”) and Part– fingers to represent objects.
Part–Whole (“There are 6 girls and 5 boys on the Separate, Result Unknown (take away) prob-
playground, how many children were there in all?”) lems, [LT]2: “You have 5 balls and give 2 to Tom.
problems by direct modeling, counting all, with How many do you have left?” Children might count
objects. out 5 balls, then take away 2, and then count
remaining 3.
Asked, “You have 2 red balls and 3 blue balls. Part–Part–Whole, Whole Unknown problems,
How many in all?”, counts out 2 red, then [LT]2: They might solve, “You have 2 red balls and
counts out 3 blue, then counts all 5. 3 blue balls. How many in all?”
Solves take-away problems by separating with Note: In all teacher-guided activities, present
objects. commuted pairs one after the other, 5 + 3 then 3 +
5. With such experiences, most children learn to
Asked, “You have 5 balls and give 2 to Tom. incorporate commutativity into their strategies.
How many do you have left?”, counts out 5 Also, encourage children who can to use the short-
balls, then takes away 2, and then counts cut-sum strategy (to solve 5 + 3, “1, 2, 3, 4, 5 … 6, 7,
remaining 3. 8 … 8!”), which serves as a transition to “counting
on.”
Places Scenes (Addition) – Part–Part–Whole,
Whole Unknown Problems, [LT]2: Children play with

(Continued )
108 Early Arithmetic: Counting Strategies

Table 5.3 (Cont.)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Activities

toy on a background scene and combine groups.

For example, they might place 4 Tyrannosauruses
and 5 Apatosauruses on the paper and then count
all 9 to see how many dinosaurs they have in all.

Compare Game (Adding), [LT]2: For each pair of

children, use two or more sets of counting cards
(1–10). Mix and deal cards evenly, face down. Play-
ers simultaneously flip two cards to add, and then
compare which is greater. The player with more
says, “I have more!” and takes the opponent’s
cards. If cards are equal, each player flips another
card to break the tie.
The game ends when all cards have been
played, and the winner is the player with more
cards.
Variation: Play this game without a winner by
not allowing players to collect cards. See the
resource, “Introducing and Using Games” on [LT]2.
Find a Five, [LT]2: Children make groups of 1 to
5 beans then hide them under cups. Then, they mix
up the cups. In pairs, children try to find 2 cups
that equal 5. When ready, increase to a higher sum.
Make It N Adds on objects to “make one number Make it Right, [LT]2: Children solve problems such
into another,” without needing to count from 1. as, “This puppet has 4 balls, but she should have 6.
Does not (necessarily) represent how many were Make it 6.”
added (this is not a requirement of this intermedi- Note that “I’m Thinking of a Number” in Chapter
ate-difficulty problem type) (Aubrey, 1997). 3 helps develop the relevant counting skills.
Asked, “This puppet has 4 balls, but she should
have 6. Make it 6,” puts up 4 fingers on one
hand, immediately counts up from 4 while put-
ting up 2 more fingers, saying, “5, 6.”
Find Change +/– Finds the missing addend (e.g., Solve Join, Change, Unknown problems such as,
5 + _ = 7 or 9 – _ = 3) to solve Join and Separate, “You have 5 balls and then get some more. Now
Change Unknown problems by adding on or taking you have 7 in all. How many did you get?”
away objects. Solve Part–Part–Whole, Part Unknown problems,
[LT]2: “There are 6 children on the playground. 2
Join-to, count-all groups: Asked, “You have 5 are boys and the rest are girls. How many are
balls and then get some more. Now you have 7 girls?”
in all. How many did you get?”, counts out 5, This problem type may be more difficult for
then counts those 5 again starting at 1, then most students, and not solvable independently
adds more, counting “6, 7,” then counts the until the next level because it requires keeping the

(Continued )
 Early Arithmetic: Counting Strategies 109

Table 5.3 (Cont.)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Activities

balls added to find the answer, 2. (Some chil- added-on objects separate from the initial objects.
dren may use their fingers, and attenuate the Children might use fingers and finger patterns.
counting by using finger patterns.) They might use “adding-on” if they make one part
first, or “separating from” if they count out 6, then
Separate-to, count-all groups: Asked, “Nita had remove 2, then count the remaining objects.
8 stickers. She gave some to Carmen. Now, she With supportive phrasing and guidance, how-
has 5 stickers. How many did she give to ever, many children can learn to solve them. For
Carmen?”, counts 8 objects, separates until 5 example, using “boys and girls” in the above prob-
remain, counts those taken away. lem helps. So does saying “and the rest are.”
Compares by matching in simple situations. Finally, saying the known sum first helps, too.

Match, count rest: Asked, “Here are 6 dogs and

4 balls. If we give a ball to each dog, how many
dogs won’t get a ball?”, counts out 6 dogs,
matches 4 balls to 4 of them, then counts the 2
dogs that have no ball.

5–6 Counting Strategies +/– Finds sums for joining How Many Now? Have the children count objects
(“You had 8 apples and get 3 more …”) and Part– as you place them in a box. Ask, “How many are in
Part–Whole (“6 girls and 5 boys …”) problems with the box now?” Add 1, repeating the question, then
finger patterns and/or by counting on. check the children’s responses by counting all the
objects. Repeat, checking occasionally. When chil-
Counting on: “How much is 4 and 3 more?” dren are ready, sometimes add 2, and eventually
“Fourrrrr … five, six, seven [uses rhythmic or more objects.
finger pattern to keep track]. Seven!” Variation: Place coins in a coffee can. Declare
Counting-up-to: May solve missing addend that a given number of objects are in the can. Then
(3 + _ = 7) or Compare problems by counting have the children close their eyes and count on by
up; e.g., counts “4, 5, 6, 7” while putting up listening as additional objects are dropped in.
fingers, and then counts or recognizes the 4 More Toppings, [LT]2: Children use cut-out
fingers raised. “pizzas” and brown disks for toppings. The teacher
asks them to put 5 toppings on their pizzas, and
Asked, “You have 6 balls. How many more then asks how many they would have in all if they
would you need to have 8?”, says, “Six, seven put on 3 more. They count on to answer, then actu-
[puts up first finger], eight [puts up second ally put the toppings on to check.
finger]. Two!” Double Compare, [LT]2: Students compare sums
of cards to determine which sum is greater.
Encourage children to use more sophisticated
strategies, such as counting on.

Solve Join, Result Unknown and Part–Part–

Whole, Whole Unknown problems, [LT]2: “How
much is 4 and 3 more?”
Encouraging the use of counting on: Children
often will start using counting on instead of direct

(Continued )
110 Early Arithmetic: Counting Strategies

Table 5.3 (Cont.)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Activities

modeling (counting-all strategies) when the former

is particularly easy to apply, such as when first
addend is very large (23) and second one very
small (2).
Teaching counting-on skills, [LT]2: If children
need assistance to use counting on, or do not spon-
taneously create it, explicitly teach the subskills as
on pp. 92–93.
Word Problems, [LT]2: Students solve word
problems (totals to 10) off and on the computer.
Turn Over Ten and Make Tens, [LT]2: See Chap-
ter 6. Many children will, especially at first, use
counting strategies to solve the tasks in these
games.
6 Part–Whole +/–: Has initial Part–Whole understand- Solve Separate, Result Unknown problems, [LT]2:
ing and can solve all previous problem types using “You have 11 pencils and give 7 away. How many do
flexible strategies. May use some known combin- you still have?” Encourage children to use counting
ations, such as 5 + 5 is 10. Sometimes can do Start down—or, especially with the numbers in this
Unknown (e.g., _ + 6 = 11), but only by trial and example, counting up—to determine the difference.
error. Discuss when each of these and other strategies
would be most efficient. Also, Join, Change
Asked, “You had some balls. Then you get 6 Unknown, Part–Part–Whole, Part Unknown, and
more. Now, you have 11 balls. How many did you Compare, Difference Unknown (e.g., “Nita has 8
start with?”, lays out 6, then 3 more, counts stickers. Carmen has 5 stickers. How many more
and gets 9. Puts 1 more with the 3 … says, does Nita have than Carmen?”).
“Ten,” then puts 1 more. Counts up from 6 to 11, Hidden Objects, [LT]2: Hide 4 counters under
then re-counts the group added, and says, the dark cloth and show students 7 counters. Tell
“Five!” them that 4 counters are hidden and challenge
them to tell you how many there are in all. Or, tell
them that there are 11 in all and ask how many are
hidden. Have them discuss their solution strategies.
Repeat with different sums.
6–7 Numbers in Numbers +/– Recognizes when Solve Start Unknown problems, [LT]2: “You have
a number is part of a whole and can keep the part some balls, then you get 4 more balls, now you
and whole in mind simultaneously; solves Start have 9. How many did you have to start with?”
Unknown (e.g., _ + 4 = 9) problems with counting Flip the Cards, [LT]2: Take turns. Students roll 2
strategies. numeral cubes (1–6), add them, and flip over
numeral cards 1 to 12. Students can flip over any
Asked, “You have some balls, then you get 4 combination of cards whose sum equals the cube
more balls, now you have 9. How many did you sum. Students continue until they cannot flip over
have to start with?”, counts, putting up fingers: any cards. Then, the sum of the cards still face-up
“Five, six, seven, eight, nine.” Looks at fingers is recorded. The lowest final sum wins. Available
and says, “Five!” commercially as Wake Up Giants or Shut the Box.
Guess My Rule, [LT]2: Tell the class that they
have to guess your rule. Students give a number
(e.g., 4), then the teacher records:
4→8
Students might guess the rule is “doubling.”
However, as the game continues:
4→8
10 → 14
1→5…
The students then guess the rule is “add 4.” But
they cannot say this. If they think they know, they
try to give the number to the right of the arrow.

(Continued )
 Early Arithmetic: Counting Strategies 111

Table 5.3 (Cont.)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Activities

The teacher records it if they are right. Only when

(most) all of the students can do this do they dis-
cuss the rule.
Function Machine 1, [LT]2: Students identify
a math function (“rule”) by observing a series of
operations that apply a consistent addition or sub-
traction value (+ 2, – 5, etc.).

Deriver +/– Uses flexible strategies and derived All types of single-digit problems.
combinations (e.g., 7 + 7 is 14, so 7 + 8 is 15) to Tic–Tac–Total, [LT]2: Draw a tic–tac–toe board
solve all types of problems. Includes “Break Apart and write the numbers 0 2 4 6 8 0 and 1 3 5 7 9
to Make Ten” (BAMT; explained in Chapter 6). Can nearby. Players take turns crossing out one of the
simultaneously think of 3 numbers within a sum, numbers and writing it on the board. One player
and can move part of a number to another, aware uses only even numbers, the other only odd num-
of the increase in one and the decrease in another. bers. Whoever makes 15 first as a sum of three
numbers in a row (column, diagonal) wins (Kamii,
Asked “What’s 7 plus 8?”, thinks: 7 + 8 → 7 + [7 1985). Change the total to 13 for a new game.
+ 1] → [7 + 7] + 1 = 14 + 1 = 15. 21, [LT]2: Card game in which an ace is worth
Or, using BAMT, thinks: 8 + 2 = 10, so separate 7 either 1 or 11, and 2 to 10 are worth their values.
into 2 and 5, add 2 and 8 to make 10, then add 5 Dealer gives everyone 2 cards, including
more, so 15. themselves.
On each round, each player, if sum is less than
May solve simple cases of multidigit addition 21, can request another card, or “hold.”
(sometimes subtraction) by counting by tens and/ If any new card makes the sum more than 21,
or ones. the player is out. Continue until everyone “holds.”
“What’s 20 + 34?” Student uses connecting The player whose sum is closest to 21 wins.
cube to count up 20, 30, 40, 50 plus 4: 54. Variation: Play to 15 at first.
Multidigit addition and subtraction, [LT]2:
“What’s 28 + 35?” (See Chapter 6.)
7 Problem Solver +/– Solves all types of problems, Solve all types of problem structures for single-
with flexible strategies and known combinations. digit problems, [LT]2: See Chapter 6 for multidigit
problems.
Asked, “If I have 13 and you have 9, how could
we have the same number?”, says, “9 and 1 is
10, then 3 more to make 13. 1 and 3 is 4. I need 4
more!”
Multidigit may be solved by incrementing tens and
ones by counting (latter not used for Join, Change
Unknown).
“What’s 28 + 35?” Incrementer thinks: 20 … 30,
40, 50; then 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63.
112 Early Arithmetic: Counting Strategies

Learning Trajectories for Adding and Subtracting

(Emphasizing Counting Strategies)
The learning trajectory for adding and subtracting is complex because there are many concep-
tual and skill advancements required. The importance of goals for this domain is clear: Arith-
metic is a main focus of elementary education. Table 5.2 shows where these goals appear in
the CCSSM. Given that children can use different strategies to solve problems, it is somewhat
arbitrary whether to list standards here, in the next chapter, or both. Notice how arithmetic is
reflected in the standards from several domains.
Based on those goals, Table 5.3 provides the two additional components of the learning tra-
jectory, the developmental progression and the instructional tasks. Remember that the ages in
all the learning trajectory tables are only approximate, especially because the age of acquisition
usually depends heavily on experience. A final important note: Most strategies will be used success-
fully for smaller numbers (totals 10 or less) a year or more before they are used successfully for
larger numbers (Frontera, 1994). This should be considered when constructing tasks for children.
We strongly suggest that you study Table 5.2 and Table 5.3 with the intent to understand
and remember the learning trajectory. These are not illustrations to skim: Teachers need to
master the knowledge summarized here to be true professionals. Complement this reading with

Table 5.4 Connections of the Number and Arithmetic Learning Trajectories

Broad Subitizing Counting Comparing, Ordering Adding and Subtracting

Levels

Visual/ Perceptual Subitizing Counting with Matching Small #s, Direct

Percep- Cardinality Comparison Modeling
tual
Thinker • Number Senser: • Number Word • Comparison • Arithmetic Senser:
Foundations Sayer: Senser: Foundations
• Very Small Foundations Foundations • Preverbal +/–
Number • Chanter • Many-to-One • Small Number +/–
Recognizer • Reciter Corresponder • Find Result +/–
• Maker of Small • Corresponder • Object • Make It N
Collections • Counter (Small Corresponder
• Small Collection Numbers) • Perceptual
Namer • Counter (10) Comparer
• Perceptual Subiti- • Producer (Small • Early Comparer of
zer to 4 Numbers) Similar Items
• Perceptual Subiti- • Counter and Pro- • Early Comparer of
zer to 5 ducer (10+) Dissimilar Items
• Counter Backward • Matching
from 10 Comparer

Numer- Conceptual Counting Strategies Numerical Comparison Flexible Strategies

ical/ Subitizing
Model-
ing • Conceptual Subiti- • Counter from N (N • Counting Com- • Find Change +/–
Thinker zer to 5 +1, N–1) parer (Same Size) • Counting Strat-
• Conceptual Subiti- • Counter On Using • Counting Com- egies +/–
zer to 7 Patterns parer (5) • Part–Whole +/–
• Conceptual Subiti- • Counter On Keep- • Mental Number • Numbers in Num-
zer to 10 ing Track Line to 5 bers +/–
• Conceptual Subiti- • Counter of Quanti- • Deriver +/–:
zer to 20 tative Units/Place
Value
 Early Arithmetic: Counting Strategies 113

video examples of the developmental levels—so important to make them “real” and memorable,
and descriptions, resources, and often videos of activities at [LT]2 (LearningTrajectories.org).

Another “Forest and Trees” Structure to Help You

Now that we have covered most of number and arithmetic (more arithmetic follows in the next chap-
ter), we wish to offer another table that is a very simple “forest”—only two broad levels, but that also
shows the linkages between the learning trajectories. We have tried to make it clear how closely they
are related, but Table 5.4 shows how very closely they are connected. We present just some of the
relevant levels for illustration (especially, as you know, the learning trajectories go higher than the
examples in the table).

Final Words
In Chapters 2 and 3, we saw that children quantify groups with different processes, such as sub-
itizing and counting. They can also solve arithmetic tasks with different processes. This chapter
emphasized a counting-based approach to arithmetic. Chapter 6 describes a composition-based
approach, including conceptual subitizing. Children often use both, and even combine them, as
has been suggested by the more sophisticated strategies already described (e.g., Deriver +/–).

Note
1 Several important and complex issues regarding manipulatives are discussed at length in Chapter 16.
6 Arithmetic
Composition of Number, Place
Value, Multidigit Addition and
Subtraction, Multiplication and
Division, and Fractions

I find it easier not to do [simple addition] with my fingers because sometimes I get into
a big muddle with them [and] I find it much harder to add up because I am not concen-
trating on the sum. I am concentrating on getting my fingers right … which takes
a while. It can take longer to work out the sum than it does to work out the sum in my
head. [By “in my head,” Emily meant that she imagined dot arrays. If that’s what she
liked, why didn’t she just use those images? Why did she use fingers? She explains:] If
we don’t use our fingers, the teacher is going to think, “Why aren’t they using their
fingers? … They are just sitting there thinking.” … We are meant to be using our fingers
because it is easier … which it is not.
(Gray & Pitta, 1997, p. 35)

Do you think the teacher should have Emily use concrete objects? Or should she encourage
children such as Emily to use increasingly sophisticated arithmetic reasoning? For example,
should she allow Emily to use mental images and then help Emily decompose and recompose
numbers, such as using “doubles-plus-one” (7 + 8 is solved as 7 + 7 = 14, and 14 + 1 = 15)? This
chapter discusses four topics involving increasingly sophisticated composition of number: arith-
metic combinations (“facts”), place value, multidigit addition and subtraction, and multiplication
and division, including fractions.

The Development of Composing Number

Composing and decomposing numbers is another approach to addition and subtraction, one
that children can productively use alongside counting strategies, as the “doubles-plus-one”
strategy illustrates. The “doubles” part is composition of number (putting together the parts,
two 7s, to make 14) and the adding 1 part is based on counting. Conceptual subitizing is an
important case of composition of number (see Chapter 2).

Initial Competencies with Part–Whole Relationships

Toddlers learn to recognize Part–Whole relations in intuitive, perceptual situations and can (usually
nonverbally) represent parts that make a specific whole (e.g., •• and •• make ••••). Between 4 and 5
years of age, children learn from everyday situations that a whole is made up of smaller parts and
thus is bigger than its parts; however, they may not always accurately quantify that relationship.
 Arithmetic: Composition, Multidigit, Multiplicative 115

That is, they learn the idea of Part–Part–Whole non-numerically a bit before they learn it numeric-
ally (Langhorst, Ehlert, & Fritz, 2012). However, the two are “subtrajectories” that develop in paral-
lel; one is not a prerequisite to learning the other.
Toddlers learn to recognize that sets can be combined in different orders (even if they do not
explicitly recognize that groups are composed of smaller groups). Preschoolers show intuitive
knowledge of commutativity (adding a group of three to a group of one yields a group with the
same number as adding the group of one to a group of three) and, later, associativity (adding
a group of four to a group of two, and then adding that group to a group of one, yields a group
with the same number as adding the group of four after combining the two and one).
Then children learn that these same ideas apply in more abstract contexts, including specific
arithmetic problems (Langhorst et al., 2012), for example, that “two” and “two” make “four.” At
that point, children can develop the ability to recognize that the numbers 2 and 3 are “hiding
inside” 5, as are the numbers 4 and 1 (Fuson, 2018b). That is, they can develop explicit knowledge
of Part–Whole relations at 4 or 5 years of age. They can eventually solve even “Start Unknown”
problems (recall Table 5.1) with this complete Part–Part–Whole scheme.
In brief, children develop an early, primitive understanding of commutativity, then additive
composition (large groups are made up of smaller groups), commutativity of combined groups,
and then associativity. So, at least by 5 years of age, children are ready to solve problems that
require Part–Whole reasoning, such as Join or Separate, Change Unknown problems. However,
teachers may need to help children see the relevance in and apply their understandings of
Part–Whole relationships to these types of problems.
Building on their Part–Whole understandings, children can learn to separate a group into
parts in various ways, producing (eventually, all of) the number combinations composing
a given number; for example, 8 as 7 + 1, 6 + 2, 5 + 3, and so on. This approach to arith-
metic combinations builds on and complements the counting-based strategies of the previ-
ous chapter.

Learning Basic Combinations (“facts”) and Fluency1

Recommendations for high-quality math education have never ignored the need for children to
eventually become fluent in knowledge of basic number combinations, such as 4 + 7 = 11. That
does not mean that the exact nature of the goal and when and how it might best be achieved
garner similar agreement. Let’s examine what the research tells us.

Getting Your Facts Straight: Misconceptions That Harm Children

World-wide research shows that the way most people in the U.S. think about arithmetic combin-
ations and children’s learning of them, and the language they use, may harm more than help.
For example, we hear about “memorizing facts” and “recalling your facts.” This is misleading
regarding what goes on in the learning process (this section) and the teaching process (the fol-
lowing section). As we saw in Chapters 2 and 5, children move through a long developmental
progression to reach the point where they can compose numbers. Further, they also should
learn about arithmetic properties, patterns, and relationships, and intuitive magnitude as they
116 Arithmetic: Composition, Multidigit, Multiplicative

do so. All the knowledge is ideally learned simultaneously and in an integrated fashion with
knowledge of arithmetic combinations.
Research suggests that producing basic combinations is not just a simple “look-up” or rote
memorization process. Retrieval is an important part of the process, but many brain systems
help. For example, systems that involve working memory, executive (metacognitive) control,
and even spatial “mental number lines” support knowledge of arithmetic combinations (Gather-
cole, Tiffany, Briscoe, Thorn, & The, 2005; Geary, 2011; Geary, Hoard, & Nugent, 2012; Passolun-
ghi et al., 2007; Simmons, Willis, & Adams, 2012b). Further, for subtraction calculations, both
the region specializing in subtraction and that specializing in addition are activated. So, when
children really know 8 − 3 = 5, they also know that 3 + 5 = 8, 8 − 5 = 3, and so forth, and all
these “facts” are related in their minds. This leads research to conclude that the primary cause
of problems with the basic combinations, especially among children at risk for or already experi-
encing learning difficulties, is the lack of opportunity to develop number sense during the pre-
school and early school years (Baroody, Bajwa, & Eiland, 2009b, p. 69).
Implications for the next section are that children need considerable practice, distributed
across time. Also, because counting strategies did not activate the same systems, we need to
guide children to move to more sophisticated composition strategies. Finally, practice should
not be “meaningless drill” but should occur in a context of making sense of the situation and
the number relationships. Multiple strategies help build that number sense, and children who
are strong in calculations know and use multiple strategies. If ever educators needed an argu-
ment against teaching “one correct procedure,” this is it. There are other misconceptions about
instruction that harm children, discussed in the following section.

Experience and Education: Composing Number

So, children should be able to reason strategically, adapting strategies for different situations
and easily and quickly retrieving the answer to any arithmetic combination when that is appro-
priate. What do we know about facilitating such adaptive expertise (Baroody & Dowker, 2003b)?
Making sense of arithmetic problems and number relationships, inventing and using new strat-
egies, and discussing them yields educational gold. But first, what doesn’t work?

What Does Not Work?

There are three main teaching misconceptions:

1. Arithmetic facts are single, disconnected items that must be learned separately.

To many people, the term “fact” often means a piece of disconnected information. Some of us
learned arithmetic at a time when some psychologists warned that 4 + 9 = 13 must be studied sep-
arately from 13 – 4 = 9 or even from 9 + 4 = 13. But meaningful teaching connects these and many
other relationships.
Perhaps the word “fact” is just a term, not to be overly concerned about. However, it is import-
ant that educators understand and agree that students need to learn related facts, as the mathem-
atician Poincaré points out at the beginning of this chapter. And they also should learn about
arithmetic properties, patterns, and relationships as they do so. And that knowledge, along with
 Arithmetic: Composition, Multidigit, Multiplicative 117

intuitive magnitude and other knowledge and skills, ideally is learned simultaneously and in an inte-
grated fashion with knowledge of arithmetic combinations. Thus, knowing an arithmetic combin-
ation well, fluently, means far more than knowing a simple, isolated piece of information. For
example, students notice that the sum of n and 1 is simply the number after n in the counting
sequence, resulting in an integration of knowledge of combinations with the well-practiced counting
knowledge. Students who have learned all this have adaptive expertise—meaningful knowledge that
can be flexibly applied to new, as well as familiar, tasks (Baroody & Dowker, 2003b).

2. “Learning your facts” means rote memorization.

Some readers might argue, “Then you have to memorize each fact and the connections
between the facts. That’s just more memorization.” That is indeed a psychological viewpoint
that is more than 100 years old. In this view, each fact is stored separately, such as in a verbal
statement, “Four plus nine equals thirteen” (Baroody et al., 2009b). Counting to figure out
a fact is viewed as an immature strategy that must be stamped out. Instead, “memorizing the
math facts” has always and continues to be a central focus of the math curricula and textbooks,
with pages and pages of worksheets asking students to memorize the answers (Fuson, 2003).
But wait: Didn’t most of us learn by rote memorization? Didn’t that work? No, most of us, espe-
cially those who succeeded in school, learned far more than just the rote verbalization. We learned
to make sense of the quantities and relationships among combinations. Thus, we “know from
memory”—but that is based on a deep network of understandings and skills. We call knowing from
memory in this way fluency: accurate knowledge and concepts and strategies that promote adap-
tive expertise. Students who achieve this kind of fluency can reconstruct combinations, use them to
solve new types of problems, and more. We do believe that retrieval—as a part of the learning and
teaching process—is a very good thing. This is especially so when it is based on relationships and
not just rote memorization—“knowing from memory” based on understanding.
Indeed, research has shone light on the dark side of teaching memorization only, and it’s
not pretty. Let’s take a look at one “natural” study that happened in California. California
used to have standards consistent with those of NCTM, with balanced consideration of con-
cepts, skills, and problem solving. After pressure from conservative groups, they accelerated
addition and subtraction basic-facts memorization (Henry & Brown, 2008b). That is, children
were supposed to know all the basic addition and subtraction facts by the end of first grade.
Further, “knowing” those facts was restricted to memorization. They passed laws that any
textbooks purchased for California in 2008 had to teach children to memorize all the facts
in first grade, with little guidance for second grade. Textbooks and teachers were thus to
directly teach memorization using practices such as timed tests and flash cards. All these
requirements and recommendations may have stemmed from a misunderstanding of the edu-
cational practices of high-performing countries such as Korea, China, Taiwan, and Japan
(Henry & Brown, 2008b).
How did that work out for the teachers and students? Not well. Only 7% demonstrated
adequate progress. Even among students from the highest performing schools, fewer than 11%
made progress toward the memorization standard equivalent to their progress through the
school year. Barely a fourth of the students demonstrated retrieval of 50% or more of addition
and subtraction facts.
118 Arithmetic: Composition, Multidigit, Multiplicative

3. The best way to master facts and build is through lots of rote practice (flash cards, work-
sheets) and timed tests.

In the California results, two instructional practices were negatively related to basic-facts
retrieval:

• Use of California-State-approved textbooks demanding retrieval in first grade.

• Timed tests.

Students whose teachers relied on the basic-facts-memorization textbooks knew fewer facts.
Indeed, they achieved about a third as well on basic facts as those who relied less heavily on
these textbooks. Students whose teachers followed the advice of these textbooks not only
didn’t retrieve the facts, but they relied most heavily on low-level counting skills.
Similarly, students whose teachers used timed tests knew fewer facts. It may be surprising to
find that practicing exactly what you think is the outcome skill works against learning that skill.
This is all counter-intuitive to many people. If you want students to memorize, teach them to
memorize. Right? Wrong—at least in a limited sense of direct teaching of rote memorization—it
doesn’t work. At best, it develops only routine expertise (Baroody & Dowker, 2003b). At worst,
it doesn’t even do that well.
Other practices were neither helpful nor harmful. Flash card use didn’t hurt but didn’t sup-
port students’ learning either. Neither did extensive work on small sums. Presenting easier
arithmetic problems far more frequently than harder problems isn’t a good idea. The opposite
is the case in countries with higher math achievement, such as East Asian countries (National
Mathematics Advisory Panel, 2008).
What happened? What does this study teach us? Memorization without understanding, drill
without developing concepts and strategies, is not an effective way to teach or learn arithmetic
facts, much less the edifice that is mathematics.
Even the format of arithmetic “fact” practice can interfere with present and future learning.
Consider how reasonable these tasks seem.

3 þ 4 ¼
5 þ 9 ¼
6 þ 0 ¼
87 ¼
95 ¼
52 ¼

Let’s say that these tasks are done after students develop the concepts and strategies of arith-
metic. What harm could come from such traditional practice of addition and subtraction facts?
Once again, research is clear. The more children do such traditional practice exercises, the
lower their scores on equivalence problems such as 2 + 6 + 3 + 4 + 6 = 3 + 4 + __. U.S. students
as a whole get worse on such problems from 7 to 9 years of age. Shockingly, even undergradu-
ates given such traditional arithmetic practice get worse on equivalence problems (McNeil,
2008b; McNeil, Fyfe, & Dunwiddie, 2015; McNeil, Fyfe, Petersen, Dunwiddie, & Brletic-Shipley,
2011).
 Arithmetic: Composition, Multidigit, Multiplicative 119

A steady diet of such types of tasks teach students limited patterns of thinking. They learn
unfortunate rules such as “The equals sign means compute and put in the answer.”

What Does Work?

The California study found that some approaches were successful, such as using thinking strat-
egies. Such strategies include the following.

Conceptual Subitizing: The Earliest Addition

Teachers of children as young as 4 years can use “conceptual subitizing” to develop compos-
ition-based ideas about addition and subtraction (see Chapter 2). A benefit of subitizing activ-
ities is that different arrangements suggest different views of that number. Children can come
to see all of the different number combinations for a given number by working with objects
(e.g., five objects). Within a story context (e.g., animals in two different pens), children can sep-
arate the five objects into different partners (4 and 1; 3 and 2). Similarly, children can make
“number pictures”—as many different arrangements of a given number as possible, with the
subsets labeled (Baratta-Lorton, 1976).

Learning Reasoning Strategies

Effective teachers attend explicitly and directly to the important conceptual issues students are
likely to encounter. They help students develop important conceptual understandings, as well as
procedural skills (Hiebert & Grouws, 2007b). Students learn combinations better if they invent,
use, share, and explain different strategies (Baroody & Rosu, 2004). Indeed, the number of dif-
ferent strategies children show predicts their later learning (Siegler, 1995b).
What are the “best” strategies? Research is clear that effective strategies include counting
strategies (such as “doubles plus one” and counting on), conceptual subitizing, and Break-Apart-
to-Make-Ten, or BAMT (Baroody, 1987b; Baroody et al., 2009b; Henry & Brown, 2008b; Murata,
2004b; Murata & Fuson, 2006). We discuss each of these, and other helpful approaches, below.

Commutativity and Associativity

Preschool and kindergarten teachers can develop foundational understanding of these important
arithmetic properties by posing problems that children model with manipulatives, ensuring that
a problem such as “3 and 2 more” is followed by “2 and 3 more.” Many activities in which children
separate sets of a given number in many different ways and name the subsets may be particularly
helpful. For example, children lay four cubes along their line of sight and use a clear plastic sheet to
“hide” one and then read “one and three.” They then hide three and read “three and one” (Baratta-
Lorton, 1976).
Discuss that the sum of 6 and 3 is 9 no matter what the order of the addends. Many children
will build these understandings and strategies for themselves. Others will if the curriculum and
teacher present problems in commuted pairs (6 + 7 and then, immediately after 7 + 6, as men-
tioned previously for small numbers). Still others may need explicit instruction on the property.
120 Arithmetic: Composition, Multidigit, Multiplicative

Help children relate their physical understandings, based on equivalence of groups of

objects in various combinations and orders, to the manipulations of them that resulted in
this different arrangement, and then to explicit numerical generalizations. In any of these
forms, such instruction may help children develop more sophisticated strategies and thus
relate their knowledge of arithmetic properties and their problem solving, which they often
do not do. Especially fruitful might be ensuring children understand that larger groups are
additively composed of smaller groups and using commutativity to learn to count on from
a larger addend.
Whether they are subitizing, or subitizing and counting, children as young as kindergarten
age benefit from finding all the decompositions for a number—all pairs of numbers “hiding
inside” other numbers. Listing them can help children see patterns and can illustrate a way of
representing equations that expands the traditional, limited, view of an equal sign as meaning
“the answer comes next” (Fuson, 2009; Fuson, 2018b).

6 ¼ 0 þ 6
6 ¼ 1 þ 5
6 ¼ 2 þ 4
6 ¼ 3 þ 3
6 ¼ 4 þ 2
6 ¼ 5 þ 1
6 ¼ 6 þ 0

Indeed, just in case you still believe that it’s better to always use the form 5 + 1 = 6, note
that only using that form limits children’s thinking and leads them to make more errors (McNeil,
2008b). Children should learn to both recognize and produce a variety of legitimate number
sentences (Mark-Zigdon & Tirosh, 2017b).

“Doubles” and the “N + 1” Rule

Special patterns can be useful and easy for children to see. One of these involves “doubles” (3 + 3,
7 + 7), which can also allow access to combinations such as 7 + 8 (“doubles-plus-one”). Children
can learn the doubles (e.g., 6 + 6 = 12) surprisingly easily. They appear to develop doubles plus (or
minus) one (7 + 8 = 7 + 7 + 1 = 14 + 1 = 15) on their own or from brief discussions or practice using
software. However, ensure that rules such as n + 1 (adding one to any number is simply the next
counting word) are well established first. Also important is understanding that children may see
“double” as both an operation (doubling a number) and a relationship (the number and its “double”
are equal parts making a whole) (Björklund, 2015). Teachers may find discussing that there are
“equally many” as in the “original whole unit” and that we “doubled the whole unit” helpful.

Fives and Tens Frames

Another special pattern is the spatial one of “fives and tens frames.” These encourage decom-
position into fives and tens (e.g., 6 made as 5 + 1, 7 as 5 + 2), as illustrated in Figure 6.1.
 Arithmetic: Composition, Multidigit, Multiplicative 121

Figure 6.1 Fives and tens frames can help children decompose numbers and learn combinations

Break-Apart-to-Make-Ten (BAMT) Strategy

Japanese students often proceed through the same general developmental progression as
U.S. students, and other researchers have identified moving from “counting all” to “counting
on” and to derived combinations and decomposing–composing strategies. However, their
learning trajectory at that point differs. They come together around a single strategy, an
approach to strategy development supported by multiple studies (Clements, Vinh, Lim, &
Sarama, 2020; Murata & Fuson, 2006): Break-Apart-to-Make-Ten (BAMT), which was also the
most powerful strategy identified in the California study (Henry & Brown, 2008b).
Before these lessons, children work on several related learning trajectories. They develop
solid knowledge of numerals and counting (i.e., progress along the counting learning trajectory).
This includes the number structure for teen numbers as 10 + another number, which, as we
learned, is more straightforward in Asian languages (“thirteen” is “ten and three”), although
research suggests that experiences are more important than language (Laski & Yu, 2014c; Mark
& Dowker, 2015a). They learn to solve addition and subtraction of numbers with totals less than
10 (i.e., Find Result +/– in the learning trajectory in Chapter 5), often chunking numbers into 5
(e.g., 7 as 5-plus-2, as Figure 6.1 illustrates).
With these levels of thinking established, children develop several levels of thinking within
the composition/decomposition developmental progression (what we call Composer to 4, then
5 … up to Composer to 10 in the learning trajectory at the end of this chapter). For example,
they work on “break-apart partners” of numbers less than or equal to 10. They solve addition
and subtraction problems involving teen numbers using the tens structure (10 + 2 = 12; 18 − 8 =
10), and addition and subtraction with three addends using tens (e.g., 4 + 6 + 3 = 10 + 3 = 13
and 15 − 5 − 9 = 10 − 9 = 1).
At this point the BAMT strategy is developed. The entire process (to fluency) follows four
instructional phases. In Phase 1, teachers elicit, value, and discuss child-invented strategies and
encourage children to use these strategies to solve a variety of problems. Supports to connect
122 Arithmetic: Composition, Multidigit, Multiplicative

visual and symbolic representations of quantities are used extensively and curtailed and phased
out as children learn. For example, in step 1, the teacher poses a problem such as 9 + 4. Then, she
shows nine counters and four counters, and asks, “What do I need to make the 9 into a 10?”
Children already know their break-apart partners to 10, so they say “one.” The teacher moves one
from the four to make a group of ten. Next, she highlights the three left. She reminds children
that the 9 and 1 made 10 and guides them to see ten counters and three counters and think ten-
three (remember they learned this too). Later, representational drawings serve this role, in
a sequence such as shown in Figure 6.2, which reviews this instructional sequence.
In Phase 2, the teacher focuses on math properties and advantageous methods, especially
BAMT. After many problems involving 9 plus another number, problems involving 8 and posed
(then 7 … etc.). In Phase 3, children gain fluency with the BAMT (or other) methods. In Phase 4,
distributed practice increases retention and efficiency and helps children generalize the use of
the method in additional contexts and as a component of more complex methods.
Of the strategies for assisting students in Tharp and Gallimore’s model (1988), this teacher uses
questioning and cognitive restructuring extensively, and uses feeding back, modeling, instructing,
and managing to a lesser extent. She also uses an additional strategy, engaging and involving.
Phase 1 lessons are based first on children’s ideas and contributions.
All strategies are accepted and appreciated. Students are expected to try to express their ideas
and strategies as well as understand those of others. Strategies are often named for the students
who created them. Children then vote for the “most useful” strategy; the majority like the BAMT
strategy.
In Phase 2, the teacher reviews different methods, compares the methods mathematically,
and votes on the best method. New problem types (e.g., adding to 8) are connected to previ-
ously solved problems (adding to 9). The teacher also moved her conceptual emphasis from the
initial to later steps in the BAMT process (as illustrated in Figure 6.2). For homework, children
review that day’s work and preview the work to come the following day, supported by families.
In Phase 3, children practice the BAMT method to achieve fluency. “Practice” in Japanese
means “kneading” different ideas and experiences together to learn. Children do not just drill
but engage in whole-group (choral responding), individual-within-whole-group, and independent
practice. In individual-within-whole-group practice, individual students answer, but then asked
the class, “Is it OK?” They shout their response back. All practice emphasizes conceptual links.

Figure 6.2 Phases of instruction to teach the BAMT strategy

 Arithmetic: Composition, Multidigit, Multiplicative 123

“Kneading knowledge” to learn was always about fluency and understanding. Phase 4 is distrib-
uted practice. This is not rote learning or rote practice but a clear, high-quality use of the con-
cepts of learning trajectories. For example, children solve more sophisticated problem types
using more sophisticated strategies.

Combined Strategies
Learning a variety of such strategies is good for children of all ability levels. Further, although
BAMT is a powerful strategy and more helpful than others for later multidigit computation, it
should not be the only strategy children learn. “Doubles ± 1” and other strategies are also
worthwhile learning objectives.
Helping students see linkages between strategies is also powerful. Recall the use of number
paths to add in Chapter 5. One first-grade class was solving 7 + 5 (Lai, Carlson, & Heaton,
2018). Katie solved it by decomposing 5 into 3 and 2, adding the 3 to 7 to make 10, and then
adding the 2 to make 12. Other students used a number path, starting at 7, and making 5
single-space jumps. The teacher connected the two strategies, helping children see that putting
Katie’s solution on the number line would mean “big jumps” (jump 3 to 10, then 2 to 12). She
then asked students to represent another student’s strategy with such big jumps. The teacher
thus linked different strategies to show how they were structurally similar, helping children
become not only more strategic, but increasing their understanding as well—concepts connected
to procedures. She moved them from counting singles to breaking apart numbers—representing
BAMT on a number path. In so doing, she also emphasized the role of tens, laying the founda-
tion for the use of place value in arithmetic (Lai et al., 2018).
Good strategies should all work together, of course, to form adaptive expertise. For example,
see the activity in Chapter 2 for the level “Conceptual Subitizer to 20” (p. 30). Notice how the
fives and tens frames are used to give imagistic support for what is, basically, the BAMT strat-
egy—all while encouraging conceptual subitizing.

Achieving Full Fact Fluency

To achieve true fluency, children must practice their arithmetic strategies. This is not drill, but
repeated experiences combining different ideas and experiences to learn and internalize them.
Children might engage in whole-group (choral responding), individual-within-whole-group, or
practice independently. In individual-within-whole-group practice, individual students answer, but
then ask the class, “Is it OK?” The class calls their response back. All this practice needs to
emphasize conceptual links, synthesizing knowledge for fluency and understanding. They then
can begin distributed practice (practicing a variety of combinations and strategies over time,
rather than practicing one thing at a time for long periods). This is not rote learning or rote prac-
tice but a clear, high-quality use of skills and understandings to solve a variety of problems.
Educational technology can be an effective way to help children develop fluency, once they
understand, having progressed to that point in the learning trajectory (Sarama & Clements,
2019b). A caveat is that drills should be used carefully and usually in moderation, especially
with the youngest children and those who may be less motivated to perform academic work or
less creative following a steady diet of only drills. Practice with technology may not generalize
124 Arithmetic: Composition, Multidigit, Multiplicative

as well as paper-and-pencil work (Sarama & Clements, 2019b). Having children practice about
20% of the time on paper and pencil seems to solve that generalization limitation (Rich, Duhon,
& Reynolds, 2017). In contrast, practice that encourages the development and use of strategies
provides different contexts (supporting generalization), and promotes problem solving that may
be more appropriate than drills or may be best used in combination with it (Sarama & Clements,
2019b). As one example, developing two strategies, subtraction-as-addition (for 8 – 5 think,
“What added to 5 makes 8?”) and using 10 (similar to BAMT) were developed successfully with
computer programs, outperforming regular classroom instruction and computer-based drill
(Baroody, Purpura, Eiland, Reid, & Paliwal, 2016a). Another note on former strategy: Six widely
used U.S. curricula do not address critical levels of the learning trajectory for the meaningful
learning of the subtraction-as-addition strategy: (a) reverse operations (adding 8 is undone by
subtracting 8); (b) common Part–Whole relations (5 + 8 and 13 – 8 share the same whole 13 and
parts 5 and 8); and (c) the complement principle in terms of Part–Whole relations (if parts 5
and 8 make the whole 13, then subtracting one part from the whole leaves the other part,
Baroody, 2016a). Teachers need to step in and ensure children learn these levels.
See Chapter 16, pp. 387–401 for much more on educational technology. Chapter 16 has many
more details on practice (pp. 377–378) and teaching. Also see a full book we co-authored on this
issue, called No More Math Fact Frenzy (Davenport et al., 2019b). For now, we summarize some
research-based tips.

Tips for Achieving Fluency

Research establishes several guidelines for helping children achieve fluency with arithmetic
combinations; that is, correct and accurate knowledge and concepts and strategies that pro-
mote adaptive expertise.

1 Follow learning trajectories so that children develop the concepts and strategies of the
domain first. Understanding (along with procedures) should precede practice.
2 Ensure practice is distributed, rather than massed (Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Römer,
1993b). For example, rather than studying 4 + 7 for 30 seconds, it is better to study it
once, then study another combination, then return to 4 + 7. Further, practice on all combin-
ations is best done in short but frequent sessions. For long-term memory, a day or more
should eventually separate these sessions.
3 Use contingent reinforcement in short, frequent sessions. As a simple example, children look at
a written combination, then cover, copy, and compare and gain a reward for beating a previous
score (Methe, Kilgus, Neiman, & Chris Riley-Tillman, 2012). For example, the reward might be
Earning Free Time (see Codding, Hilt-Panahon, Panahon, & Benson, 2009b).
4 Other simple research-based strategies include “audio-recorded problems” and “incremen-
tal rehearsal” (Codding et al., 2009b):
• Audio-recorded problems—problems are recorded, then a time delay allows children to
write their answer, then the answer is read.
• Incremental rehearsal—first, the teacher identifies which combinations the child knows.
The child is told one unknown. Then the unknown combination is rehearsed nine times
by folding the unknown combination in with nine known combinations.
 Arithmetic: Composition, Multidigit, Multiplicative 125

5 In all cases, make sure the instructional strategy matches the students’ needs. As one
example, children who are accurate but slow may benefit from timed practice; however,
this may harm children who are struggling to be accurate, whereas the strategies in #3 and
#4 above would be helpful (Codding et al., 2009b).
6 Although timed tests are often done badly (Henry & Brown, 2008b), practice for speed,
done well, is useful and important. Tutoring with speeded practice is more effective than
tutoring with unspeeded practice (Fuchs et al., 2013). Combined with instruction on number
knowledge and relationships, including emphasis on retrieval but also with efficient count-
ing strategies for correcting any mistakes, speeded practice leads to fluency and compe-
tency in complex calculations (Fuchs et al., 2013). Children who are accurate but slow may
benefit from timed practice, but such timed practice may harm children who are struggling
to be accurate (Codding et al., 2009b). Once children are accurate and competent with
strategies, game-like, self-motivated practice for speed is an excellent complement. Such
practice should be short, frequent, stress-free, and fun, with each student engaged in
improving their own performance.
7 Similarly, use practice software that includes research-based strategies.
8 Ensure practice continually develops relationships and strategic thinking. For example, at
least some practice should occur on all forms of all possible combinations. This may help
children understand properties, including commutativity, additive inverse, and equality, as
well as supporting students’ retrieval of basic combinations:

5+3=8 3+5=8 8−5=3 8−3=5

8=5+3 8=3+5 3=8−5 5=8−3

As an illustration, teachers make “math mountain” cards such as those in Figure 6.3 (Fuson,
2018b). Students cover any of the three numbers and show them to their partner, who tells
what number is covered. Other representations show the Part–Part–Whole relationship, also
shown in Figure 6.3.
This suggests that it is not just the arithmetic combinations that should be automatic. Stu-
dents should also be fluent with the related reasoning strategies. For example, the Building
Blocks software not only provides the drill problems following these guidelines but also presents
each group of combinations based on the strategy that is most helpful in a particular type of
solution. As a specific illustration, the software initially groups together all those combinations
that yield nicely to the BAMT strategy.

Intensive Interventions for Children at Risk

At several points in this book, we argue that some children fail to make progress in the learning
trajectories in Chapter 5 and in this chapter. Here, we emphasize that, if children are not
making progress in Grade 1 and, especially, Grade 2, they need intensive interventions (see
Chapters 14, 15, and 16 and [LT]2, which also has many resources on teaching children with dis-
abilities of many types).
126 Arithmetic: Composition, Multidigit, Multiplicative

Figure 6.3 “Math Mountain” (made into cards for practicing arithmetic combinations) and other
Part–Part–Whole representations

Learning and Teaching Combinations: Final Words

An important goal of early math is students’ growth of flexible, fluent, accurate knowledge of
addition and subtraction combinations. Learning these combinations is not about rote memor-
ization. The learning trajectory progresses from (a) building foundational concepts of number
and arithmetic and learning to figure out simple combinations with counting and visually-based
strategies, to (b) learning reasoning strategies to determine combinations more efficiently, and
then to (c) achieving full facts fluency (Baroody et al., 2009b; Sarama & Clements, 2009c).
Seeing and using patterns, and building relationships, can free children’s cognitive resources to
be used in other tasks. Children generalize the patterns they learn and apply it to combinations
that were not studied (Baroody & Tiilikainen, 2003). Number combination instruction that
focuses on encouraging children to look for patterns and relations can generalize to problem-
solving situations and can free attention and effort for other tasks.

Science is facts; just as houses are made of stones, so is science made of facts; but a pile
of stones is not a house and a collection of facts is not necessarily science.
(Jules Henri Poincairé)

The Development of Grouping and Place Value

What determines children’s development of base-ten understandings? Not so much age as
experience. Use of the BAMT strategy, for example, helps children group into tens to solve
 Arithmetic: Composition, Multidigit, Multiplicative 127

addition and subtraction problems and to develop place value concepts. Place value has been
a part of the learning trajectories of Chapters 2, 3, 4, and 5, but here we focus directly on the
concepts of grouping and place value.

Extending the Math

Grouping underlies multiplication and measuring with different units. A special grouping organ-
izes collections into groups of ten. That is, a numerical collection can be measured using units
of one, ten, one hundred, or one thousand, and, in a written multidigit numeral, the value of
a digit depends on its position in the numeral. For example, the digit 5 in 53 indicates 50 (5
units of ten) but in 1,508 the 5 indicates 500 (5 units of one hundred). To build understanding
of numbers greater than 10, children must build on their early numerical knowledge and decom-
posing/composing to understand even the teen numbers as 1 ten and some extras and later to
understand numbers above 19 as some number of groups of ten and some extras. Beginning
with the teen numbers, the written numerals and the number words both refer to groups of ten
(e.g., 11 is 1 group of ten and 1 one).
From what we saw about counting, comparing, and addition in Chapters 3, 4, and 5, we know
that 35 is the number that results from counting 5 more than 30. Similarly, 435 is the number
that results from counting 35 more than 400. So, 435 = 400 + 30 + 5 (Wu, 2011b). The symbol
“435” illustrates a deep idea in the Hindu-Arabic number system: Each digit represents different
magnitudes, depending on its place in the symbol. The place value of the digit means its value,
or magnitude, as in “4” meaning “400” in “435” (but “4” means “40” in “246”). The sum of
400 + 30 + 5, used to represent the separate place value of each digit, is called the number’s
expanded notation.

Children’s Knowledge of Grouping and Place Value

Preschool children begin to understand the process of making groups with equal numbers of
objects. Such grouping, and knowledge of the special grouping into tens, appears not to be
related to counting skill. However, experience with additive composition does appear to contrib-
ute to knowledge of grouping and place value.
Children’s development of place-value understandings faces many challenges. The language
is not consistent (in many languages)—“fourteen” puts the four first vs. “14” and, of course,
“teen” does not mean “ten” to many children. Further, 14 and 41 have the same symbols but
mean quite different numbers (cf. Mix, Smith, & Crespo, 2019).
Teachers often believe that their students understand place value because they can, for
example, put digits into “tens and ones charts.” However, ask these students what the “1” in “16”
means and they are as likely to say “one” (and mean 1 singleton) as they are to say, “one ten.” Or,
they may exchange a dime for 10 pennies and add 6 pennies to a dime to make 16, but refuse to
subtract 6 pennies from a dime, because they do believe that a dime and 10 pennies are not funda-
mentally the same quantity. These are just two of many tasks that illustrate the difference
between children with little, and children with developing or strong, knowledge of place value.
Several classifications systems have been used to describe the levels of thinking children
develop from moving from little or no knowledge, to strong knowledge of place value. The
128 Arithmetic: Composition, Multidigit, Multiplicative

following is a synthesis (Fuson, Smith, & Lo Cicero, 1997; Fuson et al., 1997; Herzog, Ehlert, &
Fritz, 2019; Rogers, 2012).

• Students who say only “one” have little or no knowledge of place value. They will usually
make a group of 16 objects to represent “16,” but they do not understand the place value of
the numeral.
• Students understand that “26” means a group of 20 cubes along with a group of 6 cubes,
but for “twenty-six” might write “206.” May recognize and use equivalent representations
like 3 hundreds = 30 tens = 300 ones.
• Students create a group of 26 cubes by counting two groups of 10 (10, 20), and then count-
ing up by ones (21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26).
• Students count “1 ten, 2 tens…” (or even “1, 2 tens”) and then count the ones as before.
• Students connect the number words (twenty-six), numerals (26), and quantities (26 cubes)
without the support of manipulatives; they understand that 546 is equal to 500 plus 40
plus 6 and can use a variety of strategies for solving multidigit number problems.
• Students understand the exponential nature of number systems (we’ll return to this idea in
the later section on multiplication).
• Students can apply their knowledge to problems with other bases.

Students may be at a higher level for small numbers (e.g., up to 100) than they are for num-
bers with which they are less familiar (e.g., numbers to 1000). Students eventually need to
understand that 500 is equal to 5 times 100, 40 is equal to 4 times 10, and so forth. They need
to know that all adjacent places have the same exchange values: exchange 1 unit to the left for
10 units to the right and vice versa.

Language and Place Value

As we saw previously, English has thirteen rather than “threeteen” or, better, “ten-three”;
twenty rather than “twoty” or, better, “two tens.” Other languages, such as Chinese, in which 13
is read as “ten-three,” are more helpful to children (although, as we said, experiences are more
important than the language spoken!, Laski & Yu, 2014c; Mark & Dowker, 2015a). Also, neither
“teen” nor “ty” say ten, although they mean ten in different ways. The written numbers are
clearer in their pattern, but the written numerals are so succinct that they mislead children:
a 52 looks like a 5 and a 2 side by side, without suggesting fifty or five tens to the beginner. It
is especially unfortunate that the first two words following ten do not even feature the “teen”
root at all. Instead, “eleven” and “twelve” stem from Old English words meaning “one left”
(after ten) and “two left.” The following section suggests ways to help children meet these
challenges.

Experience and Education: Grouping and Place Value

Children learn to understand the ten-structured groupings named by our number words and
written numbers as they see and work with quantities grouped into tens linked to number
words and to written numbers. That is, they need to attend to unitizing (grouping and consider-
ing that group as a unit), relative position of numerals in a multidigit number, and language
 Arithmetic: Composition, Multidigit, Multiplicative 129

(Brendefur, Strother, & Rich, 2018). They may count 52 blocks into their own units of tens and
ones but counting and stacking blocks cannot take the place of working with the ideas and the
symbols. Children have to think about and discuss these ideas. They might pretend to make
stacks of blocks, while counting, “11 is one ten and one, 12 is one ten and two … 20 is two tens”
and so forth. They have to engage in many experiences to establish ten as a benchmark and,
more important, as a new unit (1 ten that contains 10 ones). Regular tens and ones words (52 is
“five tens, two ones”) used along with the ordinary words can help establish a language that
symbolizes decomposing and composing. Further, solving simple addition problems in the pre-K
and kindergarten years helps form a foundation for understanding place value. Following the
counting, comparing, and addition learning trajectories in Chapters 3, 4, and 5 is consistent
with these findings.
The diverse content of those chapters may suggest that there are two complementary
approaches to learning grouping and place value. The first focuses directly on learning place
value for numbers of a certain range (the teens, or numbers to 100). The second is using arith-
metic problem solving as a good context for the learning of place value, which we discuss in the
following section.
In the first approach, students work with place value ideas before arithmetic. For example,
they might draw “bar” diagrams by tracing around a connecting cube with no gaps to compose
a 5, then a 10 (Brendefur et al., 2018). The teacher asks what the bar would look like for quan-
tities of 12, 8, or 20 and emphasized equal intervals (Chapter 10). She then shows children
a cube bar of 10, wrapped in table, and says, “Now we have a unit of size 10” and shows draw-
ing with numbers 0 to 10 marked and one with only 0 and 10 marked, to emphasize 10 as unit
(of units). Discussion and new tasks emphasizes that one could draw 12 with 12 ones or one 10
bar and 2 ones. This is extended to larger two-digit numbers using bars, then “empty” number
lines, as well as comparing numbers and arithmetic.
As another example, children could play “banking” games in which they roll two number
cubes and take that many pennies (or single-dollar bills from a set of play money), but if they
have 10 or more pennies, they have to trade 10 pennies for a dime before their turn is over.
The first one to get to 100 wins. Students could take an inventory of classroom supplies, count
chairs for an assembly, get ready for a party, or conduct a science experiment—in each case,
grouping items to be counted into tens and ones. Similar games can involve throwing a ring or
other object onto a target and accumulating scores.
Important here is to make consistent connections between different representations: spoken
number words, grouped objects, numerals, number lines, one grouped set to another set of dif-
ferent materials and structure (e.g., bundled sticks to base-ten blocks) and so forth (Mix et al.,
2019). For the number words, recall the recommendation in Chapter 3 that children sometimes
count with English translations of East Asian structures (“ten-one [for 11], ten-two, ten-three …
two-tens, two-tens-one [21], two-tens-two…”) (Magargee, 2017; Van Luit & Van der Molen, 2011).
For matching different materials, use gestures and even color coding (ones in one color, tens in
another) to help children see how the structures are the same in both (Mix et al., 2019).
In one project, students also represented tens and ones with cardboard or paper “penny
stripes” with 10 pennies separated into two groups of five on the front and 1 dime on the back
(base-ten blocks were deemed too expensive). Eventually, students used drawings to solve prob-
lems. They drew columns of ten circles or dots, counted them by tens and by ones, and then
130 Arithmetic: Composition, Multidigit, Multiplicative

Figure 6.4 Place value “secret code cards”

connected the columns of ten by a 10-stick (or quick-ten). When they understood the 10-sticks
as meaning ten ones, they just drew the 10-sticks and ones. Tens and ones were drawn using
5-groups to minimize errors and help students see the numbers at a glance. A space was left
after the first five 10-sticks, and five 1-circles (or dots) were drawn horizontally and then the
rest of the 1-circles drawn below these in a row.
During this work, the teacher called 78 “seventy-eight” but also “7 tens, 8 ones.” Some chil-
dren still viewed and operated on digits in a multidigit number as if they were singletons; there-
fore, “secret code cards” were introduced such as have been used by many educators. They
were placed in front of each other to illustrate the place value system, as shown in Figure 6.4.
High-quality instruction often uses manipulatives or other objects to demonstrate and record
quantities. Further, such manipulatives are used consistently enough that they become tools for
thinking (see Chapter 16). They are discussed to explicate the place value ideas. They are used
to solve problems, including arithmetic problems. Finally, they are replaced by mental strategies
and symbols.

The Development of Multidigit Addition and Subtraction

Almost all, who have ever fully understood arithmetic, have been obliged to learn it over
again in their own way.
(Warren Colburn, 1849)

Conceptual knowledge, especially of the base-ten system, influences how students understand,
learn, and use strategies and algorithms for multidigit arithmetic (Hickendorff, Torbeyns, &
Verschaffel, 2019). Recall that an algorithm is a step-by-step procedure that is guaranteed to
solve a specific category of problems. A computation algorithm is a cyclic algorithm that solves
computational problems, such as arithmetic problems, in a limited number of steps. Efficient,
accurate, multidigit computation methods use the decomposition of the numbers into their
place value quantities (they are “cyclic” because they then operate on one place, then the
next …), the commutative and associative properties in adding or subtracting like values, and,
again, composition and decomposition whenever there are too many (when adding) or not
 Arithmetic: Composition, Multidigit, Multiplicative 131

enough (when subtracting) of a given value. (Recall the discussion in Arithmetic: Mathematical
Definitions and Properties, Chapter 5, pp. 89–90.)
Strategies involving counting by tens and ones (see Chapter 3) can be altered along with chil-
dren’s developing understanding of numeration and place value to lead up to explicit multidigit add-
ition and subtraction knowledge. Altering students’ increasingly sophisticated counting strategies is
a natural site for developing their understanding of place value in arithmetic. Rather than count by
tens and ones to find the sum of 38 and 47, children might decompose 38 into its tens and ones
and 47 into its tens and ones. This encourages the children to reason with ten as a unit like the unit
of one and compose the tens together into 7 tens, or 70. After composing the ones together into 15
ones, they have transformed the sum into the sum of 70 and 15. To find this sum, the children take
a 10 from the 15 and “give it” to the 70, so the sum is 80 and 5 more, or 85. Strategies such as this
are modifications of counting strategies involving tens and ones just as certain strategies for find-
ing the sum of 8 and 7 (e.g., take 2 from 7 and give it to 8, then add 10 and 5) are modifications of
counting strategies involving only counting by ones.
To use such strategies, students need to conceptualize numbers both as wholes (as units in
themselves) and composites (of individual units). Composites are “units of units” like 100 is 1 hun-
dred, but also 10 tens (each of which are 10 ones of course). Students who have these concepts
can, for example, repeatedly answer what number is “ten more” than another number. “What is ten
more than 23?” “33!” “Ten more?” “43!” (see “Counter Forward and Back” in Chapter 3).
This, then, is the second approach to moving along the developmental progression for learn-
ing explicit place values, along with multidigit arithmetic. Like other developmental progres-
sions, the levels of understanding of place value are not absolute or lockstep. Students might
use a strategy based on a flexible combination of decomposition–composition strategies and
counting-based, or sequence, strategies when solving a horizontally formatted arithmetic prob-
lem, such as 148 + 473. For example, they might say, “100 and 400 is 500. And 70 and 30 is
another hundred, so 600. Then 8, 9, 10, 11 … and the other 10 is 21. So, 621.”
However, these same students may regress to an earlier level when solving problems in
a vertical format, making mistakes such as the following.

148
þ 473
511 ðThe student ignored the numbers that needed to be regrouped:Þ

The vertical format can lead students to just think of each number as singles, even if they
understand place value in other contexts. The historical work on “bugs” in algorithms provides
many additional examples, such as the following.

73
40
ðThe student subracted the smaller from the larger digit in each case:Þ
34

802
47
ðThe studen ignored the zero; borrowing from the 8 two times:Þ
665
132 Arithmetic: Composition, Multidigit, Multiplicative

These examples have several lessons for us. Teaching arithmetic is much more than teaching
procedures. It involves relationships, concepts, and strategies. Indeed, if taught conceptually,
most students will not make these types of errors. But recall that the end goal is for students to
be able to perform these algorithms automatically, easily, without having to think too much
about them. However, if errors happen (we’re all human), if taught conceptually, most students
catch these types of errors. Further, they can find their mistakes and fix them because they
know both how and why the algorithm works.
Finally, teaching arithmetic well does more than teach “computation”—it lays the groundwork
for much of future math, including algebra (Mark-Zigdon & Tirosh, 2017b, see also Chapter 12).
This is important: For all the warnings of “things that can go wrong” with teaching of algo-
rithms, we must remember this:

In training teachers and teaching pupils it cannot be emphasized strongly enough what an
achievement our modern algorithms are and how much they contribute to our facility for
calculations.
(Mathematician Edward Barbeau, personal communication, 2020)

Algorithms are the culmination of eons of intellectual achievements.

Experience and Education: Multidigit Addition and Subtraction

The previous section showed that possessing strong knowledge of the properties and processes
of counting, place value, and arithmetic helps students use algorithms adaptively and transfer
their knowledge to new situations. Without this knowledge, children often make errors such as
subtracting the smaller from the larger digit regardless of which is actually to be subtracted
from which. Many of these errors stem from children’s treatment of multidigit numbers as
a series of single-digit numbers, without consideration of their place value and role in the math
situation (Fuson, 1992b). Too many U.S. children learn to carry out the steps of algorithm, but
do not develop conceptual understanding of place value. This is a problem.
Some have argued that “the standard algorithm” is actually harmful to children. For example,
in classrooms where the standard algorithm was not taught, second and third graders per-
formed better on problems such as mental addition of 7 + 52 + 186 than students in classrooms
in which the standard algorithm was taught, even when the latter were fourth-grade students
(Kamii & Dominick, 1997, 1998). Further, when they did make errors, the non-algorithm students’
answers were more reasonable. The fourth-grade algorithm classes gave answers that were
nonsensical (to those with conceptual knowledge and number sense), with sums above 700 or
even 800. They also gave answers such as “four, four, four,” indicating they thought about the
numbers not as having place value, but, rather, just as a series of separate digits. The
researchers argue that the standard algorithm is harmful because it encourages children to
cease their own thinking and because it “unteaches” place value.
However, children’s conceptual limitations and mistakes may be due to poor curricula or
teaching of algorithms by rote—impeding children’s opportunity for conceptual thinking. As
 Arithmetic: Composition, Multidigit, Multiplicative 133

traditionally taught, divorced from children’s own strategies and from conceptual understand-
ing, algorithms appear to replace quantitative reasoning. Algorithms purposefully work on one
“column” after another without a concern for the place value of the numbers—and not having
to “think” about them too much is a good thing—after you understand them. Too often, teachers
directly teach standard algorithms regardless of their students’ developmental progressions in
fundamentals such as counting strategies, allowing the students to perform prescribed proced-
ures unconnected to their understandings of number concepts.
In contrast, curricula and teaching that emphasize both conceptual understanding simultan-
eously with procedural skill, and flexible application of multiple strategies that children invent or
choose initially, lead to equivalent skill, but more fluent, flexible use of such skills, as well as
superior conceptual understanding (Hickendorff et al., 2019). Such teachers often ask children
how they solved a problem and why their solutions worked.
Basically, at the start, follow the curiosity path (see more in Chapter 14 and https://make
mathmoments.com). Use a guided discovery approach to help children invent and use their own
strategies first to solve problems.
In general, then, high-quality teaching addresses concepts, procedures, and connections, but
also emphasizes students’ sense-making. For example, the use of visual representations of
quantities and explication of the relationships between concepts and skills can be important.
Teachers say, “Here, 8 tens and 7 tens are 15 tens. This equals 1 hundred and 5 tens,” modeling
with base-ten manipulatives as necessary. Such teaching is often necessary, but alone is not
sufficient. Students need to make sense of the procedures. They need to describe and explain
what they are doing in natural and then math language. At certain levels of understanding,
especially, they need to be able to adapt procedures.
This is one of the main reasons that some argue that students should create their own strat-
egies to solve multidigit arithmetic problems before formal instruction on algorithms. That is,
children’s informal strategies may be the best starting points for developing both place value
and multidigit arithmetic concepts and skills. These strategies differ significantly from formal,
paper-and-pencil algorithms. For example, children prefer working left to right, whereas the
formal addition and subtraction algorithms work right to left (Kamii & Dominick, 1997, 1998).
The reason for this is not just that it encourages children’s creative thinking—although that is
a remarkable finding of this research. As previously stated, one group of researchers believes
that algorithms harm students’ thinking. As another example, one teacher gave her class only
problems in which one addend ended with “99” or “98” (e.g., 366 + 199). For most of the ses-
sion, all the students used the standard algorithm. One student, who had not been taught these
algorithms in previous grades, said that he changed 366 + 199 to 365 + 200 and then added to
find 565. However, only three students adopted such methods—all the rest kept “lining up the
digits” and computing each of these problems digit by digit.
Kamii blamed standard algorithms for students’ reticence to think about problems. When the
teachers stopped showing them algorithmic steps, the differences were called “astounding”
(Kamii & Dominick, 1998). For example, one year after teachers stopped teaching standard algo-
rithms and relied on students’ thinking, correct answers on 6 + 53 + 185 went from three of 16
students, all of whom used the standard algorithm, to only two using the standard algorithm
(both incorrectly) and 18 using their own strategies, with 15 of the 18 getting the correct
answer.
134 Arithmetic: Composition, Multidigit, Multiplicative

Thus, Kamii is convinced that, at least for whole number addition and subtraction, algo-
rithms introduced early do more harm than good. But what, many ask, if children make mis-
takes? Kamii’s argument is that the reasoning of the students about these situations, is
adequate for the class to self-correct any such errors. One second-grade class was asked to
add 107 and 117. A first group of students added from the right and got 2114. A second said
14 was a two-digit numeral and could not be written in the ones place; you should only write
the 4 there, so the answer is 214. A third group said the 1 in 14 should be written because it
was more important, so answer was 211. The fourth group added the tens and said the
answer was 224. Students discussed and argued for their point. The group using each
approach defended it. At the end of the 45-minute period, the only thing the class could
agree on was that it was impossible to have four different correct answers. (This is the point
at which many teachers hearing the story worry the most—isn’t it unethical to send them
home without the right answer?)
Over the next session, all students in this class constructed a correct algorithm. They occa-
sionally made mistakes, but were encouraged to defend their opinion until they were convinced
that the procedures they had used were wrong. They learned by modifying their ideas, not just
“accepting” a new procedure. These and similar studies support the notion that inventing one’s
own procedures is usually a good first phase (Baroody, 1987b; Clements et al., 2020). They also
illustrate the approach, mentioned previously, of teaching place value in the context of solving
multidigit addition and subtraction problems (Fuson & Briars, 1990).
Is student invention necessary? Some contend that invention at this level is not the critical
feature. Rather, they argue for the importance of the sense-making in which students engage
whether or not they invent, adapt, or copy a method.
Sense-making is probably the essence; however, we believe the bulk of research indicates
that initial student invention develops multiple interconnecting concepts, skills, and problem
solving (Clements et al., 2020). This does not mean that children must invent every procedure,
but that conceptual development, adaptive reasoning, and skills are developed simultaneously,
and that initial student invention may be a particularly effective way of achieving these goals.
Finally, we believe that student invention is a creative act of math thinking that is valuable in
its own right.

Mental Procedures Before Algorithms

Many researchers believe that use of written algorithms is introduced too soon and that a more
beneficial approach is the initial use of mental computation. Kamii’s writings and research
exemplify this approach. Standard written algorithms intentionally relieve the user of thinking
about where to start, what place value to assign to digits, and so forth. This is efficient for
those who already understand, but often has negative effects on initial learning. In comparison,
mental strategies are derived from and support underlying concepts. Conventionally taught stu-
dents usually take a long time to master algorithms and often never master them. Students
learn better if mental computation is taught and performed before written algorithms (and
practiced throughout education), along with appropriate work with concrete materials and
drawings.
 Arithmetic: Composition, Multidigit, Multiplicative 135

Such mental computation creates flexible thinkers (Nunes, Dorneles, Lin, & Rathgeb-
Schnierer, 2016). Inflexible students mostly use mental images of standard paper-and-pencil
algorithms. For 246 + 199, they compute as follows: 9 + 6 = 15, 15 = 1 ten and 5 ones; 9 + 4 + 1
= 14, 14 tens = 1 hundred and 4 tens; 1 + 2 + 1 = 4, four hundreds; so, 445. Unsurprisingly, they
frequently make errors.
Flexible students instead might compute as follows: 199 is close to 200; 246 + 200 = 446,
take away 1; 445. The flexible students also used strategies such as the following to compute
28 + 35 (Hickendorff et al., 2019):

• Compensation: 30 + 35 = 65, 65 − 2 = 63 (or 30 + 33 = 63).

• Decomposition: 8 + 5 = 13, 20 + 30 = 50, 63.
• Jump, or “begin-with-one-number”: 28 + 5 = 33, 33 + 30 = 63 (28 + 30 = 58, 58 + 5 = 63).

Compensation and decomposition strategies are aligned with base-ten blocks and other such
manipulatives, whereas the jump strategy is aligned with 100s charts or number lines (especially
the empty number line, discussed later in this chapter). For many students, the jump strategies
are more effective and accurate. For example, in subtraction, students using standard algo-
rithms often show the “smaller-from-larger” bug, as for 42 – 25, giving the answer 23.
Games can give targeted practice with the jump strategy. For example, in “The 11 Game,” stu-
dents spin two spinners (partially unbent paper clips can be spun around a pencil point). If they
get what is illustrated in Figure 6.5, for example, they must subtract 11 from 19. See the
resource, “Introducing and Using Games” on [LT]2.
They then can put one of their counters on the result, 8 (which appears in two locations)—as
long as one is open. Their goal is to be the first to get four in a row (horizontal, vertical, or
oblique). The emphasis on adding or subtracting only 1 ten and 1 one helps children understand

Figure 6.5 The “11” game

136 Arithmetic: Composition, Multidigit, Multiplicative

and establish a strong use of the jump strategy. Many variations are, of course, possible, such
as changing 11 to 37 or adding or subtracting only multiples of 10. Try playing this game with
a student or friend.
In a similar vein, a buying-and-selling situation embodied in a modified game of lotto was
used successfully as a context to motivate and guide first graders in two-digit subtraction
(Kutscher, Linchevski, & Eisenman, 2002). Students transferred their knowledge to the class-
room context.
The Dutch more recently have promoted the use of the “empty number line” as a support
for the jump strategies. Use of this model has been reported as supporting more intelligent
arithmetical strategies. The number line is “empty” in that it is not a ruler with all numbers
marked but simply keeps the order of numbers and the size of “jumps” recorded (not to scale),
such as shown in Figure 6.6.
Other researchers believe that both the decomposition and jump strategies are worthwhile,
and neither has to be learned first (Wright, Stanger, Stafford, & Martland, 2006). The jump
strategy is preferred as a mental arithmetic strategy, with the empty number line as
a recording, not a computational, device. From this view, students should use the empty
number line to record what they have already done mentally, so it becomes a written represen-
tation and a way to communicate their thinking to their peers and the teacher.
Students also create combinations of these strategies. For example, students might first
decompose a bit and then jump: 48 + 36 − 40 + 30 = 70; 70 + 8 = 78; 78 + 2 = 80; 80 + 4 =
84. They might also use compensation or other transformational strategies, such as: 34 + 59 →
34 + 60 − 1, so 94 − 1 = 93 (Wright et al., 2006).
Encourage students to use both strategies, but also help students connect them. For
example, the jump strategy may de-emphasize decade structures but maintain number sense.
Decomposition strategies emphasize place value but may lead to errors. Using and connecting
both, intentionally addressing the math they each develop and using one to check the other,
may be the most effective approach.
Other spinner games can provide substantial and enjoyable practice with these strategies.
For example, “Spin Four” is similar to the “The 11 Game” except that the second spinner shows
the amount added or subtracted from the number spun on the first spinner. This can be done in
many ways. Figure 6.7 features subtraction with no regrouping (try it!). Other games can easily
be constructed to feature subtraction with regrouping, addition with and without regrouping, or
a combination of addition and subtraction.

Figure 6.6 The empty number line supporting arithmetic

 Arithmetic: Composition, Multidigit, Multiplicative 137

“Four in a Row” is a similar game, but here each player has 12 chips of one color (“see-
through” if possible). Each chooses two numerals in the square on the left, summing them and
covering them (just for this turn) with chips (see Figure 6.8). The player also covers the sum on
the square on the right (this chip stays). The first to make four in a row with his/her chips is
the winner (from Kamii, 1989, who credits Grayson Wheatley and Paul Cobb for this version;
Kamii’s books include many other games).

Figure 6.7 The “Spin Four” game

Figure 6.8 The “Four in a Row” game

138 Arithmetic: Composition, Multidigit, Multiplicative

Before we leave this topic, we note that it may be inaccurate to say a child “uses” a “jump”
strategy when strategies are just barely forming (i.e., the youngest child). That is, they may not
be deliberately choosing and applying strategies but basing computations on their familiarity
with certain numbers’ relations. A second grader may add 39 + 6 by deciding to add one to 39,
then the “rest” of the 6 (i.e., 5) to the 40 to get 45, without conscientiously thinking—or even
knowing about, “jump strategies.” Such explicit knowledge and decision-making might emerge
from repeated experiences using number relationships. At first these are “theorems-in-action”
(Vergnaud, 1978) and are explicit strategies until they are mentally redescribed. Instructionally,
this would imply that the initial goal is not so much to teach the strategies as to develop
schemes of number relationships and then use them to construct strategies, discussing these
strategies to highlight the math properties involved.

Which Algorithms?
There are many arguments about whether to teach the standard algorithms. Too often, such
arguments have generated more heat than light, for several reasons:

• There is no single standard algorithm—if you mean exact steps one takes. Many different
alterations of the standard idea have been used in the U.S. and around the world (e.g., see
algorithms a and b in Table 6.1). All of these are mathematically valid, and even equivalent
(Kilpatrick et al., 2001).
• What are taken as different “standard” algorithms by teachers and lay people are
often not viewed as different by mathematicians, who believe they are all just simple
modifications (often in the way numbers are recorded) of general place-value-based
algorithms. That is, the algorithms in Table 6.1 all subtract in same-place-value columns
and compose/decompose as necessary; they just do these processes and notate them
in slightly different ways.

Several such modifications of the standard U.S. algorithm (Table 6.2) are useful (Fuson,
2009, 2020). For beginners, or those having difficulty, recording each addition showing its
full place value, as in Table 6.2b, can develop their understanding and skill. Once this is
attained, the accessible and mathematically desirable algorithm shown in Table 6.2c is
superior to the standard shown in Table 6.1a for several reasons. First, the numeral (e.g.,
“13”) is written with the digits close to each other, maintaining for the children the origin of
the “13.” Second, with students “adding from the top,” the (usually larger) numerals are
added first, freeing students’ memory from holding an altered numeral (which was added to
the “carried” 1). Instead, the larger numerals are added first, and the easy-to-add “1” is
added last.
Similarly, notice the subtraction algorithm in Table 6.1c (compared to Table 6.1a). Regrouping
everywhere first helps students concentrate just on the need to regroup and the regrouping
itself. Once that has been completed, then the subtraction operations are performed one after
the other. Not having to “switch” between the two processes allows better focus on each one.
 Arithmetic: Composition, Multidigit, Multiplicative 139

Table 6.1 “Different” Standard Algorithms

a. Decomposition—U.S. traditional
4 4 31 4 4 5
 6
4 5 6 4 1
5 6 4 1 6
5 4 1 6
5 1 6 7
1 6 7 1 6 7 1 6 7 1 6 7 2 8 9
9 9
Add 10 to 6 ones, Subtract 14 − 6
“borrowing” Subtract Add 10 tens to (tens) and 3 − 1
from 5 tens. 16 − 7. 4 tens, borrowing (hundreds).
from 4 hundreds.
b. Equal addends—European and Latin American
4 5 6 4 51 6 4 51 6 41 51 6 41 51 6
1 6 7 11 6 7 11 6 7 1 11 6 7 1 11 6 7
9 9 2 8 9
Add 10 to 6 ones to Subtract 16 − 7. Add 10 tens to Subtract 15 − 7
make 16 ones, and 1 5 tens, 1 hundred (tens) and 4 − 2
ten to 6 tens (here it to 1 hundred. (hundreds).
is 1 plus 6 tens, not
16 tens).
c. Accessible and mathematically desirable—a modification of the U.S. algorithm (Fuson, 2009)
4 5 6 31 4 31 4
1 6 7 4 51
 6 51 6
4 
1 6 7 1 6 7
2 8 9
Regroup every-
where needed. Subtract everywhere.

These “accessible and mathematically desirable algorithms” are simple variations of the
standard U.S. algorithms. However, they can significantly help students build both skill and
understanding (Fuson, 2009).
For any variation, base-ten manipulatives and drawing can support the learning of composition
and decomposition methods—especially in maintaining a connection between concepts and proced-
ures. Use of drawings is illustrated in Tables 6.2b and c. (Notice there are two basic differences
between the two, the order in which values are grouped and the way they are grouped.) Manipula-
tives or drawings help illustrate that different place value quantities need to be added separately
and that certain quantities need to be composed to make a unit of a higher place value.
Research shows that the key is teaching for meaning and understanding and then moving to
automaticity. Instruction that focuses on flexible application of a variety of strategies helps stu-
dents build robust concepts and procedures. They learn to adaptively fit their strategies to the
characteristics of the problems. In contrast, instruction that focuses only on routines results in
students blindly following those routines. Understanding the math, and students’ thinking about
math, including the varied strategies and algorithms they might use, helps students create and
use adaptive calculations. If students invent their own strategies first, they have fewer errors
than students who were taught algorithms from the start.

Conceptually-based Instruction Supports Mathematical Proficiency

Teach conceptual knowledge first, and alongside, procedural knowledge. Have students develop
their own methods first, the earlier in their educational lives the better. When standard
140 Arithmetic: Composition, Multidigit, Multiplicative

Table 6.2 Variations on the Standard Addition Algorithm

a. U.S. traditional
456 1 11 11
þ167 456 456 456
þ167 þ167 þ167
3 23 623
Add 6 + 7, enter Add 6 + 5 + 1 (tens), enter 2 Add 1 + 4 + 1 (hundreds), enter
3 in ones place, “carry” the in tens place, “carry” the 10 6 in hundreds place.
10 ones to create 1 ten. tens to create 1 hundred.
b. Transitional algorithm—write all totals (Fuson, 2009)

456 456 456 456

þ167 þ167 þ167 þ167
500 500 500
110 110
13
623
c. Accessible and mathematically desirable algorithm—a modification of the U.S. algorithm (Fuson, 2009)

456 456 456 456

þ167 þ167 þ167 þ167
3 121 3 61 21 3
Add 6 + 7, enter “13” but with Add 5 + 6 + 1 ten, enter “2” Add 4 + 1 + 1 hundred.
the 3 in the ones place and in the tens place and the
the 1 ten under the tens 1 hundred under the hun-
column. dreds column.

algorithms are developed, connect them to students’ informal strategies and reasoning. The
modified algorithms we present here can help children build concepts and procedures simultan-
eously. On that note, let us turn to this chapter’s learning trajectories.
To support problem solving, use powerful representations. For example, “strip” or “tape” dia-
grams are used extensively in East Asian countries (Singapore, Japan), to serve as a consistent,
beneficial representation of problem situations (Murata, 2008). A simple version of these was used
in Table 5.1 (p. 91) to illustrate the problem types. Figure 6.9 shows in more detail how teachers and
students might represent some of those problem types.
Keep children reasoning! Even after developing written algorithms, make sure you keep play-
ing games such as “Close to 100” (or 1000) to ensure children are thinking about place value in
arithmetic. Children play in pairs. From a deck of numeral cards (0–9), they deal each person 6.
 Arithmetic: Composition, Multidigit, Multiplicative 141

Figure 6.9 Strip diagrams used as a problem-solving tool

They pick 4 of the 6 and put them into a two-digit addition form in an attempt to get as close
to 100 as possible. For example, a child who is dealt 5 3 0 3 6 9 1 might make:

86
þ13

That yields 99, so her score is 1. Whoever gets the closest (if your sum is 102, your score is
“2”—so the “1” would win) gets a point. Such games sharpen mental math and keep algorithms
infused with meaning. (The game is more challenging if you are only given 4 cards; further,
older children can play close to 1,000.)

Inverse Operations and Checking One’s Work

Because addition and subtraction are inverse operations, a good way for students to check the
accuracy of their work is to do the related inverse operation—to check subtraction (503 – 384 =
119), add the subtrahend (384) and the difference (119).

Learning Trajectory for Composing Number and Multidigit

Addition and Subtraction
The importance of the goal of increasing children’s ability in these arithmetic abilities is
clear. Table 6.3 shows where these goals appear in the CCSSM. Many of these are shared
with those in the previous chapter, of course, because children can use different strategies
to solve most problems. Again, notice how arithmetic is reflected in the standards from sev-
eral domains.
With those goals, Table 6.4 provides the two additional components of the learning trajec-
tory, the developmental progression and the instructional tasks. There are three important
notes on this learning trajectory:

1 Unlike other learning trajectories, Table 6.4 is split into two parts, first composing, and
then multidigit addition and subtraction. This was done to emphasize that the second part
is a copy of the developmental progression already included in the learning trajectory in
Chapter 5, enhanced with the instructional tasks from this chapter.
142 Arithmetic: Composition, Multidigit, Multiplicative

Table 6.3 Goals for Addition and Subtraction and Place Value (Emphasizing Composition, Fluency, Place
Value, and Multidigit Arithmetic) from the CCSSM

Operations and Algebraic Thinking [K.0A in CCSSM]

Understand addition as putting together and adding to and understand subtraction as taking apart and
taking from.

1 Represent addition and subtraction with objects, fingers, mental images, drawings, sounds (e.g., claps),
acting out situations, verbal explanations, expressions, or equations. [Drawings need not show details
but should show the math in the problem. (This applies wherever drawings are mentioned in the
Standards.)]
2 Decompose numbers less than or equal to 10 into pairs in more than one way, e.g., by using objects or
drawings, and record each decomposition by a drawing or equation (e.g., 5 = 2 + 3 and 5 = 4 + 1).
3 For any number from 1 to 9, find the number that makes 10 when added to the given number, e.g., by
using objects or drawings, and record the answer with a drawing or equation.
4 Fluently add and subtract within 5.

Operations and Algebraic Thinking [1.OA in CCSSM]

Represent and solve problems involving addition and subtraction.

1 Use addition and subtraction within 20 to solve word problems involving situations of adding to,
taking from, putting together, taking apart, and comparing, with unknowns in all positions, e.g., by
using objects, drawings, and equations with a symbol for the unknown number to represent the
problem. [The CCSSM refers to their Glossary, Table 1, which has information very similar to this
book’s Table 5.1.]
2 Solve word problems that call for addition of three whole numbers whose sum is less than or equal to
20, e.g., by using objects, drawings, and equations with a symbol for the unknown number to represent
the problem.

Understand and apply properties of operations and the relationship between addition and subtraction.

1 Apply properties of operations as strategies to add and subtract. Examples: if 8 + 3 = 11 is known, then
3 + 8 = 11 is also known. (Commutative property of addition.) To add 2 + 6 + 4, the second two num-
bers can be added to make a ten, so 2 + 6 + 4 = 2 + 10 = 12. (Associative property of addition.) [Stu-
dents need not use formal terms for these properties.]
2 Understand subtraction as an unknown-addend problem. For example, subtract 10 – 8 by finding the
number that makes 10 when added to 8.

Add and subtract within 20.

1 Add and subtract within 20, demonstrating fluency for addition and subtraction within 10. Use strategies
such as counting on; making ten (e.g., 8 + 6 = 8 + 2 + 4 = 10 + 4 = 14); decomposing a number leading to
a ten (e.g., 13 − 4 = 13 – 3 − 1 = 10 − 1 = 9); using the relationship between addition and subtraction (e.g.,
knowing that 8 + 4 = 12, one knows 12 − 8 = 4); and creating equivalent but easier or known sums (e.g.,
adding 6 + 7 by creating the known equivalent 6 + 6 + 1 = 12 + 1 = 13).

Work with addition and subtraction equations.

1 Understand the meaning of the equal sign, and determine if equations involving addition and sub-
traction are true or false. For example, which of the following equations are true and which are
false? 6 = 6, 7 = 8–1, 5 + 2 = 2 + 5, 4 + 1 = 5 + 2.
2 Determine the unknown whole number in an addition or subtraction equation relating to three whole
numbers. For example, determine the unknown number that makes the equation true in each of the
equations 8 + ? = 11, 5 = ? − 3, 6 + 6 = ?.

Number and Operations in Base Ten [1 .NBT from CCSSM]

Use place value understanding and properties of operations to add and subtract.

(Continued )
 Arithmetic: Composition, Multidigit, Multiplicative 143

Table 6.3 (Cont.)

1 Add within 100, including adding a two-digit number and a one-digit number, and adding a two-digit
number and a multiple of 10, using concrete models or drawings and strategies based on place value,
properties of operations, and/or the relationship between addition and subtraction; relate the strategy
to a written method and explain the reasoning used. Understand that in adding two-digit numbers, one
adds tens and tens, ones and ones; and sometimes it is necessary to compose a ten.
2 Given a two-digit number, mentally find ten more or ten less than the number, without having to
count; explain the reasoning used.
3 Subtract multiples of 10 in the range 10–90 from multiples of 10 in the range 10–90 (positive or zero
differences), using concrete models or drawings and strategies based on place value, properties of
operations, and/or the relationship between addition and subtraction; relate the strategy to a written
method and explain the reasoning used.

Operations and Algebraic Thinking [CCSSM 2.0A]

Represent and solve problems involving addition and subtraction.

1 Use addition and subtraction within 100 to solve one- and two-step word problems involving situations
of adding to, taking from, putting together, taking apart, and comparing, with unknowns in all positions,
e.g., by using drawings and equations with a symbol for the unknown number to represent the prob-
lem. [The CCSSM refers to their Glossary, Table 1, which has information very similar to this Chapter
5’s Table 5.1.]

Add and subtract within 20.

1 Fluently add and subtract within 20 using mental strategies. [See standard 1.0A.6 for a list of mental
strategies.] By end of Grade 2, know from memory all sums of two one-digit numbers.
Work with equal groups of objects to gain foundations for multiplication.
1 Determine whether a group of objects (up to 20) has an odd or even number of members, e.g., by pairing
objects or counting them by twos; write an equation to express an even number as a sum of two equal
addends.
2 Use addition to find the total number of objects arranged in rectangular arrays with up to five rows and
up to five columns; write an equation to express the total as a sum of equal addends.
Number and Operations in Base Ten [2.NBT in CCSSM]
Use place value understanding and properties of operations to add and subtract.

1 Fluently add and subtract within 100 using strategies based on place value, properties of operations,
and/or the relationship between addition and subtraction.
2 Add up to four two-digit numbers using strategies based on place value and properties of operations.
3 Add and subtract within 1000, using concrete models or drawings and strategies based on place value,
properties of operations, and/or the relationship between addition and subtraction; relate the strategy
to a written method. Understand that in adding or subtracting three-digit numbers, one adds or sub-
tracts hundreds and hundreds, tens and tens, ones and ones; and sometimes it is necessary to com-
pose or decompose tens or hundreds.
4 Mentally add 10 or 100 to a given number 100–900, and mentally subtract 10 or 100 from a given
number 100–900.
5 Explain why addition and subtraction strategies work, using place value and the properties of oper-
ations. [Explanations may be supported by drawings or objects.]

Measurement and Data [2.MD in CCSSM]

Measure and estimate lengths in standard units.
1 Measure to determine how much longer one object is than another, expressing the length difference in
terms of a standard-length unit.
Relate addition and subtraction to length.

1 Use addition and subtraction within 100 to solve word problems involving lengths that are given in the
same units, e.g., by using drawings (such as drawings of rulers) and equations with a symbol for the
unknown number to represent the problem.

(Continued )
144 Arithmetic: Composition, Multidigit, Multiplicative

Table 6.3 (Cont.)

2 Represent whole numbers as lengths from 0 on a number line diagram with equally spaced points cor-
responding to the numbers 0, 1, 2, … and represent whole-number sums and differences within 100 on
a number line diagram.

Work with time and money.

1 Solve word problems involving dollar bills, quarters, dimes, nickels, and pennies, using $ and ¢ symbols
appropriately. Example: If you have 2 dimes and 3 pennies, how many cents do you have?

Represent and interpret data.

1 Draw a picture graph and a bar graph (with single-unit scale) to represent a data set with up to four
categories. Solve simple put-together, take-apart, and compare problems using information presented
in a bar graph. [The CCSSM refers to their Glossary, Table 1, which has information very similar to this
Chapter 5’s Table 5.1.]

2 Note that place value is fundamental to all number domains, so it is embedded in the learn-
ing trajectories in Chapters 2, 3, 4, and 5, as well as this one. This chapter simply has the
most specific focus on place value.
3 Recall again that the ages in all the learning trajectory tables are only approximate, espe-
cially because the age of acquisition usually depends heavily on experience.

The Development of Multiplication and Division, and Fractions

Also related to grouping and place value is the idea of multiple “equal groups”… leading to multipli-
cation and division. Grouping seems clear. Most of us learned that 2 × 3 means “two groups of
three” or six in all. But place value? Yes: When we discussed “52 is ‘five tens, two ones,’” well, five
tens is 5 × 10. We can define multiplication as: 5 × 10 = 10 + 10 + 10 + 10 (Wu, 2011b).
Further, we did not fully explain one high level of place value understanding (p. 128): “Stu-
dents understand the exponential nature of number systems.” We know that 1,234 in expanded
notion is 1000 + 200 + 30 + 4. But that can get tedious. For example, a recent estimate of the
U.S. population was 321,526,816 or 300,000,000 + 20,000,000 + 1,000,000 … and so forth.
Exponential notion puts it more succinctly: 3 × 108 + 2 × 107 + 1 × 106 … where 108 simply means
10 times 10 … eight times (100,000,000 − 1 with 8 zeros).
Now, that is far up this learning trajectory … let’s get back to the beginning. Research has
shown that very young children can learn equipartitioning—the main researcher in this area,
Jere Confrey, also calls it splitting (Confrey, Maloney, Nguyen, & Rupp, 2014, see this for far
more detail about this LT)—about the same time as they learn to count (see also Young-
Loveridge & Bicknell, 2018). Equipartitioning has the goal of producing equal-sized groups. At
the earliest ages, children give some, but not the same number, to each person. That is, they
pass out objects (e.g., dolls) to different people but they just “dump” the objects, without appre-
ciation of equal numbers to each (Miller, 1984b).
They begin with basic notions of “fairness” to build equal groups and to share objects
equally among, first, two people, and later, larger numbers of people. To find the size of the fair
share in equipartitioning problems, children typically use “partitive strategies,” dealing one to
each person in turn (Hunting, 2003). At first, this is dealing out small numbers to only two
people, then more, but still without necessarily explicitly understanding that equal groups are
 Arithmetic: Composition, Multidigit, Multiplicative 145

Table 6.4 Learning Trajectory for Composing Number and Multidigit Addition and Subtraction

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

0–1 Actor on Parts: Foundations Displays Block Party, [LT]2: Children explore parts and wholes
actions that show intuition about parts and by separating blocks of different colors, then re-
wholes such as gathering objects together. organizing them as a whole.
Only nonverbally recognizes parts and
wholes. Recognizes that sets can be com-
bined in different orders but may not expli-
citly recognize that groups are additively
composed of smaller groups.
1–3 Parts Combiner Recognizes that sets can Parts Combiner Finger Plays, [LT]2: Finger plays that
be combined in different orders but may include adding additional pieces throughout or show-
not explicitly recognize that groups are ing how a whole can include parts support learning
additively composed of smaller groups. about number composition.
The toddler also recognizes Part–Whole
relations in nonverbal, intuitive, percep-
tual situations and can nonverbally repre-
sent parts that make a whole.
When shown four red blocks and two
blue blocks, intuitively appreciates that
“all the blocks” include the red and
blue blocks, but when asked how many
there are in all, may name a small
number, such as 1.
3–4 Inexact Part–Whole Recognizer Knows Toy Bag: Parts in a Whole, [LT]2: Students explore
that a whole is bigger than parts but may quantities of toys in a bag. With support from
not accurately quantify (label with num- a teacher to identify the number of toys, children
bers). (May show intuitive knowledge of practice thinking about how parts make up a whole.
commutativity, and, later, associativity Note: Experiences in learning trajectories from
with physical groups, later in more other chapters are appropriate to developing these
abstract contexts, including numbers.) abilities. Especially relevant are subitizing (Chapter
2), counting (Chapters 3 and 5), comparing (Chapter
When shown four red blocks and two 4), and sorting (Chapter 12).
blue blocks and asked how many
there are in all, names a “big
number,” such as 5 or 10.

4–5 Composer to 4, then 5 Knows number Finger Games: Ask children to make numbers with
combinations. Quickly names parts of any their fingers (hands should be placed in their laps
whole, or the whole given the parts. between tasks). These sessions should be short and
fun, and repeated, spread out over many days.
Shown four, then one is secretly
hidden, and then is shown the three
remaining, quickly says “one” is
hidden.

Ask children to show 4 with their fingers. “Think,

pair, share: Tell your partner how you did it. Now
in a different way. Tell your partner.”
“Now make 4 with the same number on each hand.”

(Continued )
146 Arithmetic: Composition, Multidigit, Multiplicative
Table 6.4 (Cont.)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

“Make 5 with your fingers,” and discuss: “Did you

use one hand only or two?” “Can you do it
a different way?”, and so on.
Ask children to repeat the above tasks, but say,
“You can’t use thumbs.”
Challenge children by asking them to show 3 or 5
using the same number of fingers on each hand.
Discuss why it cannot be done.
Bunny Ears on, [LT]2: In this modification, have
children make the numbers as “bunny ears”—holding
their hands above their heads to make numbers 1 to
5 in different ways. Thus, they can see others’ solu-
tions, but have to make mental images of their own.
Up and Down, [LT]2: In another session, ask children
to show 4 on one hand. Ask how many fingers are up
and how many are down (all on one hand only). Repeat
with 0, 1, 2, 3, and 5 across several days and weeks.
Snap! (to 5), [LT]2: Agree on a number from 3 to
5. Make a train of that number of connecting cubes,
all of one color. Put them behind your back and snap
off some. Show the rest. Have students determine
how many are behind your back. Discuss their solu-
tion strategies.
Students work in pairs playing “Snap!”, taking
turns making the connecting cube train and snap-
ping. Students should ask their partner to guess
how many you have, then show them to check.
Subitize!, [LT]: Students identify an image that
correctly matches a target image from four multiple-
choice selections.

5–6 Composer to 7 Knows number combin- Snap! (to 7), [LT]2: See above, but up to 7.
ations to totals of 7. Quickly names parts Make a Number, [LT]2: Children decide on
of any whole, or the whole given parts. a number to make, say 7. They then get three decks
Doubles to 10. of cards and take out all the cards numbered 7 or
more, shuffling the remaining cards. The children
Shown six, then four are secretly
take turns drawing a card and try to make a 7 by
hidden, and shown the two remaining,
combining it with any other face-up card—if they can,
quickly says “four” are hidden. they can keep both cards. If they can’t, they must
place it face up beside the deck. When the deck is
gone, the player with the most pairs wins. Play again
by changing the number to make.
Note: See Conceptual Subitizer to 7 on p. 30. See
also many activities above and below (adapted for this
level’s numbers) on [LT]2, including Finger Games,
Cookie Game, Break and Make, and Dump and Sing.

(Continued )
 Arithmetic: Composition, Multidigit, Multiplicative 147
Table 6.4 (Cont.)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

Composer to 10 Knows number combin- Finger Games: Ask children to make numbers with
ations to totals of 10. Quickly names parts their fingers (hands should be placed in their laps
of any whole, or the whole given parts. between tasks). Ask children to show 6 with their fin-
Doubles to 20. gers. “Tell your partner how you did it.”
“9 and 9 is 18.” “Now in a different way. Tell your partner.”
“Now make 6 with the same number on each
hand.” Repeat with other even numbers (8, 10).
Ask children to show 7 with their fingers and dis-
cuss responses. Can they do it a different way?
Ask children to repeat the above tasks, but say,
“You can’t use thumbs.” (“Can you make 10?”)
Challenge children by asking them to show 3, 5,
or 7 using the same number of fingers on each
hand. Discuss why it cannot be done.
Bunny Ears: In this modification, have children
make the numbers as “bunny ears”—holding their
hands above their heads to make numbers 6 to 10 in
different ways.
Up and Down, [LT]2: Ask children to show 6. Ask
how many fingers are up and how many are down (all
on one hand only). Repeat with all numbers 0 to 10
across many days.
Turn Over Ten, [LT]2: The goal of this card game
is to accumulate the most pairs of cards that sum to
10. Provide each group of children with three collec-
tions of 0–10 cards.
Ten cards are dealt to each player, who assem-
bles them in one pile, face down.
The remaining cards are placed face down in
a “pick-up pile” between the two players. The top
card of this pile is flipped over, face up.
Player 1 turns over his/her top card. If this card
forms a sum of 10 together with the card in the
pick-up pile, that player takes and keeps the pair.
(Whenever the card on top of the pick-up pile is
used, a new one is turned over.)
If the sum of 10 is not reached, the player places
this top card next to the pick-up pile, so that
these cards can be seen and used by players in
subsequent turns (therefore, there may be a row
of “discards” face up between the two players).
In either case (pair formed or card discarded) the
turn passes to the next player, who turns over
his/her top card.
If any of the cards showing can be used to form
a pair of 10, the player keeps that pair.
If a player sees a pair of cards showing that form
10, he can choose that pair during his/her turn
instead of turning over the top card in his/her pile.
Turns alternate until each player has turned over
all of his or her cards. The player with the most
pairs accumulated is the winner.
Make Tens, [LT]2: The goal is to make tens with all
your cards and avoid being left with the extra card.
Provide each group of children a deck of cards made
of two collections plus one other card of any number

(Continued )
148 Arithmetic: Composition, Multidigit, Multiplicative
Table 6.4 (Cont.)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

between 0 and 10 (this will eventually be the “Old

Maid” card that cannot make a 10). For example, use
one of the following:

1 Two collections of number cards (0–10) with

dots and numerals, with one extra 5 card.
2 Collections of numeral (only) cards (0–10) with
one extra 5 card.

Variation (two-player game): The entire deck is

dealt out to both players. Both players first form all
possible pairs of 10 in their own hands and set these
pairs aside in their score pile. They keep the extras in
their hand. They take turns choosing (without look-
ing) one card from the other player’s hand. If they
can use it to make 10, they place that pair in their
score pile. If they cannot use it, the card remains in
their hand. At the end of the game, one player will be
left with the odd card.
Slap a Ten, [LT]2: The goal is to make tens with all
your cards and be the first one “out.” Provide each
group of children with a deck of cards made of four
decks of 1–10 cards.
Variation (two- to four-player game): Six cards
are dealt out to each player. The remaining cards
are placed in the middle, face down.
One player turns the top card over. The other play-
ers quickly determine if they can make a 10 with
that and one card in their hand. If they can, they
slap the card. The player who slaps it first must
use it to make a ten. If they cannot, they keep the
card and must take another card off the pile.
Players take turns turning over the top card.
The game ends when player goes “out” or the pile
is gone. The player who went “out” or the one
with the fewest cards in their hand wins.
Variation (if children are having a problem trying
to slap the card at the same time):
If they can make a 10 with the card shown, they
slap their own card down. The player who slapped
it down first will ask “Is it 10?”
All players must agree that the two cards make 10.
Tens Memory Game:
For each pair of children, two sets of numeral
cards (1–9) are needed.
Place card sets face down in two separate three-
by-three arrays. Players take turns choosing, flip-
ping, and showing a card from each array.
If the cards do not sum to 10, they are returned
(face down) to the arrays. If they do, that player
keeps them.
Use more cards to make a longer game.
Subitize!, [LT]: Students identify an image that
correctly matches a target image from four multiple-
choice selections.

(Continued )
 Arithmetic: Composition, Multidigit, Multiplicative 149
Table 6.4 (Cont.)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

7 Composer with Tens and Ones Under- Note: All games above involving tens can be played
stands two-digit numbers as tens and with larger sums to extend children’s knowledge of
ones; count with dimes and pennies; arithmetic combinations.
two-digit addition with regrouping. Make the Sum, [LT]2: Six 1–10 decks of numeral
cards are mixed and dealt out to players. Three
“17 and 36 is like 17 and 3, which is 20, number cubes are thrown by one player, who
and 33, which is 53.” announces the sum. All players try to make this sum
in as many ways as possible. The first player to use
up all her or his cards wins.
Salute! (Composing Numbers), [LT]2: With a deck of
cards with the face cards removed, and ace as 1, cards
are dealt to two of the three players (Kamii, 1989).
The two players sit facing each other with their
cards face down. The third player says, “Salute!”
and the two players take the top card from their
piles and hold them on their foreheads so that the
other two players can see them, but they cannot.
The third player announces the sum of the two
cards. Each of the other players tries to be the
first to announce the value of their own cards.
The person who is first takes both cards. The
winner is the person who collects the most cards.
Hiding Cubes, [LT]2: Show students connecting
cubes—4 tens and 3 ones—for 2 seconds only (e.g.,
hidden under a cloth). Ask how many they saw. Dis-
cuss how they knew. Repeat with new amounts.
Tell students you have a real challenge for them.
Tell them there are 2 tens and 17 ones hidden.
How many are there in all? Once they tell you,
uncover them to check.
Place four blue tens, one red ten, and four red sin-
gles. Tell students you have 54 cubes in all, and
14 are red. Ask them how many are blue.
Note: From this point, the most important
activities are included in the subitizing learning
trajectory. See Chapter 2, p. 31, “Conceptual Subitizer
with Place Value” and “Conceptual Subitizer with
Place Value and Multiplicative Thinking.”

6–7 Deriver +/– Uses flexible strategies and Multidigit Addition and Subtraction:
derived combinations (e.g., 7 + 7 is 14, so 7 All types of single-digit problems, using derived
+ 8 is 15) to solve all types of problems. and, increasingly, known combinations.

(Continued )
150 Arithmetic: Composition, Multidigit, Multiplicative
Table 6.4 (Cont.)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

Includes Break Apart to Make Ten (BAMT). (Note: Students should have achieved the level of
Can simultaneously think of three num- “Skip Counter by 10s to 100” and “Counter to 100”
bers within a sum, and can move part of before the following tasks; see Chapter 3’s learning
a number to another, aware of the trajectory, starting on p. 54.)
increase in one and the decrease in Ten Spot (Composing Numbers), [LT]2: Present
another. problems such as 40 + 10, initially by using separate
fives and tens frames or connecting cubes in trains
Asked, “What’s 7 plus 8?”, thinks: of 10. Ask how many dots (cubes) are there? How
7 + 8 → 7 + [7 + 1] → [7 + 7] + 1 = many tens? Add a ten and ask again. Progress to
14 + 1 = 15. adding more than 1 ten at a time.
Or, using BAMT, thinks, 8 + 2 = 10, so Repeat and fade: Repeat as above until the stu-
separate 7 into 2 and 5, add 2 and 8 to dents are fluent. Model the solution process yourself
make 10, then add 5 more: 15. if necessary. As soon as possible, hide those placed
Solves simple cases of multidigit add- out so children build visual, mental models. Eventu-
ition (and, often, subtraction) by incre- ally, present the problems only orally. Then, take
menting tens and/or ones. away tens (e.g., 80 – 10).
Decade Spin (Composing Numbers), [LT]2: Present
“What’s 20 + 34?” Student uses con- problems such as 70 + 3 and 20 + 7. Use the same
necting cube to count up 20, 30, 40, strategy as above, placing 2 tens and then 7 ones out.
50 plus 4: 54. If students need additional assistance, lay the ones out
one at a time while counting by ones. Note the result
(“27 … that means 2 tens and 7 ones”) and encourage
students to solve another one in a faster way.
Adding and subtracting multiples of 10s off the
decade: Present problems such as 73 + 10 and 27 + 20.
Use the same strategy as above, placing 7 tens and 3
ones out, then adding tens one (or more) at a time.
Adding and subtracting within decades: Present
problems such as 2 + 3, then 22 + 3, then 72 + 3, and
so forth (include 12 + 3 once the pattern is well estab-
lished). Repeat.

7 Problem Solver +/– Solves all types of Solve all types of problem structures for single-digit
problems, with flexible strategies and problems.
known combinations. Span Decades (Composing Numbers), [LT]2: Pre-
sent problems that bridge decades, such as 77 + 3 and
Asked, “If I have 13 and you have 9, 25 + 7. As above, use manipulatives and modeling as
how could we have the same necessary, until children can solve this mentally, or
number?”, says, “Nine and one is ten, with drawings such as the empty number line.
then three more to make 13. One and Repeat and fade: as above.
three is four. I need four more!” Subtracting across decades: Present problems
Multidigit may be solved by increment- that bridge decades, such as 73 + 7 and 32 – 6. As
ing or combining tens and ones (latter not above, use manipulatives and modeling as necessary,
used for Join, Change Unknown). until children can solve this mentally, or with draw-
ings such as the empty number line.
“What’s 28 + 35?” Incrementer thinks: Adding and subtracting 10s and 1s with manipula-
20 + 30 = 50; +8 = 58; 2 more is 60, 3 tives: Present addition problems using fives and tens
more is 63. frames or connecting cubes. Show 1 ten and 4 ones.
Combining tens and ones: 20 + 30 = Ask how many dots (cubes) are there? Add a ten and
50. 8 + 5 is like 8 plus 2 and 3 more, 3 ones and ask again. Continue to add 1–3 tens and
so, it’s 13. 50 and 13 is 63. 1–9 ones each time until you are close to 100. Then
ask, “How many do we have in all? How many would
we need to reach 100?”
Use different manipulatives, such as imitation cur-
rency or coins.

(Continued )
 Arithmetic: Composition, Multidigit, Multiplicative 151
Table 6.4 (Cont.)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

Talk it out with the empty number line (Composing

Numbers), [LT]2: Present addition (and then subtrac-
tion) problems under an empty number line (see top
“35 + 57” figure below) and have students “talk aloud”
to solve the problem, representing their thinking on the
empty number line (see bottom “35 + 57” figure).

Move from problems such as 45 + 10 to 73 – 10,

then 27 + 30 and 53 – 40, then move to …
Adding tens and ones: Present addition problems
under an empty number line, as above. Start with
problems without regrouping, such as 45 + 12, 27 +
31, and 51 + 35, then move to … problems with
regrouping (e.g., 49 + 23, 58 + 22, 38 + 26) and prob-
lems that suggest transformations, such as compen-
sation (e.g., 57 + 19 → 56 + 20 or 57 + 20 – 1; 43 + 45
(44 + 44); 22 + 48; and so forth).
Allow students to use strategies that “work” for
them but encourage them to move from counting sin-
gles to more sophisticated strategies.
Present similar problems with place value manip-
ulatives or drawings, such as base-ten blocks, or
drawings of them (see Table 6.2).
Use different manipulatives, such as imitation cur-
rency or coins.
Repeat and fade: As above.
Subtracting tens and ones: Present subtraction
problems under an empty number line, as above.
Start with problems without regrouping (e.g., 99 –
55, 73 – 52, 59 – 35), then move to … problems with
regrouping (e.g., 81 – 29, 58 – 29, 32 – 27, and so on)
and problems that suggest transformations, such as
compensation; e.g., 83 – 59 (84 – 60, or 83 – 60 + 1),
81 – 25, 77 – 28, and so forth.
Watch for “subtract smaller digit from larger
digit” errors (e.g., in 58 – 29, subtracting 9 – 8 rather
than the correct 8 – 9).
Present similar problems with place value manip-
ulatives or drawings, such as base-ten blocks, or
drawings of them (see the text).
Use different manipulatives, such as imitation
currency or coins. The 11 Game: See p. 135 and
Figure 6.7.

(Continued )
152 Arithmetic: Composition, Multidigit, Multiplicative

Table 6.4 (Cont.)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

7–8 Multidigit +/– Uses composition of tens Hidden 10s and 1s: Tell students you have hidden 56
and all previous strategies to solve multi- red connecting cubes and 21 blue cubes under
digit +/– problems. a cloth. Ask them how many there are altogether.
Asked, “What’s 37 – 18?”, says, “I take 1 Progress to problems with regrouping, such as
ten off the 3 tens; that’s 2 tens. I take 7 47 + 34.
off the 7. That’s 2 tens and zero … 20. Move to problems with subtraction without
I have one more to take off. That’s 19.” (85 – 23), then with (51 – 28) regrouping.
Asked, “What’s 28 + 35?”, thinks, 30 + Spin Four: See p. 136 and Figure 6.7.
35 would be 65. But it’s 28, so it’s 2 Four in a Row: See p. 137 and Figure 6.8.
less: 63. Variations: Make the game “Five in a Row” and to
use larger addends.
Variation: Have two small squares, one with
larger numerals, the other with smaller. Students
subtract.
Jumping to 100, [LT]2: Using numeral cubes, one
with the numerals 1 to 6 and the other with 10, 20,
30, 10, 20, 30, two teams take turns throwing the
cubes and—starting at 0—adding that number to their
position on an empty number line. Whoever reaches
or passes 100 first wins.
Variation: Jump down from 100 to 0.
Make Me 100, [LT]2: One student (or team) enters
a two-digit number. The other has to enter a single
addition that will make the display “100.” Points can
be kept.
Variation: Students (or teams) can only add
a number from 1 to 10. They take turns, and the
winner is the first team to display 100.
Higher-digit addition and subtraction: Pose prob-
lems such as, “What’s 374 – 189?” and “What’s 281 +
35?”

produced. that is, they may make equal shares and yet not explicitly recognize that if there are
seven in one share, there are seven in the other share(s) (Bryant, 1997; Miller, 1984b). Over
time, they become more systematic, giving each person an object, checking that each has one,
and repeating (Hunting & Davis, 1991).
Next, children can equipartition a single whole, such as circles or rectangles (see the
“Geometry” domains in Table 6.5, which is where the CCSSM puts both partitioning and early
fractions).
In later levels they do understand that that fair sharing of evenly divisible collections pro-
duces equal-sized groups (mathematically, the size of a fair share can be described as 1/nth of
the whole collection or as a particular number of elements out of the total).
Thus, early equipartitioning strategies eventually evolve into division as most of us think
of it. On their way, children develop through levels of multiplication of division that are simi-
lar to those for adding and subtracting—moving from concrete modeling (and this happens
earlier than typical schooling, Young-Loveridge & Bicknell, 2018), to the use of increasingly
 Arithmetic: Composition, Multidigit, Multiplicative 153

Table 6.5 Goals for Multiplication and Division (And Fractions) from the CCSSM

Geometry [1.G in CCSSM]

Reason with shapes and their attributes.

1 Partition circles and rectangles into two and four equal shares, describe the shares using the words
halves, fourths, and quarters, and use the phrases half of, fourth of, and quarter of. Describe the
whole as two of, or four of the shares. Understand for these examples that decomposing into more
equal shares creates smaller shares.

Operations and Algebraic Thinking [K.0A in CCSSM]

Work with equal groups of objects to gain foundations for multiplication.

1 Determine whether a group of objects (up to 20) has an odd or even number of members, e.g., by
pairing objects or counting them by twos; write an equation to express an even number as a sum of
two equal addends.
2 Use addition to find the total number of objects arranged in rectangular arrays with up to five rows
and up to five columns; write an equation to express the total as a sum of equal addends. Geometry
[2.G in CCSSM].

Reason with shapes and their attributes.

1 Partition a rectangle into rows and columns of same-size squares and count to find the total number of
them.
2 Partition circles and rectangles into two, three, or four equal shares, describe the shares using the
words halves, thirds, half of, a third of, etc., and describe the whole as two halves, three thirds, four
fourths. Recognize that equal shares of identical wholes need not have the same shape.

sophisticated strategies, to combinations and multidigit. Indeed, our names for the levels in
Table 6.6 are purposely modeled on the levels for adding and subtracting.
Children first model small-number multiplication problems by building each of the groups
(Carpenter, Fennema, Franke, Levi, & Empson, 2014). They see multiplication as multiple
“groups of” (Young-Loveridge & Bicknell, 2018). They can solve division or sharing problems
with informal strategies, using concrete objects, now up to 20 objects and from two to five
people. Some share one object to each person—“dealing them out”—even up to 9 years of age
(Miller, 1984b). Others distribute groups such as giving two to each person again and again. Still
others might count out equal groups, such as five to each person, then checking if the sum
equals the product, and adjust as needed.
Children also learn to use count-based strategies, such as skip counting, to solve multiplication
and measurement division problems. In measurement division, you know the total number, such
as 28 candies, and how many you wish to give out to each person, such as four candies, and the
question is: How many people will get a share? Children may solve 4 × 5 by skip counting by
fives and using their fingers to keep track of the counts: 5, 10, 15, 20. Note that counting strat-
egies are not used nearly as early for these operations as they are for addition and subtraction.
Eventually, children learn some facts, especially doubling (“times 2”). They then invent
derived facts, such as solving 7 × 6 by knowing that five 7s is 35 (from previous skip counting
or other experiences), so 7 more is 42. They learn to work with arrays—area models in rows and
columns, extending their ability to use skip counting and multiplication in different contexts.
154 Arithmetic: Composition, Multidigit, Multiplicative

Table 6.6 Learning Trajectory for Multiplication and Division, and Fractions

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

0–2 Nonquantitative Sharer: Foundations Gives some,

but not necessarily an equal number to each
Numbers at Home, [LT]2: Sharing in many contexts.
person.

3 Beginning Grouper and Distributive Sharer Makes

small groups (fewer than five). Shares by “dealing Tea Party Sharing, [LT]2: Children explore multipli-
out,” but usually only between two people. May not cation and division by sharing pretend food and
appreciate the numerical result. drink.

4–5 Grouper and Distributive Sharer Makes small equal

groups (fewer than six) when in a context of “fair
Feeding Time at the Zoo, [LT]2: Children determine
shares.” Deals out equally between two or more
how to feed the animals so that each one gets the
recipients, but may not understand explicitly that
same amount of fruit.
equal quantities are produced (Confrey et al., 2014).

5 Concrete Modeler X/÷ Solves small-number multi-

plying problems by grouping—making each group
and counting all. Solves division/sharing problems
Buying Candy Bars (Concrete Modeler), [LT]2: Chil-
with informal strategies, using concrete objects; up
dren use varying currencies ($1, $5, $10) to buy
to 20 objects and 2–5 people. May justify results by
candy bars.
equipartitioning using counting, arrays, or patterns
(Confrey et al., 2014).

6 Parts and Wholes X/÷ Predicts qualitatively the

inverse relation between divisor and quotient in Buying Candy Bars (Parts and Wholes), [LT]2: Chil-
simple, concrete situations. Can re-assemble equal dren use varying currencies ($1, $5, $10) to buy
groups or parts to make the collection or the single candy bars. They explore differences of results
whole as “n times as many (much)” (Confrey et al., when dividing whole quantities among different
2014). numbers of friends.

7 Skip Counter X/÷ Uses repeated adding, additive

doubling, or skip counting to solve multiplication
and for measurement division (finding out how
many groups) problems. Uses trial and error for Skip Counting with Cubes (Multiplying/Dividing),
partitive division (finding out how many in each [LT]2: Children use skip counting strategies to
group). Predicts, demonstrates and justifies out- count stacks of cubes.
comes of equipartitioning collections (Confrey
et al., 2014).

8–9 Deriver X/÷ Uses strategies, patterns, de/compos-

ition (12 × 2 = 10 × 2 + 2 + 2) and derived combin-
ations, such as multiplying × 9 as 10 – 1 or 7 × 8
Multiplication Relation, [LT]2: Children use their
from 7 × 7 + 7. Solves multidigit problems by oper-
knowledge of one problem to solve one in a fact
ating on tens and ones separately. Quantitatively
family. (Uses 2 × 3 = 6 to figure out 4 × 3.)
predicts the effects of changes in the number of
people sharing one the size of the shares (inverse
variation, Confrey et al., 2014).
(See higher levels on [LT]2 .)

Fractions
0–2 Foundations: Early Proportional Thinker Has an Half and half, [LT]2: Break things into equal parts.
intuition about proportions (Resnick & Singer, 1993). When a child has language, talking about “Here’s
Shown a toy buried on the other side of half for you and half for your sister” and so forth.
a sandbox, and carried to the other side, moves to Also discuss the whole, such as cutting an apple in
approximately the proportion of the sandbox to half, narrating, “Is this the whole apple? No! Just
start to dig (Huttenlocher, Newcombe, & Sandberg, a half! [Putting the two halves back together …]
1994). This was the whole apple …” and so forth. Experi-
ences with equipartitioning (above for discrete)
and from all previous chapters, especially spatial,
geometric, and measurement, contribute to this
developing intuition.

(Continued )
 Arithmetic: Composition, Multidigit, Multiplicative 155
Table 6.6 (Cont.)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

3–4 Share the Cake!, [LT]2: Children draw lines on

paper “cakes” to share equally with a friend. Dis-
cuss that they are “exactly the same” (if congruent
—same size and shape) or “the same amount” if
they are halves that are not the same shape. Chal-
lenge them to make halves of a differently-shaped
cake. Similar situations may occur if two children
both want to color on the same piece of paper. Dis-
cuss the whole paper, that we could cut into parts,
Shape Equipartitioner Can equipartition a whole and to be fair they should be the same size, so we
shape, such as a circle or rectangle (Confrey et al., cut it into halves. Do the same for food, with which
2014). children very much want it to be equal (fair). Other
contexts might be splitting playdough into halves,
or thirds or fourths.
Symmetric Halves, [LT]2: Observe in the envir-
onments, and especially in children’s building or
drawing, or make (e.g., paper hearts) symmetric
figures. Discuss the two halves: “Look, they are the
same” (placing them on top of each other when
possible).

4–5 Half Recognizer Recognizes “halves” at least in Feed the Dogs Halves, [LT]2: Show children two
continuous (e.g., area) representations, especially identical stuffed dogs who like bread (or do choc-
in the context of fair shares (Wilkerson et al., 2014). olate bars and share between two dolls), showing
Recognition of the need for ½ when sharing an odd a construction paper rectangle of “bread.” We
number of objects. Intuitively and visually com- want to give them the same amount of bread.
bines regions that are a part of a whole, showing Show a plate with similar “bread” cut into two
initial foundations for addition (Mix, Levine, & Hut- parts and ask children if it is fair to give the dogs
tenlocher, 1997). these parts. Repeat with a variety of plates, includ-
Unit Fraction Recognizer Recognizes unit frac- ing correct halves (e.g., parallel to the sides or
tions in simple discrete (countable) and maybe con- diagonally corner to corner) and incorrect, not cut
tinuous (e.g., area) representations for ½, ⅓, and ¼ into halves, but cut into two pieces that are not
and understands intuitively that they are formed halves (one part is bigger). Discuss which are “fair”
by dividing a whole into equal parts. Names these and emphasize a fraction is a number, not “pieces.”
shares (Confrey et al., 2014). Shape Puzzle Fractions, [LT]2: At children’s
level of 2D shape composition (e.g., Picture Maker),
have them work on composing shape puzzles,
describing their work with fractional language.
Extend the language, such as asking how many
halves make a whole. See Table 9.2.

7 Fraction Recognizer Recognizes simple (small Feed the Dogs Fractions, [LT]2: Show children two
number denominators) fractions in familiar con- identical stuffed dogs who like bread, showing
tinuous and discrete contexts. a construction paper circle “bread.” We want to
Fraction Maker from Units Creates a fraction give them the same amount of bread. Show two
representation with equal parts and the correct plates, one with circular bread cut into halves and
number of repetitions of a unit fraction (Steffe & the other cut into fourths. Give one dog ½ and ask
Olive, 2010). Labels that fraction with written frac- the child to figure out how to give the other dog
tion notation. Compares fraction representations the same amount of bread (from the fourths)
and states which is the larger number. (McMullen, Hannula-Sormunen, & Lehtinen, 2014).
Fractions of Rectangles, [LT]2: Children use two
colors of square tiles to make different shapes of
rectangles, some showing halves and some not.
They start with six tiles and are asked to show dif-
ferent ways to show halves and not halves. Try
halves with seven tiles (impossible). Have them
make halves with other numbers of tiles they
choose. As a challenge, have them name the frac-
tions of the non-halves constructions. Repeat the
basic activity, using colored tiles to make fourths
and thirds of rectangles. Children copy their cre-
ations onto squared paper for discussions and

(Continued )
156 Arithmetic: Composition, Multidigit, Multiplicative
Table 6.6 (Cont.)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

displays. For example, they start with eight times,

two of each of four colors. (Akers, Battista, Good-
row, Clements, & Sarama, 1997).
Shape Fractions, [LT]2: At children’s level of 2D
shape composition, have them work on composing
and decomposing shape puzzles, describing their
work with fractional language. Extend the lan-
guage, such as asking if ⅓ or ½ is larger. See Table
9.2 Learning Trajectory for the Composition and
Decomposition of 2D Shapes.

8+ Fraction Maker Creates a fraction representation Number Hop, Fraction Crawl, [LT]2: Setup: With
with equal parts and the correct number of repeti- a large number line (e.g., in chalk outsides), chil-
tions of a unit or non-unit fraction (as long as they dren pretend to be rabbits who can easily jump
are not greater than a whole—fraction may be only from one number to another. Then pretend they
a “part-of-a-whole”). Compare simple common are turtles who crawl slowly. When a child is half-
fractions using physical models. way to 1, ask, “Where are you now?” One-half!
Fraction Repeater Creates fraction representa- Next, introduce where a unit fraction (¼ or
tions with repetitions of unit and non-unit fractions, ½) is on a number line as illustrated (Hamdan &
including results greater than a whole. Moves Gunderson, 2017).
beyond fraction as a “part-of-a-whole” to fraction
as a number with a relation to the reference whole.
Understands that fractions with the same denomin-
ator can be added or subtracted using the units of
the unit fraction. Compares simple common frac-
tions using models such as the number line—under-
stands that two fractions are equal when they
represent the same portion of a whole or have the
same length on the number line.
Fraction Arithmetic ± Adds and subtracts
simple common fractions using physical models.
Fraction Arithmetic X/÷ Multiplies simple
common fractions using rectangle array model.
Fraction and Integer Sequencer Represents
simple ratios as percentages, fractions, and deci-
mals. Orders integers, positive fractions, and
decimals. Give children a pre-segmented number line (all
available on [LT]2) and have them shade the cor-
rect number of segments, place the fraction by
drawing a hatch mark, and write the fraction above
the hatch mark. As soon as possible, give children
an unsegmented number line, and asked to seg-
ment, shade, and place the fraction at the correct
location. Keep number lines for each denominator
on the board separately, displaying them vertically
so the 0 and 1 line up. Later, return to this display
as children compare fractions.
Shape Fraction Combinations, [LT]2: At the
highest level of 2D shape composition, have chil-
dren describe their work with fractional language.
Extend the language, such as asking to describe
the many ways they can fill a hexagon (6 sixths, 3
thirds, 2 halves, but also 1 half and 3 sixths, 2 sixths
and 2 thirds, and so forth). See Table 9.2.
Share Brownies, [LT]2: Children cut up rect-
angular “brownies” to make fair shares among
four, eight, three, and six people. They fold paper
into the same fractions, showing the unit fraction
on each part. They then develop “fraction facts,”
such as ¼ + ¼ = ½ and ½ + ¼ + ¼ = 1. They cut out

(Continued )
 Arithmetic: Composition, Multidigit, Multiplicative 157
Table 6.6 (Cont.)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

both unit and non-unit pieces to compare fractions,

such as comparing ⅔ to ½ or to ¾. They also share
more than one brownie, figuring out that three
friends sharing two brownies, each gets 23, and if
the two friends share three brownies, each gets
1 ½ (Tierney & Berle-Caman, 1997).

Hanging Fractions on a Number Line, [LT]2:

Using (or making by folding) representations of
fractions with rectangular areas and symbols, chil-
dren cut them out and put them in order on the
floor face down (not showing the symbols), first
only unit fractions. They then name each fraction,
turning the card over the check. They notice
a number pattern (the larger the fraction, the small
the denominator). They repeat, adding non-unit
fractions. They then hang the fractions on a wire or
wall (Tierney & Berle-Caman, 1997). See full
instructions and materials on [LT]2.
158 Arithmetic: Composition, Multidigit, Multiplicative

Then, ideally, children continue to use such reasoning strategies, using the commutative and
associative properties (informally). For example, they might say “9 × 2 is nine 2s, but it’s the
same as two 9s, so 18.” They also find and use patterns in the multiplication table, which pro-
motes much easier and faster fluency with multiplication facts (Fuson, 2003). Think of the nines
facts (9, 18, 27, 36, 45 … ).
Also, similar to addition and subtraction, division and multiplication are inverse operations
(e.g., the whole collection is n times as large as one person’s share) that link to different ways
in which one asks questions about a given situation. If a student is asked to determine the fair
share when six cookies are shared among three people, a problem that results in two cookies
per person, this is coded as the division statement: 6 ÷ 3 = 2. However, if a child is asked how
many cookies were in the whole collection that results in three children each of whom has
a fair share of two cookies, then this is coded as multiplication: 3 × 2 = 6.
As with equipartitioning, multiplicative thinking starts with whole numbers, then deals
with continuous material (e.g., length) and ultimately fractions. The development of con-
ceptual and procedural knowledge of fractions is critical for children. Children of all ages
show they do not have foundational knowledge of fractions, such as confusion between
whole numbers and fractions (Hunting & Davis, 1991) leading to their belief that ¼ is larger
than ½ because 4 is larger than 2. Others add numerators and denominators, such as ¾ +
1/3 yielding 4/6, not noticing that 4/6 is less than ¾. At an even more basic level, children
without high-quality educational experiences may claim that the shaded part of a circular
region is “one-half” but asked what the unshaded part is, declare, “I don’t know. Nothing!”
However, children can and do build intuitions about fractions such as one-half (Hunting &
Davis, 1991).
The learning trajectory for fractions in Table 6.6 provides ages, but like all these estimates,
children vary considerably. For example, some primary school students do not understand even
½ fully (Gupta, 2014). Perhaps especially with fractions, learning opportunities are key, and they
differ considerably for different children.

Experience and Education: Multiplication and Division and Fractions

Of course, children can learn a lot about “passing things out” and “fair shares” at an early age.
Did each person get a napkin? Did each doll get a hat? Books are available for the very young
(Lin, 2020b). You find activities for the first three levels of the learning trajectory in Table 4.2.
Children should also experience “groups of” objects larger than one early on in their schooling.
For example, discuss groups of two, using familiar contexts such as pairs of socks, shoes, gum-
boots, and mittens (Young-Loveridge & Bicknell, 2018).
Similarly, long before it is introduced formally, children can solve problems involving multipli-
cation and division (e.g., sharing). Place value is based on these ideas, but there are many more
experiences. One important one is the measurement of area, so much of our discussion of this
topic is in Chapter 11.
Further, children can solve many multiplicative problems, presented meaningfully. For
example, “Three children each have a pair of shoes. How many shoes do the children have
altogether?” (Young-Loveridge & Bicknell, 2018, p. 265). A recent study suggests that certain
types of problems are better than others. Typically, teachers introduce multiplication through
 Arithmetic: Composition, Multidigit, Multiplicative 159

repeated addition. For example, Tom has three and then Mike gives him three more, and so
forth, how many are there in all? Although some problems of all types are useful, researchers
showed that many-to-one correspondence problems are more effective in helping children
learning multiplicative reasoning (Nunes, Bryant, Evans, & Bell, 2010). For example, Tom wants
to put three flowers in each of these (illustrated) four pots. How many flowers will he need to
buy? Deaf children often enter school with less knowledge of multiplication, but similar teaching
strategies can help them learn multiplicative reasoning (Nunes et al., 2009).
Teachers can help build their students’ fluency in multiplication and division by emphasizing
the use of skip counting, reasoning strategies, commutativity (4 × 7 = 7 × 4), and the search for
patterns.
Most of the teaching strategies for addition and subtraction apply to helping students be
fluent with multiplication facts as well. Wait … why not division facts? Many people don’t actu-
ally know “division facts”—for 56 ÷ 7, they think “What times 7 is 56? … 8!” Further, 2 × 8 is, of
course, related to 8 + 8. Mathematics is a system and a structure. These are related to each
other. Therefore, division facts may best be learned in relation to the multiplication fact. For
example, 48 ÷ 6 = __ can be solved by recalling 6 × 8 = 48.
Also similar for multiplication and division, feature different formats of multiplication sen-
tences. Students should learn and use all of the different symbols for division as well, including
(24/8, 24 ÷ 8, 248 , and the reversed).
For many more suggestions on teaching multiplication and division, see our book, No More
Math Fact Frenzy (Davenport et al., 2019b) and [LT]2. Key activities are shown in Table 5.5.
Children need manipulative-based, conceptual experiences with fractions, even repeated
activities involving halves (Gupta, 2014; Perry & Lewis, 2017; Wilkerson et al., 2014). Care must
be taken to distinguish between whole-number and fraction concepts (e.g., thinking ¼ is larger
than ½ because 4 is larger than 2). Children should work with discrete (e.g., counters) and con-
tinuous (circles) models, but a combination, such as “candy bars” marked with individual units
may be the most understandable initially (Wing & Beal, 2004).
Math-talk-rich experiences are important, with careful introduction of symbols (e.g., ¼) after
verbal language has been established (Gupta, 2014). Again, East Asian languages have helpful
phases: ¾ is “out of four, three” instead of the more confusing “three fourth” (Siegler, 2017).
Herb Gross suggests the “adjective-noun” notion: The noun is the “fourths” (denominator) and
the adjective is “how many fourths” (e.g., three fourths in ¾). In such discussions, emphasize
a fraction is a number, not just “pieces” (Perry & Lewis, 2017). Number line representations can
be helpful for second and third graders (Hamdan & Gunderson, 2017), especially because they
help children see fractions as numbers that can be compared—an important but often over-
looked concept and skill. Measurement activities such as those in Chapters 10 and 11, can be
particularly helpful.

Learning Trajectory for Multiplication and Division and Fractions

The entire domain of multiplicative thinking and rational numbers is a complex and import-
ant (Watts et al., 2015) topic, with many concepts, one that could be described in seven
related learning trajectories: equipartitioning, multiplication and division, fraction-as-number,
length and area, ratio and rate, similarly and scaling, and decimals and percent (Confrey
160 Arithmetic: Composition, Multidigit, Multiplicative

et al., 2014). In this chapter we present multiplication and division and fraction-as-number,
with equipartitioning involved in both—recognizing that the equipartioning in division is fun-
damental to the development of fraction knowledge. Later chapters involve length, area, and
aspects of the other topics.
Table 6.5 details where these goals appear in the CCSSM.

Final Words
To this point, our discussions have emphasized number. Especially in early number, however,
there appeared to be a strong spatial component. For example, some studies suggest that chil-
dren’s earliest quantification is spatial at its core. And this chapter’s manipulatives such as
base-ten blocks and representations such as the number line are also spatial. Just as or more
important, knowledge of space and shape is important for its own sake. Spatial thinking is
addressed in Chapter 7, and more specific geometric thinking in Chapters 8 and 9.

Note
1 We use the term “combination” instead of the common term “fact” for two reasons. First, “facts” implies
they are verbal knowledge to be memorized by rote. We believe they are number relationships that are
understood in a variety of ways that must be constructed by the child. Second, in contrast, “combination”
implies that two numbers are decomposed to make another number, and that there are many related
combinations (3 + 2 = 5; 2 + 3 = 5; 5 = 2 + 3; 5 − 2 = 3, etc.).
7 Spatial Thinking

Before reading on, when you read the title of this chapter, what did you think “spatial think-
ing” would involve? How do you “think spatially” in a typical week? Which of those might you
consider “mathematical”?
Spatial thinking is important because it is an essential human ability that contributes to math
ability (Gilligan, Flouri, & Farran, 2017; Manginas, Nikolantonakis, & Papageorgioy, 2017; Mix
et al., 2016; Verdine, Golinkoff, Hirsh-Pasek, & Newcombe, 2017). For example, preschoolers’ spa-
tial skills predict later math knowledge, even controlling early math knowledge (Rittle-Johnson,
Fyfe, & Zippert, 2018b). However, spatial thinking is also important to science, engineering, and
technology (the first three subjects of “STEM”) as well as to literacy (Hawes, LeFevre, Xu, &
Bruce, 2015; McGarvey, Luo, & Hawes, 2018; Simmons et al., 2012b; Verdine et al., 2017).
However, the relationship between spatial thinking and math is not straightforward. Some-
times, “visual thinking” is “good” but sometimes it is not. For example, many studies have
shown that children with specific spatial abilities are more mathematically competent (e.g., The
Spatial Reasoning Study Group, 2015c).
However, other research indicates that students who process math information by verbal-
logical means outperform students who process information visually (Clements & Battista,
1992a). Also, overly specific imagery in math thinking can cause difficulties. As we shall discuss
in more detail in Chapter 8, an idea can be too closely tied to a single image. For example, con-
necting the idea of “triangles” to a single image such as an equilateral triangle with a horizontal
base restricts young children’s thinking.
Therefore, spatial ability is important in learning many topics of math. The role it plays, how-
ever, is elusive and, even in geometry, complex. Two major abilities are spatial orientation and
spatial visualization (Bishop, 1980; Harris, 1981; McGee, 1979). We first discuss spatial orienta-
tion, which involves an extensive body of research, then spatial visualization and imagery.

Spatial Orientation

Dennis the Menace is shown on a map where his family has driven. He looks aghast, and
says, “Two days? Just to go three inches?”
(from Liben, 2008, p. 21)
162 Spatial Thinking

Spatial orientation is knowing where you are and how to get around in the world; that is, under-
standing relationships between different positions in space, at first with respect to your own
position and your movement through it, and eventually from a more abstract perspective that
includes maps and coordinates. This essential competence is not only linked to learning math
(Gunderson, Ramirez, Beilock, & Levine, 2012; Leavy, Pope, & Breatnach, 2018b; Van den
Heuvel-panhuizen, Elia, & Robitzsch, 2015) but also how we remember things.
Like number, spatial orientation has been postulated as a core domain with some abilities
present from birth. For example, infants focus their eyes on objects and then begin to follow
moving objects. Toddlers use geometric information about the overall shape of their environ-
ment to solve location tasks. And, like number, we share some of these abilities with animals.
For example, baby chicks can use geometric information from their surrounds to reorient them-
selves in space (Lee, Spelke, & Vallortigara, 2012; Vallortigara, 2012; Vallortigara, Sovrano, &
Chiandetti, 2009). Again, as with number, such early competencies develop with experience,
and sociocultural influences. What can young children understand and represent about spatial
relationships and navigation? When can they represent and, ultimately, mathematize this
knowledge?

The Development of Spatial Orientation

Spatial Location and Intuitive Navigation
What kind of “mental maps” do young children possess? Neither children nor adults actually have
“maps in their heads”—that is, their “mental maps” are not like a mental picture of a paper map.
However, people do build up private and idiosyncratic knowledge as they learn about space. They
do this by developing two categories of spatial knowledge. The first based on their own bodies—a
self-based system. The second is based on other objects—an external-based reference system. As
children develop, these systems become better linked. Within each category, there is an early-
developing type and a later-developing type. Let’s look at each in turn.

Early Self- and External-based Systems

Self-based spatial systems are related to the child’s own position and movements. The early-
developing type is response learning, in which the child notes a pattern of movements that
have been associated with a goal (Newcombe & Huttenlocher, 2000). For example, the child
might get used to looking to the left from a highchair to see a parent cooking.
External-based reference systems are based on landmarks in the environment. The land-
marks are usually familiar and important objects. In cue learning, children associate an object
with a nearby landmark, such as a toy on a couch. Children possess both self- and external-
based systems in the first months of life.

Later-developing Self- and External-based Systems

The later-developing type of self-based systems is path integration, in which children record the
approximate distance and direction of their own movements. That is, they remember the “path
they walked.” As early as 6 months, and certainly by 1 year of age, children can use this strategy
 Spatial Thinking 163

with some accuracy when they move themselves. Young school children can draw a simple land-
mark map from home to school (Thommen, Avelar, Sapin, Perrenoud, & Malatesta, 2010).
The more powerful type of external-based systems, place learning, comes closest to people’s
intuition of “mental maps.” Children store locations by remembering distances and directions to
landmarks. For example, children might use the walls of a room as a frame of reference to find
a toy.
This illustrates an early, implicit foundation for later learning of coordinate systems. This
ability first develops during the second year of life and continues to be refined through life. As
children develop, they get better at using—including knowing when to use—each of these types
of spatial knowledge. They also integrate knowledge from each of these four types.

Spatial Thought
In their second year, children develop the critical capacity for symbolic thought. This supports
many types of math knowledge, including explicit spatial knowledge. As one example, children
learn to take others’ perspectives in viewing objects. They learn to coordinate different view-
points on objects, but also use an external frame of reference (as in place learning) to work out
different viewpoints.

Navigation Through Large-scale Environments

Children also learn to navigate in large environments. This requires integrated representations
as well, because one can see only some landmarks at any given point. Only older preschoolers
learn scaled routes for familiar paths; that is, they know about the relative distances between
landmarks. Even young children, however, can put different locations along a route into some
relationship, at least in certain situations. For example, they can point to one location from
another even though they never walked a path that connected the two.
Children as young as 3.5 years can learn to accurately walk along a path that replicates the
route between their seat and the teacher’s desk in their classroom. Self-produced movement is
important. Kindergartners could not imagine similar movements or point accurately without
moving, but they could imagine and recreate the movements and point accurately when they
actually walked and turned. Thus, children can build mental imagery of locations and use this
imagery, but they must physically move to show their competence. Preschoolers to first graders
need landmarks or boundaries to succeed at such tasks. By third grade, children can use larger,
encompassing frameworks that include the observer in the situation.
Thus, children develop these complex ideas and skills over years. However, even adults do
not have perfectly accurate ideas about space. For example, all people intuitively view space as
centered at one’s home or other familiar place. They also view space as increasingly dense as
they approach this center, so that distances seem larger the closer they get.

The Language of Space

Children learning English show a strong tendency to ignore fine-grained shape when learning
novel spatial terms such as “on” or “in front of” or when interpreting known spatial terms.
They show an equally strong tendency to attend to fine-grained shape when learning novel
164 Spatial Thinking

object names. For example, 3-year-olds shown an unusual object placed near a box and told,
“This is acorp my box” tend to ignore the shape of the object and instead attend to its location
relative to the box. They believe that “acorp” refers to a spatial relation. If they had instead
been told “This is a prock” they would attend to the unusual object’s shape.
The first spatial words English-speaking children learn are “in,” “on,” and “under,” along
with such vertical directionality terms as “up” and “down.” These initially refer to transform-
ations of one spatial relationship into other. For example, “on” initially does not refer to one
object on top of another, but only to the act of making an object become physically attached
to another.
Second, children learn words of proximity, such as “beside,” “next to,” and “between.” Third,
children learn words referring to frames of reference such as “in front of,” “in back of,”
“behind.” The words “left” and “right” are learned much later, and are the source of confusion
for many years, usually not well understood until 6 to 8 years of age (although specific atten-
tion to those words helps preschoolers orient themselves).
By 2 years of age, children have considerable spatial competence on which language might
be based. Further, in contrast to many who emphasize children’s naming of objects, children
use spatial relational words more frequently, and often earlier, than names. Moreover, the use
of even a single-word utterance by a 19-month-old, such as “in,” may reflect more spatial com-
petence than it first appears when the contexts differ widely, such as saying, “in” when about
to climb into the child seat of a shopping cart and saying “in” when looking under couch cush-
ions for coins she just put in the crack between the cushions.

Models and Maps

At what age can children use and make representations of space? Even 2-year-olds can find
their mother behind a barrier after observing the situation from above. But only by 2½ can then
locate a toy when shown a picture of the space. By 3 years, children may be able to build
simple, but meaningful, models with landscape toys such as houses, cars, and trees, although
this ability is limited through the age of 6 years. For example, in making models of their class-
room, kindergartners cluster furniture correctly (e.g., they put the furniture for a dramatic play
center together) but may not relate the clusters to each other. In a similar vein, beginning
about 3, and more so at 4 years of age, children can interpret arbitrary symbols on maps, such
as a blue rectangle standing for blue couch or “x marks the spot.” On another map they may
recognize lines as roads … but suggest that the tennis courts were doors. They can benefit
from maps and can use them to guide navigation (i.e., follow a route) in simple situations.
To summarize, there are four spatial concepts for maps: Identification—what objects?, location—
where?, direction—which way?, distance—how far? (Sarama & Clements, 2009). For identification
and location, children from about 3–6 years of age can identify places on maps, landscape features
on maps and aerial photographs, and can locate familiar places on maps. They might also use land-
marks as a way to identify where places or items are located on a map, but they can easily confuse
locations on maps if the map is not well aligned to their real world. Children aged 7–9 years more
accurately locate places and landscape features on a map, although they perform better with famil-
iar places and are inconsistent in using landmarks to identify locations. They begin to better under-
stand grid or coordinate systems (Solem, Huynh, & Boehm, 2015, p. 15).
 Spatial Thinking 165

Regarding direction and distance, children aged 3–6 years understand relative distance, such
as near, far, next to, and can begin using relative direction on maps if prompted. They may con-
fuse direction if maps are not aligned to the world. Children aged 7–9 years better understand
specific directions and distances (Solem et al., 2015, p. 15). More detail on year-to-year develop-
ment is provided in Table 7.3.

Coordinates and Spatial Structuring

Even young children can use coordinates if adults provide the coordinates and guide children in
their use. However, when facing traditional tasks, they and their older peers may not yet be
able or predisposed to spontaneously make and use coordinates for themselves.
To understand space as organized into grids or coordinate systems, children must learn spa-
tial structuring. Spatial structuring is the mental operation of constructing an organization or
form for an object or set of objects in space. Children may first view a grid as a collection of
squares, rather than as sets of perpendicular lines. They only gradually come to see them as
organized into rows and columns, learning the order and distance relationships within the grid.
For coordinates, labels must be related to grid lines and, in the form of ordered pairs of coord-
inates, to points on the grid. Eventually these, too, must be integrated with the grid’s order and
distance relationships to be understood as a math system.

Spatial Visualization and Imagery

Visual representations are central to our lives, including most domains of math. Spatial images
are internal representations of objects that appear to be similar to real-world objects. People use
four processes: generating an image, inspecting an image to answer questions about it, maintain-
ing an image in the service of some other mental operation, and transforming an image.
Thus, spatial visualization abilities are processes involved in generating and manipulating mental
images of two-and three-dimensional objects, including moving, matching, and combining them,
with a goal of investigating and communicating ideas. Such visualization might guide the drawing
of figures or diagrams on paper or computer screens. For example, children might create a mental
image of a shape, maintain that image, and then search for that same shape, perhaps hidden within
a more complex figure. To do this, they may need to mentally rotate the shapes, one of the most
important transformations for children to learn. These spatial skills directly support children’s
learning of specific topics, such as geometry and measurement, but they can also be applied to
math problem solving across topics (such as the use of the number line in arithmetic).

The Development of Spatial Visualization and Imagery

What Develops?
Children do have to develop the ability to move mental images, as early as 22 months of age
(Örnkloo & von Hofsten, 2007b). That is, their initial images are not static, but dynamic. They can
be mentally recreated, and even examined, but not necessarily transformed. Only dynamic
images allow children to mentally “move” the image of one shape (such as a book) to another
place (such as a bookcase, to see if it will fit) or mentally move (slide) and turn an image of one
shape to compare that shape to another one. Slides appear to be the easiest motions for children,
166 Spatial Thinking

then turns and flips. However, the direction of transformation may affect the relative difficulty of
turn and flip. Results depend on specific tasks, of course; even 4- to 5-year-olds can do turns if
they have simple tasks and cues, such as having a clear mark on the edge of a shape and no
“flipped” shape as a distractor. Competence in mental rotation are related to later arithmetic abil-
ity (Zhang & Lin, 2015). Others argue that imagery also supports later movement from arithmetic
to algebra (The Spatial Reasoning Study Group, 2015c).
Probably due to reading instruction, first graders discriminate between mirror-image
reversals (b vs. d) better than kindergartners. But they also treat orientation as a meaningful
difference between geometric shapes, which it is not (a square does not “become” a diamond
when rotated!—see Chapter 8). So, explicitly discuss when orientation is and is not relevant to
calling a shape “the same” in different contexts.
From research, we know that the imagery of people who are congenitally blind is in some
ways similar and some ways different from that of normally sighted people. For example, they
can use touch and movement to build images of objects including spatial extent, or size. How-
ever, only sighted people visualize objects of different size at different distances, so the image
will not overflow a fixed space. They image objects at distances so that the objects subtend the
same visual angle. Thus, some aspects of visual imagery are visual, and not present in blind
people’s images, but some aspects of imagery may be evoked by multiple modalities (Arditi,
Holtzman, & Kosslyn, 1988).
Equity issues arise with special skills. Children from low-resource communities, or those who
are female or have low visual working memory, may benefit more than others from specific
interventions to build spatial visualization (Carr et al., 2018)

Types of Images and Mathematical Problem Solving

There are different types of images, and they range from helpful to harmful, depending on their
nature and the way children use them (cf. Toll & Van Luit, 2014b). High-achieving children build
images with a conceptual and relational core. They are able to link different experiences and
abstract similarities. Images of those with fewer opportunities to learn tend to be dominated by
surface features. Instruction might help them develop more sophisticated images.

• Schematic images are thus more general and abstract. They contain the spatial relation-
ships relevant to a problem and thus support problem solving (Hegarty & Kozhevnikov,
1999).
• Pictorial images of children do not aid problem solving and actually can impede success.
They represent mainly the visual appearance of the objects or persons described in a
problem.

For example, say the problem is, “At each of the two ends of a straight path, a man planted
a tree, and then every 5 meters along the path he planted another tree. The length of the path
is 15 meters. How many trees were planted?” The researchers found that high-achieving chil-
dren reported math relationships in their schematic images, such as “I had a [mental] picture of
the path, not the trees, and it had something 5 meters along, not trees, just something.” Other
children reported pictorial images, such as “I just saw the man going along planting trees.” If
children drew diagrams, they might differ as in Figure 7.1.
 Spatial Thinking 167

Figure 7.1 Schematic versus pictorial images for the “path and trees” problem

Experience and Education

Spatial competencies should show major development in the early years, but “developmental
rates and the competencies achieved are highly dependent on access to spatial activities, spa-
tial language, and learning opportunities at home and at school” (National Research Council,
2009, p. 78). Unfortunately, in home and schools, many children have little access to good spa-
tial experiences (Verdine et al., 2017).
Further, just in case any readers have encountered the notion that people either “have it or
they don’t” (Newcombe, 2010), spatial reasoning can be taught and learned—effectively! People
of all ages, including young children, develop considerably with a variety of focused spatial
experiences (Uttal et al., 2013). Impressively, interventions show an effect that would double the
number of people with the spatial skills that engineers use (Uttal et al., 2013).

Spatial Orientation, Navigation, and Maps

For children of all ages, but especially the youngest, moving oneself around leads to later suc-
cess in spatial thinking tasks. This suggests the benefit of maximizing such experience for all
young children and may seem obvious, but there may be opportunities that are not presently
pursued. In some communities, for example, young girls are allowed to play only in their yard,
but same-age boys are allowed to explore the neighborhood. So, it’s important to consider all
possibilities, such as those for the youngest children in Table 7.1.
To develop children’s spatial orientation, plan school environments that include interesting
layouts inside and outside classrooms. Provide large-scale apparatuses that toddlers and pre-
school children can explore in many ways, including large cardboard boxes, planks, and blocks
to build structures big enough to get into. Also provide activities that support developing spatial
sense such as climbing up ladders and over obstacles (Meaney, 2016); crawling through tunnels,
and pushing or riding carts, tricycles, and other wheeled vehicles around and between other
objects (Leavy et al., 2018b). In so doing, provide just enough (not too much!) support (see
a wonderful narrative and discussion in Meaney, 2016). Also include incidental and planned experi-
ences with landmarks and routes, and frequent discussion about spatial relations on all scales,
including distinguishing parts of children’s bodies and spatial movements (forward, back), finding
168 Spatial Thinking

Table 7.1 Opportunities for Unrestricted Movement, for Infants and Up (Adapted from Leavy et al., 2018b)

• playing on floor • pulling themselves to sit

• grasping interesting objects hanging overhead • lift their heads on tummies to see interesting objects

• providing soft blocks to climb over as they • lying on backs reaching for their feet (trying to
become more adept crawlers suck toes!)
• sitting, later jumping, in ball pools • trying to roll over and back again
• rolling and chasing after different size and tex- • crawling through tunnel or open cardboard box
tured balls or water bottles filled with different • pushing a baby trolley with wooden blocks (not
ingredients such as rice or varying volumes of sitting in baby walkers with castors)
water with the addition of glitter, drops of food • pull selves up to stand near mirror
coloring
• pushing and pulling toys, miniature shopping • driving tricycles or other vehicles with a trailer so
carts that they can transport objects (older toddlers)

a missing object (“under the table that’s next to the door”), putting objects away, and finding the
way back home from an excursion. Rich language is important.
Children need specific instruction to learn about models and maps. School experiences are
limited and fail to connect map skills with other curriculum areas, including math. Most students
do not become competent users of maps even beyond their early childhood years. A “treasure
hunt” with the school is a fruitful setting for getting children to draw their own maps.
Research provides suggestions to help children make those connections. Provide instruction on
using maps that explicitly connects real-world space and maps, including one-to-one connection
between objects and icons on the map, helps children understand maps—and symbols. Using oblique
maps, on which tables are shown with legs, helps preschoolers’ subsequent performance on plan
(“bird’s-eye view”) maps. Telling very young children that a model was the result of putting a room
in a “shrinking machine” helped them see the model as a symbolic representation of that space.
Informally, too, encourage children working with model toys to build maps of the room with
these toys. Children might use cut-out shapes of a tree, swing set, and sandbox in the playground
and lay them out on a felt board as a simple map. These are good beginnings, but models and
maps should eventually move beyond overly simple iconic picture maps, and challenge children to
use geometric correspondences. Help children connect the “abstract” and “sensory-concrete”
meanings of map symbols (Clements, 1999a; see also Chapter 16 for a discussion of these terms).
Similarly, many young children’s difficulties do not reflect misunderstanding about space but
the conflict between such sensory-concrete and abstract frames of reference. Guide children to
(a) develop abilities to build relationships among objects in space, (b) extend the size of that
space, (c) link primary and secondary meanings and uses of spatial information, (d) develop
mental rotation abilities, (e) go beyond “map skills” to engage in actual use of maps in local
environments (Bishop, 1983), and (f) develop an understanding of the math of maps.
Work with children to raise the four mathematical questions: Direction—which way?, distance—
how far?, location—where?, and identification—what objects? To answer these questions, children
need to develop a variety of skills. Children must learn to deal with mapping processes of abstrac-
tion, generalization, and symbolization. Some map symbols are icons, such as an airplane for an
airport, but others are more abstract, such as circles for cities. Children might first build with
 Spatial Thinking 169
objects such as model buildings, then draw pictures of the objects’ arrangements, then use maps
that are “miniaturizations” and those that use abstract symbols. Some symbols may be beneficial
even to young children. Over-reliance on literal pictures and icons may hinder understanding of
maps, leading children to believe, for example, that certain actual roads are red (Downs, Liben, &
Daggs, 1988). Similarly, children need to develop more sophisticated ideas about direction and
location. Young children should master environmental directions, such as above, over, and behind.
They should develop navigation ideas, such as front, back, “going forward,” and turning. Older chil-
dren might represent these ideas in simple route maps within the classroom.
Children can develop navigation ideas, such as left, right, and front, and global directions
such as north, east, west, and south, from these beginnings. Perspective and direction are par-
ticularly important regarding the alignment of the map with the world. Some children of any
age will find it difficult to use a map that is not so aligned. Also, they may need specific experi-
ences with perspective. For example, challenge them to identify block structures from various
viewpoints, matching views of the same structure that are portrayed from different perspec-
tives, or to find the viewpoint from which a photograph was taken. Such experiences address
such confusions of perspective as preschoolers “seeing” windows and doors of buildings in ver-
tical aerial photographs (Downs & Liben, 1988). Introduce such situations gradually. Realistic
Mathematics Education in geometry makes extensive use of interesting spatial and map tasks
(Gravemeijer, 1990), but, unfortunately, research on the effects of this specific strand is lacking.
Primary-grade students can approach map creation mathematically, learning to represent pos-
ition and direction. One third-grade class moved from initial, intuitively based drawings to the use
of polar coordinates (determining a position by an angle and a distance) in creating a map of their
playground (Lehrer & Pritchard, 2002). Walking encouraged characterization of length in
a direction and drawing the maps led students to render space. Students learned about the useful-
ness of concepts such as origin, scale, and the relationship of multiple locations.
Combining physical movement, paper-and-pencil, and computer work can facilitate learning
of math and map skills. Such spatial learning can be particularly meaningful because it can be
consistent with young children’s way of moving their bodies (Papert, 1980). For example, young
children can abstract and generalize directions and other map concepts working with the Logo
turtle (Sarama & Clements, 2019b). Giving the turtle directions such as forward ten steps, right
turn, forward five steps, they learn orientation, direction, and perspective concepts, among
others. For example, Figure 7.2 shows a “scavenger hunt” activity in which children are given
a list of items the turtle has to get. From the center of the grid, they commanded the turtle to
go forward 20 steps, then turn right 90 degrees, then go forward 20 more steps—that’s where
the car was. They have the car now and will give the turtle other commands to get other
objects. Preschoolers to primary-grade students can similarly benefit with programmable robots
designed for their age (Palmér, 2017) as well as other route-based games (Lin & Hou, 2016).
Walking paths and then recreating those paths on the computer help them abstract, general-
ize, and symbolize their experiences navigating. For example, one kindergartner abstracted the
geometric notion of “path,” saying, “A path is like the trail a bug leaves after it walks through
purple paint” (Clements et al., 2001). Logo can also control a floor turtle robot, which may have
special benefits for certain populations. For example, blind and partially sighted children using
a computer-guided floor turtle developed spatial concepts such as right and left and accurate
facing movements.
170 Spatial Thinking

Figure 7.2 The “Scavenger Hunt” activity from Turtle Math (Clements & Meredith, 1994)

Many people believe that maps are “transparent”—that anyone can “see through” the map
immediately to the world that it represents. This is not true. Clear evidence for this is found in
children’s misinterpretations of maps. For example, some believe that a river is a road or that
a pictured road is not a road because “it’s too narrow for two cars to go on.”

Coordinates
Students should learn to understand and eventually quantify what grid labels represent. To do
so, they need to connect their counting acts to those quantities and to the labels. They need to
learn to mentally structure grids as two-dimensional (2D) spaces, demarcated and measured
with “conceptual rulers” (“mental number lines”—see Chapter 10). That is, they need to under-
stand coordinates as a way to organize 2D space by coordinating two perpendicular number
lines—every location is the place where measures along each of these two number lines meet.
Real-world contexts can be helpful in teaching coordinates initially, but math goals and per-
spectives should be clearly articulated throughout instruction and the contexts should be faded
from use as soon as students no longer need them (Sarama, Clements, Swaminathan, McMillen, &
González Gómez, 2003). Computer environments can additionally aid in developing children’s abil-
ity and appreciation for the need for clear conceptions and precise work. Turning the coordinate
grid on and off can help children create a mental image of coordinates. Coordinate-based games
on computers, such as versions of “Battleship,” can help older children learning location ideas
(Sarama et al., 2003). When children enter a coordinate to move an object, but it goes to a different
location, the feedback is natural, meaningful, non-evaluative, and so particularly helpful.
Indeed, Logo can help children learn both “path” (self-based systems based on one’s own move-
ment and the routes one follows) and “coordinate” (external-based) concepts, as well as how to
differentiate between them. One way to move the Logo turtle is to give it commands such as
 Spatial Thinking 171

“forward 100” and “right 90.” This path perspective is distinct from coordinate commands, such
as “setpos [50 100]” (set the position to the coordinates (50, 100)). Figure 7.3 below shows
Monica’s layer cake project.
She is not only competent at using both path-based commands, including her “rect” procedure,
but she shows understanding of the connection between each command and its graphic effect,
the effects of changing each coordinate, and the distinction between path and coordinate com-
mands. Monica initially struggled to differentiate between regions and lines, made erroneous, per-
ceptually based judgments of path length, and interpreted two coordinate pairs as four separate
numbers. So, her work on the layer cake project represented a substantial mathematical advance.
This study also suggests cautions regarding some popular teaching strategies. For example,
phrases such as “over and up” and “the x-axis is the bottom,” which we recorded on numerous occa-
sions, do not generalize well to a four-quadrant grid. The “over and up” strategy also may hinder stu-
dents’ integration of coordinates into a coordinate pair representing one point (Sarama et al., 2003).

Building Imagery and Spatial Visualization

As early as the preschool years, U.S. children perform lower than children in countries such as
Japan and China on spatial visualization and imagery tasks. There is more support for spatial
thinking in these countries. For example, they use more visual representations and expect

Figure 7.3 Continued next page

172 Spatial Thinking

Figure 7.3a Monica’s use of path and coordinate logo commands

children to become more competent in drawing. It is important, then, to encourage families to

develop young children’s spatial visualization. As another example, fathers’ higher spatial con-
cept support during block building predicted superior math achievement for first graders, espe-
cially girls (Thomson, Casey, Lombardi, & Nguyen, 2018c). Specifically, higher support included:
(a) specific (e.g., using gestures or other words to clarify a concept) and wide-ranging concepts
(e.g., saying “that goes in front, next to the other block”); (b) encouragement of the child’s use
of spatial concepts (e.g., using questions or suggestion that prompt the child’s own use of a spa-
tial concept); and (c) enriched explanations (e.g., “Even though it doesn’t show all of them in the
back, it shows enough of them so that it looks like it’s symmetrical … Do you know what symmet-
rical is?”). A study of Finnish parents showed the importance of both parents, with positive
effects on children’s spatial skills with more cognitive guidance, including encouraging children’s
independence and autonomy, but also assisting and guiding subtly based on the child’s level of
development (e.g., along a developmental progression, Sorariutta & Silvén, 2018).
 Spatial Thinking 173

So, we can and should do more. Opportunities in Table 7.1 can develop early spatial visualization.
Also, for infants who can sit up, but are not yet mobile, use treasure baskets (Goldschmeid &
Jackson, 1994). Over 14 in. (35 cm) in diameter, and 4 to 5 inches high, flat-bottomed with no
handles and strong enough for an infant to lean on, the treasure basket is filled with natural
household items (no plastic). Items are safe to mouth and stimulate a variety of senses; for
example, large cloth ball and other balls, lemon, large pinecone, wooden spoon, and large
wooden curtain rings. Children are in control, exploring the items’ properties through a variety
of senses. These experiences can be extended for toddlers, especially providing multiple copies
of the same items (Leavy et al., 2018b).
Use manipulatives such as unit blocks, puzzles, and tangrams—intelligently (see Chapter 16).
Encourage children to play with blocks and puzzles at school and home. Encourage girls to play
with (the unfortunately termed) “boys’ toys,” helping them to develop higher visual-spatial
skills. Also, talk to them about such play. Most teachers spend more time with boys than girls,
and usually interact with boys in the block, construction, sand play and climbing areas, and with
girls in the dramatic play area (Ebbeck, 1984). Watch for that in your own teaching—help all chil-
dren to build a full range of competencies. Finally, encourage all children to use gestures when
they are explaining, as this improves their spatial visualization skills (Ehrlich, Levine, & Goldin-
Meadow, 2006b; Elia, 2018c).
Use geometric “Snapshot” activities to build spatial visualization and imagery. Children see
a simple configuration for 2 seconds, then try to draw what they saw. They then compare their
drawings and discuss what they saw. In Figure 7.4, different children see three triangles, “a sail-
boat sinking,” a square with two lines through it, an envelope, and a “y in a box.” The discus-
sions are especially valuable in developing vocabulary and the ability to see things from other
points of view. Encourage children to rotate the image to see how that changes their perspec-
tive. Younger children can view combinations of pattern blocks for 2 seconds and then con-
struct a copy with their own pattern blocks.
From preschoolers to first graders, research supports Snapshots as a recommended activity.
For example, first graders who drew and discussed what they saw made significant improve-
ments in mental rotation (Tzuriel & Egozi, 2010).
These also generate good discussions, emphasizing the properties of shapes. Such imagistic/
memory tasks also engender interesting discussions revolving around “what I saw.” (Clements &
Sarama, 2013; Razel & Eylon, 1986, 1990; Wheatley, 1996; Yackel & Wheatley, 1990). Having chil-
dren use many different media to represent their memories and ideas with the “hundred lan-
guages of children” (Edwards, Gandini, & Forman, 1993) will help them build spatial visualization
and imagery. Teachers, of course, should use both spatial language and gestures as much as

Figure 7.4 “Snapshots”—geometry

174 Spatial Thinking

possible (Verdine et al., 2017). Gesture helps ground language in the world and its spatial rela-
tionships. These are easy habits to start and maintain, and they do a lot for your children’s spatial
development. Interact during play too—scaffolding children’s learning generates more spatial
language, spatial problem solving, and spatial learning than open-ended free play (Verdine
et al., 2017).
Tactile kinesthetic tasks ask children to identify, name, and describe objects and shapes placed
in a “feely box” (Clements & Sarama, 2013). In a similar vein, executing geometric motions on the
computer helped children as young as kindergartners learn these concepts (Clements et al.,
2001). Activities that involve motion geometry—slides, flips, and turns—whether doing puzzles (see
Chapter 9 and Lin & Chen, 2016) or Logo, improve spatial perception. Constructing shapes from
parts with multiple media builds imagery as well as geometric concepts (see Chapter 8). Com-
posing and decomposing 2D shapes and 3D shapes (e.g., block building) is so important that
Chapter 9 is dedicated to these processes.
Building spatial abilities early is effective and efficient. For example, Grade 2 children bene-
fited more than Grade 4 children from lessons taught to develop spatial thinking (Owens, 1992).
In 11 lessons, children described the similarities and differences of shapes, made shapes from
other shapes, made outlines using sticks, compared angles, made pentomino shapes, and found
their symmetries. Those children outperformed a control group in a randomized field trial on
a spatial thinking test, with differences attributable to the Grade 2 children. No difference was
found between groups that worked cooperatively or individually, with whole-class discussions.
Nearly all interactions that lead to heuristics about what to do or to conceptualizations were
between the teacher and the student, not between students (Owens, 1992). So, teach actively.
Also, teach actively with manipulatives and multimedia. In a study with first graders, the
group that used manipulatives or multimedia scored higher than those who didn’t use either.
The highest-performing group used both multimedia and manipulatives (Thompson, 2012).

Figure 7.5 Pictorial (not useful) versus schematic (useful) representations

 Spatial Thinking 175

The instruction developed spatial skills but was organized around three-dimensional (solid)
shapes. Children discussed their attributes, had hands-on experience with them, determined
which could stack, slide, or roll, and built them from two-dimensional patterns or nets (see
Chapter 9), developing mental rotation abilities.
Mental rotation can also be developed through the use of puzzles, from insert puzzles in pre-
school to jigsaw and shape composition puzzles (Chapter 9). Puzzle games on computers have
also proven effective (Lin & Hou, 2016).
An intervention targeting spatial skills as an integral feature of regular math in a K-2 class-
room developed a range of competencies, compared to the control group, including spatial lan-
guage, visual-spatial reasoning, 2D mental rotation, and symbolic number comparison (Hawes,
Moss, Caswell, Naqvi, & MacKinnon, 2017). The spatial visualization and geometric activities
were not an “add-on” but a part of the regular schedule, making the results especially impres-
sive (the activities are incorporated into the learning trajectories in this book and [LT]2).
An important domain in developing spatial skills in these ways is engineering. Projects in which
children build make strong contributions to spatial skills (English, 2018b; Lippard, Riley, & Lamm,
2018; McGarvey et al., 2018; Portsmore & Milto, 2018). Also called constructive play, especially
initially, this includes building with blocks (see Chapter 9), LEGO™ bricks, and other toys for build-
ing. Interestingly, it is not just time in such play, but the quality, both accuracy and complexity, of
the building that seems to matter (The Spatial Reasoning Study Group, 2015c). For example, chil-
dren who were given goals for block building, especially encased in a narrative, made greater
gains in spatial competencies and block building skills that those who engaged only in free play
with the blocks (Casey et al., 2008b). Extensive benefits, on math but also on executive function
(see Chapter 14), came from a year-long intervention for at-risk kindergartners and first graders.
In an after-school program, these children constructed and copied designs made from a variety
of materials including LEGOs®, Wikki Stix®, and pattern blocks (Grissmer et al., 2013).
Remember children who haven’t had high-quality learning opportunities often use pictorial
images that do not aid problem solving and actually can impede success. They represent mainly
the visual appearance of the objects or persons described in a problem. Instead, we want all chil-
dren to use the schematic images often used by high-achieving children. As an example, see the
representations in Figure 7.5. Schematic drawings such as that on the right side are more useful.
Thus, it may not be at all useful to encourage children to “visualize” just using pictures or
diagrams. These are more general and abstract. They contain the spatial relationships relevant
to a problem and thus support problem solving (Hegarty & Kozhevnikov, 1999). The diagrams
for arithmetic in Chapters 5 (e.g., Table 5.1, p. 91) and 6 (e.g., Figures 6.3 and 6.7, pp. 126 and
137) illustrate such schematic images and thus are useful in many mathematics contexts.
Teachers should help students develop and use specific types of schematic images.
Importantly, high-quality geometry activities also develop spatial visualization. See Chap-
ters 8 and 9.
Finally, although research is limited, some studies show that developing children’s spatial abil-
ities also develops their math. For example, three approaches to spatial training for 3-year-olds
were all successful in increasing their 2D and 3D visualization, with modeling and feedback and ges-
ture feedback the most effective (Bower et al., 2020). In five sessions, children saw the nine shapes
and then children had to manipulate shapes to match a model. Especially for low-resource learners,
the training also improved their math, particularly simple arithmetic problems (Bower et al., 2020).
176 Spatial Thinking

Also striking, a single session of mental rotation training improved 6- to 8-year-olds’ arith-
metic calculations, notably on Join, Change Unknown problems such as 6 + _ = 13 (Chapter 5).
What was this training? Children saw two halves of a symmetric figure, such as one of the pos-
sibilities in Figure 7.6a (i.e., a1 or a2 or a3 or a4). They had to first visually choose which whole
figure (Figure 7.6b) these halves would make when re-joined. Next, children confirmed the
accuracy of their response by putting together actual “cut-outs” of the symmetric shapes. In this
way, children were given immediate feedback about the accuracy of their mental transformations.
This improved their calculations especially on Join, Change Unknown problems such as 6 + _ = 13
(Chapter 5), possibly because it helped them see the parts and wholes (Cheng & Mix, 2012).
One study gave 7 days of professional development to preschool to second-grade teachers
“rug activities” involving drawing, building, copying, and visualization exercises such as those in
Table 7.2, right up to the “Mental Mover” level. After a year, children demonstrated improve-
ments on all of the spatial measures, including spatial language, 2D mental rotation, and visual-
spatial geometric reasoning, and, remarkably, on a test of symbolic magnitude comparison
(Moss, Hawes, Naqvi, & Caswell, 2015). Do more spatial thinking activities!

Learning Trajectories for Spatial Thinking

The goal of increasing children’s knowledge of geometry and space is second in importance
only to numerical goals and all these are (or should be) strongly interrelated (Moss et al., 2015).
The places these goals appear in the CCSSM are shown in Table 7.2. Given the interrelatedness
of topics in geometry and spatial thinking and across the grades, we present the goals for all

Figure 7.6 Put the Halves Back Together, [LT]2 (mental rotation task adapted from Ehrlich et al.,
2006b). The four types of halves, in order of increasing difficulty: a1 is a direct slide
(translation), a2 a diagonal slide, a3 a direct rotation, a4 a diagonal rotation
 Spatial Thinking 177

these topics together, including goals for Chapters 7, 8, and 9, and also describe those for
Grade 3. For this chapter, note especially the CCSSM standard K.G.1.
With those goals, Table 7.2 provides the two additional learning trajectory components, the
developmental progression and the instructional tasks for two learning trajectories for spatial
thinking: spatial orientation (maps and coordinates) and spatial visualization and imagery. The
learning trajectory for maps becomes increasingly connected to children’s development of
spatial structuring, the ability to organize space into two dimensions, which is discussed in
detail in Chapter 12 (because it is just as critical for understanding area, note standard 2.G.2
in Table 7.2). The reader may notice that the instructional tasks in this learning trajectory
tend not to be specific activities, but global suggestions. This difference reflects our belief
that (a) there is as yet too little evidence on the specific role of this learning trajectory in
students’ math development, (b) such activities may be conducted in other subject matter
areas (e.g., social studies), and (c) these activities are often best done informally, as part of
everyday activity.
However, these two learning trajectories represent only a small bit of the role of spatial
thinking in mathematics, especially for spatial visualization, which we focused on geometric
transformations and mental rotation. These abilities and dynamic imagery, and language for
them, are important (Duval, 2014b; Elia, van den Heuvel-panhuizen, & Gagatsis, 2018b). How-
ever, we also saw that spatial and structural thinking is critical in conceptual subitizing (e.g.,
fives and tens frames), comparison and ordering (mental number line), counting strategies, and
arithmetic (BAMT). Such spatial knowledge is central to geometry, measurement, patterns and
structures, data presentation, and the other topics discussed in forthcoming chapters. Thus,
attention to spatial thinking should be woven throughout the curriculum and is explicitly
included in the learning trajectories in those chapters.

Learning Trajectories for Spatial Orientation and for Spatial

Visualization and Imagery
The importance of the goal of increasing children’s ability in spatial thinking and geometry is
clear. Table 7.2 shows where these goals appear in the CCSSM. With those goals, Table 7.3 pro-
vides the two additional components of the learning trajectory, the developmental progression
and the instructional tasks. Table 7.3 is split into two parts for the two types of spatial thinking.
As always, complement this reading with video examples of the developmental levels—so import-
ant to make them “real” and memorable, and descriptions, resources, and often videos of activ-
ities at [LT]2 (LearningTrajectories.org).

Final Words
Visual thinking is thinking that is tied down to limited, surface-level, visual ideas. Children can
learn to move beyond that kind of visual thinking to flexible spatial thinking that is linked to
concepts, as they learn to manipulate dynamic images, as they enrich their store of images for
shapes, and as they connect their spatial knowledge to verbal, analytic knowledge. In this way,
instruction discussed in the next two chapters, on shapes and composing shapes, also makes
a strong contribution to children’s spatial thinking.
178 Spatial Thinking

Table 7.2 Goals for Geometry and Spatial Thinking (For Chapters 7, 8, and 9) from the Common Core State
Standards CCSSM

Geometry [K.E in CCSSM]

Identify and describe shapes (squares, circles, triangles, rectangles, hexagons, cubes, cones, cylinders,
and spheres).

1. Describe objects in the environment using names of shapes, and describe the relative positions of
these objects using terms such as above, below, beside, in front of, behind, and next to.
2. Correctly name shapes regardless of their orientations or overall size.
3. Identify shapes as two-dimensional (lying in a plane, “flat”) or three-dimensional (“solid”).

Analyze, compare, create, and compose shapes.

4. Analyze and compare two- and three-dimensional shapes, in different sizes and orientations, using
informal language to describe their similarities, differences, parts (e.g., number of sides and vertices/
“comers”) and other attributes (e.g., having sides of equal length).
5. Model shapes in the world by building shapes from components (e.g., sticks and clay balls) and drawing
shapes.
6. Compose simple shapes to form larger shapes. For example, “Can you join these two triangles with full
sides touching to make a rectangle?”

Geometry [1.G in CCSSM]

Reason with shapes and their attributes.

1. Distinguish between defining attributes (e.g., triangles are closed and three-sided) versus non-defining
attributes (e.g., color, orientation, overall size); build and draw shapes to possess defining attributes.
2. Compose two-dimensional shapes (rectangles, squares, trapezoids, triangles, half-circles, and quarter-circles)
or three-dimensional shapes (cubes, right rectangular prisms, right circular cones, and right circular cylin-
ders) to create a composite shape, and compose new shapes from the composite shape. Students do not
need to learn formal names such as “right rectangular prism.”
3. Partition circles and rectangles into two and four equal shares, describe the shares using the words
halves, fourths, and quarters, and use the phrases half of, fourth of, and quarter of. Describe the whole
as two of, or four of the shares. Understand for these examples that decomposing into more equal
shares creates smaller shares.

Geometry [2.G in CCSSM]

Reason with shapes and their attributes.

1. Recognize and draw shapes having specified attributes, such as a given number of angles or a given
number of equal faces.5 Identify triangles, quadrilaterals, pentagons, hexagons, and cubes.
2. Partition a rectangle into rows and columns of same-size squares and count to find the total number
of them.
3. Partition circles and rectangles into two, three, or four equal shares, describe the shares using the
words halves, thirds, half of, a third of, etc., and describe the whole as two halves, three thirds, four
fourths. Recognize that equal shares of identical wholes need not have the same shape.

Geometry [3.E in CCSSM]

Reason with shapes and their attributes.

1. Understand that shapes in different categories (e.g., rhombuses, rectangles, and others) may share
attributes (e.g., having four sides), and that the shared attributes can define a larger category (e.g.,
quadrilaterals). Recognize rhombuses, rectangles, and squares as examples of quadrilaterals, and draw
examples of quadrilaterals that do not belong to any of these subcategories.
2. Partition shapes into parts with equal areas. Express the area of each part as a unit fraction of the
whole. For example, partition a shape into four parts with equal area, and describe the area of each
part as 1/4 of the area of the shape.
 Spatial Thinking 179

Table 7.3 Learning Trajectories for Spatial Thinking

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

a. Spatial Orientation (including maps and coordinates)

0–1 Foundations of Spatial Orientation Uses Provide a rich sensory, manipulative environment, [LT]2,
the earliest of two types of cognitive sys- and the freedom and encouragement to manipulate it
tems for spatial orientation—knowing where and move through it. Infants who crawl more learn more
you are and how to get around in the world. about spatial relationships. See suggestions in Table 7.1
on p. 168.
1. Response Learning: Uses the first self-
based system—that is, related to the
child’s own position and movements.
Notes a pattern of movements that
have been associated with a goal.
Looks to the left when in a high-
chair, because that’s where the food
usually comes from.
2. Cue Learning: Uses the first external-
based systems, based on familiar land-
marks.
Associates a toy bear with a small
chair on which it often sits.

0–2 Path Integrater Remembers and can repeat Rich Environment, [LT]2: As above, see Table 7.1 on
movements they have made including the p. 168. Opting for walks for toddlers, rather than stroller
approximate distances and directions. rides, the use of low beds/cots instead of cribs, and seat-
ing that does not restrict movement also supports devel-
Crawls to a place of their choice, navigat- opment in this area.
ing an obstacle to arrive at a destination Use spatial vocabulary to direct attention to spatial
within sight. relations: Once children have language, describe direc-
tions with words such as “there” (gesturing), “around,”
and “turn.”
1–2 Place Learner Creates “mental maps” by Rich Environment, [LT]2: As above, see Table 7.1 on
storing locations, distances, and directions p. 168. Experiences in learning, remembering, and using
to landmarks and solves spatial problems. landmarks build this ability. Discuss and ask children to
Uses the walls of a room as a frame of refer- go to, or retrieve something from, locations that are “in”
ence; uses spatial vocabulary, such as “in,” or “under” objects in the room.
“on,” and “under,” along with vertical direc- Use spatial vocabulary to direct attention to spatial
tionality terms, such as “up” and “down.” relations: Initially emphasize “in,” “on,” and “under,” along
with such vertical directionality terms as “up” and “down.”
2–3 Local–Self Framework User Uses distant Walk different routes and discuss the landmarks you see:
landmarks to find objects or location near Ask children to point to where different landmarks are at
them, even after they have moved them- various points along the path.
selves relative to the landmarks, if the Use spatial vocabulary to direct attention to spatial
target object is specified ahead of time. Ori- relations: Emphasize words of proximity, such as “beside”
ents a horizontal or vertical line in space and “between.”
(Rosser, Horan, Mattson, & Mazzeo, 1984). Ask 3-year-olds to find an object, shown a picture of
Uses spatial vocabulary to direct attention its location.
to spatial relations, including more difficult Have children build with blocks to represent simple
terms such as “beside” and “between.” scenes and locations (see Chapter 9 for much more on
block building). If children are interested, make a model
3-year-olds recognize objects that guide of the classroom and point to a location in it that repre-
them in walking from the front door of sents a place where a “prize” is hidden in the actual class-
their school to their classroom. room. Use the notion of a “shrinking machine” to help
them understand the model as a representation of the
classroom space.
Going on a Bear Hunt, [LT]2: Read and discuss the
book.

(Continued )
180 Spatial Thinking

Table 7.3 (Cont.)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

4 Small Local Framework User Locates Use spatial vocabulary to direct attention to spatial rela-
objects after movement, even if target is not tions: Emphasize words referring to frames of reference
specified ahead of time. Searches a small such as “in front of” and “behind.” Initiate the learning of
area comprehensively, often using a circular “left” and “right.”
search pattern. Uses words referring to Encourage parents to avoid pointing or showing when
frames of reference such as “in front of” possible, but, instead, to give verbal directions (“it’s in the
and “behind” or “left” and “right.” In mean- bag on the table”): Have students pose verbal problems
ingful graphing contexts, extrapolates lines for one another, such as finding a missing object (“under
from positions on both axes (like a coordin- the table that’s next to the door”), putting objects away,
ate grid) and determines where they and finding the way back from an excursion.
intersect. Treasure Map, [LT]2: During free time, challenge chil-
dren to follow simple maps of the classroom or play-
Child searches a small area comprehen- ground to find secret “treasures” that you have hidden.
sively, often using a circular search pat- Interested children can draw their own maps. Start with
tern. Extrapolates lines from positions on oblique maps (e.g., in which chairs and tables are shown
both axes and determines where they with legs). A good introduction to this activity is Rosie’s
intersect in meaningful contexts. Walk by Pat Hutchins.
Explore and discuss outdoor spaces, permitting children
(both sexes) as much freedom in self-directed movement
as safely possible. Encourage parents to do the same.
Walk different routes and discuss different paths, and
which would be shorter, which would be longer. Ask why
one path is shorter.
Introductory Barrier Game, [LT]2: One student (the
“designer”) makes a design that is hidden from the part-
ner, and the other student (the “builder”) recreates the
design based on the designer’s verbal description.
5 Local Framework User Locates objects Encourage children to build models of the room or play-
after moving, maintaining the overall shape ground with toys. Plan and discuss different routes, and
of the arrangement of objects. Represents which would be the best route to take and why. Draw
objects’ positions relative to landmarks (e.g., maps of routes, illustrating what will be “passed” or seen
about halfway in between two landmarks) from different routes.
and keeps track of own location in open Treasure Hunt, [LT]2: Children receive a letter with
areas or mazes. Uses spatial vocabulary to information about a mysterious treasure of ancient pir-
direct attention to spatial relations. Uses ates hidden somewhere in their school, and the way to
coordinate labels in simple situations such find it is to follow the indications/landmarks around the
as games. building, which help children to follow the correct route
to reach the treasure. They follow the directions and
draw a map.
Use spatial vocabulary to direct attention to spatial
relations: Emphasize all words listed previously, including
the learning of “left” and “right.”
Encourage children to make models of their class-
room, using blocks or play furniture to represent objects
in the classroom. Discuss which ones go “near each
other” and other spatial relationships.
Maps of the Playground: Children might use cut-out
shapes of a tree, swing set, and sandbox in the play-
ground and lay them out on a felt board as a simple map.
They can discuss how moving an item in the schoolyard,
such as a table, would change the map of the yard. On
the map, locate children shown sitting in or near the tree,
swing set, and sandbox. In scavenger hunts on the play-
ground, children can give and follow directions or clues.
Explore and discuss outdoor spaces, permitting chil-
dren (both sexes) as much freedom in self-directed move-
ment as safely possible. Encourage parents to do the
same. (This recommendation extends through the grades.)

(Continued )
 Spatial Thinking 181

Table 7.3 (Cont.)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

Encourage children to mark paths, such as a path

from a table to the wastebasket with masking tape. With
the teacher’s help, children could draw a map of this path
(some teachers take photographs of the wastebasket and
door and glue these to a large sheet of paper). Items
appearing alongside the path, such as a table or easel,
can be added to the map.
Another (Bear) Hunt, [LT]2: This activity is an exten-
sion of a popular children’s book. Children create new
verses to learn spatial vocabulary beyond the vocabulary
featured in the original book.
Logo: Engage children in age-appropriate Turtle Math
environments (Clements & Meredith, 1994; Clements &
Sarama, 1996). Have them tutor one another in those
environments.
Ask children to solve two-dimensional matrices (e.g.,
placing all objects where colors are sorted into rows and
shapes are sorted into columns) or to use coordinates on
maps.
6 Map User Locates objects using maps with Use spatial vocabulary to direct attention to spatial rela-
pictorial cues. Extrapolates (extends) two tions: Emphasize all words listed previously, and the vari-
coordinates, understanding the integration ous interpretations of “left” and “right.”
of them to one position, as well as use coord- Maps: Continue the previous activities, but emphasize
inate labels in simple situations. the four questions (see p. 186): direction, “Which way?”; dis-
tance, “How far?”; location, “Where?”; and identification,
“What objects?” Notice the use of coordinates on maps.
Challenge students to find their house or school in
Internet-based aerial photographs, once you have
accessed that location on the computer.
Ask students to plan routes around the school using
maps, then follow those routes.
Logo: Engage children in age-appropriate Turtle Math
environments (Clements & Meredith, 1994; Clements &
Sarama, 1996). Have them tutor one another in those
environments.
Use coordinates in all applicable situations; for
example, to label locations (“pegs”) on geoboards as stu-
dents build shapes.
Helicopter Ride, [LT]2: Print out an aerial view of stu-
dents’ route from home to school. Talk about directions to
school, distance from school, and landmarks along the way.
7 Coordinate Plotter Reads and plots coordin- Ask students to draw simple sketch-maps of the area
ates on maps. around their houses, classroom, playground, or the
school. Discuss differences among representations of the
same spaces. Present tasks in which maps must be
aligned with the space. Showing children several maps
and models, explicitly comparing them using language
and visual highlights, helps build representational
understandings.
“Battleship”-type games are useful. Guide children in
the following competencies in all coordinate work:

• interpreting the grid structure’s components as line

segments or lines rather than regions;
• appreciating the precision of location of the lines
required, rather than treating them as fuzzy bound-
aries or indicators of intervals;
• learning to trace closely packed vertical or horizon-
tal lines that are not axes;

(Continued )
182 Spatial Thinking

Table 7.3 (Cont.)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

• integrating two numbers into a single coordinate;

• conceptualizing labels as signs of location and dis-
tance—(a) to quantify what the grid labels represent,
(b) to connect their counting acts to those quan-
tities and to the labels, (c) to subsume these ideas
to a Part–Whole scheme connected to both the grid
and to counting/arithmetic, and (d) to construct
proportional relationships in this scheme (Sarama
et al., 2003).

Logo and coordinate computer games and activities

benefit children’s understanding and skills with coordinates
(Clements & Meredith, 1994; Clements & Sarama, 1996).
8 Route Map Follower Follows a simple route Engage students in practical map-using and map-making
map, with more accurate direction and tasks similar to “find the treasure” in an environment
distances. with which children are familiar, then less familiar.
Include coordinate maps. (See pp. 128–132 of the present
volume; Lehrer & Pritchard, 2002.)
Playground Geocache, [LT]2: Rather than using
a global positioning system, this geocaching game will
use directions that teams create and provide to each
other to find treasures on the playground.
Framework User Uses general frameworks Spinning Map, [LT]2: Using grid paper to create a map
that include the observer and landmarks. with landmarks and coordinates, student give directions
May not use precise measurement even to someone who has only coordinates on their grid. They
when that would be helpful, unless guided to try to get from one location to another, spinning the map
do so. after every direction.
Can follow and create maps, even if spa- Find the Lost Pet, [LT]2: Students use a map and land-
tial relations are transformed. marks to find a lost item in the classroom.
Logo: Engage children in Turtle Math environments
in which maps are translated to computer programs
(Clements & Meredith, 1994; Clements & Sarama, 1996).
b. Spatial Visualization and Imagery
0–1 Intuitive Mover: Foundations Explores the Play in a Rich Environment, [LT]2: Manipulation of a wide
size and shape of objects by observing them variety of (safe) objects and containers—water play in
as they move in space, discovering how they rich environments provide children the strongest experi-
move and fit into space, and eventually ence foundation for understanding spatial relationships.
reproducing patterns of movement (without Describing children’s actions with spatial words enhances
attempting different possible solutions). these experiences.
Such intuitive skills will eventually support
future spatial visualization.
A toddler plays with pattern blocks,
moving them around in various ways to
fit together in interesting ways.

1–2 Concrete Slider, Flipper, Turner Can move Play in a Rich Environment, [LT]2: As above, enhanced
shapes to a location by physical trial and with language.
error. Fill & Spill (Concrete Slider, Flipper, Turner), [LT]2:
Children use a shape sorter to begin turning shapes to fit
in a visually matching hole.
Make My Picture: Ask children to use blocks to dupli-
cate a simple “picture.”
3–4 Simple Slider and Turner Slides and turns Make My Picture—Hidden Version: Ask children to use
objects accurately in easy tasks, guided by an building blocks or pattern blocks to duplicate a simple
early intuition that starts the motion and then “picture” that they see for 5 to 10 seconds and then is
covered. (See also “Geometry Snapshots” in Chapter 8.)

(Continued )
 Spatial Thinking 183

Table 7.3 (Cont.)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

adjusts (the motion, direction, or amount1) in Ask children to show how a circular object should be
real time as the motion is carried out. rotated to make it appear circular or elliptical: Work with
shadows to make a rectangle appear as a non-
Given a shape with the top marked with rectangular parallelogram (“rhomboid”) or vice versa.
color, correctly identifies which of three Putting the Pieces Together!, [LT]2: Have children
shapes it would look like if it were turned solve jigsaw, pattern block, and simple tangram puzzles
“like this” (90° turn demonstrated) and discuss how they are moving the shapes to make
before physically moving the shape. them fit (see more in Chapter 8). Encourage parents to
engage children in all types of puzzles and talk to them
as they solve the puzzles (especially girls).
Feely Boxes: Use “feely boxes” to identify shapes by
touch (see more in Chapter 8). Challenge children to turn
a well-marked shape to align it with another, congruent
shape.
Snapshots—Geometry: Students copy a simple config-
uration of pattern blocks shown for 2 seconds. (See Chap-
ter 9 for more details.)
Shape Composition: See activities at the early level
Piece Assembler (see Chapter 9). Also see Picture It,
Then Turn, Turn, Turn, [LT]2.
5 Beginning Slider, Flipper, Turner Uses the Put the Halves Back Together (Beginning Slider, Flipper,
correct motions guided by more developed Turner), [LT]2: See p. 176 and Figure 7.6. This level uses
intuition, but not always accurate in direc-the a1 and a2 arrangements of halves. Discuss the sym-
metry of the figure.
tion and amount (adjusts these with trial and
error). Feely Boxes: Use “feely boxes” to identify a wide var-
iety of shapes by touch (see more in Chapter 8).
Knows a shape has to be flipped to match Tangram Puzzles: Have children solve tangram puz-
another shape but flips it in the wrong zles and discuss how they are moving the shapes to make
direction. them fit (see more in Chapter 8).
Geometry Snapshots 2: Shown a simple configuration
of shapes for just 2 seconds, students match that config-
uration to four choices from memory (imagery).

Geometry Snapshots 3: Students identify an image

that matches the “symmetric whole” of a target image
from four multiple-choice selections.

Shape Composition: See activities at the level Picture

Maker (see Chapter 9). Also see Piecing Pentominoes
Together, [LT]2.

(Continued )
184 Spatial Thinking

Table 7.3 (Cont.)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

6 Slider, Flipper, Turner Performs slides and Put the Halves Back Together (Slider, Flipper, Turner),
flips, often only horizontal and vertical, [LT]2: See p. 176 and Figure 7.6. This level uses the a3
using manipulatives but guided by mental and a4 arrangements of halves. Discuss the symmetry of
images of these motions (of turns of 45, 90, the figure.
and 180° and flips over vertical and horizon- Snapshots—Geometry: Students draw one or more
tal lines). That is, they can mentally imagine shapes shown for 2 seconds.
the motion and the result of it. Geometry Snapshots 4: Students identify an image
that matches one of four moderately complex configur-
Knows a shape must be turned 90° to ations from memory (imagery).
the right to fit into a puzzle.

Shape Composition: See activities at the level Picture

Maker (see Chapter 9). Also see Pentomino Puzzle Per-
fection!, [LT]2 and Shape Puzzles: Shape Composer, [LT]2.

7 Diagonal Mover Performs diagonal slides Geometry Snapshots 6: Students match geometric fig-
and flips as well as all motions from previous ures that differ on angle measure from memory
levels. (imagery).
Knows a shape must be flipped over an
oblique line (45° orientation) to fit into
a puzzle.

8 Mental Mover Predicts results of moving Pattern Block Puzzles and Tangram Puzzles at the Substi-
shapes using mental images (any direction tution Composer levels, [LT]2: Ask students how many of
or amount). a certain shape it would take to cover another shape (or
configuration of shapes). Students predict, record their
“If you turned this 120°, it would be just prediction, then try to check. (See Chapter 9 for more.)
like this one.”

Note
1 Motion: slide or turn. Direction: for slides, which way it is headed; for turns, clockwise or counterclock-
wise. Amount: for slides, how far, or turns, how much of a turn (in degrees).
8 Shape

One kindergartner impressed his teacher by saying he knew that a shape (Figure 8.1a) was
a triangle because it had “three straight lines and three angles.” Later, however, he said Figure
8.1b was not a triangle.

Teacher: Doesn’t it have three straight sides?

Child: Yes.
Teacher: And what else did you say triangles have to have?
Child: Three angles. It has three angles.
Teacher: Good! So…
Child: It’s not a triangle. It’s upside down!

Did this kindergartner know triangles or not? What was driving his thinking about triangles,
do you think? In general, how should we as educators help children develop the math of geo-
metric shape? Why should we?
Shape is a fundamental concept in cognitive development. For example, infants mainly use
shape to learn the names of objects (Smith, Jones, Landau, Gershkoff-Stowe, & Samuelson,
2002). Shape is also a fundamental idea in geometry, but in other areas of math, too (Dindyal,
2015). Unfortunately, geometry is one of U.S. students’ weakest topics in math. Even in the
preschool years, children in the USA know less about shape than children in other countries.
Further, children from low-resource communities know less about shapes than those from
higher-resource communities by 3 years of age (Chang et al., 2011). The good news is, children
from diverse backgrounds know enough to build upon, and much like all children they can
learn enough quickly and enjoy engaging with shapes (Clements, Sarama, Swaminathan,
Weber, & Trawick-Smith, 2018a).

The Mathematics of 2D Shapes

Before we move on into young children’s thinking and learning, let’s take a side trip to define
some geometric terms.1 We use “attributes” to mean any characteristic of a shape. Some are
“defining attributes.” To be a square, a shape must have straight sides (mathematically, “sides”
186 Shape

Figure 8.1 Two triangles (“a” and “b”)

are line segments—always straight). Others are “non-defining attributes.” A child might consider
a shape “right side up” (if you turn a square, this child may say, “Now it’s a diamond!”) or
describe it as “red” but neither of these attributes is relevant to whether the shape is a square
or not. Some defining attributes describe the parts of a shape—as a square has four sides.
Others are special attributes we call properties, which describe a relationship between parts.
A square must have four equal-length sides. Equal describes the relationship amongst the
sides. Similarly, the square’s right angles depend on a different relationship between sides:
They are perpendicular.
At the higher level of geometric thinking, then, students recognize and characterize shapes
by their defining attributes. For instance, a child might think of a square as a plane (flat) figure
that has four equal sides and four right angles. Properties are established by observing, meas-
uring, drawing, and model-making. Not until later, often middle school or later, do students see
relationships between classes of figures (see Figure 8.2). For example, most children incorrectly
believe that a figure is not a rectangle because it is a square (whereas actually a square is
a special type of rectangle).

Shape definitions
The following definitions are intended to help teachers both understand young children’s devel-
opment of specific math concepts and talk to them about these concepts. They are not formal
definitions, but, rather, simple descriptions using a mixture of math and everyday vocabulary.
The shapes in Box 8.1 are taken to be two-dimensional (plane) figures.

Relationships Between Shapes

The diagrams on p. 187 show the relationships between classes of shapes. For example, all the
shapes in Figure 8.2a are quadrilaterals. A proper subset of them are parallelograms, all of
which have two pairs of opposite parallel sides. Parallelograms in turn include other sub-
classes. If all of a parallelogram’s sides are the same length, they are also called rhombuses. If
all of a parallelogram’s angles are the same, then they must all be right angles, and they are
also called rectangles. If both are true—if they are rhombuses and rectangles—they are also
called squares.
 Shape 187

Figure 8.2 Venn diagrams of relationships between (a) quadrilaterals and (b) triangles
188 Shape

Children’s Development of Geometry

Young Children’s Learning about 2D Shapes
Children can match shapes from a very young age. They can insert shapes into the matching
hole in a box consistently from 22 months of age, and make adjustments to the shapes’ posi-
tions before their hands arrive at the holes (Örnkloo & von Hofsten, 2007b).
Although it may seem obvious that we learn about shapes by seeing them and naming
them, some—such as Jean Piaget—say that isn’t the whole story. It isn’t even the main story.
For Piaget, children do not “read off” of their spatial environment, but, rather, construct
their ideas about shape by actively manipulating shapes in their environment and even by
actively moving their eyes over its shape. Further, even if children can name a square, their
knowledge might be limited. For example, if they cannot feel a hidden square and name it
after exploring it with their hands, Piaget would claim they do not really understand the
concept “square.”
A husband-and-wife team of researchers, Pierre and Dina van Hiele, agreed that students
construct their geometric ideas. They also describe broad levels of thinking through which stu-
dents develop, which we have restructured (we return to these in Table 8.1). For example, at
first children can match shapes but don’t verbally distinguish between one shape and another:
Shape Sensers. Later, they can, but only visually—they recognize shapes as wholes: Visual
Thinker. They might call a shape a “rectangle” because “it looks like a door.” They then develop
to understand and talk about shapes in terms of their parts, such as “It’s a triangle because it
has three sides”: Parts Thinker. Finally, they think about the defining attributes or properties of
shapes: Property Thinker.
As we saw in Chapter 7, visualization is not a simple process, so developing into a Visual
Thinker takes a lot of learning. It involves a growing (Dindyal, 2015) ability to apprehend and
distinguish all of an object’s characteristics: 3D, 2D, and 1D (line segments) aspects and their
interrelationships, distinguishing the math properties that make it a real-world representation
of an abstract math idea (Duval, 2014b; Elia et al., 2018b).

Thinking and Learning about Specific Shapes

Children are sensitive to shape from the first year of life. And they prefer closed, symmetric
shapes, such as the prototypes of four classes of shapes in Figure 8.3. Most people from many
cultures, even those with little or no exposure to other civilizations, prefer them too, so these
are probably inborn preferences.
Culture influences these preferences. We conducted an extensive examination of mater-
ials that teach children about shapes from books, toy stores, teacher supply stores, and
catalogues. With few exceptions (and with signs that this is changing in recent years), these
materials introduce children to triangles, rectangles, and squares in rigid ways. Triangles are
usually equilateral or isosceles and have horizontal bases. Most rectangles are horizontal,
elongated shapes about twice as long as they are wide. No wonder so many children, even
throughout elementary school, say that a square turned is “not a square anymore, it’s
a diamond” (Clements, Swaminathan, Hannibal, & Sarama, 1999b; Lehrer, Jenkins, & Osana,
1998b).
 Shape 189

Table 8.1 Learning Trajectory for 2D Shapes

Age Broad Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

0–2 “Same Thing” Comparer: Foun- Shape & Spatial Talk, [LT]2.
dations Comparing Compares Match the Shapes (Shape Matcher—Identical),
real-world objects (Vurpillot, [LT]2: Sit in a circle with children. Using familiar
1976). Judges two shapes the (prototypical) shapes from the Shape Sets in two
same if they are visually similar colors (see Figure 8.9 aux), give each child a shape
in any way. from one color of the Shape Set. Choose a shape
from the other color that otherwise exactly matches
Says two pictures of houses a child’s shape. Ask children to say who has an exact
are the same or different. match for your shape. After a correct response is
Shape Matcher—Identical Com- given, follow up by asking how the child knows his or
paring Matches familiar shapes her shape is a match. The child might agree to fit his
(circle, square, typical triangle) or her shape on top of your shape to “prove” the
with same size and orientation. match. Have children show their shapes to others
seated near them, naming the shape whenever they
Matches to can. Observe and assist as needed. Repeat once or
twice. Afterward, tell children they will be able to
explore and match shapes later during Work Time.
Shape Pegs, [LT]2: Matching shapes, including
Shape number of holes in them.
Senser Shape Matcher—Sizes Compar- Match the Shapes (Shape Matcher), [LT]2: As above,
ing Matches familiar shapes with extended to different sizes and/or orientations.
different sizes. Mystery Pictures 1: Children build pictures by
selecting shapes that match a series of target
Matches to shapes. The skill children practice is matching, but
the program names each shape so shape names are
introduced. Shapes are familiar at this level.
Shape Matcher—Orientations
Comparing Matches familiar
shapes with different orienta-
tions.

Matches to

3 Shape Recognizer—Typical Clas- Circle Time!, [LT]2: Have children sit in the best circle
sifying Recognizes and names they can make. Show and name a large, flat circle,
a typical circle, square, and, less
such as a hula hoop. As you trace the circle with
often, triangle. May physically your finger, discuss how it is perfectly round; it is
rotate shapes in atypical orienta-a curved line that always curves the same. Ask chil-
tions to mentally match them to dren to talk about circles they know, such as those
a prototype. found in toys, buildings, books, tri- or bicycles, and
clothing. Distribute a variety of circles for children’s
Names this a “square”: exploration—rolling, stacking, tracing, and so on.
Some children correctly name Have children make circles with their fingers, hands,
different sizes, shapes, and arms, and mouths. Review a circle’s attributes: round
Visual orientations of rectangles, but and curves the same without breaks.
Thinker also call some shapes “rect- Find and Name the Twin (Typical), [LT]2: Like
angles” that look rectangular but matching shapes (above) but asking children to
are not rectangles. name the shapes too.
Mystery Pictures 2: Children build pictures by
Names these shapes “rect- identifying shapes that are named by the Building
angles” (including the non- Blocks software program (i.e., at this level, children
rectangular parallelogram): have to know the names; Mystery Pictures 1 is appro-
priate before this activity, as it teaches the shape
names).

(Continued )
190 Shape
Table 8.1 (Cont.)

Age Broad Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

3–4 Shape Matcher—More Shapes, Match and Name Shapes (Shape Matcher—More
Sizes & Orientations, Combin- Shapes), [LT]2: As above, but using a wider variety of
ations Comparing Matches shapes from the Shape Sets in different orientations.
a wider variety of shapes with Match Blocks: Children match various block
same size and orientation. shapes to objects in the classroom. Have different
Shape Matcher—Sizes and block shapes in front of you, with all the children in
Orientations Comparing a circle around you. Show one block and ask children
Matches a wider variety of what things in the classroom are the same shape.
shapes with different sizes and Talk children through any incorrect responses, such
orientations. as choosing something triangular but saying it has
the shape of a quarter circle.
Matches these shapes: Mystery Pictures 3: Children build pictures by
selecting shapes that match a series of target
shapes. The skill children practice is matching, but
the program names each shape, so shape names are
introduced. Shapes are more varied and include new
Shape Matcher—Combinations (less familiar) shapes at this level.
Comparing Matches combin-
ations of shapes to each other.
Matches these shapes:

4 Shape Recognizer—Circles, Concentrate: More Turned Shapes, [LT]2: Online

Squares, and Triangles Classify- [LT]2 game matching geometric shapes in different
ing Recognizes some less typical orientations.
squares and triangles and may
recognize some rectangles, but
usually not rhombuses (dia-
monds). Often doesn’t differenti-
ate sides/corners. May say two
shapes are the same after
matching only sides (Beilin,
1984) or comparing half of them.
Names these:

Feely Box (Match): Secretly hide a shape in the

“Feely Box” (a decorated box with a hole large
enough to fit a child’s hand but not so large that you
can see into the box). Display five shapes, including
the one that exactly matches the one you hid. Have
a child put his or her hand in the box to feel the

(Continued )
 Shape 191

Table 8.1 (Cont.)

Age Broad Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

shape; that child should then point to the matching

shape on display.
Circles and Cans, [LT]2: Display several food cans,
and discuss their shape (round) with children. Shift
focus to the bottom and top, collectively the bases,
of each can. Point out to children that these areas
are circular; the edges are circles. Show the large
sheets of paper on which you have traced the bases
of a few cans that vary substantially in size. Trace
one or two other cans to show children what you did,
and then shuffle the papers and cans. Ask children to
match the cans to the traced circles. For children
who are unsure of their choice, have them place the
can directly on the traced circle to check. Tell chil-
dren they can all have a turn matching circles and
cans during free time and store the activity’s mater-
ials in a center for that purpose.
Is It or Not? (Circles), [LT]2: Draw a true circle on
a surface where the entire class can view it. Ask chil-
dren to name it, and then tell them why it is a circle.
Draw an ellipse (an oval) on the same surface. Ask
children what it looks like, and then ask them to tell
you why it is not a circle. Draw several other circles
and shapes that are not circles but could be mistaken
for them and discuss their differences. Summarize
by reviewing that a circle is perfectly round and con-
sists of a curved line that always curves the same.
Shape Show (Triangles), [LT]2: Show and name
a large, flat triangle. Walk your fingers around its
perimeter, describing and exaggerating your actions:
“Straaiiight side … turn, straaiiight side … turn,
straaiiight side … stop.” Ask children how many sides
the triangle has and count the sides with them.
Emphasize that a triangle’s sides and angles can
be different sizes; what matters is that its sides are
straight and connected to make a closed shape (no
openings or gaps). Ask children what things they
have at home that are triangles. Show different
examples of triangles. Have children draw triangles
in the air. If available, have children walk around
a large triangle, such as one marked with colored
tape on the floor.
Shape Hunt (Triangles), [LT]2:

• Finding shapes in the environment. Tell children

to find one or two items in the room with at least
one triangle face. For variety, hide Shape Set tri-
angles throughout the room beforehand. When
labeling them, do not just say the shape name,
use the object’s name and the shape’s: “That
clock is also a circle” (Verdine et al., 2016).
• Encourage children to count the shape’s sides
and, if possible, show the triangle to an adult,
discussing its shape. For example, triangles
have three sides, but the sides are not always
the same length. After discussion, have the
child replace the triangle so other children can
find it.
• You may choose to photograph the triangles
for a class shape book.

(Continued )
192 Shape
Table 8.1 (Cont.)

Age Broad Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

Is It or Not? (Triangles): As above. Include vari-

ants (e.g., “skinny triangles”) and distractors that are
visually similar to triangles (“difficult distractors” or
“foolers”), such as those in Figure 8.9b.
Feely Box (Name): Similar to “Feely Box (Match)”,
but now encourage the child to name the shape and
explain how he or she figured it out.
Constructor of Shapes from Build Shapes/Straw Shapes (Looks Like), [LT]2:
Parts—Looks Like Parts Uses Includes the naming of these shapes. In a small
manipulatives representing parts group lesson with the teacher, children use plastic
of shapes, such as sides, to makestirrers, straws, or sticks of various lengths to make
a shape that “looks like” a goal shapes they know. Ensure that they build shapes
shape. May think of angles as with correct attributes, such as all sides the same
a corner (which is “pointy”). length and all right angles for squares. All stirrers
should be “connected” (touching) at their endpoints.
Asked to make a triangle with Discuss attributes as children build. If children need
sticks, creates this: help, provide a model for them to copy or a drawing
on which to place stirrers. Can they choose the cor-
rect amount and sizes of stirrers to make a given
shape? If children excel, challenge them to get
a shape “just right.” (At this level of thinking, chil-
dren make approximate representations.)
Build Shapes (Triangles), [LT]2: In a free-choice
center, children use plastic stirrers to make triangles
and/or to create pictures and designs that include
triangles.
4–5 Shape Recognizer—All Rect- Shape Show (Rectangles) [and Shape Show
angles Classifying Recognizes (Squares)], both on [LT]2: Show and name a large,
rectangles of all sizes, shapes, flat rectangle. Walk your fingers around its perim-
and orientations. eter, describing and exaggerating your actions:
“Straaiiight side … right turn, straaiiight side … right
Correctly names these turn, another straaiiight side … right turn, long
shapes “rectangles”: straaiiight side … stop.” Ask children how many sides
Parts the rectangle has and count the sides with them.
Thinker Emphasize that opposite sides of a rectangle are the
same lengths, and all “turns” are right angles. To
model this, you may place a stirrer that is the same
length as one pair of sides on top of each of those
sides and repeat for the other pair of opposite sides.
To illustrate right angles, talk about the right angle
—“like an uppercase L”—in a doorway. Make upper-
case Ls with children using thumbs and index fingers.
Fit your L on the angles of the rectangle. Ask chil-
dren what things they have at home that are rect-
angles. Show different examples of rectangles. Have
children walk around a large, flat rectangle, such as
a rug. Once seated, have children draw rectangles in
the air. Remember that squares are (“special”)
rectangles.
Mystery Pictures 3 (shown here) is appropriate
before this activity, as it teaches the shape names.

(Continued )
 Shape 193

Table 8.1 (Cont.)

Age Broad Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

Mystery Pictures 4: Children build pictures by

identifying a wide variety of shapes that are named
by the Building Blocks software program (i.e., chil-
dren must know the names).
Shape Hunt (Rectangles): As above but involving
rectangles.
Build Shapes/Straw Shapes: As above but involv-
ing rectangles.
Straw Shapes (Rectangles): As above but involv-
ing rectangles.
Is It or Not? (Rectangles), [LT]2: As above with
rectangles or squares.
I Spy, [LT]2: Beforehand, “seed” the classroom
with Shape Set shapes and other objects (especially
those with less common shapes). Name the shape of
something in the room. You may wish to start with
something easily recognizable, such as “square” or
“triangle.” Have children guess the item or shape
you are thinking about. If able, have the child who
guessed correctly think of the next item or shape for
you and get the class to guess.
Variation: Try the properties version, in which
you describe a shape’s attributes and see whether
children can guess which item or shape you mean.
This can also be done with Shape Sets, actual objects
in the room, and/or other shape manipulatives.

Rectangles and Boxes, [LT]2: Draw a large rect-

angle for the entire class to see, and trace it, count-
ing each side as you go. Challenge children to draw
a rectangle in the air as you count, reminding them
that each side should be straight. Show a variety of
boxes to children—such as toothpaste, pasta, and
cereal boxes—and discuss their shape. Eventually,
focus on the faces of the boxes, which should mostly
be rectangles. Talk about the sides and right angles.
On large paper, place two boxes horizontally and
trace their faces. Have children match the boxes to
the traced rectangles. Trace more boxes and repeat.

(Continued )
194 Shape

Table 8.1 (Cont.)

Age Broad Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

Help children consider other box face shapes, such

as triangles (candy and food storage), octagons (hat
and gift boxes), and circles/cylinders (toy and oats
containers).
Name Faces of Blocks: During circle or free-play
time, children name the faces (sides) of different
building blocks. Ask children which classroom items
also have fronts or faces of the same shape.
Don’t Burn Your Feet—Math Plus!, [LT]2: (“Math
Plus!” activities have been enhanced to also develop
executive function. See all resource at [LT]2.) Make
large shapes on the floor/ground. Tell children to
step only on a certain shape class (e.g., triangles) or
characteristic (e.g., three sides). Ask children how
they know the shape they are stepping on is correct.
Guess My Rule (Rectangles), [LT]2: Tell children to
watch carefully as you sort several Shape Set shapes
into piles based on a “secret rule” (some attribute).

• Ask children to silently (“in your heads”) guess

your sorting rule, such as “circles versus
squares” or “four-sided shapes versus round.”
• Sort shapes one at a time, continuing until
there are at least two to three shapes in each
of the two piles.
• Signal “shhh,” and pick up a new shape, holding
it between the two piles. With a look of confu-
sion, gesture to children to encourage all of
them to point quietly to which pile the shape
belongs.
• Place the shape in its correct pile. After all
shapes are sorted, ask children what they think
the sorting rule is.
• Repeat with other shapes and new rules.

Side Recognizer Parts Identifies Exploring Shapes (Sides), [LT]2: Children count the
sides as distinct geometric sides of shapes and then identify the shape based on
objects with attributes. May say the number of sides.
two shapes are the same by com- What Shape Am I Touching (Side Recognizer),
paring many of their attributes, [LT]2: Children feel a shape without seeing it and
but not all. name the shape by counting its sides.
True or False (Side Recognizer), [LT]2: Children
Asked what this shape is , determine whether or not figures belong to a shape
says it is a “quadrilateral” (or category using the shapes’ sides. See also on [LT]2:
has four sides) after counting True or False? Math Plus!, an enhanced version to
each, running a finger along also teach executive function.
the length of each side. Shape Parts 1: Students use shape parts to con-
struct a shape that matches a target shape. They
must place every component exactly, so it is a skill
that is actually at the “Constructor of Shapes from
Parts—Exact” level, but some children can begin to
benefit from such scaffolded computer work at this
level.

(Continued )
 Shape 195

Table 8.1 (Cont.)

Age Broad Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

Most Attributes Comparer Feely Box (Describe): As above, but now children
Comparing Looks for differences must describe the shape well enough without naming
in attributes, examining full it that their peers can figure out the shape they are
shapes, but may ignore some describing. Have children explain how he or she fig-
spatial relationships. ured out which shape. They should describe the
shape, emphasizing straightness of the sides and the
“These are the same.” number of sides and angles.

Corner (Vertex, Angle) Recog- Explore Shapes and Angles, [LT]2: Children identify
nizer Parts Recognizes angles as specific types of angles within shapes (e.g., right
separate geometric objects, at angles).
least in the limited context of Feely Box (Describe): As above, emphasizing
“corners.” angles.
Shape Parts 1: As above, emphasizing angles.
Asked why is this a triangle, True or False? Math Plus!, [LT]2: As above,
says, “It has three angles” and emphasizing angles.
counts them, pointing clearly Don’t Burn Your Feet—Math Plus!, [LT]2: As above,
to each vertex (point at the emphasizing angles.
corner).
5 Shape Recognizer—More Shape Step (More Shapes), [LT]2: Make shapes on the
Shapes Classifying Recognizes floor with masking or colored tape or chalk shapes out-
most familiar shapes and typical doors. Tell children to step on a certain class of shapes
examples of other shapes, such (e.g., rhombuses) only. Have a group of five children step
as hexagon, rhombus (diamond), on the rhombuses. Ask the rest of the class to watch
and trapezoid. carefully to make sure the group steps on all the correct
shapes. Whenever possible, ask children to explain why
Correctly identifies and the shape they stepped on was the correct shape (“How
names all of these shapes: do you know that was a rhombus?”). Repeat the activity
until all groups have stepped on shapes.

(Continued )
196 Shape

Table 8.1 (Cont.)

Age Broad Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

Mystery Pictures 4: Children build pictures by

identifying a wide variety of shapes that are named
by the Building Blocks software program (i.e., at this
level, children have to know the names). This activity
includes the hexagon, rhombus (diamond), and trap-
ezoid.

Geometry Snapshots 2: Shown a simple configur-

ation of shapes for just 2 seconds, students match
that configuration to four choices from memory
(imagery). Off- or on-computer.

Find the Twin (More Shapes ), [LT]2 See above,

emphasis on new shapes.
True or False (More Shapes), [LT]2 See above,
emphasis on new shapes.
Guess My Rule (More Shapes), [LT]2: As above,
with “rules” appropriate for this level. For example:
circles versus triangles versus squares (all different
orientations), triangles versus rhombuses, trapezoids
versus rhombuses, trapezoids versus “not

(Continued )
 Shape 197

Table 8.1 (Cont.)

Age Broad Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

trapezoids,” hexagons versus trapezoids, triangles

versus “not triangles,” squares versus “not squares”
(e.g., all other shapes), rectangles versus “not rect-
angles,” rhombuses versus not “rhombuses.”

6 Shape Identifier Classifying Trapezoids and Rhombuses: Show pattern block

Names most common shapes, shapes, one after another, having children name
including, for example, rhom- each one. Focus especially on the rhombus and trap-
buses, hexagons, octagons, and ezoid. Ask children what they could make with such
trapezoids, without making mis- shapes. Have children describe the properties of the
takes, such as calling ovals “cir- shapes. A trapezoid has one pair of parallel sides
cles.” Recognizes (at least) right (parallel—“go in the same direction”); a rhombus has
angles, so distinguishes between two pairs of parallel sides all the same length.
a rectangle and a parallelogram Mr. MixUp (Shapes): Explain that children are
without right angles. going to help Mr. MixUp to name shapes. Remind chil-
dren to stop Mr. MixUp right when he makes
Correctly names all of the fol- a mistake to correct him. Using Shape Set shapes,
lowing shapes: have Mr. MixUp start by confusing the names of
a “square” and a “rhombus.” After children have
identified the correct names, ask them to explain
how their angles are different (squares must have all
right angles; rhombuses may have different angles).
Review that all rhombuses and squares, which are
actually a special kind of rhombus with all right
angles, have four straight sides of equal length.
Repeat with a trapezoid, a hexagon, and any other
shapes you would like children to practice.
Geometry Snapshots 4: Students identify an
image that matches one of four moderately complex
configurations from memory (imagery).

7 Angle Recognizer—More Con- Mr. MixUp (Angles and Shapes), [LT]2: As above, but
texts Parts Recognizes and this time confuse “sides” and “corners”; make sure
describe contexts in which angle children explain which is which.
knowledge is relevant, including Geometry Snapshots 6: Students match geomet-
corners (can discuss “sharper” ric figures that differ in angle measure from memory
angles), crossings (e.g., a pair of (imagery).
scissors), and, later, bent objects
and bends (sometimes bends in
paths and slopes). Only later can
explicitly understand how angle
concepts relate to these con-
texts (e.g., initially may not think
of bends in roads as angles; may
not be able to add horizontal or
vertical to complete the angle in
slope contexts; may even see
corners as more or less “sharp”
without representing the lines
that constitute them). Often
does not relate these contexts
and may represent only some

(Continued )
198 Shape

Table 8.1 (Cont.)

Age Broad Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

features of angles in each (e.g.,

oblique line for a ramp in a slope
context).
Parts of Shapes Identifier Clas- What Shape Am I Touching (Parts of Shapes Identi-
sifying Identifies shapes in terms fier), [LT]2: Teacher shows children a shape and asks
of their components. children to name the shape and explain how they
know it is that shape, emphasizing its sides and
“No matter how skinny it angles as defining attributes of the shapes.
looks, that’s a triangle Don’t Burn Your Feet—Math Plus!, [LT]2: See
because it has three sides above, now focusing on sides and angles.
and three angles.”

Congruence Superposer Com- Shape Stacker (Superposer), [LT]2: Children match

paring Moves and places objects identical shapes from the Shape Set, justifying why
on top of each other to deter- the shapes are congruent.
mine congruence. Can also
determine congruence by com-
paring all attributes and all spa-
tial relationships.
Says that two shapes are the
same shape and the same
size because they can be laid
on top of each other.
Says that two shapes are the
same shape and the same
size after comparing every
one of their sides and angles.
Constructor of Shapes from Warm-Up: Snapshots and Straws (Shape Parts), [LT]2:
Parts—Exact Representing Uses In preparation, secretly make a shape using straws,
manipulatives representing parts such as a rectangle, and cover it with a dark cloth. Give
of shapes, such as sides and children a set of straws of various lengths. Tell children
angle “connectors,” to make to look carefully and take a snapshot in their minds as
a shape that is completely cor- you show your shape for 2 seconds, and then cover it
rect, based on knowledge of again—immediately after—with a dark cloth. Have chil-
components and properties— dren build what they saw with their straws. Show your
relationships between the shape for 2 more seconds so children can check and
components. change their shapes, if necessary. Then have children
describe what they saw, and how they built their own.
Asked to make a triangle with Repeat with other secret shapes, making them more
sticks, creates complex as children’s ability allows.
Build Shapes/Straw Shapes (Parts Exact), [LT]2: As
above, but now expecting children to represent all
parts and properties correctly, as well as to make any
of the shapes in the Shape Set, or a verbally named
set of properties (e.g., make a shape that has (a) two
pairs of adjacent sides the same length or (b) all four
sides the same length but no right angles). Can they
place pieces accurately and with little trial and error?
Give other challenges, such as: “Can you make
a triangle with any three of these straws (lengths)?”
(No, not if one straw is longer than the sum of the
lengths of the other two.) “How many different
shapes (classes) can you make with two pairs of
straws the same length?”
Pentomino Symmetry Games, [LT]2:
Children take turns to challenge each other to
complete symmetrical puzzles/designs across a line
of symmetry using pentominoes.

(Continued )
 Shape 199
Table 8.1 (Cont.)

Age Broad Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

Shape Parts 2: Students use shape parts to con-

struct a shape that matches a target shape. They
must place every component exactly.

8+ Angle Representer Parts Repre- Logo: See Logo examples and suggestions in this and
sents various angle contexts as the previous chapter.
two lines, explicitly including the As the World Turns, [LT]2: Have students esti-
reference line (horizontal or ver- mate, then measure, draw, and label different real-
tical for slope; a “line of sight” world angle measures, such as a door opening,
for turn contexts) and, at least a radio control turning, a doorknob, head turning,
implicitly, the size of the angle as turning a faucet on, and so forth.
the rotation between these lines Make me Double, [LT]2: Children represent
(may still maintain misconcep- a larger angle out of straws by combining two smal-
tions about angle measure, such ler angles.
as relating angle size to the
length of side’s distance between
endpoints, and may not apply
these understandings to multiple
contexts).
Congruence Representer Com- Find My Pair, [LT]2: Children have to prove that two
paring Refers to geometric prop- shapes are the exact same size and shape.
erties and explains with
transformations.
“These must be ‘congruent,’
because they have equal
sides, all square corners, and
Property I can move them on top of
Thinker each other exactly.”
Shape Class Identifier Classify- Guess My Rule (Shape Class Identifier), [LT]2: As
ing Uses class membership (e.g., above, with “rules” appropriate for this level, includ-
to sort), not explicitly based on ing all classes of shapes.
properties. Shape Step (Classes), [LT]2: As above, with stu-
dents told a shape class rather than a shape name
“I put the triangles over here, (e.g., “All the rhombuses”—including squares!). Ask
and the quadrilaterals, includ- children to justify that the shape they selected is
ing squares, rectangles, a member of that class.
rhombuses, and trapezoids, Don’t Burn Your Feet—Math Plus!, [LT]2: See
over there.” above.
Shape Property Identifier Clas- Shape Step (Properties), [LT]2: As above, with stu-
sifying Uses properties explicitly. dents told a property rather than a shape name (e.g.,
Can see the invariants in the “All the shapes with all sides the same length” or “…
changes of state or shape but at least one right angle”). Ask children to justify that
maintaining the shapes’ the shape they selected has that property.
properties. Guess My Rule (Shape Property Identifier), [LT]2:
As above, with “rules” appropriate for this level,
“I put the shapes with oppos- such as “has a right angles versus has no right
ite sides parallel over here, angle,” “regular polygons (closed shapes with all
and those with four sides but straight sides) versus any other shapes,” or “sym-
not both pairs of sides paral- metrical versus non-symmetrical shapes,” etc.
lel over there.”

(Continued )
200 Shape
Table 8.1 (Cont.)

Age Broad Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

I Spy (Property Identifier), [LT]2: As above, but

giving properties such as “I spy a shape with four
sides and with opposite sides the same length, but no
right angles.”
What Shape Am I Touching (Shape Property Iden-
tifier), [LT]2: Children identify shapes, even those
with the same number of sides, through touch alone
by figuring out all their properties (right angles,
equal length sides, etc.).
Legends of the Lost Shape: Students identify
target shapes using textual clues provided, such as
having certain angle sizes.

Property Class Identifier Classi- Mr. MixUp (Property Class Identifier), [LT]2: As above,
fying Uses class membership for but focus on class memberships and defining proper-
shapes (e.g., to sort or consider ties (e.g., Mr. MixUp says that “a rectangle has two
shapes “similar”) explicitly based pairs of equal and parallel sides, but [erroneously]
on properties, including angle could not be a parallelogram because it’s a rectangle”).
measure. Is aware of restrictions Which Shape Could It Be?, [LT]2: Slowly reveal
of transformations and also of a shape from behind a screen. At each “step,” ask
the definitions and can integrate children what class of shape it could be and how cer-
the two. Sorts hierarchically, tain they are.
based on properties.
“I put the ‘equilateral tri-
angles’ over here, and ‘sca-
lene triangles’ over here. The
‘isosceles triangles’ are all
these … they included the
equilaterals.”

Shape Parts 3: Students use shape parts to construct

a shape that matches a target shape, which is rotated,
so the construction is at a different orientation. They
must place every component exactly. Depending on
the problem and the way it is approached, these activ-
ities can be useful at several levels.

Shape Parts 4: As above, but with multiple

embedded shapes.

(Continued )
 Shape 201
Table 8.1 (Cont.)

Age Broad Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

Shape Parts 5: As above, but no model is pro-

vided.

Angle Synthesizer Parts Com- Straw Angles, [LT]2: Ask children to make angles out
bines various meanings of angle of pipe cleaners and straws that have specific
(turn, corner, slant), including measures.
angle measure. Shape Parts 6: As above, but the student must
use sides and angles (manipulable “corners”).
“This ramp is at a 45° angle
to the ground.”

Shape Parts 7: As above, but with more proper-

ties/problem solving involved.

(Continued )
202 Shape

Table 8.1 (Cont.)

Age Broad Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

Logo: Using the Logo turtle to draw challenging

shapes, such as creating an isosceles triangle in
Turtle Math (Clements & Meredith, 1994).

Box 8.1 2D Shapes

∠ Angle: Two lines that meet at a point, the vertex.

○ Circle: A two-dimensional figure that consists of all points a fixed distance

from a point called its center. Circles are “perfectly round”; that is, they
have a constant curvature.

Closed: A two-dimensional figure is closed when it is made up of several line

segments that are joined together; exactly two sides meet at every vertex,
and no sides cross each other. (Similarly for curved figures.)

Congruent: Exactly alike in shape and size, so they can be superposed

(“placed on each other” so they match).

Hexagon: A polygon with six straight sides.

Kite: A four-sided polygon (quadrilateral) with two pairs of adjacent (touch-

ing) sides, each of which are the same length.

Line symmetry: Plane figures have line, or mirror, symmetry when their
shape is reversed on opposite sides of a line. If the plane is folded at the
line, the figures will be superposed.

Octagon: A polygon with eight straight sides.

(Continued )
 Shape 203
(Cont.)

Orientation: How a figure is turned compared to a reference line.

= Parallel lines: Lines that have the same orientation and remain the same dis-
tance apart (like railroad tracks).

Parallelograms: Quadrilaterals with two pairs of opposite parallel sides.

Pentagons: Polygons with five straight sides.

Plane: A flat surface.

Polygon: A closed plane figure bounded by three or more straight sides.

Quadrilateral: A polygon with four straight sides.

▭ Rectangle: A polygon with four straight sides (i.e., a quadrilateral) and four
right angles. As with all parallelograms, a rectangle’s opposite sides are par-
allel and the same length.

Rhombus: A quadrilateral with four straight sides that are all the same
length.

Right angle: Two lines that are perpendicular; that is, that meet like a corner
of a typical doorway. Often informally called “square corner,” right angles
measure 90 degrees.

Rotational symmetry: A figure has rotational symmetry when it can be

turned less than a full turn to fit on itself exactly.

Shape: Informal name for a geometric, two- or three-dimensional figure

made up of points, lines, or planes.

Square: A quadrilateral that has four equal straight sides and all right
angles. A square is both a special kind of rectangle and a special kind of
rhombus.

Trapezoid: A quadrilateral with one pair of parallel sides. (Some insist trap-
ezoids have only one pair of parallel sides; that is how they are categorized
in Figure 8.2a. Others say they have to have at least one pair, which would
then make all parallelograms a subset of the trapezoids.)

Triangle: A polygon with three sides.

204 Shape

Figure 8.3 Exemplars of 2D figures that are closed and are symmetric, preferred by most people

So, children tend only to see only typical forms of each shape—what we will call exemplars
(the shapes in Figure 8.3 are exemplars for each of four classes of shapes). They do not fre-
quently see and discuss other members of the shape class, what we will call variants. Nonexam-
ples—usually called distractors in assessments or instruction—are not members of that shape
class. They are called palpable distractors if they have little or no overall resemblance to the
exemplars and difficult distractors (for the children, we call them foolers) if they are highly visu-
ally similar to exemplars but lack at least one defining attribute. Figure 8.4 illustrates these for
triangles.
One study found that at 25 months of age, children knew few shape names even of exem-
plars (Verdine, Lucca, Golinkoff, Newcombe, & Hirsh-Pasek, 2016). By 30 months, they had
learned more shape names and were even correctly naming some variants.
A study of young children used the same line drawings previously used with elementary stu-
dents for comparison purposes (Clements et al., 1999b); replication studies were conducted in
Singapore (Yin, 2003) and Turkey (Aslan, 2004) and a similar study of preschoolers in Serbia
(Maričić & Stamatović, 2017). What did we learn about visual prototypes and ideas young chil-
dren form about common shapes?
Circles—which only have one basic prototype, because they can only vary in size—are the
easiest shape for children to identify. From 92% of 4-year-olds to 99% of 6-year-olds accur-
ately identified circles as those shown in Figure 8.5 (Clements et al., 1999b). Only a few of the
youngest children chose the ellipse and another curved shape (shapes 10 and 11). Most children
described circles as “round,” if they described them at all. Thus, the circle was easily recognized
but relatively difficult to describe for these children. They matched the shapes to a visual proto-
type. In a replication study, Turkish children showed the same pattern of responses (Aslan,
2004, Aktas-Arnas & Aslan, 2004; Aslan & Aktas-Arnas, 2007).

Figure 8.4 Exemplars, variants, palpable distractors, and difficult distractors for triangles
 Shape 205

Figure 8.5 Students are to mark circles

Children also identified squares fairly well: 82%, 86%, and 91% for 4-, 5-, and 6-year-olds,
respectively. Younger children tended to mistakenly choose non-square rhombi (“diamonds”
such as shape 3 in Figure 8.6), 25% of 6-year-olds and 5% of 7-year-olds did so in Singapore.
However, U.S. children were no less accurate in classifying squares without horizontal sides
(shapes 5 and 11). This confusion—that turning a shape changes its name—can last until age 8 if
not well addressed educationally. In Singapore, 7-year-olds were less likely to correctly identify

Figure 8.6 Students are to mark squares (adapted from Razel & Eylon, 1991)
206 Shape

these as squares than were 6-year-olds (Yin, 2003). Children in Serbia knew circles well, but
squares less well (57%, Maričić & Stamatović, 2017). Children in all three countries were more
likely to be accurate in their square identification when their justifications for selection were
based on the shape’s defining attributes. Children from Turkey did not give any property-based
justifications until age 4; 41% did so by the age of 6 years (Aslan, 2004). Further, when children
did use properties, they were correct most of the time (compare 70% correctness for visual
responses to 91% for property responses). Children in Serbia knew circles well, but not squares
(57%, Maričić & Stamatović, 2017).
Children are less likely misled by orientation (the way a shape is “turned”) when manipula-
tives are used, or when they walk around large shapes placed on the floor. Children are more
likely to be accurate when their justifications for selection were based on the shape’s defining
attributes, such as the number and length of the sides.

Figure 8.7 Student marks triangles (adapted from Burger & Shaughnessy, 1986,; Clements & Bat-
tista, 1991)
 Shape 207

Children were less accurate at recognizing triangles and rectangles. However, their scores were
not low; about 60% correct for triangles (Figure 8.7, but a bit better in Turkey and Serbia, where chil-
dren identified these shapes only slightly less accurately, 68% and 78%, Aslan, 2004; Maričić & Sta-
matović, 2017). Across the years from 4 to 6, children go through a phase in which they accept many
shapes as triangles, then another in which they “tighten” their criteria to reject some distractors but
also some examples. The children’s visual prototype seems to be of an isosceles triangle. Especially
when not exposed to high-quality geometry education, they are misled by lack of symmetry or an
aspect ratio—the ratio of height to base—not near one (e.g., a “long, skinny” triangle, such as shape 11).
Young children tended to accept “long” parallelograms or right trapezoids (shapes 3, 6, 10,
and 14 in Figure 8.8) as rectangles. Thus, children’s visual prototype of a rectangle is a four-
sided figure with two long parallel sides and “close to” square corners.

Figure 8.8 Students are to mark rectangles (adapted from Burger & Shaughnessy, 1986; Clements
& Battista, 1991)
208 Shape

Only a few children correctly identified the squares (shapes 2 and 7 in Figure 8.8) as rect-
angles. Because they have all the properties of rectangles, these squares should be chosen.
This is upsetting to many adults who have never been provided good geometry instruction
themselves. But it is a good opportunity to encourage children to think mathematically and
logically—even when the wider culture does not.
Although young children both in our study and those in the international studies were less
accurate at recognizing triangles and rectangles, their performance shows considerable know-
ledge, especially given the abstract nature of the test and the variety of shapes employed.
Depressingly, they learn very little from these early years to sixth grade.
In their play, children showed interest and involvement with “pattern and shape” more fre-
quently than any of the six other categories (Seo & Ginsburg, 2004). About 47% of these
behaviors involved recognizing, sorting, or naming shapes. Finally, children do far more than
just name shapes; they are an important part of much of children’s play. Of course, that play
involves three-dimensional (3D) shapes.

3D Figures
Babies only 1 or 2 days old can maintain object size despite changes in distance (and thus
change in size of the retinal image, Slater, Mattock, & Brown, 1990). That is, they habituate in
looking at a sphere of constant size that changes in distance from the new-born, but not when
both this distance and the size of the sphere is changed so that the sphere fills the same angle
on the retina (Granrud, 1987). In addition, infants can perceive 3D shapes, however, this is
limited to continuously moving objects, rather than single or even multiple static views of the
same object (Humphrey & Humphrey, 1995).
As with 2D figures, older children do not perform well in school-based tasks involving three-
dimensional shapes, even into the intermediate grades (Carpenter, Coburn, Reys, & Wilson,
1976). South African first graders used different names for solids (such as “square” for cube)
(Nieuwoudt & van Niekerk, 1997). U.S. students’ reasoning about solids was much like that they
used for plane figures; they referred to a variety of characteristics, such as “pointiness” and
comparative size or slenderness (Lehrer et al., 1998b). Students also treated the solid wooden
figures as malleable, suggesting that the rectangular prism could be transformed into a cube by
“sitting on it.” They use names for 2D shapes, probably indicating that they do not explicitly
distinguish between two and three dimensions (Carpenter et al., 1976). Learning only plane fig-
ures in textbooks during the early primary grades may cause some initial difficulty in learning
about solids. Serbian children’s most developed concepts are the cube (83%) and the sphere
(76%); only 17% of children can recognize and name the rectangular prism (Maričić & Stamato-
vić, 2017).
Two related studies asked children to match solids with their nets (a “pattern” or arrange-
ment of 2D shapes that “fold up into” the 3D shape). Kindergartners had reasonable success
when the solids and nets both were made from the same interlocking materials (Leeson, 1995).
An advanced kindergartner had more difficulty with drawings of the nets (Leeson, Stewart, &
Wright, 1997), possibly because he was unable to visualize the relationship with the more
abstract materials.
 Shape 209

The Mathematics of 3D Shapes

Definitions Related to Shapes. As with 2D shapes, the following definitions of 3D shapes are
intended to help teachers both understand young children’s development of specific math con-
cepts and talk to them about these concepts. They are not formal math definitions, but, rather,
simple descriptions mixing math and everyday vocabulary.

Box 8.2 3D Shapes

Cone: A 3D shape with one circular base (actually a circular cone because
other curved shapes are possible bases) that is connected to a single
point, the vertex that lies over the base, creating a curved surface.

Cube: A special type of right prism whose faces are all squares.

Cylinder: A 3D shape that has two identical (congruent) parallel bases that
are circles (or other shapes, usually curved) connected by a curved sur-
face. (Most cylinders we deal with are right cylinders, but, as with prisms,
they can be oblique.)

Prism: A 3D shape that has two identical (congruent) parallel bases that
are polygons (2D shapes with straight sides), with corresponding sides of
the bases connected with rectangles (these are right prisms, if connected
with non-rectangular parallelograms, it is an oblique prism).

Pyramid: A 3D shape that has one base that is a polygon that is connected
to a single point, the vertex that lies over the base, with triangles.

Sphere: A 3D shape that is a “perfectly round ball”; that is, all the points
are at a fixed distance from a point called its center.
210 Shape

Congruence, Symmetry, and Transformations

Young children develop beginning ideas not just about shapes but also about symmetry, congruence,
and transformations. As we saw, even infants are sensitive to at least some symmetric figures. Pre-
schoolers often use and refer to rotational symmetry as much as they do line, or mirror
, symmetry in working with pattern blocks, such as remarking that an equilateral triangle was
“special, because when you turn it a little it fits back on itself” (Sarama, Clements, & Vukelic, 1996).
They also produce symmetry in their play (Seo & Ginsburg, 2004). For example, preschooler Jose
puts a double unit block on the rug, two unit blocks on the double unit block, and a triangle unit on
the middle, building a symmetrical structure.
Many young children judge congruence (same shape, same size) based on whether they are,
overall, more similar than different. However, children younger than kindergarten may not do
an exhaustive comparison and may consider rotated shapes as “different.” Until about 7 years
of age, students may not attend to the spatial relationships of all the parts of complex figures.
Not until later, at age 11, do most children perform as adults.
With guidance, however, even 4-year-olds and some younger children can generate strat-
egies for verifying congruence for some tasks. They gradually develop a greater awareness of
the type of differences between figures that are geometrically relevant and move from consid-
ering only some of the shapes’ parts to considering the spatial relationships of these parts. In
about first grade (sooner if well taught!), they begin to use superposition—moving one shape on
top of another to see if it fits exactly.
In summary, teaching both shape recognition and transformations may be important to chil-
dren’s math development (see an extended and illuminating discussion in Howe, 2018). Trad-
itional teaching of separate categories of “squares” and “rectangles” may underlie children’s
difficulties in relating these shape classes and their attributes. As an example, using a different
transformation, increasing the shorter dimension of a rectangle bit by bit may allow children to
develop dynamic intuition that a square may thus be produced.

Music and Geometry

Many people have conjectured that there is a relationship between music and math, but the evi-
dence is scarce. One study, however, showed that intensive music training is associated with
improved performance in geometry, such as detecting geometric properties and relating dis-
tance to numerical magnitudes (Spelke, 2008).

Experience and Education

A toddler, 22 months old, puts a square peg into a square hole (Örnkloo & von Hofsten,
2007b). What does she know of shapes? What more will she learn in preschool and elem-
entary school? What might she learn?
 Shape 211

Is there time for spatial topics such as geometry and measurement when there is so much pres-
sure to ensure children know number and arithmetic? Yes, for several reasons. First, the
Common Core and other standards clearly indicate that geometry and measurement are essen-
tial math topics. Second, research is clear that engaging children in these spatial topics does
not hurt other topics (Gavin, Casa, Adelson, & Firmender, 2013), but actually supports the learn-
ing of number and arithmetic (Sarama & Clements, 2009c, see also Chapter 7). We must do
more: In many countries, from the U.S. to Poland (Klim-Klimaszewska & Nazaruk, 2017), there is
little high-quality instruction in geometry in early childhood classrooms.

Shapes: 2D
Experiences and instruction play a large role in shaping children’s knowledge of geometry. If they
lack experience of shapes, and if the examples and nonexamples of shapes they do experience are
rigid, not including a variety of variants of that shape class, children’s mental images and ideas
about that shape will also be rigid and limited. For example, many children learn to accept only isos-
celes triangles with a horizontal base as triangles, such as the “exemplars” in Figure 8.4. Others
learn richer concepts, even at a young age; for example, one of the youngest 3-year-olds scored
higher than every 6-year-old on the shape recognition tasks discussed previously.
This is important. Children’s ideas stabilize as early as 6 years of age (Gagatsis & Patronis,
1990; Hannibal & Clements, 2010). So, we must provide better, richer opportunities to learn
about geometric figures to all children between 3 and 6 years of age.
Directing attention to shapes and providing language are important for children of all ages,
from infants and toddlers up. Their experiences can be so much richer than usual. In parents’
everyday speech, shape names are only about 1/10 of 1% of words (Verdine et al., 2016)! This is
a problem, considering they are sensitive to shape from their first year. Recall the treasure bas-
kets from Chapter 7 (p. 173). Fill the baskets with those materials, all sizes and shapes of balls
(Wait! Different shapes? Aren’t balls all spheres? Mostly … except for footballs and some leather
balls, Leavy et al., 2018b), or new materials with very different 3D shapes and sizes for grasp-
ing, mouthing, dropping, rolling, and so forth.
Make all such experiments mathematical (Kinnear & Wittmann, 2018). Read shape books for
the very young (e.g., Lin, 2020a), but not those that mis-teach shapes (Nurnberger-Haag, 2016)!
In geometry as in other areas, all teachers need to use nuanced and adequate math language.
For instance, teachers of toddlers can observe what a child is interested in and then introduce
variability and comparisons of shapes.
As an example, read the following interaction between the teacher interested in promoting math-
ematics thinking and a toddler (Björklund, 2012). A 2-year-old toddler, Albin, is sorting blocks and balls.

Annette: That’s very nice, how many do you have, Albin?

Albin: This many. (Continues sorting.)
Annette: Shall we count? How many are there? I will help you count, what do we start
with? One, and then two and then three
(pointing to one ball at a time).
Albin: No (looks in another direction).
(p. 223)
212 Shape

Noting the lack of interest in counting, the teacher quickly changes focus from number to
other math concepts.

Annette: What do you call these? (Points at one of two larger oval blocks.)
Albin: … A barrel.
Annette: Yes, it looks like a barrel … you think there are any more barrels?
Albin: Yes (puts the yellow block in another cup).
Annette: Shall we look for some?
Albin: (Rapidly picking up a black ball): Black!
Annette: Black; is it a barrel, that one?
Albin: No, round (shows it to Annette). Ball.
Annette: Are there any more funny barrels?
Albin: (Looks intensely into the box with blocks and balls and picks up a small block):
Here is one.
(p. 224)

The teacher found what the child was interested in and engaged the child in comparing
shapes.
Of course, it is always important to get the language straight. “Straight” for example,
means a line or path with no bends or turns, but informally, it can mean many things,
including being exactly vertical or horizontal. As another example, many 4-year-olds say
that they know triangles have “three points and three sides” (Clements et al., 1999b). Half
of these children, however, were not sure what a “point” or “side” was! As with the
number word sequence, the English language presents more challenges than others, such
as East Asian languages. For example, in those languages, every “quadrilateral” is called
simply “four-sided-shape.” An acute angle is simply a “sharp angle.” Those teaching in Eng-
lish or Spanish need rich discussions to bring these meanings to the fore. Language is more
important to geometry than it is to the learning of most other math topics (Vukovic & Lesaux,
2013).
Further, although appearances usually dominate children’s decisions, they are also learning
and sometimes using verbal knowledge. Using such verbal knowledge accurately takes time and
can initially appear as a step backward. Children may initially say a square has “four sides the
same and four points.” Because they have yet to learn about perpendicularity, some accept any
rhombus as a square. Their own description convinces them even though they feel conflicted
about the “look” of this “new square.” With guidance, however, this conflict can eventually be
beneficial, as they resolve it and build a firmer understanding of the properties of squares—that
they also need four right angles.
So, provide varied examples and nonexamples to help children understand attributes of
shapes that are mathematically relevant as well as those (orientation, size) that are not. Include
“difficult distractors” of shapes such as triangles (e.g., Figure 8.4) and rectangles. Discuss cat-
egories of shapes and what attributes each has.
 Shape 213

Doing this, you will be a welcome exception. U.S. educational practice usually does not reflect
these recommendations. Children often know as much about shapes entering school as their
geometry curriculum “teaches” them in the early grades. This is due to teachers and curriculum
writers’ assumptions that children in early childhood classrooms have little or no knowledge of
geometric figures. Further, teachers have had few experiences with geometry in their own educa-
tion. Thus, it is unsurprising that most classrooms exhibit limited geometry instruction. One early
study found that kindergarten children had a great deal of knowledge about shapes and matching
shapes before instruction began. Their teacher tended to elicit and verify this prior knowledge but
did not add any content or develop new knowledge. That is, about two-thirds of the interactions
had children repeat what they already knew in a repetitious format as in the following exchange:

Teacher: Could you tell us what type of shape that is?

Children: A square.
Teacher: Okay. It’s a square. (Thomas, 1982)

Even worse, when they did say something, teachers often make incorrect statements saying,
for example, that every time you put two triangles together you get a square (Thomas, 1982).
Instruction does not improve in the primary grades. Children actually stop counting the sides
and angles of shapes to differentiate one from another vertices (Lehrer et al., 1998b). Avoid
these common poor practices. Learn more about geometry and challenge children to learn
more every year.
Families and the wider culture often do not promote geometry learning either. On a geometry
assessment, 4-year-olds from America scored 55% compared to those from China who scored
84% (Starkey et al., 1999b). Recall the story about the two triangles (Figure 8.1) at the beginning
of this chapter. This example illustrates the research finding on “concept images” that shows that
certain visual prototypes can rule children’s thinking. That is, even when they know a definition,
children’s ideas of shapes are dominated by mental images of a “typical” shape.
To help children develop accurate, rich concept images, provide experiences of many differ-
ent examples of a type of shape. For example, Figure 8.9a (“examples”) shows a rich variety of
triangles that would be sure to generate discussion. Show nonexamples that, when compared to
similar examples, help focus attention on the critical attributes. For example, the nonexamples
in Figure 8.9b are close to the examples to their left, differing in just one attribute (can you
name each attribute?). Use such comparisons to focus on each defining attribute of a triangle.
Mary Elaine Spitler’s study of Building Blocks reveals that children felt quite powerful know-
ing and using definitions of triangles (Sarama & Clements, 2003). One preschooler said of
the second figure from the top in Figure 8.9a, “That’s not a triangle! It’s too skinny!” But his
Building Blocks friend responded, “I’m telling you, it is a triangle. It’s got three straight sides,
see? One, two, three! It doesn’t matter that I made it skinny.” Similar studies around the world
confirm that children can learn much more than most people assume about geometry—at earlier
ages.
Primary-grade children can extend these competencies, such as writing their solutions to
challenging geometry problems. For example, they could be asked to determine whether four
214 Shape

Figure 8.9 (a) Examples and matched (b) nonexamples of triangles

3-foot by 6-foot sleeping bags would fit inside a tent with floor space measuring 8 feet by 10
feet and explain why (Gavin et al., 2013). One second grader wrote, “… you can fit three but
there is more sq. ft. left over enough to equal 18 just it wasn’t a 3 × 6 it was a 9 × 2” (p. 484).
Second graders also might explore relationships among 2D and 3D shapes beyond identifying
the shape of the faces of solids. As an example, they could write a paragraph comparing a square
to a cube. As another example, they could build 3D shapes from two-dimensional shapes and
study perspective by viewing 3D shapes from different positions and then drawing 2D representa-
tions (Gavin et al., 2013). Such drawing contributes to children’s geometric learning—they learn
new concepts, such as distinctions of 2D and 3D shapes, while drawing (Thom & McGarvey, 2015).

Seven Guiding Features of High-quality Teaching of Shapes

Summarizing, children can learn richer concepts about shape if their educational environment
includes seven features.
First, ensure that children experience many different examples of a type of shape, so that
they do not form narrow ideas about any class of shapes. Use examplars to bootstrap initial
learning, and don’t use common objects because they already have labels for them—use clear
drawings or manipulatives. However, examples should become more diverse as soon as possible.
Showing nonexamples and comparing them to similar examples helps focus children’s attention
 Shape 215

on the critical attributes of shapes and prompts discussion. This is especially important for clas-
ses that have more diverse examples, such as triangles. See the illustration of the Building
Blocks “Shape Set” in Figure 8.10 for an example of the variety of shapes children might
explore.
Second, encourage children’s descriptions while encouraging the development of language.
Visual (prototype-based) descriptions should, of course, be expected and accepted, but attri-
bute and property responses should also be encouraged (Clements et al., 2018a). They may
initially appear spontaneously for shapes with stronger and fewer prototypes (e.g., circle,
square). Again, they should be especially encouraged for shape categories such as triangles.
Children can learn to explain why a shape belongs to a certain category—“It has three straight
sides and is closed” or does not belong (“The sides aren’t straight!”). Eventually, they can
internalize such arguments; for example, saying, “It is a weird, long, triangle, but it has three
straight sides and is closed!” Reading high-quality children’s books on shapes can be fun and
helpful (Flevares & Schiff, 2014). See the [LT]2 Resource section for recommendations. If

Figure 8.10 Building Blocks’ “Shape Set.” Having two copies of each separate manipulable shape
(each in two colors) allows children to explore, match, sort, analyze, and compose
a rich variety of geometric figures
216 Shape

books make geometric mistakes, as they often do, children love to be “shape detectives,” find-
ing those mistakes!
Third, along with language, encourage active processing—feeling, gesturing (Elia, 2018c), and
building.
Fourth, include a wide variety of shape classes. Early childhood curricula traditionally introduce
shapes in four categories (in U.S. culture, considered “basic” shapes): circle, square, triangle, and
rectangle. The idea that a square is not a rectangle is rooted by age 5. We suggest presenting
many examples of squares and rectangles, varying orientation, size, and so forth, including
squares as examples of rectangles. If children say, “That’s a square,” teachers might respond that
it is a square, which is a special type of rectangle, and they might try double-naming (“It’s
a square-rectangle”). Older children can discuss “general” categories, such as quadrilaterals and
triangles, counting the sides of various figures to choose their category.
Also, teachers might encourage them to describe why a figure belongs or does not belong to
a shape category. Then, teachers can say that because a triangle has all equal sides, it is
a special type of triangle, called an equilateral triangle. Children might also “test” right angles
on rectangles with a “right-angle checker,” (thumb and index finger held apart at 90°, or
a corner of a piece of paper). Further, children should experiment with and describe a wider
variety of shapes, including but not limited to semicircles, quadrilaterals, trapezoids, rhombi,
and hexagons.
Use computer environments to engage and develop children’s thinking about relationships
between classes of shapes, including squares and rectangles. In one large study (Clements
et al., 2001), some kindergartners formed their own concept (e.g., “It’s a square rectangle”) in
response to their work with Logo. Many other models are possible such as software that pre-
sents the properties of “shape families” (Zaranis, 2018) or allows children to explore geometric
motions (Seloraji & Eu, 2017). One “social assistive robot” engages children in geometric think-
ing through interactive play (Keren & Fridin, 2014). The visual and dynamic possibilities of com-
puters makes them ideal for geometric explorations (see also Chapters 7, 9, and 16).
Fifth, challenge children with a broad array of interesting tasks. Experience with manipula-
tives and computer environments are often supported by research, if the experiences are con-
sistent with the implications just drawn. Activities that promote reflection and discussion might
include building models of shapes from components. Matching, identifying, exploring, and even
making shapes with computers is particularly motivating (Clements & Sarama, 2003b, 2003c).
Work with Logo’s “turtle graphics” is accessible even to kindergartners (Clements et al., 2001),
with results indicating significant benefits for that age group (e.g., more than older children,
they benefited in learning about squares and rectangles). See Figure 8.11.
Sixth, use playful approaches and guided discovery teaching strategies. In a study comparing
direct instruction, free play, and guided play, children learned more about geometry and shapes
with guided play, where the teacher followed the children’s lead and scaffolded the interaction
(Fisher, Hirsh-Pasek, Golinkoff, & Newcombe, 2013). For example, a teacher observing children
building a tower might ask, “What shapes do you have?” “Squares. See?” “What makes that
a square?” and a bit later, “I wonder if it’s possible to make a bigger square using the pieces
you are holding up” (Hassinger-Das, Hirsh-Pasek, & Golinkoff, 2017).
Seventh, teaching geometric reasoning too. Geometry is a fruitful area for justification and
reasoning (as research has shown). Consider the Guess My Rule activity ([LT]2). A teacher
 Shape 217

Figure 8.11 Using the Logo turtle to draw a rectangle in Turtle Math (Clements & Meredith, 1994)

(later, a child!) sorts about three shapes into each of two categories according to a secret rule
(e.g., triangles vs. rectangles) in Figure 8.12, then ask children to silently identify, by pointing,
how each additional shape should be sorted. Once most of the children are pointing correctly,
the teacher asks them to think-pair-share to describe the rule.
This game starts simple, but shows its power for teaching math concepts and math practices
(making and justifying conjectures) and executive function (cognitive flexibility, see Chapter 14).
Because frequently children will think they guessed the sorting rule (e.g., rectangles vs. tri-
angles) but then the teacher puts a hexagon with the triangles. Now what is the rule? Rect-
angles vs. non-rectangles? Or shapes with right angles vs. those without right angles. You have
to “give up” on your first idea and see the next few shapes to make a new conjecture.
Eventually, the teacher may challenge children with a non-silent version of the game that
include rules and shapes that are at the “intersection” of the two categories. For example, “All
equal sides” and “All right angles” (Figure 8.13a). Then she holds up … a square … That goes in
the intersection of the two, necessitating a new Venn diagram (Figure 8.13b).

Triangles Rectangles

????

Figure 8.12 “Guess My Rule” with a very simple, starting rule

218 Shape

All equal-length sides All right angles

????

All equal-length sides All right angles

Figure 8.13a, 8.13b “Guess My Rule” with a new rule (a) and a challenging situation (b)

Shapes: 3D
Play and other activities with blocks is beneficial for many reasons. For geometric learning
and to make the play more interesting and productive overall, mathematize children’s play.
Engage children in fruitful discussions of blocks and other solids, using specific terminology
for solids, faces (including 2D shape names for them, of course), and edges for individual
blocks, as well as terms for the overall structure, such as symmetry and horizontal, vertical,
and oblique for the surfaces. Much more is known about building with blocks and other 3D
shapes (see Chapter 9).
Exploring the attributes of 3D shapes can build spatial skills. Children should explore solids,
feeling them and checking which would stack, slide, or roll and why. They should cut out and
build 3D shapes from 2D nets. In the study, the group that used manipulatives or multimedia
scored higher than those who didn’t use either and the highest-performing group used both
multimedia and manipulatives (Thompson, 2012).
 Shape 219

Geometric Motions, Congruence, and Symmetry

Encouraging children to perform and discuss geometric motions improves their spatial skills.
Computers are especially helpful, as the screen tools make motions more explicit. Exploratory
environments can engage young children in investigations of symmetry (Chorney & Sinclair,
2018). Use computer environments to help children learn congruence and symmetry (Clements
et al., 2001). There is undeveloped potential in generating curricula that seriously consider chil-
dren’s intuitions, preference, and interest in symmetry (Howe, 2018). Children’s painting and
constructions can be used as models in introducing symmetry, including 2D creations of paint-
ing, drawing, and collage, and 3D creations of clay and blocks.

Angle, Parallelism, and Perpendicularity

Angles are critical but often are not learned or taught well. Children have many varied and
often incorrect ideas about what angles are. To understand angles, children must discrimin-
ate angles as critical parts of geometric figures, compare and match angles, and construct
and mentally represent the idea of turns, integrating this with angle measure. These pro-
cesses can begin in early childhood; for example, 5-year-olds can match angles. The long
developmental process of learning about turns and angles can begin informally in early and
elementary classrooms, as children deal with corners of figures, comparing angle size, and
turns.
Computer-based shape manipulation and navigation environments can help mathematize
these experiences. Especially important is understanding how turning one’s body relates to
turning shapes and turning along paths in navigation and learning to use numbers to quantify
these turn and angle situations. For example, even 4-year-olds learn to click on a shape to turn
it and say, “I need to turn it three times!” (Sarama, 2004, and Chapter 12).
Mitchelmore and his colleagues (Mitchelmore, 1993; Mitchelmore & White, 1998) have pro-
posed the following sequence of tasks. Begin by providing practical experiences with angles
in various contexts, including corners, bends, turns, openings, and slopes. The first examples
for each should have two “arms of the angle” physically present, such as in scissors, road
junctions, a corner of a table. Corners are the most salient for children and should be
emphasized first. The other physical models can follow. Experience with bending (e.g.,
a chenille stick, aka “pipe cleaner”) and turning (e.g., doorknobs, dials, doors) would be intro-
duced last in this early phase.
Then help children understand the angular relationships in each context by discussing the
common features of similar contexts, such as bends in lines or in paths on maps. Later, help
students bridge the different contexts by representing the common features of angles in each
context. For example, they can be represented by two line segments (or rays) with a common
endpoint. Once turns are understood, use the dynamic notion of turning to begin measuring the
size of the angles.

The Spirit of Math—A Final Logo Example

High-quality implementations of Logo experiences places as much emphasis on the spirit of
math—exploration, investigation, critical thinking, and problem solving—as it does on geometric
220 Shape

ideas. Consider first grader Andrew (Clements et al., 2001). At the final interview, he was quite
sure of himself. When asked to explain something he thought clearly evident, Andrew would
always preface his remarks with an emphatic, “Look!” On one item, he was asked, “Pretend you
are talking on the telephone to someone who has never seen a triangle. What would you tell
this person to help them make a triangle?”

Andrew: I’d ask, “Have you seen a diamond?”

Interviewer: Let’s say that they said, “Yes.”
Andrew: Well, cut out a triangle. (Pause.) No, I made a mistake.
Interviewer: How?
Andrew: They have never seen a triangle. Well, cut it off in the middle. Fold it in the
middle, on top of the other half, then tape it down, and you’ll have a triangle.
Then hang it on the wall so you’ll know what a triangle is!
Interviewer: What if they said they hadn’t seen a diamond?
Andrew: Make a slanted line over, then another slant the other way down, then
another slanted line up, then another slanted line to the beginning.
Interviewer: (Thinks he is trying to describe a triangle): What?
Andrew: (Repeats the directions. Then …): That’s a diamond. Now, do what I told you
before!

Andrew had done what mathematicians are so fond of doing. He had reduced the problem to
one that was already solved! At the end, he asked, “Will this test be on my report card? ’Cause I’m
doing really good!” Throughout the interview, it was apparent that Andrew was sure of his own rea-
soning and knowledge from his experience. Although Andrew is not typical of students in our pro-
ject, it is important to note that students such as Andrew may later become mathematicians,
scientists, and engineers. Andrew had been reflecting greatly on the ideas in the curriculum and
relished the opportunity to discuss them so that he could demonstrate the results of his thinking.

Learning Trajectory for Shapes

As with others we have seen, the learning trajectory for 2D shapes is complex (the LT for 3D
shapes follows, see Table 8.2). First, there are several conceptual and skill advancements that
make levels more complicated. Second, there are four subtrajectories that are related, but can
develop somewhat independently:

1. The Comparing subtrajectory involves matching shapes by different criteria in the early
levels and determining congruence.
2. The Classifying subtrajectory includes recognizing, identifying (“naming”), analyzing, and
classifying shapes.
3. The Parts subtrajectory involves distinguishing, naming, describing, and quantifying the
components of shapes, such as sides and angles.
4. The closely related Representing subtrajectory involves building or drawing shapes.
 Shape 221

The goal of increasing children’s ability to name, describe, analyze, and classify geometric
shapes and think spatially is second in importance only to numerical goals. The CCSSM
include the goals already described in Table 7.2 (see p. 178, and especially K.G, 1–5; 1.G.1; 2.
G.1; 3.G.1).
This is so complex, that we added a column that encourages you to think of the big picture,
the broad levels of thinking we introduced on pp. 189–202: Shape Senser, Visual Thinker, Parts
Thinker, and Property Thinker. Keep these broad levels in mind and you will not let the “trees”
(the instructional important but numerous) levels distract you from the major developments
your children will make.
Table 8.1, then, provides the learning trajectory to achieve the goals. Including the broad
(“forest”) levels, the developmental progression (“trees”) and the instructional tasks. As we have
stated in previous chapters, the ages in all the learning trajectory tables are only approximate,
especially because the age of acquisition usually depends heavily on experience. This is especially
true in the domain of geometry, where most children receive low-quality experiences.

Table 8.2 Learning Trajectory for 3D Shapes

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

0–2 3D Perceiver: Foundations Shape & Spatial Talk, [LT]2.

Can perceive 3D shapes accurately from Note: Explorations with 3D shapes are provided
infancy, however, this competence is limited to in the “Composing 3D Shapes” trajectory.
continuously moving objects, rather than single or
even multiple static views of the same object.
3–4 3D Prototype Recognizer Circles and Cans (3D), [LT]2: Children pair different
Recognizes some prototypical 3D shapes, such sized cans with circles made by tracing the bases of
as the sphere and cube, using formal or informal the cans, connecting 2D shapes (circles) to 3D
names. However, may use 2D vocabulary to name shapes (cylinders).
some 3D shapes and describe solids using
a variety of informal characteristics, such as
"pointiness" or "slenderness."

5–6 3D Shape Recognizer Rectangles & Boxes (3D), [LT]2: Children find
Recognizes more 3D shapes (solids), using shapes, especially rectangles, on boxes of various
informal and some formal names. Recognizes shapes and sizes, they trace all the faces of each
faces as 2D shapes. box onto a separate piece of newsprint, shuffle
them, and then try to match the boxes to the
traces.

7 3D Face Counter What Kind of Box?, [LT]2: Children examine boxes

Recognizes all faces of a solid as 2D shapes, and talk about how many flat sides (faces) each
counting faces accurately. has, as well as the type of faces.
8 3D Shape Identifier Comparing and Constructing 3D Shapes, [LT]2 : Stu-
Identifies most solids, naming several of their dents create 3D Shapes out of cardboard pieces,
attributes. Can identify the common solid created sharing the name of the shape and describing its
by a particular net. attributes.

9+ 3D Shape Class Identifier Guess My Rule (3D), [LT]2: Children guess the class
Identifies most solids, based on their of shapes (polyhedra or not; prism or not).
properties.
222 Shape

Final Words
As this chapter showed, children can learn a considerable amount about several aspects of geo-
metric shapes. There is one more important competency, so important that we dedicate Chap-
ter 9 to shape composition, both 2D and 3D.

Note
1 Relax and enjoy. Most of us were badly taught math, and especially geometry (Shahbari, 2017). Take your
time and it will shape up for you!
9 Composition and
Decomposition of Shapes

Zachary’s grandmother was walking him out of preschool. He looked at the tiled walkway
and yelled, “Look, grandma! Hexagons! Hexagons all over the walk. You can put them
together with no spaces!”
(Figure 9.0.5)

Figure 9.0.5 Hexagons tiled in a walkway

What does Zachary show he knows about shapes and geometry? Zachary and his friends have
been working on the Building Blocks curriculum, which emphasizes putting shapes together.
Children enjoy playing with puzzles and shapes, with challenges like tangram puzzles provide. If
such experiences are organized into learning trajectories, students can benefit and enjoy these
experiences even more. Teachers report such experiences can change the way children see
their world.
The ability to describe, use, and visualize the effects of composing and decomposing geomet-
ric regions is important in and of itself. It also provides a foundation for understanding other
math topics, especially number and arithmetic, such as Part–Whole relationships, fractions,
area, and so forth. Also, such activity may develop executive function processes (Duran, Byers,
Cameron, & Grissmer, 2018; Schmitt, Korucu, Napoli, Bryant, & Purpura, 2018).
In this chapter we examine three related topics. First, we discuss composition of 3D shapes
in the restricted but important early childhood setting of building with blocks. Second, we dis-
cuss composition and decomposition of 2D shapes. Third, we discuss the disembedding of 2D
shapes, such as in embedded (hidden) figures problems.
224 Composition and Decomposition of Shapes

The Development of Composing 3D Shapes

Teachers are not surprised to learn that block play develops spatial language, creativity, sym-
bolization (a cylinder as a can of food), language, and social-motional development (Cohen &
Emmons, 2017; Cohen & Uhry, 2007).
However, many teachers are surprised to learn that building blocks were invented as an edu-
cational tool to develop children’s math ideas (Aksoy & Aksoy, 2017, see the story of Patty Hill
and Caroline Pratt in Chapter 15)1.
Children initially build block structures one block at a time and only later explicitly put
together these 3D shapes to create new 3D shapes. In their first year, they pound, clap
together, or slide the blocks, or they use single blocks to represent an object, such as a house
or vehicle. Children’s first combinations are simple pairs. At about 1 year of age, they stack
blocks, then make a “road.” At about 2 years, they place each successive block congruently on
or next to the one previously placed as shown in Figure 9.1. Around 2 to 3 years of age, children
begin to expand their buildings to two dimensions, extending their construction in creating
a floor or wall. At 3 to 4 years of age, children regularly build vertical and horizontal compo-
nents within a building, even making simple arches.
At 4 or 5 years of age, children are developing internal representations of the spatial
arrangements before and during building, which changes their constructions. At 4 years, they
can use multiple spatial relations, extending in multiple directions and with multiple points of
contact among components, showing flexibility in how they generate and integrate parts of the
structure. For example, they produce more complex constructions, such as an enclosure, “+,”
and horizontal corner as in Figure 9.2, and make arches in two dimensions.
A small number of children will build a tower with all blocks; for example, by composing the
triangular blocks to make rectangular blocks (Kamii, Miyakawa, & Kato, 2004). A 4-year-old built
the tower in Figure 9.3, intuitively classifying the blocks by stability and ordering them by that
categorization, using the more stable blocks at the bottom, combining triangular prisms in the
layer near the top, and another triangular prism at the top, that is, in a position that leads to
instability in the middle. By 5 years of age, their mental representations can organize substruc-
tures, allowing them to build, for example, eight arches on three levels, as in Figure 9.4.

Figure 9.1 Two-year-olds often place blocks, frequently congruent blocks, on or next to each other
 Composition and Decomposition of Shapes 225

Figure 9.2 More complex arrangements

Figure 9.3 A 4-year-old building has blocks that build a tall and stable tower

The Development of Composing and Decomposing 2D Shapes

We have created and tested a developmental progression for the composition of 2D shapes.
Briefly (see Table 9.1), children begin manipulating shapes as individuals, not really combining
them to compose a larger shape. For example, children might use a single shape for a sun,
a separate shape for a tree, and another separate shape for a person (see “Separate Shapes
Actor: Foundations” in Table 9.1). They then place shapes next to each other to form pictures,
226 Composition and Decomposition of Shapes

Figure 9.4 An arch of arches of arches (that’s hierarchical thinking!)

often touching only at vertices (corners). In free-form “make-a-picture” tasks, for example, each
shape used represents a unique role or function in the picture (e.g., one shape for one leg).
Children can fill simple outline puzzles using trial and error but do not easily use turns or flips
to do so; they cannot use motions to see shapes from different perspectives (Piece Assembler).
At the next level, children put shapes together with full sides touching to form pictures in
which several shapes play a single role but use trial and error and do not anticipate creation of
new geometric shapes (Picture Maker). An important level is attained when children develop the
ability to combine shapes to make new shapes or fill puzzles with intentionality and anticipation
(“I know what will fit”). They use angles as well as side lengths in their placing, and they use
rotation and flipping intentionally to select and place shapes (Shape Composer).
A new type of ability develops as children learn to deliberately form composite units of
shapes and to recognize and use substitution relationships (e.g., two trapezoid pattern blocks
can make a hexagon, Substitution Composer). Soon after, they can construct and operate on
composite units (units of units) intentionally. They can continue a pattern of shapes that leads
to a “good covering” (Shape Composite Repeater). Children build and apply (iterate and other-
wise operate on) units of units of units (Shape Composer—Units of Units).

The Development of Disembedding 2D Shapes

Over years, children develop in their ability to separate structures within embedded figures—that
is, finding “hidden shapes” within more complex diagrams. Some 4-year-olds could find embedded
circles or squares embedded in square structures; 5-year-olds were more likely to do so. Before
6 years of age, what children perceive is organized in a rigid manner into basic structures. That
is, they can see primary structures but not secondary structures as shown in Figure 9.5. Children
grow in the flexibility of the perceptual organizations they can create. They eventually integrate
parts and can create and use “imaginary components.” Of course, we all know that embedded
 Composition and Decomposition of Shapes 227

Figure 9.5 Primary and Secondary structures for figures. Rows 1 and 2 show contour, or line
structures (row 1 overlapping, row 2 juxtaposed) and Row 3 shows area structures

pictures can be very complex and can stump people of any age who have to build them up piece
by piece (were any secondary structures difficult for you?). The learning trajectory puts this body
of research into a developmental progression.

Experience and Education

Composition of 3D Shapes
Block building has long been a staple of high-quality early childhood education (at least in
theory). It supports children’s learning of shape and shape composition ability, to say nothing of
the general reasoning that it may help develop (The Spatial Reasoning Study Group, 2015c).
Amazingly, block building in preschool predicts math achievement in high school (Wolfgang, Stan-
nard, & Jones, 2001, although, like most research of this nature, this is “correlation, not necessar-
ily causation”). Block building also helps develop spatial skills. For example, 9-year-olds who build
a specific model out of LEGO blocks scored higher in spatial ability than those who did not com-
plete the model (Brosnan, 1998). Further, 3D shape composition is a “natural” for many exciting
projects. (McCormick & Twitchell, 2017). High-quality block play develops all the STEM domains:
Science, Technology,2 Engineering, and Mathematics (Bagiati & Evangelou, 2018; Chalufour, Hoi-
sington, Moriarty, Winokur, & Worth, 2004; Gold, 2017).
Research provides several other useful guidelines, as follows:

• Have younger children build with or alongside older preschoolers; in that context, they
develop block-building skills more rapidly.
• Provide materials, facilitative peer relationships, and time to build. Incorporate planned, sys-
tematic block building into the curriculum. Children should have open exploratory play and
228 Composition and Decomposition of Shapes

solve semi-structured and well-structured problems, with intentional teaching provided for
each. For example children build by duplicating models (of block buildings or of famous
real-world buildings, Chalufour et al., 2004) or by listening to directions to build a shape
with connecting cubes (The Spatial Reasoning Study Group, 2015c). This does not have to
be direct instruction; see below for an example.
• Understand and apply children’s developmental progressions in the levels of complexity of
block building. More effective teachers provide verbal scaffolding for the children based on
those levels (e.g., “sometimes people use a block to join …”) but avoid directly assisting chil-
dren or engaging in block building themselves.
• Understand full learning trajectories—that is, the goal, developmental progression, and matched
activities, to fully help children improve in block-building skills. Children of teachers who under-
stand all three improve more than control groups who receive an equivalent amount of block-
building experience during unstructured free-play sessions.
• Address equity. As with other types of spatial training, intentional instruction in block build-
ing may be more important for girls than boys. At the least, let’s not let boys dominate the
block center.
• Provide strong concept support, using math vocabulary (e.g., “I think the triangular block
goes in front, next to the cylinder,” see also Sæbbe & Mosvold, 2016) and gestures. This
matters especially for girls (e.g., provided by their fathers, Thomson et al., 2018c).

Structured and sequenced block-building interventions will help provide boys and girls with
equitable, beneficial opportunities to learn about the structural properties of blocks and thus
spatial skills. For example, activities can be designed to encourage spatial and math thinking
and sequenced to match developmental progressions. In one study, the first problem, based on
a story, was to build an enclosure with walls that were at least two blocks high and included an
arch (Casey et al., 2008a). This introduced the problem of bridging, which involves balanced
measurement, and estimation. The second problem was to build more complex bridges, such as
bridges with multiple arches and ramps or stairs at the end. This introduced planning and seri-
ation. The third problem was to build a complex tower with at least two floors, or stories. Chil-
dren were provided with cardboard ceilings, so they had to make the walls fit the constraints of
the cardboard’s dimensions.
Unit blocks also provide a window into the geometry of young children’s play. These blocks
allow children to explore a world where objects have predictable similarities and relationships.
Children create forms and structures that are based on math relationships. For example, chil-
dren have to struggle with length relationships in finding a roof for a building. Length and
equivalence are involved in substituting two shorter blocks for one long block. Children also
consider height, area, and volume. One of the inventors of today’s unit blocks, Caroline Pratt
(1948b), tells a story of children making enough room for a horse to fit inside a stable. The
teacher told Diana that she could have the horse when she had made a stable for it. She and
Elizabeth began to build a small construction, but the horse did not fit. Diana had made a large
stable with a low roof. After several unsuccessful attempts to get the horse in, she removed
the roof, added blocks to the walls to make the roof higher, and replaced the roof. She then
tried to put into words what she had done. “Roof too small.” The teacher gave her new words,
“high” and “low,” and she gave a new explanation to the other children.
 Composition and Decomposition of Shapes 229

Just by building with blocks, children form important ideas. These intuitive ideas can be fos-
tered by teachers, such as Diana’s, who discuss these ideas with children, giving words to their
actions. For example, children can be helped to distinguish between different quantities such as
height, area, and volume. Three preschoolers made towers and argued about whose was the
biggest. Their teacher asked them if they meant whose was tallest (gesturing) or widest, or
used the most blocks? The children were surprised to find that the tallest tower did not have
the most blocks.
In many situations, you can help children see and discuss the similarities and differences
among the blocks they use and the structures they make. You can also pose challenges that
will focus children’s actions on these ideas. At the right time, you might challenge the children
to do the following:

• Put the blocks in order by length.

• Use other blocks to make a wall as long as the longest block.
• Use 12 half-units (square) blocks to make as many differently shaped (rectangular) floors as
possible.
• Make a box that is four blocks square.

Learning Trajectory for Composition of 3D Shapes

The goals of increasing children’s ability to compose geometric shapes and think spatially from
the CCSSM were already described in Figure 7.6 (see p. ##). The learning trajectories for the
composition of 3D geometric shapes are presented in Table 9.1. This is only for the set of unit
blocks; composition of more complex and less familiar 3D shapes would follow a similar develop-
mental progression but often at later ages and with more dependence on specific educational
experiences.

Composition and Decomposition of 2D Shapes

Young children move through levels in the composition and decomposition of 2D figures. From lack
of competence in composing geometric shapes, they gain abilities to combine shapes into pic-
tures, then synthesize combinations of shapes into new shapes (composite shapes), eventually
operating on and iterating those composite shapes. Early foundations for this learning appear to
be formed in children’s experiences. Few curricula challenge children to move through these
levels. Our theoretical learning trajectory guides the selection of puzzles for children at different
levels of the trajectory. The content and effects of one program illustrate the importance of shape
and shape composition. An artist and collaborating educational researchers developed the Agam
program to develop the “visual language” of children ages 3 to 7 years (Razel & Eylon, 1986). The
activities begin by building a visual alphabet (lines, shapes, etc., at different orientations). For
example, the activities introduce horizontal lines in isolation. Then, they teach relations, such as
parallel lines. In the same way, teachers introduce circles, then concentric circles, and then
a horizontal line intersecting a circle. The curriculum also develops verbal language but only fol-
lowing a visual introduction. Combination rules involving the visual alphabet and ideas such as
large, medium, and small, generate complex figures. As words combine to make sentences, the
230 Composition and Decomposition of Shapes

Table 9.1 A Learning Trajectory for the Composition of 3D Shapes

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

(years)

0–1 Separate Blocks Actor: Foundations Spatial Learning at Home, [LT]2: Math happens all around
Either places blocks randomly or manipu- the home for infants and toddlers. Experiences encour-
lates shapes as individuals, but does not age explorations of and appropriate talk about blocks in
combine them to compose a larger shape. many forms. Manipulating all kinds of blocks (pick up soft
May pound, clap together, or use slide fabric or foam blocks, drop, repeat! or by 9 to 12 months,
blocks or single blocks to represent an pick up two, bang together) and other objects builds foun-
object, such as a house or truck. dations of fine motor and perceptual competencies from
which all subsequent learning develops. Build towers for
children and let them knock them down.
1 Stacker Shows use of the spatial relation- Stacking Numbers, [LT]2: Children make stacks of blocks
ship of “on” to stack blocks, although and compare the different ways that others make stacks.
choice of blocks may be unsystematic. In general, encourage children to build with many kinds
of blocks and other objects. Children naturally like to
stack things on top of each other, especially when adults
notice them doing so or model doing it themselves. In the
illustration, a child tries to put a block on another,
although it slides off.

1½ Line Maker Shows use of relationship of Build Roads, [LT]2: Children are prompted to solve con-
“next to” to make a (one-dimensional) struction problems using any type of block, specifically
line of blocks. build a road or other “line” constructions. That is, activities
encourage children to build lines with many kinds of
blocks. Children naturally like to organize blocks into lines,
especially when adults notice them doing so or model
doing it themselves to make something like a road for
cars, a simple enclosure, or just a “really long line of
blocks!” Accessories such as toy figures, animals, and
vehicles can enhance play.

2 Same Shape Stacker Shows use of rela- Block Stacker, [LT]2: Children stack blocks on top of each
tionship of “on” to stack congruent other. Introduce this by reading Crash! boom! A math tale
blocks, or those that show a similarly by Robie Harris (http://robieharris.com), illustrated by
helpful relationship to make stacks or Chris Chatterton, or Jack the Builder by Stuart J. Murphy.
lines. Children naturally like to stack things on top of each
other, especially when adults notice them doing so or
model doing it themselves. Here adults may comment on

(Continued )
 Composition and Decomposition of Shapes 231

Table 9.1 (Cont.)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

(years)

children making a tower of identical blocks, naming them

and noticing how high it is. Discussing that the blocks are
“all the same shape” provides more foundations for the
later-developing concept of congruence. Introduce
vocabulary such as above, under, and next to. Include
large hollow blocks as well.

2–2.17 Piece Assembler (3D) Builds vertical and Making Things with Blocks, [LT]2: Children are encour-
horizontal components within a building, aged to represent and make objects using blocks, focus-
but within a limited range, such as build- ing on filling a two-dimensional area. The goal is creative
ing a “floor” or a simple “wall.” These, construction with blocks, guided by the teacher noticing,
then, are two-dimensional structures. describing, and encouraging types of 3D composition that
are at this level (challenging, but achievable). Asking
questions (do you need a wall there? are you making
a big floor?) or even putting up pictures that illustrate
the type of construction might motivate children to try
that new way of composing 3D shapes (Chalufour et al.,
2004). Copying each other’s construction can be another
helpful approach. You may wish to remove LEGOs tem-
porarily to address STEM concepts such a shapes, stabil-
ity, and balance with blocks that do not stick together
(Chalufour et al., 2004).

3–4 Picture Maker (3D) Uses multiple spatial Making Scenes with Blocks, [LT]2: Children are prompted
relations, extending in multiple directions to solve construction problems using blocks. The goal is
and with multiple points of contact among creative construction with blocks, with the teacher
components, showing flexibility in noticing, describing, and encouraging types of 3D

(Continued )
232 Composition and Decomposition of Shapes

Table 9.1 (Cont.)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

(years)

integrating parts of the structure. Start- composition that are at this level for children (challen-
ing at 30 months, produces arches/ ging, but achievable). Asking questions or even putting
bridges, enclosures, corners, and crosses, up pictures that illustrate the type of construction might
although may use unsystematic trial and motivate children to try that new way of composing 3D
error and simple addition of pieces. shapes. For example, can they build a fence so horses
won’t run away? Discuss the blocks they will use, such as
“What block has the shape of the bottom of the house?
How about the top, the roof?”.

4–5 Shape Composer (3D) Composes shapes Building Shapes with Blocks, [LT]2: Children are prompted
with anticipation, understanding what 3D to solve construction problems using blocks. To engage
shape will be produced with a composition children, have them create a play scene first, such as
of two or more other (simple, familiar) 3D building a house or a town. Or tell a story in which the
shapes. Can produce arches (with vertical characters have a need for a construction … that they
interior space), enclosures (with internal might make! The goal of this level of thinking is to pro-
horizontal space), corners, and crosses duce arches, ramps, enclosures, crosses, and to add
systematically. Builds enclosures and depth to make 3D structures including roofs across struc-
arches several blocks high (Kersh, tures multiple blocks high. So, consider the following if
Casey, & Young, 2008). children build a simple rectangular enclosure (e.g., with
Later in this level, children add depth four walls, three blocks high): “How will they see out-
to make 3D structures, and they add side?” (Build an arch for a window.) “Is this a river? How
roofs across structures multiple blocks will they get across?” (Build a bridge over it with ramps
high (but they may have no internal or steps to get up on the bridge.) If children have not
spaces) (Casey et al., 2008a). made roofs, ask them how the people in the house can
stay dry if it rains. If they have made a barn, introduce
a tall animal that can’t fit through the doorway and ask
them how they could rebuild the barn to “let this tall
horse in.”

(Continued )
 Composition and Decomposition of Shapes 233

Table 9.1 (Cont.)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

(years)

5–6 Substitution Composer and Shape Com- Build a Bridge, [LT]2: Children look at images of bridges
posite Repeater (3D) Substitutes and then build a complex bridge using blocks.
a composite for a congruent whole. Builds Find Another Way, [LT]2: Challenge children to put
complex bridges with multiple arches, together blocks of different shapes and sizes to create
ramps, and stairs at the ends. Structures the same shape as the original block. For example, two
are 3D, often including roofs and multiple triangle blocks (triangular prisms) can make rectangle or
internal spaces. square blocks (prism). Two-unit rectangular prisms make
a longer rectangular prism. For example, ask them if
there is another way they can build the same structure
without using one of the types of blocks they have previ-
ously used (e.g., if they used up all the unit blocks, but
could use two thinner rectangular prisms or two right tri-
angular prism to fill the same space). Tell a story, such as
about construction workers who want to build the exact
same house but have run out of lumber of a specific size.
For example, if children used long, rectangular prisms,
remove that block from their building. Offer smaller
blocks that can be composed together to make the same
shape and size as the original rectangular prism. Asking
questions (Can you build another rectangular prism the
same size and shape with other blocks? How will we build
a series of arches along this whole wall?) or even putting
up pictures of actual buildings or block buildings that
illustrate that type of construct might motivate children
to try that new way of composing 3D shapes. Copying
each other’s construction can be another helpful
approach.

6–8+ Shape Composer—Units of Units (3D) Build a Tower, [LT]2: Using a problem narrative (Casey,
Makes complex towers or other struc- Paugh, & Ballard, 2002) pictures of castles (Sarama,
tures, involving multiple levels with ceil- Brenneman, Clements, Duke, & Hemmeter, 2017), or
ings (fitting the ceilings), and adult-like a field trip, challenge children to create or recreate
structures with blocks, including arches a variety of structures.
and other substructures.
234 Composition and Decomposition of Shapes

elements of the visual alphabet combine to form complex patterns and symmetric forms. The
Agam approach is structured, with instruction proceeding from passive identification to memory
to active discovery, first in simple form (e.g., looking for plastic circles hidden by the teacher),
then in tasks that require visual analysis (e.g., finding circles in picture books). Only then does the
teacher present tasks requiring reproduction of combinations from memory. The curriculum
repeats these ideas in a large number of activities featuring multiple modes of representation,
such as bodily activity, group activity, and auditory perception.
The results of using the program, especially for several consecutive years, are positive. Chil-
dren gain in geometric and spatial skills and show pronounced benefits in the areas of arith-
metic and writing readiness. Supporting these results, research in the U.S. has similar positive
results (Clements et al., 2018a). The emphasis on the learning trajectory for composition of
shape in the Building Blocks program (we borrowed heavily from the Agam program in design-
ing Building Blocks) led to strong effects in this area—equivalent to benefits often found for indi-
vidual tutoring. In a follow-up, large-scale randomized field trial with 36 classrooms, the
Building Blocks curriculum made the most substantial gains compared to both a non-treatment
and another preschool math curriculum, in shape composition (and several other topics). Espe-
cially because the other curriculum also included shape composition activities, we believe that
the greater gains provided by the Building Blocks curriculum can be attributed to its explicit
use of the sequenced activities following learning trajectories, as well as teachers’ knowledge of
trajectories. Other interventions also show the benefits of similar, sequenced shape composition
activities (Casey et al., 2008).
Working with “polyominoes” is also engaging and mathematically rich. A polyomino is a
plane geometric figure formed by joining one or more equal squares edge to edge. You may
know the game “Tetris” which involves the geometric composition of … geometrically composed
tetrominoes! (See also Tetrominoes in Table 9.2.) Trying to find all the distinct pentominoes
(five squares) and in so doing, determining if shapes are congruent or not, is a rich math activ-
ity (Shiakalli & Zacharos, 2014). It also builds early concepts in other topics, such as area (see
Chapter 11). Of course, the number of possible polyominoes increases considerably when adding
each additional square (try it!).
There are many benefits of composing and decomposing shapes. Children learn math proper-
ties of shapes, they learn to solve problems and work creatively with forms, and they learn
executive function processes. They also see the beauty in mathematics (Eberle, 2014). To maxi-
mize these benefits, help children move up the learning trajectory. Scaffold just enough to keep
them developing. Use clear vocabulary to describe shapes and geometric motions (Clements
et al., 2018a) and use gestures a lot in doing so (Elia, 2018c).

Learning Trajectories for the Composition and Decomposition

of Geometric Shapes (2D)
The goals of increasing children’s ability to compose geometric shapes and think spatially in the
CCSSM were already described in Figure 7.6 (see p. ##, see especially Gr. 1, and Gr. 2; as well
as the CCSSM standards K.G.6; 1.G, 2–3; 2.G, 2–3; 3.G.2). Because the learning trajectories for
the composition and decomposition of 2D geometric shapes are closely connected, we present
them together in Table 9.2.
 Composition and Decomposition of Shapes 235

Table 9.2 Learning Trajectory for the Composition and Decomposition of 2D Shapes

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

0–3 Separate Shapes Actor: Foundations Infants and Block Play, [LT]2: Children play with physical pat-
toddlers manipulate shapes as individuals, but usu- tern blocks and other shape sets, often making
ally do not combine them to compose a larger simple pictures.
shape. Recall that the Mystery Pictures series (see
p. ##) also sets the foundation for this learning tra-
Make a picture: jectory and would be the first task for the following
level. Children only match or identify shapes, but
the result of their work is a picture made up of
other shapes—a demonstration of composition.

Toddlers may decompose, usually by trial and

error.
Given only a hexagon formed by two trapezoids,
can break it apart to make this simple picture
by random placement:

In simple puzzles for this level, each shape is

not only outlined, but often touches other shapes
only at a vertex (corner), making the matching as
easy as possible.
4 Piece Assembler Makes pictures in which each Pattern Block Puzzles (Piece Assembler), [LT]2:
shape represents a unique role (e.g., one shape for Children match pattern blocks to the outlines to fill
each body part) and shapes touch. Fills simple puz- in puzzles.
zles in which all shapes are outlined, often using
trial and error.
Make a picture:

Then, the puzzles move to those that combine

shapes by matching their sides, but each shape still
mainly serves a separate role.

(Continued )
236 Composition and Decomposition of Shapes

Table 9.2 (Cont.)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

Shape Puzzles, [LT]2: There is a series of online

games that provide these puzzles as well; see
Shape Puzzles: Piece Assembler and Shape Puzzles:
Piece Assembler 2.

Shape Puzzles: Free Explore, [LT]2 is also

engaging and important—Students make their own
puzzles using pattern block shapes. Then they click
on the “play” button (the right arrow) and it
becomes a puzzle that a friend or family member
can try to solve! This is creative math play that all
children should be doing.

5 Picture Maker Puts several shapes together to Pattern Block Puzzles (Picture Maker), [LT]2: Chil-
make one part of a picture (e.g., two shapes for dren solve pattern block (or tangram) puzzles,
one arm). Uses trial and error and does not antici- truly combining shapes to make each part of the
pate creation of new geometric shape. Chooses puzzle. Start with those where several shapes are
shapes using “general shape” or side length. Fills combined to make one “part,” but internal lines are
“easy” “Pattern Block Puzzles” that suggest the still available. Use fractional language in discussing
placement of each shape (note that in the example children’s solutions (e.g., “You used two rhombuses
on the right the child is trying to put a square in to make that leg, half here [pointing] and half
the puzzle where its right angles will not fit). here!”).

(Continued )
 Composition and Decomposition of Shapes 237

Table 9.2 (Cont.)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

Make a picture:

Later puzzles in the sequence require combin-

ing shapes to fill one or more regions, without the
guidance of internal line segments.

Shape Puzzles (Picture Maker), [LT]2: Follows

the same sequence online.

Shape Puzzles: Free Explore, [LT]2 (see above)

is beneficial at every level.
Put the Halves Back Together, [LT]2: See p. ##
and Figure 7.6. This level uses the a1 and a2
arrangements of halves.
See it, Build It, Check It, [LT]2: Children are pre-
sented with an image composed of 2D shapes cre-
ated with pattern blocks. They are then invited to
recreate the image on their own. See also Duplicate
the Design, [LT]2.
Snapshots (Shapes): Give children pattern
blocks. Secretly make a simple house with a square
(foundation) and triangle (roof). Tell children to
look carefully and take a snapshot in their minds as
you show your house for 2 seconds, and then cover
it immediately after with a dark cloth. Have chil-
dren build what they saw with pattern blocks. Show
your house for 2 more seconds so children can
check and change their pictures, if necessary.

(Continued )
238 Composition and Decomposition of Shapes

Table 9.2 (Cont.)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

During the final reveal, have children describe what

they saw and how they built their own. Repeat with
other secret pictures, making them more complex
as children’s ability allows.
Simple Decomposer Decomposes (“takes apart” How Did I Make This?, [LT]2: Children decompose
into smaller shapes) simple shapes that have obvi- a shape such as a pattern block (regular) hexagon
ous clues as to their decomposition. into smaller shapes after seeing a model.
Given a hexagon, can break it apart to make
this picture:

Shape Composer Composes shapes with anticipa- Pattern Block Puzzles (Shape Composer) and
tion (“I know what will fit!”). Chooses shapes using online Shape Puzzles: Shape Composer, [LT]2: Chil-
angles as well as side lengths. Rotation and flipping dren solve shape puzzles that have no internal
are used intentionally to select and place shapes. In guidelines and larger areas; therefore, children
the “Pattern Block Puzzles” below, all angles are must compose shapes accurately. Use fractional
correct, and patterning is evident. language in discussing children’s solutions (e.g.,
“You used a trapezoid to make half the body, and
Make a picture: the half is three triangles, so one-sixth [pointing at
each], one-sixth, and one-sixth!”).

Shape Puzzles: Free Explore, [LT]2 (see above)

is beneficial at every level.
Snapshots (Shapes): As above, but use several
copies of the same shape so children have to com-
pose mentally. Also, try simple outlines and see if
they can compose the same shape with pattern
blocks. Tangrams can provide additional challenges.
Can You Build This? and Building with the Mind’s
Eye, [LT]2: Build by duplicating models or by listen-
ing to directions to build a shape with connecting
cubes (The Spatial Reasoning Study Group, 2015c).
Magic Keys, [LT]2: Children compose six differ-
ent arrangements of five squares (pentominoes,
see p. ##), creating “magic keys” to rescue
a prince. See also Tetrominoes, [LT]2 and Pentomi-
noes: Create and Solve, in which children create
pentominoes puzzles for other children to solve.
Put the Halves Back Together, [LT]2: See p. ##
of Chapter 7, including Figure 7.6. This level uses
the a3 and a4 arrangements of halves.

(Continued )
 Composition and Decomposition of Shapes 239

Table 9.2 (Cont.)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

6 Substitution Composer Makes new shapes out of Can You Find Another Way?, [LT]2: Children build
smaller shapes and uses trial and error to substi- pictures in different ways, substituting a new com-
tute groups of shapes for other shapes to create bination of shapes for an initial arrangement. Use
new shapes in different ways. fractional language in discussing children’s solu-
tions (e.g., “You used two trapezoids to make this
Make a picture with intentional substitutions: hexagon, each is one half! Here the rhombuses
are … what? [thirds] And the triangles? [Sixths]”).

Pattern Block Puzzles and Tangram Puzzles:

New Ways, [LT]2 have children substitute shapes to
fill an outline in different ways. It also challenges
them to estimate how many of a certain shape it
would take to cover another shape. After making
predictions, they check their answers.
Shape Puzzles: Substitution Composer, [LT]2 is
a fun version of this online series. After solving the
puzzle the first time, the children’s solution is
shown in the bottom left-hand corner … and the
real task is to solve the same puzzle in different
ways.

(Continued )
240 Composition and Decomposition of Shapes

Table 9.2 (Cont.)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

Shape Decomposer (with help) Decomposes Super Shape! (Decomposer with Help), [LT]2: Start-
shapes using imagery that is suggested and sup- ing with one large shape, students are challenged
ported by the task or environment. to find a solution to the puzzle by cutting the shape
into smaller shapes and recomposing the pieces
Given regular hexagons, can break them apart within the puzzle.
to make these shapes: Super Shape 2 (and several additional levels)
requires multiple decompositions in this Building
Blocks software.

7 Shape Composite Repeater Constructs and dupli- What Can You Make?, [LT]2: Children roll a die to
cates units of units (shapes made from other determine what shapes they have to combine.
shapes) intentionally; understands each as being Then they are asked to repeat the structure they
both multiple small shapes and one larger shape. have composed. See also Make a Pair, [LT]2.
May continue a pattern of shapes that leads to
tiling.
Children use a shape composition repeatedly in
constructing a design or picture.

Paper Quilts, [LT]2: Children repeat the design

of their quilt squares on the Paper Quilt sheet nine
times to make their unique designed quilt.
Shape Decomposer with Imagery Decomposes Super Shape! (Imagery), [LT]2: Starting with one
shapes flexibly using independently generated large shape, students are challenged to find
imagery. That is, decomposition is intentionally a solution to the puzzle by cutting the shape into
specified by the child. smaller shapes and recomposing the pieces within
the puzzle. Ask children to describe their work
To break apart a square, the child may say that using fractional language. The picture shows
a cut needs to be made from angle to angle to a Building Blocks software version.
make two right triangles.
Given hexagons, can break one or more
apart to make shapes such as these:

(Continued )
 Composition and Decomposition of Shapes 241

Table 9.2 (Cont.)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

Geometry Snapshots 7: Students identify an

image that matches one of four complex configur-
ations from memory (imagery).

8 Shape Composer—Units of Units Builds and Tiling Tetrominoes (Shape Composer Units of
applies units of units (shapes made from other Units), [LT]2: The child must repeatedly build and
shapes). For example, in constructing spatial pat- repeat superordinate units. That is, as in the illus-
terns, extends patterning activity to create a tiling tration here, the child repeatedly built “Ts” out of
with a new unit shape—a unit of unit shapes that four squares, used four Ts to build squares, and
they recognize and consciously construct. used squares to tile a rectangle.
Builds a large structure by making a combin-
ation of pattern blocks over and over and then
fitting them together.

Shape Decomposer with Units of Units Decom- Super Shape! (Units of Units), [LT]2: Starting with
poses shapes flexibly using independently gener- one large shape, students are challenged to find
ated imagery and planned decompositions of a solution to the puzzle by cutting the shape into
shapes that themselves are decompositions. smaller shapes and recomposing the pieces within
the puzzle. For units of units, challenge students to
begin tiling by cutting small pieces of similar size

(Continued )
242 Composition and Decomposition of Shapes

Table 9.2 (Cont.)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

Given only squares, can break them apart—and and fitting them together in designs that solve the
then break the resulting shapes apart again—to puzzle.
make shapes such as these: Super Shape 7: Children only get exactly the
number of “super shapes” they need to complete
the puzzle. Again, multiple applications of the scis-
sors tool are required. A Building Blocks software
version is show below.

Geometry Snapshots 8: Students identify

a configuration of cubes that matches one of four
complex configurations from memory (imagery).

Disembedding 2D Shapes
More research is needed before suggesting a solid recommendation as to how much time to
spend and how to approach the disembedding of 2D shapes. The motivating nature of disem-
bedding activities (cf. “hidden pictures” activities in children’s magazines) may indicate, how-
ever, that such activities may be interesting to children as extra work, such as might be added
to learning centers or taken home.
The primary task we present in the learning trajectory is straightforward—to find figures in
increasingly complex geometric figures, including embedded figures. It may be wise to have chil-
dren embed figures themselves before finding already embedded figures.

Learning Trajectories for Embedded Geometric Figures (2D)

Table 9.3 presents a tentative learning trajectory for disembedding geometric shapes.
 Composition and Decomposition of Shapes 243

Table 9.3 A Learning Trajectory for the Disembedding of Geometric Shapes

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

3 Intuitive Disembedder: Foundations Can See Chapters 7 and 8.

remember and reproduce only one or Finding Embedded Pictures, [LT]2: Reading with young
a small collection of non-overlapping (iso- children, in addition to supporting language development,
lated) shapes. also supports visual aspects of math thinking. When looking
at picture books that are of interest to children, have con-
versations about objects, people, animals, etc. that can be
found in the pictures.
4 Simple Disembedder Identifies frame of Hidden Pictures, [LT]2: Children identify a simple primary
complex figure. Finds some shapes in structure that is part of a complex shape picture.
arrangements in which figures overlap, but
not in those in which figures are embedded
within others.

5–6 Shapes-in-Shapes Disembedder Identifies Activities ask children to find a part of a shape or geometric
shapes embedded within other shapes, structure that is inside of or overlapping with other shapes.
such as concentric circles and/or a circle Tracing the goal shape (the child, if possible, the adult if
in a square. Identifies primary structures in necessary) can be helpful.
complex figures.

(Continued )
244 Composition and Decomposition of Shapes

Table 9.3 (Cont.)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

7 Secondary Structure Disembedder Identi- Discover the Shape, [LT]2: Children attempt to immediately
fies embedded figures even when they do find a primary structure inside a complex figure.
not coincide with any primary structures
of the complex figure.

8 Complete Disembedder Successfully iden- Finding Funny Figures, [LT]2: Activities such as this ask chil-
tifies all varieties of complex dren to find a geometric structure that may be a part of
arrangements. two or more different shapes, all of which are inside of
a part of several overlapping shapes. Tracing the goal
shape (the child, if possible, the adult if necessary) can be
helpful.

Final Words
The ability to describe, use, and visualize the effects of composing, decomposing, embedding,
and disembedding shapes is an important math competence. It is relevant to geometry but also
related to children’s ability to compose and decompose numbers. Further, it underlies know-
ledge and skill with art, architecture, and the sciences. Thus, it helps people solve a wide variety
of problems, from geometric proofs to the design of a floor space. Of course, such designs also
require geometric measurement, the topic of the next two chapters.
 Composition and Decomposition of Shapes 245

Notes
1 This deflates the argument, “I don’t want my children to have to learn math, I want them to play with
blocks!” does it not?
2 Although commonly associated with computers, technology is at many levels, from the lower (wheels,
hammers … blocks) to digital technologies.
10 Geometric Measurement
Length

First graders were studying math through measurement, rather than counting discrete
objects. They described and represented relationships among and between quantities, such
as comparing two sticks and symbolizing the lengths as “A < B.” This enabled them to
reason about relationships. For example, after seeing the following statements recorded on
the board—if V > M, then M ≠ V, V ≠ M, and M < V—one first grader noted, “If it’s an inequality,
then you can write four statements. If it’s equal, you can only write two.”
(Slovin, 2007)

Do you think this (true) episode is of a gifted class? If not, what does it suggest about young
children’s math thinking? Do you think the context—thinking and talking about the length of
sticks—contributes to these first graders’ remarkable math insights?

The Importance, Challenges, and Potentials of Measurement

Learning
Measurement is an important real-world area of math. In particular, we use lengths consistently
in our everyday lives. Further, as the introductory story shows, measurement experiences also
help develop other areas of math, including reasoning and logic. Also, by its very nature, meas-
urement connects the two most critical domains of early math, geometry and number.
Unfortunately, typical measurement instruction in the U.S. does not accomplish these goals.
Many children are taught to measure in a rote fashion. In international comparisons, U.S. students’
performance in measurement is very low. By understanding measurement learning trajectories,
we can do better for children.
And make no mistake: Our society doesn’t promote much knowledge of measurement outside
of classrooms either. People routinely walk into rug stores and choose a type of carpet. Asked,
“What size for this carpet,” they respond, “It’s for our living room.” “What measurements?” “Just
the standard living room.” There is no single standard living room. It’s no surprise, then, that
once they determine the linear measures (e.g., 20 feet by 26 feet) they still cannot calculate the
price, which is by area, square feet in this case. We can do better. We must do better.
How early can we start? As in the domain of discrete number (as in Chapters 2 and 3),
research shows that even infants are sensitive to continuous quantities.1 At 3 years of age, chil-
dren know that if they have some clay and then are given more clay, they have more than they
did before. However, they cannot reliably make judgments about which of two amounts of clay
 Geometric Measurement 247

is more. For example, if one of two equal amounts is rolled into a long “snake,” they will say
that it has “more clay.”
Children also do not reliably differentiate between continuous and discrete quantity.1 For
example, they may try to share equally by dividing the number of cookie pieces rather than the
amount of the cookies. Or, to give someone with fewer pieces of cookie “more,” they may
simply break one of that person’s pieces into two smaller pieces!
Despite such challenges, young children can be provided with appropriate measurement
experiences. They discuss amounts in their everyday play. They are ready to learn to measure,
connect number to the quantity. In this chapter we discuss length. In the next chapter, we dis-
cuss other continuous quantities, such as area, volume, and angle size.

Length Measurement: Mathematical Definition and Concepts

Measurement can be defined as the process of assigning a number to a magnitude of some
attribute—a continuous quantity—of an object relative to a unit. Length is a characteristic of an
object found by quantifying how far it is between the endpoints of the object. “Distance” is often
used similarly to quantify how far it is between any two points in space. The discussion of the
number line (see Chapter 4) is critical here because this defines the number line used to measure
length. Measuring length or distance consists of two aspects, then: identifying a unit of measure
and subdividing (mentally and physically) the object by that unit, placing that unit end to end (iter-
ating) alongside the object. Subdividing and unit iteration are complex mental accomplishments
that are too often ignored in traditional measurement curriculum materials and instruction.
Therefore, many researchers go beyond the physical act of measuring to investigate children’s
understandings of measuring as covering space (one-dimensional for length; see Chapter 11 for
two and three dimensions) and quantifying that covering.
Let’s lay out the concepts that children must learn (adapted from Clements & Stephan,
2004; Stephan & Clements, 2003).
Understanding of the attribute of length includes understanding that lengths span fixed distances.
Conservation of length includes understanding that as a rigid object is moved, its length does
not change.
Transitivity is the understanding that, if the length of a white strip is greater than the length of
a gray strip, and the length of the gray strip is greater than that of the black strip, then the white
strip is longer than the black strip (even if you could not compare those two—Figure 10.1). A child
with this understanding can use a third object to compare the lengths of two other objects.

Figure 10.1 An illustration of the transitivity of length

248 Geometric Measurement

Equal partitioning is the mental activity of slicing up an object into the same-sized units. This
idea is not obvious to children. It involves mentally seeing the object as something that can be
partitioned (or “cut up”) into smaller lengths before even physically measuring. Some children
who do not yet have this competence, for instance, may understand “5” as a single mark on
a ruler, rather than as a length that is cut into five equal-sized units.

Units and unit iteration

In some ways the “other side of the coin” of equal partitioning, unit iteration is the ability to
think of the length of a small unit such as a block as part of the length of the object being
measured and count how many times you can place the length of the smaller block repeatedly,
without gaps or overlaps, along the length of the larger object. This yields an equal partitioning
of the larger object. Young children do not always see the need for equal partitioning and thus
the use of identical units.

Accumulation of distance and additivity

“Accumulation of distance” is the understanding that, as you iterate a unit, the counting word
represents the length covered by all units. Additivity is the idea that lengths can be put
together (composed, including measuring around a perimeter) and taken apart.

Origin
“Origin” is the notion that any point on a ratio scale can be used as the origin (and that when avail-
able, we usually use “0”). Young children who lack this understanding may begin a measurement
with the “1” instead of zero on a ruler or see a pencil that is laid between “2” and “10” and state
that it is 10 (instead of 8) inches long.

Relation between number and measurement

Children must understand that the items they are counting to measure are continuous units.
They make measurement judgments based upon counting ideas, often based on experiences
counting discrete objects. For example, Inhelder and Piaget showed children two rows of
matches. The matches in each row were of different lengths, but there was a different
number of matches in each so that the rows were the same length (see Figure 10.2). Although,
from the adult perspective, the lengths of the rows were the same, many children argued
that the row with six matches was longer because it had more matches. They counted dis-
crete quantities, but in measurement of continuous quantities, the size of the unit must be
considered. Children must learn that the larger the unit, the fewer number of units in a given
measure, that is, the inverse relation between the size of the unit and the number of those
units.

Figure 10.2 An experiment to see if children focus more on discrete or continuous units
 Geometric Measurement 249

The Development of Length Measurement Concepts

Young children also learn to seriate objects—putting them in order—from early in life. Even chil-
dren as young as 6 months of age can make simple judgments of length (Huttenlocher, Levine, &
Ratliff, 2011). From 18 months of age, they know vocabulary such as “big,” “small,” and “more.”
By 2 or 3 years of age, they can compare numbers and number pairs on the basis of a common
ordering relation. At 3 years, children can make paired comparisons, and 4-year-olds can make
small series, but most do not seriate all objects. At about 5 years, children can put six lengths in
order by length. Most 5-year-olds also can insert elements into a series.
However, even many primary-grade children do not yet explicitly conserve length or use
transitive reasoning. As was the case with number, however, such logical ideas as conservation
and transitive reasoning appear to be important for understanding some ideas, but their lack
does not prohibit learning of beginning ideas. For example, students who conserve are more
likely to understand the idea we just discussed, the inverse relation between the size of the unit
and the number of those units. However, with high-quality education experience, even some
preschoolers understand the inverse relation, so conservation may not be a rigid prerequisite,
but rather a “supportive” idea. In a similar vein, children who conserve are more likely to under-
stand the need to use equal length units when measuring. All in all, though, children can learn
many ideas about comparing continuous quantities and measuring before they conserve. And
early, high-quality measurement experiences will help develop those logical ideas.
Of course, this development is challenging and occurs over many years. The learning trajec-
tory at the end of this chapter describes the levels of thinking that develop (Sarama, Clements,
Barrett, Van Dine, & McDonel, 2011). Here we only briefly describe some common misconcep-
tions and difficulties children have (Barrett, Clements, & Sarama, 2017a; Sarama, Clements, Bar-
rett, Cullen, & Hudyma, 2019).

• To determine which of two objects is “longer,” children may compare the objects at one
end only.
• Children may leave gaps between units or overlap units when measuring.
• As old as 5 or 6 years, children may write numerals haphazardly to make a “ruler,” paying
little attention to the size of the spaces in between.
• Children may begin measuring at “1” rather than “0” or even measure from the wrong end
of the ruler.
• Children may mistakenly think of marks on a ruler or heel-to-toe steps not as covering
space but just a “point” that is counted.
• Some children believe it is necessary to have many copies of a unit to “fill up” the length of
the object and will not iterate one copy of a unit (laying it down, marking where it ends,
moving it, and so on).
• Some children will “fill up” the length of the object with a unit such as a ruler but will not
extend the unit past the endpoint of the object they are measuring. In so doing, they
always leave out any fractional part of the unit.
• Many children do not understand that units must be of equal size (e.g., measuring one
object with paper clips of different sizes).
• Similarly, children may combine units of different size (e.g., 3 feet and 2 inches is “5 long”).
250 Geometric Measurement

Experience and Education

Young children naturally encounter and discuss quantities in their play (Ginsburg, Inoue, & Seo,
1999). Simply using labels such as “Daddy/Mommy/Baby” and “big/little/tiny” helps children as
young as 2 or 3 years of age to become aware of size and to develop seriation abilities. However,
teachers must be aware that even concepts such as “large” and “small” are not necessarily famil-
iar to young children and easy to understand. Without a concrete reference, these terms can be
difficult for toddlers (Björklund, 2012). A large object is only large compared to a smaller object,
which has to be a shared object of attention for the children and the teacher (Björklund, 2018).
As an example, recall the interaction between teacher Annette and 2-year-old Albin (pp. 211–212).
Let’s re-join them as Annette guides the discussion to a comparison of sizes as well as shapes (Björk-
lund, 2012). Annette inquired what Albin was calling the shapes.

Albin: Small.
Annette: Do you mean a small barrel?
Albin: Yes. (Places the block in an upright position.) It can stand up.
Annette: Can we compare them, Albin? Look, what is the difference? (Takes the big yellow
barrel from the cup and puts it standing beside the black barrel at the table.)
Albin: (Looks closely at the two barrels, takes the smaller one, and places it on top of
the bigger one. The blocks have holes going right through them.)
Annette: Yes, has it [the smaller block] room inside it [the bigger block]?
Albin: (Tries to put the smaller block inside the bigger one from both ends but with no
success.) No. (Places the big yellow block to stand again and the black one on top
of it.)
Annette: Can you find any more big barrels?
Albin: (Searches in the box and picks up another small black barrel. Holds the two black
ones next to each other.)
Annette: Are they exactly the same?
Albin: Yes, they are.
Annette: Can you find a big barrel? (Albin hesitates.) It can be in another colour as well.
Albin: (Rapidly picks out an orange barrel.) This one.
Annette: Good, yes.
(p. 224)

Again, comparisons are critical for attending to and learning about math concepts, and this
is especially true of size (continuous quantity).
Traditionally, the goal of measurement instruction has been to help children learn the skills
necessary to use a conventional ruler. In contrast, research and recent curriculum projects sug-
gest that, in addition to such skills, developing the conceptual foundation for such skills is crit-
ical to develop reliable procedures, concepts (understanding), and problem solving. Further,
these foundations can be learned starting in preschool (e.g., Zacharos & Kassara, 2012) (Sarama
et al., 2019). So, the following are research-based suggestions that are then formalized in the
length learning trajectory in Table 10.2.
 Geometric Measurement 251

Many suggest an instructional sequence in which children compare lengths, measure with
nonstandard units to see the need for standardization, incorporate the use of manipulative
standard units, and measure with a ruler. For example, children might pace from one point to
another. As they discuss their strategies, ideas concerning iterating units and using equal-
length units emerge.
However, several studies suggest that early experience measuring with several different-
sized (nonstandard) units may be the wrong thing to do. Until they understand measurement
and the role of the unit, using different arbitrary units often confuses children. If they do not
understand measurement well, or the role of equal-length units, switching units frequently—even
if the intent is to show the need for standard units—may send the wrong message—that any
combination of any lengths-as-“units” is as good as any other. In contrast, measuring with
standard units—even on rulers—is less demanding and is often more interesting and meaningful
for young children. Consistent use of these units may develop a model and a context for chil-
dren’s construction of the idea of and need for equal-length units, as well as the wider notion of
what measurement is all about. Later, after they understand the idea of unit and the need for
units to be equal in size (otherwise, they are not units!), different units can be used to empha-
size the need for standard equal-length units (centimeters or inches).
We suggest a sequence of instruction based on recent research. With the youngest children,
listen carefully to see how they are interpreting and using language (e.g., “length” as distance
between endpoints or as “one end sticking out”). Also use language to distinguish counting-
based terms, such as “a toy” or “two trucks,” and measurement-based terms, such as “some
sand” or “longer.”
Once they understand these concepts, give children a variety of experiences comparing the
length of objects. Once they can line up endpoints, children might use cut pieces of string to
find all the objects in the classroom the same length as, shorter than, or longer than the height
of their seat. Ideas of transitivity might be discussed.
Next, engage children in experiences that allow them to connect number to length. Provide
children with both conventional rulers and manipulative units using standard units of length,
such as edges of centimeter or inch cubes, specifically labeled “length units” and “centimeters/
inches.” As they explore with these tools, discuss the ideas of length-unit iteration (not leaving
space between successive length units, for example), correct alignment (with a ruler), and the
zero-point concept. Having children draw, cut out, and use their own rulers can be used to high-
light these ideas.
In all activities, focus on the meaning that the numerals on the ruler have for children, such
as enumerating lengths rather than discrete numbers. In other words, classroom discussions
should focus on “What are you counting?” with the answer in “length units.” Given that count-
ing discrete items often correctly teaches children that the size of the objects does not matter
(i.e., for counting discrete objects), plan experiences and reflections on the nature of properties
of the length unit in various discrete counting and measurement contexts. Comparing results of
measuring the same object with manipulatives and with rulers and using manipulative length
units to make their own rulers helps children connect their experiences and ideas.
Children progress from counting paces to constructing a unit of units, such as a “footstrip”
consisting of traces of their feet glued to a roll of adding-machine tape. Children may then con-
front the idea of expressing their result in different-sized units (e.g., 15 paces or 3 footstrips
252 Geometric Measurement

each of which has 5 paces). They also discuss how to deal with leftover space, to count it as
a whole unit or as part of a unit. Measuring with units of units helps children think about length
as a composition of these units. Furthermore, it provides the basis for constructing rulers with
subdivisions (and the relationship between feet and yards or centimeters and meters).
In second or third grade, teachers might introduce the need for standard length units and
the relation between the size and number of length units. The use of multiple nonstandard
length units could be helpful at this point.
Instruction focusing on children’s interpretations of their measuring activity can enable chil-
dren to use flexible starting points on a ruler to indicate measures successfully. Without such
attention, children often just read off whatever ruler number aligns with the end of the object
into the intermediate grades.
Children must eventually learn to subdivide length units. Making one’s own ruler and marking
halves and other partitions of the unit may be helpful in this regard. Children could fold a unit
into halves, mark the fold as a half, and then continue to do so, to build fourths and eighths.
Computer experiences also can help children link number and geometry in measurement
activities and build measurement sense. Turtle geometry provides both motivation and meaning
for many length measurement activities. This illustrates an important general guideline: Chil-
dren should use measurement as a means for achieving a goal not only as an end in itself. Note
that even young children can abstract and generalize measurement ideas working with com-
puters if the interface is appropriate and activities well planned. In giving the turtle directions
such as forward 10 steps, right turn 90°, forward 5 steps, they learn both length and turn and
angle concepts. In Figure 10.3, children have to “finish the picture” by figuring out the missing
measures (more challenging examples are shown in the learning trajectory at the end of the
chapter).
Whatever the specific instructional approach taken, research has four general implications.
First, teach measurement as more than a simple skill—measurement is a complex combination of
concepts and skills that develops over years. Understand the foundational concepts of measure-
ment so that you will be better able to interpret children’s understanding and ask questions
that will lead them to construct these ideas. For example, when children count as they measure,
focus children’s conversations on what they are counting—not “points” but equal-sized units of
length. That is, if a child iterates a unit five times, the “five” represents five units of length. For
some students “five” signifies the hash mark next to the numeral five instead of the amount of
space covered by five units. In this way, the marks on a ruler “mask” the intended conceptual
understanding involved in measurement. Children need to understand what they are measuring
and why a unit on a ruler is numbered at its end, as well as the full suite of principles. Many
children see no problem mixing units (e.g., using both paper clips and pen tops) or using differ-
ent-sized units (e.g., small and large paper clips) as long as they covered the entire length of

Figure 10.3 “Missing measure” problem with the Logo turtle

 Geometric Measurement 253

the object in some way (Clements, Battista, & Sarama, 1998; Lehrer, 2003). Both research with
children and interviews with teachers support the claims that (a) the principles of measurement
are difficult for children, (b) they require more attention in school than they are usually given,
(c) time needs first to be spent in informal measurement, where use of measurement principles
is evident, and (d) transition from informal to formal measurement needs much more time and
care, with instruction in formal measure always returning to basic principles (cf. Irwin, Vistro-
Yu, & Ell, 2004).
Eventually, children need to create an abstract unit of length (Clements, Battista, Sarama,
Swaminathan, & McMillen, 1997; Steffe, 1991). This is not a static image, but rather an interiori-
zation of the process of moving (visually or physically) along an object, segmenting it, and
counting the segments. When consecutive units are considered a unitary object, the children
have constructed a “conceptual ruler” that can be projected onto unsegmented objects (Steffe,
1991). In addition, the general U.S. math curriculum does not adequately address the notion of
unit, and measurement is a fruitful domain in which to turn attention away from separate
objects and toward the unit we are counting (cf. Sophian, 2002).
Second, use initial informal activities to establish the attribute of length and develop con-
cepts such as “longer,” “shorter,” and “equal in length” and strategies such as direct compari-
son. Third, encourage children to solve real measurement problems, and, in so doing, to build
and iterate units, as well as units of units.
Fourth, help children closely connect the use of manipulative units and rulers. When con-
ducted in this way, measurement tools and procedures become tools for math and tools for
thinking about math (Clements, 1999c; Miller, 1984b, 1989). Well before first grade, children
have begun the journey toward that end.
One last note: Explore children’s learning of measurement with others. Professional learning
communities or lesson study groups can be an exciting and effective way to enhance your
teaching and reveal often surprising competencies of young children.

Learning Trajectory for Length Measurement

The importance of length measurement is shown by their frequent appearance in the CCSSM,
as shown in Table 10.1.

Table 10.1 Goals for length measurement from the Common Core State Standards—Mathematics (CCSSM).

Measurement and Data [K.MD In CCSSM]

Describe and Compare Measurable Attributes.

1. Describe measurable attributes of objects, such as length or weight. Describe several measurable attri-
butes of a single object.
2. Directly compare two objects with a measurable attribute in common, to see which object has “more
of” or “less of” the attribute and describe the difference. For example, directly compare the heights of
two children and describe one child as taller/shorter.

(Continued )
254 Geometric Measurement

Table 10.1 (Cont.)

Measurement and Data [1.MD In CCSSM]

Measure Lengths Indirectly and by Iterating Length Units.

1. Order three objects by length; compare the lengths of two objects indirectly by using a third object.
2. Express the length of an object as a whole number of length units by laying multiple copies of
a shorter object (the length unit) end to end; understand that the length measurement of an object is
the number of same-size length units that span it with no gaps or overlaps. Limit to contexts where
the object being measured is spanned by a whole number of length units with no gaps or overlaps

Measurement and Data [2.MD In CCSSM]

Measure and Estimate Lengths in Standard Units.

1. Measure the length of an object by selecting and using appropriate tools such as rulers, yardsticks,
meter sticks, and measuring tapes.
2. Measure the length of an object twice, using length units of different lengths for the two measure-
ments; describe how the two measurements relate to the size of the unit chosen.
3. Estimate lengths using units of inches, feet, centimeters, and meters.
4. Measure to determine how much longer one object is than another, expressing the length difference in
terms of a standard length unit.

Relate Addition and Subtraction to Length.

1. Use addition and subtraction within 100 to solve word problems involving lengths that are given in the
same units, e.g., by using drawings (such as drawings of rulers) and equations with a symbol for the
unknown number to represent the problem.
2. Represent whole numbers as lengths from 0 on a number line diagram with equally spaced points cor-
responding to the numbers 0, 1, 2, …, and represent whole-number sums and differences within 100 on
a number line diagram.

Accepting those goals, Table 10.2 provides the two additional components of the learning
trajectory, the developmental progression and the instructional tasks, most of which have
been studied extensively and shown to be effective (Barrett et al., 2017a; Sarama et al.,
2019).

Table 10.2 A Learning Trajectory for Length Measurement

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

2 Length Senser: Foundations Makes simple com- Everyday Length, [LT]2: Children intuitively compare,
parisons of length intuitively (similar to what we order, and build with many types of materials.
saw in Subitizing) as young as 6 months of age. Encourage manipulation and exploration of their
However, may not recognize length as a distinct sizes.
attribute (separate from general size, such as Measurement talk, [LT]2: Suggestions for talking
“small” and “big”). about children’s activities at this and the next level.
“This is long. Everything straight is long. If it’s
not straight, it can’t be long.”

3 Length Quantity Recognizer Identifies length/ Building with Different Lengths, [LT]2: Working with
distance as an attribute. May understand length blocks not only inspires children to build and con-
as an absolute descriptor (e.g., all adults are tall), struct, but also to compare different features such as
but not as a comparative (e.g., one person is size and length. Engaging children in a building activ-
taller than another). ity allows them to explore proportions using different

(Continued )
 Geometric Measurement 255

Table 10.2 (Cont.)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

“I’m tall, see?” blocks such as cubes and rectangles to compare

height or length. This is a guided play activity.
May compare non-corresponding parts of shape Talking at Length, [LT]2: Teachers listen for and
in determining side length. extend conversations about things that are “long,”
“tall,” “high,” and so forth. Encourage and discuss
lengths whenever it is relevant, moving from global
undifferentiated terms such as “big” to “tall” and
“short” and “shorter” and “taller” or “wider” and
especially “longer” and “length,” and so forth. (Note:
Many teachers work hard at “length” vs. “width” vs.
“height”—but more important is recognizing that
these are all length!)
4 Length Direct Comparer Physically aligns two Everyday Length Comparisons: In many everyday
objects to determine which is longer or if they situations, children compare heights and other
are the same length. Uses terms: long, longer, lengths directly (who has the tallest tower, the long-
longest. est clay snake, etc.).
As Long As My Arm, [LT]2: Children cut a ribbon
Stands two sticks up next to each other on the length of their arms and find things in the class-
a table and says, “This one’s bigger.” room that are the same length.
Building Blocks & Measures, [LT]2: Block building
can include rich experiences with length: Comparing
the length of blocks, composing two blocks—see Com-
posing Shape (3D)—to be the same length as other
blocks, measuring the height of one’s building, and so
forth. See the full description and the delightful video
on [LT]2.
Compare Lengths: Teachers encourage children
to compare lengths throughout the day, such as the
lengths of block towers or roads, heights of furniture,
and so forth.
Encouraging Comparison for Construction Activ-
ities, [LT]2: Children build items such as a house or
a tower, and then they are asked to compare what
they built to a tangible and visible item.
Measuring Our Shoes, [LT]2: Children compare the
length of their shoes to determine if they are the
same length in a narrative setting.
Line Up By Height: Children order themselves
(with teacher’s assistance) by height in groups of five
during transitions.
4–5 Length Indirect Comparer Compares the length Will the Table Fit?, [LT]2: Children solve everyday
of two objects by representing them with a third tasks that require indirect comparison, such as
object. Uses terms: long, longer, longest, short, whether a doorway is wide enough for a table to go
shorter, shortest. through. Children often cover the objects to be com-
pared, so that indirect comparison is actually not
Compares length of two objects with a piece possible. Give them a task with objects such as felt
of string. strips so that, if they cover them with the third
When asked to measure, may assign a length by object, such as a (wider) strip of paper (in which
guessing or moving along a length while counting case, they will have to visually guess), they can be
(without equal-length units). encouraged to then directly compare them. If they
are not correct, ask them how they could have used
Moves finger along a line segment, saying, the paper to better compare. Model laying it next to
“10, 20, 30, 31, 32.” the objects if necessary.
The Helpful Elf (Length Indirect Comparer), [LT]2:
May be able to measure with a ruler, but often Children (“elves” in this story setting) use an inter-
lacks understanding or skill (e.g., ignores starting mediate object to measure a “crack” in the castle
point). wall so they can get the exact length of “supertape”

(Continued )
256 Geometric Measurement

Table 10.2 (Cont.)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

Measures two objects with a ruler to check if needed to repair the crack. For other narrative set-
they are the same length but does not accur- tings, see Ice Cream for Clifford and The Shorter
ately set the “zero point” for one of the items. Road to School (Length Indirect Comparer), [LT]2.
4–5 Serial Orderer to 5 (Length) Orders lengths, Build Stairs (Length to 5), [LT]2: Children make
marked in one to five units. Also, can compare “stairs” with connecting cubes and try to count the
unmarked lengths that are clearly different using steps. They then mix them up and put them back in
broad categories (“big” and “small”) and so can order.
order three to five such objects but only by trial What’s the Missing Step?: Children see stairs
and error. With an increase in working memory, made from connecting cubes (physical manipulatives
begins to build a mental image of the final order- made into “steps” as in the previous activity). They
ing in which the lengths increase “bit by bit” with cover their eyes and the teacher hides one step.
each successive length the smallest increase. They uncover their eyes and identify the missing
This leads to more accurate and somewhat more step, telling how they knew.
efficient ordering. (This level develops in parallel Build Stairs 3: Children should connect their know-
with “End-to-End Length Measurer.”) ledge of “number” to “length,” as when they have to
find the missing step in the stairs with connecting
Given towers of cubes, puts in order: 1 to 5. cubes or computer software (shown here).

Line Up by Height, [LT]2: Children order up to five

lengths, first with connecting cubes (countable) and
then with continuous lengths.

4–5 End-to-End Length Measurer Lays units end to Length Riddles, [LT]2: Give children connecting cubes
end. May not recognize the need for equal-length and objects that are the length of three to six of
units or be able to measure if there are fewer these cubes, such as a book, crayon, pencil. Give chil-
units than needed. The ability to apply resulting dren a clue, such as, “You write with me and I am
measures to comparison situations develops seven cubes long. What am I?” Repeat with the other
later in this level. May use rulers with substan- items.
tial guidance. (This develops in parallel with
“Serial Orderer to 5 (Length)”.)
Lays nine 1-inch cubes in a line beside a book
to measure how long it is.

Measure the Wooly Worm and many other activ-

ities, [LT]2: In this and all activities, measure with
physical or drawn units and focus on long, thin units,
such as toothpicks cut to 1-inch sections. Explicit
emphasis should be given to the linear nature of the
unit. That is, children should learn that, when meas-
uring with, say, centimeter cubes, it is the length of

(Continued )
 Geometric Measurement 257

Table 10.2 (Cont.)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

one edge that is the linear unit—not the area of a face

or volume of the cube.
Workin’ on the Railroad (End to End), [LT]2: In this
motivating activity, children must get the train from
the station to the city center by filling in the missing
track pieces. They work together to measure using
multiple units and find the correct pieces to fix the
tracks.
Actual Size, [LT]2: After reading some of the book
by Steve Jenkins, children measure animal body parts
and measure to see how long the entire animal is.
Mr. MixUp’s Measuring Mess, [LT]2 can be used at
several levels. For example, have the puppet
(Mr. MixUp) leave gaps between units used to meas-
ure an object, or overlap the units, or not align units
with the starting and ending point (i.e., ends of the
object).
Measuring with rulers can begin. Making pictures
of rulers and discussing key aspects of measurement
that are or are not represented in these pictures can
help children understand and apply these concepts.
Children should also be asked to make a ruler using
a particular unit, such as an inch or centimeter cube.
They should learn to carefully mark each unit length
and then add the correct numeral. Again, explicit
emphasis should be given to the linear nature of the
unit.
5–6 Serial Orderer to 6+ (Length) Orders lengths, Build Stairs (Length to 6+), [LT]2: Children make
marked in one to six units. Understands at least “stairs” with connecting cubes and count the
intuitively that any set of objects of different steps.
lengths can be placed into a series that always Order By Length 6+, [LT]2: Children order from
increases (or decreases) in length, so spontan- six to ten lengths, first with connecting cubes (count-
eously seriates with few errors by selecting the able) and then with continuous length that are not so
shortest (or longest) object, then the next short- “marked.” They then can do the following.
est (the one with the “smallest difference”), and What’s the Missing Step?: Children see stairs
so forth. made from connecting cubes (physical manipulatives
made into “steps”). They cover their eyes and the
Given towers of cubes, puts in order: 1 to 6. teacher hides one step. They uncover their eyes and
identify the missing step, telling how they knew.
7 Length Unit Relater and Repeater Measures by Building Down to Iteration, [LT]2: Children learn iter-
repeating (iterating) a single unit and under- ation as the teacher carefully takes away the number
stands the need for equal-length unit. of physical units (at the start—more than needed)
used to measure until they iterate just one accurately
Repeatedly lays down a single inch unit to and appreciating the need for precision and
accurately measure an object. a placeholder when iterating.
Relates the size and number of units (inverse Building Up to Iteration, [LT]2: In this approach,
relationship). children try iteration with just one unit and the
teacher adds to the number of physical units used to
“If you measure with centimeters instead of measure as necessary.
inches, you’ll need more of them, because Treasure Box, [LT]2: Students check the size of
each one is smaller.” a Treasure Box as it is carried home along a ruler-
path, to see that the length of an object is the same
Can add two lengths to obtain the length of no matter where it is on a ruler.
a whole. Length Riddles, [LT]2: Repeat this activity (see
above), but provide fewer cues (e.g., only the length)

(Continued )
258 Geometric Measurement

Table 10.2 (Cont.)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

“This is 5 long and this one is 3 long, so they and provide only one unit per child so they have to
are 8 long together.” iterate (repeatedly “lay down”) a single unit to
measure.
Often can use rulers with minimal guidance in Workin’ on the Railroad (Length Unit Relater and
straightforward situations. Repeater), [LT]2: In this motivating activity, children
Measures a book’s length accurately with must get the train from the station to the city center
a ruler. by filling in the missing track pieces. They work
together to measure with a single unit and find the
correct pieces to fix the tracks.
Mr. MixUp’s Measuring Mess, [LT]2 can be used at
several levels. For example, have the puppet
(Mr. MixUp) leave large gaps between iterations of
the unit or fail to align the unit at the starting point
(this is important with ruler use as well).
Treats for Twins (Length Unit Relater and
Repeater), [LT]2: Children use one or two manipula-
tives that are 1-inch long to measure a strip of fruit
treat so they can get another strip that is exactly the
same length at the “treat shop.” They iterate units
by “leapfrogging” two or using only one and marking
the end of each unit. See also The Helpful Elf (Length
Unit Relater and Repeater), [LT]2. They may also use
a self-made ruler—see The “Accidental” Ruler and
Make a Ruler, both in [LT]2.
Draw a Measure: Children may be able to draw
a line to a given length before they measure objects
accurately (Nührenbörger, 2001). Use line-drawing
activities to emphasize how you start at the 0 (zero
point), and discuss that to measure objects, you have
to align the object to that point. Similarly, explicitly
discuss what the intervals and the numbers repre-
sent, connecting these to end-to-end length measur-
ing with physical units.
More or Less?, [LT]2: A puppet, “Mr. Tricky,” tries
to convince children that if they use a larger unit
they will need a larger number of them. The children
discuss and figure out it is just the opposite, building
the length unit relater concept of the inverse
relation.
Pirate Ropes, [LT]2: Children measure the length
of different length ropes (units 2 and 4 times the
length of the shortest unit) dropping from the side of
a boat to the ocean floor in a picture, and chart and
discuss the results.
Spaceship Blueprints, [LT]2: Children confront
measurement with different units and discuss how
many of each unit will fill a linear space. They make
an explicit statement that the longer the unit, the
fewer are needed.
8 Length Measurer Measures, knowing need for Broken Ruler, [LT]2: Children use a broken ruler (the
identical units, relationship between different origin, or “zero point” is missing) to measure foam
units, partitions of unit, zero point on rulers, and strips of different lengths.
accumulation of distance. Considers the length of Wobbly Roads, [LT]2: Children use different units
a bent path as the sum of its parts (not the dis- of measure, such as the edge of a cube, to determine
tance between the endpoints). Begins to the length of a non-linear road. See also The Taxi
estimate. Ride, [LT]2.

(Continued )
 Geometric Measurement 259

Table 10.2 (Cont.)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

“I used a meter stick three times, then there Measure the Room, [LT]2: To measure the dimen-
was a little left over. So, I lined it up from 0 sions of the classroom (or other measurement tasks)
and found 14 centimeters. So, it’s 3 meters, 14 children create units of units, such as a “footstrip”
centimeters in all.” consisting of traces of their feet glued to a roll of
adding-machine tape. They measure in different-
sized units (e.g., 15 paces or 3 footstrips each of
which has 5 paces) and accurately relate these units.
They also discuss how to deal with leftover space;
that is, to count it as a whole unit or as part of a unit.
8 Conceptual Ruler Measurer Possesses an Yard Stick Visualization, [LT]2: Children learn explicit
“internal” measurement tool. Mentally moves strategies for estimating lengths, including develop-
along an object, segmenting it and counting the ing benchmarks for units (e.g., an inch-long piece of
segments. Operates arithmetically on measures gum) and composite units (e.g., a 6-inch dollar bill),
(“connected lengths”). Subdivides a unit at least and mentally iterating those units.
into halves. Estimates with accuracy. Missing Measures: Students have to figure out the
measures of figures using given measures. This is an
“I imagine one meter stick after another excellent activity to conduct on the computer using
along the edge of the room. That’s how Logo’s turtle graphics (as shown here).
I estimated the room’s length is 9 meters.”

Imagine All the Pieces: In a variety of everyday

activities, children find a need for more precision,
requiring subdivision of the unit. In learning to sub-
divide units, children may fold a unit into halves,
mark the fold as a half, and then continue to do so, to
build fourths and eighths.

Final Words
This chapter addressed the learning and teaching of length measurement. Chapter 11 addresses
other geometric attributes we need to measure, including area, volume, and angle.

Note
1 Compared to discrete quantities, which can be counted by whole numbers (exactly “4 dogs are here”),
continuous quantities are those where there is no limit in how small the parts are into which it can be
divided (“together the dogs weigh about 117.3 kg”). Scientific measurement with tools can give us only an
approximate measure—to the nearest kilogram or pound, or the nearest 1/100th of a kg, but never an
exact number.
11 Geometric Measurement1
Area, Volume, and Angle

I had a student who basically understood the difference between area and perimeter.
I drew this rectangle on a grid. To figure the area, she counted down like this (Figure
11.1a), then she counted across like this (Figure 11.1b). Then she multiplied 3 times 4 and
got 12. So, I asked her what the perimeter was. She said it was “the squares around the
outside.” She counted like this (Figure 11.1c). She understood the perimeter, she just
counted wrong. She was always off by 4.

Do you agree with this teacher? Does the student understand area and perimeter and distin-
guish between them? What would you have asked the student to find out for sure?

Area Measurement
Area is an amount of two-dimensional surface that is contained within a boundary. Area is complex,
and children develop area concepts over time. Sensitivity to area is present in the first year of life,
as is sensitivity to number. However, infants’ approximate number sense is more accurate than
their corresponding sense of area. So, even infants find area challenging!
Area understandings do not develop well in typical U.S. instruction and have not for a long time.
Young children show little explicit understanding of measurement. Primary graders, asked how much
space a square would cover, used a ruler (once) to measure. Even with manipulatives, many meas-
ured a length of a side of a square, then moved the ruler to a parallel position slightly toward the

Figure 11.1 A student works with a perimeter problem

 Geometric Measurement 261

opposite side, and, repeating this process, added the values of the lengths (Lehrer et al., 1998b). Limi-
tations in knowledge are also shown by preservice teachers, as the opening story illustrates.
To learn area measurement, children must develop a notion of what area is, as well as the under-
standing that decomposing and rearranging shapes does not affect their area. Later, children can
develop the ability to build an understanding of two-dimensional arrays and then to interpret two
lengths as measures of the dimensions of those arrays. Without such understandings and abilities,
older students often learn a rule, such as multiplying two lengths, without understanding area con-
cepts. Although area measurement is typically emphasized in the elementary grades, the literature
suggests that there are some less formal aspects of area measurement that can be introduced in
earlier years.

The Mathematics of Area Measurement

Understanding of area measurement involves learning and coordinating many ideas. Many of
these ideas, such as transitivity and relation between number and measurement, are similar to
those involved in length measurement. Other foundational concepts follow.
Understanding the attribute of area involves giving a quantitative meaning to the amount of 2D
space, or surface. Children’s first awareness of area can be seen in informal observations, such as
when a child asks for more pieces of colored paper to cover their table. One way to intentionally
assess children’s understanding of area as an attribute is through comparison tasks. Preschoolers
may compare the areas of two shapes by comparing only the length of their sides. With age or
good experience, they move to valid strategies, such as one shape on top of the other.
To measure, a unit must be established. This brings us to the following foundational concepts.

Equal Partitioning
Equal partitioning is the mental act of “cutting” two-dimensional space into parts of equal area
(usually congruent). Teachers often assume that “multiplying length times width” is the goal for
understanding area. However, young children often cannot partition and conserve area, and use
counting as a basis for comparing. For example, when it was determined that one share of
pieces of paper cookie was too little, preschoolers cut one of that share’s pieces into two and
handed them both back, apparently believing that the share was now “more” (Miller, 1984b).
These children may not understand any foundational concept for area; the point here is that,
eventually, children must learn the concept of partitioning surfaces into equal units of area.

Units and Unit Iteration

As with length measurement, children often cover space, but do not initially do so without gaps
or overlapping and tend to keep all manipulatives inside the surface, refusing to extend units
beyond a boundary, even when subdivisions of the unit are necessary (e.g., using square units
to measure a circle’s area). They prefer units that physically resemble the region they are
covering; for example, choosing bricks to cover a rectangular region and beans to cover an out-
line of their hands. They also mix shapes of different shape (and areas), such as rectangular
and triangular, to cover the same region and accept a measure of “7” even if the seven cover-
ing shapes were of different sizes. These concepts have to be developed before they can use
262 Geometric Measurement

iteration of equal units to measure area with understanding. Once these problems have been
solved, students need to structure two-dimensional space into an organized array of units to
achieve multiplicative thinking in determining area.

Accumulation and Additivity

Accumulation and additivity of area operate similarly as they do in length. Primary-grade stu-
dents can learn that shapes can be decomposed and composed into regions of the same area.

Structuring Space
Children need to structure an array to understand area as truly two-dimensional. That is, they
need to understand how a surface can be tiled with squares that line up in rows and columns.
Although this is taken as “obvious” by most adults, most primary-grade students have not yet
built up this understanding. For example, consider the levels of thinking portrayed by different
children as they attempted to complete a drawing of an array of squares, given one column and
row, as illustrated in Figure 11.2 (discussed in detail in the companion book). At the lowest level
of thinking, children see shapes inside the rectangle, but the entire space is not covered. Only
at the later levels do all the squares align vertically and horizontally, as the students learn to
compose 2D shapes in terms of rows and columns of squares.

Conservation
Similar to linear measurement, conservation of area is an important idea. Students have diffi-
culty accepting that, when they cut a given region and rearrange its parts to form another
shape, the area remains the same. A common response to Figure 11.3 is that the figure on the
right takes up more space, either because it looks larger or it has six parts.

Experience and Education

Typical U.S. instruction does not build area concepts and skills well. One group of children were
followed for several years (Lehrer et al., 1998b). They improved in space-filling and additive

Figure 11.2 Levels of thinking for spatial structuring of 2D space

 Geometric Measurement 263

Figure 11.3 Which shape takes up more space?

(Barrett et al., 2017a; The Spatial Reasoning Study Group, 2015c)

composition by Grade 4, but not in other competencies, such as distinguishing area and length,
using identical area-units, and finding measures of irregular shapes.
In comparison, research-based activities taught second graders a wide range of area con-
cepts and skills (Lehrer et al., 1998). The teacher presented rectangles (1 × 12, 2 × 6, 4 × 3) and
asked which covers the most space. After disagreeing initially, the students transformed the
shapes by folding and matching and came to agreement that these rectangles covered the
same amount of space. Folding the 4 by 3 rectangle along each dimension led to the recogni-
tion that the rectangle—and, ultimately, all three—could be decomposed into 12 squares (inten-
tionally, these were the same as the unit squares in previous quilting activities). Thus, children
moved from decomposition to measurement using area-units.
Next, the teacher asked students to compare the areas of “handprints,” intending children to
measure with squares in a counterintuitive context. Children tried superimposition first and
then dismissed that strategy. Beans were used as the area-unit but were rejected as having
inadequate space-filling properties (they “left cracks”). The teacher introduced grid paper. The
children initially resisted using this tool, probably because they wanted units whose shape was
more consistent with the shape of the hands. Eventually, however, the grid paper was adopted
by the children. They created a notional system in which fractions of a unit were color-coded
for the same denomination (e.g., 1/3 and 2/3 were the same color, and then could be combined
into a single unit easily). Thus, they learned about space filling, the irrelevance of the resem-
blance of the unit shape and the object to be measured, notation, and non-integer measures.
The final task was to compare the area of zoo cages, given shapes (some rectangular, other
composites) and their dimensions, but no internal demarcations (e.g., no grid paper). Children
learned to build a multiplicative understanding of area. These children displayed substantial
learning of all aspects of area measurement. Starting with approximately the same knowledge
of measurement in second grade as the longitudinal children (Lehrer et al., 1998b), they sur-
passed, by the end of second grade, the performance of the longitudinal children, even when
the latter were in their fourth grade year.
Thus, many more children could learn more about area, and learn formulas meaningfully, than
presently do. Children should learn initial area concepts such as these, and also learn to structure
arrays, laying the foundation for learning all area concepts and, eventually, learn to understand and
perform accurate area measurement. As another approach, children could compare regions directly
to see which covers more surface. Such enjoyable activities as paper folding, or origami, encourage
the more sophisticated strategy of superposition—placing one shape on top of the other.
264 Geometric Measurement

In meaningful contexts, have children explore and discuss the consequences of folding or
rearranging pieces to establish that one region, cut and re-assembled, covers the same space (con-
servation of area). For example, for the oft-confused regions in Figure 11.3, children might compose
the pieces on the left to make the figure on the right (using Shape Composition, Chapter 9). They
might also use spatial visualization (Chapter 7), imaging that they move the triangular region in the
bottom row of the left figure up into the space at the top of the figure. Importantly, all activities in
the Shape Composition (Chapter 9) can be used to support children in understanding that different
structures or arrangements of regions can have the same area. For example, in the polyominoes
activities, children build arrangements of squares that appear very different, but all have the same
area. Discussions of this can be quite fruitful (Bruce, Flynn, & Bennett, 2015).
Then challenge children to tile a region with a 2D unit of choice and, in the process, discuss
issues of leftover spaces, overlapping units, and precision. Guide discussion of these ideas to
lead children to mentally partition a region into subregions that can be counted. Counting equal
area-units will move the discussion to area measurement itself. Help children realize that there
are to be no gaps or overlapping and that the entire region should be covered. Returning to the
problem in Figure 11.3, children might count triangular units in both or consider the right tri-
angular regions in the figure on the left to be half-units.
Ensure children learn how to structure arrays. One study showed that helping children see
and draw clear organizations of rectangular regions in rows and columns was most effective in
developing their concepts of spatial structuring and area as in Figure 11.2 (Clements et al.,
2018a). Playing with structured materials such as unit blocks, pattern blocks, and tiles can lay
the groundwork for this understanding. Building on these informal experiences, children can
learn to understand arrays and area explicitly in the primary grades.
In summary, the too-frequent practice of simple counting of units to find area (achievable by
preschoolers) leading directly to teaching formulas is a recipe for disaster for many children
(Lehrer, 2003). A more successful approach is building upon young children’s initial spatial intu-
itions and appreciating the need for children to construct the idea of measurement units
(including development of a measurement sense for standard units; for example, finding
common objects in the environment that have a unit measure); experience covering quantities
with appropriate measurement units and counting those units; and spatially structure the object
they are to measure (e.g., linking counting by groups to the structure of rectangular arrays;
building two-dimensional concepts), thus to build a firm foundation for formulas.
The long developmental process usually only begins in the years before first grade. However,
we should also appreciate the importance of these early conceptualizations. For example, 3-
and 4-year-olds can intuitively compare areas in some contexts.

Learning Trajectory for Area Measurement

The goals for area and volume are not well established for the early years, but some experi-
ences, especially basic concepts of covering and spatial structuring, are probably important. For
example, the CCSSM says, “Through building, drawing, and analyzing two-and three-dimensional
shapes, students develop a foundation for understanding area, volume, congruence, similarity,
and symmetry in later grades” (p. 9). Table 11.1 provides the two additional components of the
learning trajectory, the developmental progression, and the instructional tasks.
 Geometric Measurement 265

Table 11.1 A Learning Trajectory for Area Measurement (modified based on new research from the Children’s
Measurement Project; levels from the companion book are in parentheses)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

0–3 Area Senser: Foundations Even children in their Finger Paint the Area, [LT]2: Children cover sur-
first year are sensitive to area. However, they may faces with paint and learn vocabulary for specific
not explicitly recognize area as an attribute (separ- dimensions. Such explorations build action-based
ate from general size, such as “small” and “big”) foundation for understanding area. In many con-
for some time. If asked to fill in a rectangle, pre- texts, children can intuitively compare, order, and
schoolers may just draw approximations of circles build with many types of materials, and increas-
(Mulligan, Prescott, Mitchelmore, & Outhred, ingly learn vocabulary for covering and amount of
2005). Uses side matching strategies in comparing 2D space.
areas (Silverman, York, & Zuidema, 1984).
Draws mostly-closed shapes and lines with no
indication of covering the specific region.

4 Area Quantity Recognizer Perceives the amount Turtle Cage, [LT]2: Children figure out which cage
of two-dimensional space and can make intuitive is bigger for Timmy the Turtle by comparing cages
comparisons. However, when asked to compare, of different shapes and sizes. In other contexts,
may compare lengths more than areas because children might determine which piece of paper will
lengths are salient and familiar to them (e.g., com- let them paint the biggest picture.
pare one side of one piece of paper to the side of
another) or make estimates based on a “length
plus (not times) width” intuition. However, may
compare areas correctly if the task suggestions
superposition (putting one on top of the other).
Asked to partition a space into squares or copy an
image of a rectangle partitioned into an array
(rows and columns), may simply draw squares (usu-
ally!) inside the rectangle or other types of shapes
or short paths on or around the rectangle.
Asked which rectangular “candy” is the “same
amount” as a bar 4 cm by 5 cm, one child
chooses the 4 by 8 by matching the sides of the
same length. Another child chooses the 2 by 7,
intuitively summing the side lengths.
Measures area with ruler, measuring a length,
then moving the ruler and measuring that
length again, apparently treating length as a 2D
space-filling attribute (Lehrer et al., 1998b).
Given square tiles and asked how many fit in a 4
by 5 area, child guesses 15.
A child places one sheet of paper over the other
and says, “This one.”

4–5 Physical Coverer and Counter Prompted to meas- Three Little Pigs, [LT]2: Children determine how
ure, attempts to cover a rectangular space with many tiles are needed to cover a rectangular
physical tiles. However, doesn’t organize or struc- region (a floor of the pigs’ houses) that has a grid
ture the 2D space without considerable perceptual of unit squares. To complement this, look for
support, such as a grid that outlines each individual opportunities for children to cover a rectangular
unit. In drawing (or imagining and pointing to count region with two-dimensional units of their choosing

(Continued )
266 Geometric Measurement

Table 11.1 (Cont.)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

squares as units of area), represents only certain and, in the process, discuss issues of leftover
aspects of that structure, such as approximately spaces, overlapping units, and precision. Discus-
rectangular shapes next to one another. Makes sions of these ideas lead students to mentally parti-
comparison areas based on simple, direct compari- tion a region into subregions that can be counted.
sons (e.g., a child places one sheet of paper over Is One Area the Largest?, [LT]2: Give children
another piece of paper to select the sheet that three rectangles (e.g., 1 × 12, 2 × 6, 4 × 3) and
covers more space). asked which covers the most space. Guide them to
transform the shapes by folding and matching and
Covers a region with physical tiles and counts
ultimately transforming them into 12 one-unit
them by removing them one by one. squares.
Draws within the region in an attempt to cover
the region.
May fill only next to existing guides (e.g., sides
of region).

May attempt to fill region but leave gaps and

not align drawn shapes (or only align in one
dimension).

5 Complete Coverer and Counter Draws a complete Little Pigs’ Brick House, [LT]2: Using tiles, children
covering of a specific region without gaps or over- place squares on a rectangle with a partial grid to
laps and in approximations of rows. When provided figure out how many squares cover the rectangular
with more than the total number of physical tiles region (i.e., the area) for each wall of the pigs’ brick
needed, can build a region of specified area (e.g., houses.
build a rectangle with an area of 12 from a pile of Draw Little Pigs’ Wall, [LT]2: Challenge children
20 tiles). to draw a wall from Little Pigs’ Brick House showing
the bricks. Guide them to use the drawing strategy
Draws a complete covering, but with some of using one line to represent the sides of two rows
errors of alignment. Counts around the border, or columns. Discuss how to best represent a tiling,
then unsystematically in the interiors, counting how there must be no gaps.
some twice and skipping others.

Area Unit Relater and Repeater Counts individual Rug Tiles, [LT]2: Children determine how many
units, often trying to use the structure of rows. To squares fit in rectangular regions such as

(Continued )
 Geometric Measurement 267

Table 11.1 (Cont.)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

cover a region with physical units, repeats (iter- a classroom rug by repeating, or iterating,
ates) an individual unit. Draws a complete covering a physical unit. They are guided to discuss, learn,
based on an intuitive notion of rows and columns, and practice systematic counting strategies for
making equal-sized units, but often draws them enumerating arrays. At the end, they compare the
one at a time. That is, draws individual, mainly areas of two differently shaped rugs.
equal-sized units that are lined up but may not see Floor Tiles, [LT]2: The teacher poses a problem:
groups of units making up individual rows or col- “Here is a model of the floor we have to tile. We
umns. Relates the size and number of units to would have to pay $1 for each of the smaller tiles
cover a region, recognizing that differently sized and $2 for each of the larger tiles. Which is the
units will result in different measures and that the better deal? Make a prediction.” In figuring this
larger the unit, the fewer will be needed. Compares out, children relate the size of an area unit to the
areas by accurately counting units in each and number of units needed to measure a given rect-
comparing the resulting measures. angular region.
Draws as above. Also, counts correctly, aided by
counting one row at a time and, often, by per-
ceptual labeling.
For example, asked to compare shapes, states
that they take up the same amount of space
“because they both have 4.”

6 Initial Composite Structurer Identifies a square Measure Areas, [LT]2: Children measure areas, with
unit as both a unit and a component of a larger unit teacher guidance to use the structure of a row or
of units (a row, column, or group) and uses those column. For example, they are asked how many in
structures in counting or drawing. However, needs a row (5—use a number that can easily be skip
figural support to structure the space themselves counted). The teacher sweeps their hand across
(this may include physical motions of some of the the row, then sweeps across the next row and
tiles or drawing some collections of units rather repeats the question.
than from using the dimensions). At this level, usu- Fill It In, [LT]2: Children fill in missing squares.
ally does not coordinate the width and height and Once one or more rows are complete, the teacher
in measuring, may not use the dimensions of the uses gestures and language such as “bringing
rectangle to constrain the unit size. Makes reason- down” a row to focus on iterating rows and the
able estimates of areas. number of units in them. Children learn that the
Draws and counts some, but not all, rows as units must be aligned in an array with the same
rows. May make several rows and then revert to number of units in each row by representing their
making individual squares but aligns them in col- actions of fitting successive squares into the rect-
umns. Does not coordinate the width and height. In angle. Apart from the squares along the edges of
measurement contexts, does not necessarily use the rectangle, each additional square must match
the dimensions of the rectangle to constrain the two of its sides to sides of squares already drawn.
unit size. A child who uses a ruler to draw lines across the
rectangle has surely become aware of the align-
ment of the squares but may still be unaware of
the congruence of the rows, so discussion and
checking may be important.

(Continued )
268 Geometric Measurement

Table 11.1 (Cont.)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

Areas of Nonrectangular Regions, [LT]2: Chil-

dren use squared paper to measure areas to
reinforce the use of the unit square, as well as non-
integer values.
7 Area Row and Column Structurer Decomposes Creating Grids, [LT]2: To progress, children need to
and recomposes partial units to make whole units. move from local to global spatial structuring,
For example, draws rows as rows making parallel coordinating their ideas and actions so as to see
horizontal lines and so forth. Begins conserving squares as part of rows and columns. In this activ-
area and reasons about additive composition of ity, children are encouraged to “fill in” open
areas (e.g., how regions that look different can regions by mentally constructing a row, setting up
have the same area measure) and recognizes the a one-to-one correspondence with the indicated
need for space filling in most contexts. positions, and then repeating that row to fill the
rectangular region.
Draws and counts rows as rows, drawing with
parallel lines. Counts the number of squares by
iterating the number in each row, either using
physical objects or an estimate for the number
of times to iterate. Those who count by ones
usually do so with a systematic spatial strategy
(e.g., by row).
If the task is to measure an unmarked rectangu-
lar region, measures one dimension to deter-
mine the size of the iterated squares and
eventually measures both, to determine the
number of rows needed in drawing. May not Children learn that the length of a line specifies the
need to complete the drawing to determine the number of unit lengths that will fit along it, as when
area by counting (most younger children) or given rectangles with no markings. Discuss that,
computation (repeated addition or provided you put the zero mark against one end of
multiplication). the line, the number you read off the other end
gives the number of units that would fit along the
line.
Conserving Area and Shape Composition, [LT]2:
This is not a single activity, but a reminder that all
activities in the Shape Composition (Chapter 9)
support children in understanding that different
arrangements can have the same area. For
example, see Magic Keys, Tetrominoes, Pentomi-
noes: Create and Solve, [LT]2.
8 Array Structurer With linear measures or other Bricklayer, [LT]2: Children estimate how large an
similar indications of the two dimensions, multipli- area is based on a partially completed grid. Then
catively iterates rows or columns to determine the they check their estimates and discuss their strat-
area. Does not need to draw in the array to do so. egies. How did they know how many rows and col-
Has an abstract understanding of the rectangular umns there were? How did they calculate the
area formula. Understands and justifies that differ- number? Did they use multiplication or skip count-
ently shaped regions can have the same areas. ing? Ideally, they would use multiplication to calcu-
Compares regions with transitive reasoning (e.g., late the area and not have to draw in the entire
A is greater than B, B is greater than C, so I know triad, as they would be certain of their reasoning.
A is greater than C). Later, give children two rectangles (later, shapes
made from several rectangles) and ask them how
Drawings are not necessary. In multiple con- much more space is in one than the other.
texts, children can compute the area from the
length and width of rectangles and explain how
that multiplication creates a measure of area.
 Geometric Measurement 269

Volume
Volume introduces even more complexity. First, the third dimension presents a significant chal-
lenge to students’ spatial structuring, but the very nature of fluid materials that are measured
with volume presents another complexity. This leads to two ways to physically measure volume,
illustrated by “packing” a space such as a 3D array with cubic units and “filling” a 3D space
with iterations of a fluid unit that takes the shape of the container. Filling is easier for children,
about the same difficulty as measuring length. At first this might seem surprising, but we can
see why, especially in the situation of filling a cylindrical jar in which the (linear) height corres-
ponds with the volume.
On the other hand, “packing” volume is more difficult than length and area but also leads to
more sophisticated understandings and to formulas for volume. Preschoolers may learn that
fewer large objects will fit in a container than smaller objects. However, to understand packing
volume, they have to understand spatial structuring in three dimensions. For example, under-
standing the spatial structure of one “layer” of a cube building is similar to understanding the
spatial structure of the area of a rectangle. With many layers, the situation is complex, espe-
cially as some objects in a 3D array are “inside” and therefore hidden from view. Many younger
students count only the faces of the cubes, often resulting in counting some cubes, such as
those at the corners, multiple times and not counting cubes in the interior. Only a fifth of third
graders in one study understood arrays of cubes as consisting of rows and columns in each of
several layers.

Experience and Education

As with length and area, how students represent volume influences how they think of structuring
volume. For example, compared to only a fifth of students without focused work on spatial structur-
ing, all third graders with a wide range of experiences and representations of volume successfully
structured space as a 3D array (Lehrer, Strom, & Confrey, 2002). Most even developed the concep-
tion of volume as the product of the area (i.e., length times width) and the height. One third grader,
for example, used squared grid paper to estimate the area of the base of a cylinder, then found the
volume by multiplying this estimate by the height of the cylinder “to draw it [the area of the base]
through how tall it is.” This indicates that a developmental progression for spatial structuring,
including packing volume, could reasonably be far more progressive than some cross-sectional
studies of students in typical U.S. instructional sequences would indicate.
Experiences with volume can start early, such as containers filled with balls (for unpacking,
but also for filling!) or almost any container that can be filled and emptied. Sand and water
tables, filled with non-breakable containers of different shapes and sizes, provide physical
experiences and good conversation starters. Filling boxes with cubes (ideally boxes that “fit”
the cubes well) and discussing how many fit in the bottom (layer) is motivating and interesting
to children.

Learning Trajectory for Volume Measurement

Table 11.2 provides the two additional components of the learning trajectory, the developmental
progression and the instructional tasks.
270 Geometric Measurement

Table 11.2 A Learning Trajectory for Volume Measurement (modified based on new research from the Chil-
dren’s Measurement Project; levels from the companion book are in parentheses)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

0–2 Volume Senser: Foundations Sensitive to volume Water Table (Volume Senser), [LT]2: Water tables
even in the first year; however, they may not for are a great way to introduce measurement con-
some time explicitly recognize volume as an attri- cepts and use math vocabulary. As you play, point
bute (separate from general size, such as “small” out math attributes like size and shape.
and “big”). Fill and Spill (Volume Senser), [LT]2: Toddlers
fill a shape sorter full of shapes, then dump it all
A toddler shows delight in filling up a pail with out! Repeat!
sand, dumping it out and saying “Big hill!”

1–3 Volume Quantity Recognizer Identifies capacity Water Volume Play, [LT]2: Fill tables with water or
or volume as attribute. Builds with blocks, associat- sand, but also with non-breakable containers of dif-
ing more blocks with terms like “big” and fewer ferent shapes and sizes. Listen for and extend con-
blocks with terms like “small.” versations about things that hold a lot (objects,
sand, water).
Says, “This box holds a lot of blocks!” Will I Fit? Box Play, [LT]2: Children develop
a sense of space by crawling in and out of boxes of
various sizes. Caregivers label and question to sup-
port engagement in learning about space.
3–5 Volume Filler Can compare two containers by In Water Buckets, [LT]2: Children compare how
pouring one into the other (although can be con- much sand or water about eight containers will
fused at “which holds more” at first). Fills hold. Ask children to show you which holds more
a container using another (smaller container) and and how they knew. Eventually, ask which holds
counts the number needed to completely fill the the most. Ask children to show you which of two
larger container (but may not use accurately filled containers holds more when they use a third con-
scoops and may not focus on quantifying the total tainer to fill each of the others. Discuss how they
volume or capacity). knew.
In packing situations, places cubes into
a rectangular box to fill it. Eventually packs entire
box with cubes in an organized way. Compares
objects by physically or mentally aligning; refers to
at least two dimensions of objects. May be able to
compare two containers using a third container
and transitive reasoning.
Pours one container into another to see which
holds more.
Pours one container into two others, concluding
that one holds less because it overflows, and
the other is not fully filled.

5–6 Volume Quantifier Partial understanding of cubes Guessing Jar (Volume Quantifier), [LT]2: Children
as filling a space. Able to estimate number of estimate the number of cubes in a clear container.
scoops needed to fill. Able to attend to both the Exploring Rectangular Prisms, [LT]2: Children
portion of container filled and the portion remain- explore rectangular prisms to determine their
ing unfilled. Recognizes when container is half full. volume. They use cubes to fill boxes constructed so
Exhibits initial spatial structuring. Packs box neatly a small number of cubes fit well. They eventually
and completely with cubes; may count one cube at predict how many cubes they will need, fill the box,
a time, while packing, to determine total. Compares and count to check. Ask children to compare the
objects by physically or mentally aligning and expli- volume of objects by counting the number of
citly recognizing three dimensions cubes. Encourage them to break a larger object
into smaller pieces to “see” all the cubes.
Initially, may count the faces of a cube building,
possibly double counting cubes at the corners
and usually not counting internal cubes.
Eventually counts one cube at a time in care-
fully structured and guided contexts, such as
packing a small box with cubes.

(Continued )
 Geometric Measurement 271

Table 11.2 (Cont.)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

7 Volume Unit Relater and Repeater Uses simple Comparing Juice Containers, [LT]2: The teacher
units to fill containers, with accurate counting. provides three half-gallon containers labeled “A,”
“B,” and “C” in three different colors, cut to hold
Fills a container by repeatedly filling a unit and two, four, and eight cups, a one-cup measuring cup,
counting how many. and water or sand. Ask children to find the one that
Relates size and number of units explicitly; holds only four cups. Help them to fill to the “level
understands that fewer larger than smaller units top” of the measuring cup.
will be needed to fill or pack a given container. Can
accurately convert units in 1:2 ratio.
Says “Let’s use the big blocks. We don’t need as
many of those to fill the box.”

7 Initial Composite 3D Structurer Understands How Many Cubes? (Initial Composite 3D Struc-
cubes as filling a space but does not use layers or turer), [LT]2: Students use cubes to fill boxes con-
multiplicative thinking. Moves to more accurate structed so a small number of cubes fit well. They
counting strategies. Relates number of cubes to eventually predict how many cubes they will need,
cubic units as measured by capacity. Given fill the box, and count to check.
a graduated cylinder marked in cubic-inch units,
child understands that sand filled to the 10 in the
cylinder would fill a box that holds ten 1-inch cubes.
Begins to visualize and operate on composite units
such as rows or columns (what we call a 1x1xn
core). Iterates to pack the space completely,
accounting for “internal/hidden” cubes. Decom-
poses space, allowing for accurate use of units and
subunits. Recognizes when a box is half full, visual-
izes remaining rows or columns.
Counts unsystematically but attempts to
account for internal cubes.
Counts systematically, trying to account for
outside and inside cubes.
Counts the numbers of cubes in one row or
column of a 3D structure and uses skip counting
to get the total.

8 3D Row and Column Structurer Able to coordin- Fill the Boat, [LT]2: Children fill the cargo hold in
ate flexibly filling, packing, building aspects of a “boat” with the most wooden blocks possible.
volume. Shows a propensity for additive compari- How Many Cubes? (3D Row and Column Struc-
sons (e.g., “this one has 12 more”) but may show turer), [LT]2: Children predict how many cubes will
some nascent multiplicative comparisons (e.g., be needed to fill the box, then count and check.
“this one is four times as big”). Students first get a net, or pattern (below on the
left), and a picture.
Counts or computes (row by column by height)
the number of cubes in one row, and then uses
addition or skip counting to determine the
totals.
Initially counts or computes (e.g., number of
rows times number of columns) the number of
cubes in one layer, and then uses addition or skip
counting by layers to determine the total volume.
Eventually moves to multiplication (e.g., number of
cubes in a layer times number of layers).
Computes (row times column times height) the
number of cubes in one row, and then multiplies
by the number of layers to determine the total.

(Continued )
272 Geometric Measurement

Table 11.2 (Cont.)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

9 3D Array Structurer Has an abstract understand- Measure the Boat, [LT]2: Children measure the
ing of the rectangular prism volume formula. volume of the cargo hold from the Fill the Boat
Shows a propensity for multiplicative comparisons, activity.
coordinates multiplicative and additive compari- Cubes in a Box—Pictures Only!, [LT]2: Ask stu-
sons flexibly. With linear measures or other similar dents how many cubes are needed to fill only
indications of the three dimensions, multiplicatively a picture of a box such as that above, and then just
iterates cubes in a row, column, and/or layers to the dimensions. Later, non-integer measures
determine the area. should be used.
Constructions and drawings are not necessary.
In multiple contexts, children can compute the
volume of rectangular prisms from its dimensions
and explain how that multiplication creates
a measure of volume.

Relationships among Length, Area, and Volume

Research indicates that there is no strict developmental sequence for length, area, and volume,
but overlapping progress, except in one sense. Spatial structuring appears to develop in order
in one, then two, and three dimensions. So, it is reasonable to develop length first, emphasizing
the iteration of a unit. Experiences with “filling” volume could be used as another domain in
which to discuss the importance of basic measurement concepts (e.g., iterations of equal-size
units). Informal experiences constructing arrays with a given number of objects (e.g., square
tiles) could develop spatial structuring of 2D space, on which area concepts could be built. Pack-
ing volume would follow. Throughout, teachers should explicitly discuss the similarities and dif-
ferences in the unit structures of length, area, and volume measurement.

Angle and Turn Measure

Methods of measuring the size of angles are based on the division of a circle. As with length and
area, children need to understand concepts such as equal partitioning and unit iteration to under-
stand angle and turn measure. In addition, there are several unique challenges in the learning of
angle measure. Mathematically, angle has been defined in distinct but related ways. For example,
an angle can be considered the figure formed by two rays extending from the same point or as
the amount of turning necessary to bring one line or plane into coincidence with or parallel to
another. The former involves the composition of two components, or parts, of a geometric figure
and the latter—the measurement of angle size that concerns us here—involves a relationship
between two components. Therefore, both are geometric properties (see Chapter 8, p. 186) and
both are difficult for students to learn. They are also difficult to relate to each other. Students in
the early and elementary grades often form separate concepts of angles, such as angle-as-a-shape
and angle-as-movement. They also hold separate notions for different turn contexts (e.g., unlim-
ited rotation as a fan vs. a hinge) and for various “bends” in roads, chenille sticks, or figures.
Children hold many misconceptions about angles and angle measure. For example, “straight”
may mean “no bend” but also “not up and down” (vertical). Many children correctly compare
 Geometric Measurement 273

Figure 11.4 Angles with (1) the same and (2) different length line segments

angles if all the line segments are the same length (see the first part of Figure 11.4), but, when the
length of the line segments are different (second part of Figure 11.4), only less than half of primary-
grade students do so. Instead, they base their judgments on the length of the segments or the dis-
tance between their endpoints. Other misconceptions include children’s belief that a right angle is
an angle that points to the right, or that two right angles in different orientations are not equal.

Experience and Education

The difficulties children encounter might imply that angle and turn measure need not be intro-
duced to young children. However, there are valid reasons to include these as goals for early
childhood math education. First, children can and do compare angle and turn measures infor-
mally. Second, use of angle size, at least implicitly, is necessary to work with shapes; for
example, children who distinguish a square from a non-square rhombus are recognizing angle
size relationships, at least at an intuitive level. Third, angle measure plays a pivotal role in
geometry throughout school, and laying the groundwork early is a sound curricular goal.
Fourth, the research indicates that, although only a small percentage of students learn angles
well through elementary school, young children can learn these concepts successfully.
Perhaps the most difficult step for students is to understand angle measure dynamically, as
in turning. One useful instructional tool is the computer.
Certain computer environments help children quantify angles and especially turns, attaching
numbers to these quantities to achieve true measurement. Here we examine two types of com-
puter environments. The first type is computer manipulatives, perhaps the more appropriate of
the two for younger children. For example, software can encourage children to use turn and flip
tools meaningfully to make pictures and designs and to solve puzzles. Just using these tools
helps children bring the concept of a turn to an explicit level of awareness (Sarama et al.,
1996). For example, 4-year-old Leah first called the tool the “spin” tool, which made sense—she
clicked it repeatedly, “spinning” the shape. Within one week, however, she called it the turn tool
and used the left or right tool deliberately. Similarly, when a kindergarten boy worked off-
computer, he quickly manipulated the pattern block pieces, resisting answering any questions
as to his intent or his reasons. When he finally paused, a researcher asked him how he had
made a particular piece fit. He struggled with the answer and then finally said that he “turned
it.” When working on-computer, he seemed aware of his actions, in that when asked how many
274 Geometric Measurement

times he turned a particular piece (in 30° increments), he correctly said, “Three,” without hesi-
tation (Sarama et al., 1996). A second computer environment is Logo’s turtle geometry. Logo
can also assist children in learning ideas of angle and turn measurement. A young child
explained how she turned the turtle 45°: “I went 5, 10, 15, 20 … 45! [rotating her hand as she
counted]. It’s like a car speedometer. You go up by fives!” (Clements & Battista, 1991). This child
mathematized turning. She applied a unit to an act of turning and used her counting abilities to
determine a measurement.
Logo’s “turtle” needs exact turn commands, such as “RT 90” for “turn right 90 degrees.” If
they work under the guidance of a teacher on worthwhile tasks, children can learn a lot about
angle and turn measure by directing the Logo turtle. Discussions should focus on the difference
between the angle of rotation and the angle formed as the turtle traced a path.

Figure 11.5 Turtle Math tools: (a) “label lines” and “label turn” (inserts) and (b) “angle measure”
 Geometric Measurement 275

For example, Figure 11.5 shows several tools. The “label turns” tool (illustrated in Figure
11.5a) shows the measure of each turn, reminding children that the command “RT 135” created
an external angle of 135°, creating an angle of 45° (the internal angle formed by the two lines,
100 and 150 units long).
Figure 11.5b shows a tool that allows children to measure a turn they desire. These tools
were built into Turtle Math (Clements & Meredith, 1994), but teachers using any Logo, or turtle
geometry environment, should ensure students understand the relationships among these
ideas. Encourage children to turn their bodies and discuss their movements, then to visualize
such movements mentally, using “benchmarks” such as 90° and 45°.

Learning Trajectory for Angle and Turn Measurement

To understand angles, children must understand the various aspects of the angle concept. They
must overcome difficulties with orientation, discriminate angles as critical parts of geometric fig-
ures, and represent the idea of turns and their measure. They must learn to connect all these ideas.
This is a difficult task that might best start early, as children deal with corners of figures, comparing
angle size, and turns. A learning trajectory for angle measurement is shown in Table 11.3.

Table 11.3 Learning Trajectory for Angle (And Turn) Measurement

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

(years)

1–2 Angle and Turn Senser: Foundations Infants are Going for a Walk: Taking children for a walk is one
sensitive to angles-as-turning, both turning of the first ways they develop an understanding
objects and their own body. See more at the first of turning.
three levels of the Spatial Orientation and the Note: Also see instruction in the first three
first level of Spatial Visualization. levels of the Spatial Orientation (turning one’s
own body) and the first level of Spatial Visualiza-
tion (turning objects) in Chapter 7.
2–3 Intuitive Angle Builder Intuitively uses some Around Every Corner!, [LT]2: Use the terms “turn”
angle measure notions in everyday settings, such and “angle” to describe a variety of contexts in
as building with blocks, solving puzzles, and walk- which angle is used.
ing (please see the video in [LT]2). Note: Use instruction from Chapter 9 and
everyday navigation in Chapter 7 to also empha-
Places blocks parallel to one another and at size angles and turns.
right angles (with the perceptual support of
the blocks themselves) to build a “road.”

4–5 Implicit Angle User Uses angles and, at least Discussing Angles in Constructions, [LT]2: Ask
implicitly, some angle measure concepts, such as children who are building with blocks to describe
parallelism and perpendicularity—in physical why they placed blocks as they did, or challenge
alignment tasks, construction with blocks, or them to re-route a block “road,” to help them
other everyday contexts (Mitchelmore, 1989, reflect on parallelism, perpendicularity, and non-
1992; Seo & Ginsburg, 2004). May identify corres- right angles.
ponding angles of a pair of congruent triangles As the World Turns (Angle User), [LT]2: Use
using physical models. Uses the word “angle” or the terms “turn” and “angle” to describe
other descriptive vocabulary to describe some of a variety of contexts in which angle is used, from
these situations. corners of shapes to bending wire, bends in

(Continued )
276 Geometric Measurement

Table 11.3 (Cont.)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

(years)

Moves a long unit block to be parallel with a road, or ramps. Ask children to find and describe
another block after adjusting the distance other things in the world that “have similar
between them so as to accurately place angles.” Thus, children might relate a door opening
a perpendicular block across them, in anticipa- to scissors opening, a ramp made with blocks to
tion of laying several other blocks perpendicu- a ladder against a wall, and so forth. The focus
larly across them. here should be on the notion of angle and turn.

6 Angle Matcher Matches angles concretely. Expli- Match Angles, [LT]2: Children find shapes that
citly recognizes parallels from non-parallels in have the same angles, even if the shapes are not
specific contexts (Mitchelmore, 1992). Sorts congruent.
angles into “smaller” or “larger” (but may be Pick the Correct Rhombus, [LT]2: Children jus-
misled by irrelevant features, such as length of tify which rhombus they picked to place in
line segments). a puzzle based on the angles of the shape.
Shape Composition: Solve shape puzzles that
Given several non-congruent triangles, finds require attention to angle size (i.e., “Shape Com-
pairs that have one angle that is the same meas- poser” level or above; see Chapter 9).
ure, by laying the angles on top of one another.
7 Angle Size Comparer Differentiates angle and As the World Turns (Angle Size Comparer), [LT]2:
angle size from shapes and contexts and com- Use the terms “turn” and “angle” to describe
pares angle sizes. Recognizes right angles, and a variety of contexts in which angle is used with
then equal angles of other measures, in different the focus on the size of the “opening” (for scis-
orientations (Mitchelmore, 1989). Compares sors) or angle (to the horizontal, for a ramp). Ask
simple turns. (Note that, without instruction, this children to find and describe other things in the
and higher levels may not be achieved even by world that “have similar angles.” Thus, children
the end of the elementary grades.) might relate a door opening to scissors opening,
a ramp made with blocks to a ladder against a wall,
“I put all the shapes that have right angles and so forth. Talk about “foolers,” in which an
here, and all the ones that have bigger or angle with a smaller measure is represented with
smaller angles over there.” longer line segments to address students’ persist-
Turns Logo turtle, using degree ent misconception that the length of the segments,
measurements. or the resulting length between the endpoints, is
an appropriate indication of angle size.
Turtle Turns: Children use the Logo turtle to
make or follow paths and construct shapes (Clem-
ents & Meredith, 1994). Similarly, talk about turns
and their measures in a variety of movement con-
texts, such as taking walks and making maps.
8+ Angle Measurer Understands angle and angle As the World Turns (Angle Measurer), [LT]2:
measure in both primary aspects, and can repre- Relate a variety of angle size contexts to
sent multiple contexts in terms of the standard, a common metaphor, such as a clock, noting the
generalizable concepts and procedures of angle two sides of the angle (clock “hands”), the center
and angle measure (e.g., two rays, the common of rotation, and the amount of turning from one
endpoint, rotation of one ray to the other around side to the other.
that endpoint, and measure of that rotation). Turtle Turns and Angles: Students calculate
the measure (internal) of angles formed by the
Logo turtle’s turns (exterior angle).

What about Time, Weight, and Money?

When we were planning the National Research Council (NRC) report on early math (NRC, 2009),
we confronted the common presence of the topics of time, weight, and money in state stand-
ards. After reviewing the research, we decided that these were in many cases more appropriate
 Geometric Measurement 277

as science or social studies, rather than math, topics. Money is a useful representation to use in
teaching and learning math, but coin recognition is, again, not math. Making change in project-
based learning and so forth can be valuable math (Capraro, 2017). (These topics are mentioned
in the CCSSM, but probably simply because they are in other State standards. For example, kin-
dergartners are to “Tell and write time in hours and half-hours using analog and digital clocks”
(K.MD), and second graders to “Tell and write time from analog and digital clocks to the nearest
five minutes, using a.m. and p.m.” and “Solve word problems involving dollar bills, quarters,
dimes, nickels, and pennies, using $ and ¢ symbols appropriately. Example: If you have 2 dimes
and 3 pennies, how many cents do you have?” (2.MD)). For these reasons, we provide only
a brief discussion of time here, and use examples from money in other chapters.
Time is a measurement that is used to order, or sequence, events, and to compare the dur-
ation of events and the intervals between them (Burny, Valcke, & Desoete, 2009). Time can be
confusing for many reasons. The nature of time still puzzles scientists and philosophers. Math-
ematically, time is complex with 60 seconds making a minute, 60 minutes an hour, 24 hours
a day, 7 days a week, 4 weeks … think of all those number lines! Children need to possess
number sense, spatial and time sense, language abilities, the ability to count, and often
a beginning knowledge of fractions (halves and quarters). Finally, measuring durations or time-
intervals, requires adding and subtracting skills. No wonder time is a difficult concept for all
children to learn (Burny, 2012; Burny et al., 2009; Russell & Kamii, 2012).
There is a simple developmental progression for clock reading. Most preschoolers can do
little more than label the hour that is linked to familiar activities such as bedtime and eating
(Burny et al., 2009). Between one-third to half of 5-year-olds can read the hour and most
6-year-olds can read hours accurately. Almost all second graders can read hours and half-hours
and third graders can read within an accuracy of about 5 minutes.
Even though many children do not learn to integrate time concepts until third grade,
teachers of younger children can profitably emphasize the meaning of time and connections
between time contexts, such as clocks and calendars (Burny, Valcke, & Desoete, 2012). Primary-
grade students have greater ability to understand these concepts than some curricula would
indicate, and those that teach clock-reading earlier are successful in teaching children earlier
(Burny, Valcke, Desoete, & Van Luit, 2013). They should ensure that children understand the
time (scientific) concepts, the math concepts, and the language (vocabulary, stories can help
here). Time may involve spatial competencies as well (Burny et al., 2012). Many cultures think
about time using spatial metaphors (Núñez, Cooperrider, Doan, & Wassmann, 2012). Successful
instruction may involve the use of gestures and speech to annotate clock faces (Williams,
2008). Educational technology may help (Wang, Xie, Wang, Hao, & An, 2016).
Children with mathematical difficulties (see Chapter 14) perform worse on clock reading than
average achieving children. They struggle with both the procedural and retrieval strategies that
are needed to read complex 5- and 1-minute clock times (Burny et al., 2012).
Elapsed time is especially difficult, because students have to coordinate units of different
sizes (e.g., hours and minutes). For example, students in Grades 2 and above often claim that
the duration between 8:30 and 11:00 is 3 hours 30 minutes, because from 8:00 to 11:00 is 3
hours, and then they add 30 minutes (Kamii & Russell, 2012). Understanding these challenges
and helping children think about durations in their own lives and then guiding them first to their
own informal strategies may be helpful (Kamii & Russell, 2012).
278 Geometric Measurement

Final Words
Measurement is one of the principal real-world applications of math. It also helps connect the
two other critical realms of early math, geometry, and number. Chapter 12 also deals with con-
tent domains that are important in connecting math ideas and in solving real-world problems.
These include patterns, structures, and early algebraic processes, and data analysis.

Note
1 We include a brief discussion of non-geometric measurement—time and weight—toward the end of this
chapter.
12 Other Content Domains
Patterns, Structure, and
Algebraic Thinking: Classification
and Data

What math is shown in Figure 12.1?

Figure 12.1 What math have these two preschoolers used?

We have discussed most of the domains in standards such as the CCSSM, such as Counting,
Number, Operations, Geometry, and Measurement. A common early childhood math topic, pattern-
ing, has not been mentioned. And in the CCSSM, the domain is “Operations and Algebraic Thinking.”
Do patterns belong there? Also, the CCSSM includes “Measurement and Data.” What about data?

Patterns, Structure, and Algebraic Thinking: Descriptions and

Mathematics
The breadth of ways the term “patterns” is used illustrates a main strength and weakness of
the notion as a goal in mathematics. Consider some examples from other chapters:

• Perceptual patterns, such as subitized domino patterns, finger patterns, or auditory pat-
terns (e.g., three beats) (see Chapter 2).
280 Other Content Domains

• Patterns in the number words of counting including counting and moving (Wu, 2011b; see
also Chapter 3).
•

• The “one-more” pattern of counting (Chapter 3), which also connects counting with
arithmetic.
• Numerical patterns, such as a mental representation of 3 as a triangle; or a similar pattern
of 5 that can be broken into 2 and 3 and then put back together to make 5 again (see
Chapters 2, 3, 5, and 6).
• Arithmetic patterns that are especially powerful and easy for children to see: doubles (3 +
3, 7 + 7), which allow access to combinations such as 7 + 8, and fives (6 made as 5 + 1, 7 as
5 + 2, etc.), which allow for decomposition into fives (see also Chapter 6, as well as other
examples in Parker & Baldridge, 2004).
• Spatial patterns, such as the spatial pattern of squares (Chapter 8) or the composition of
shapes (Chapter 9), including array structures (Chapter 11).

None of these examples of patterns in early math illustrates the most typical practice of
“doing patterns” in early childhood classrooms. Typical practice involves activities such as
making paper chains that are “red, blue, red, blue …” and so forth. These are repeating pat-
terns, cyclical repetitions of an identifiable core (Markworth, 2016). Such repeating patterns are
important (Lüken, 2018; Rittle-Johnson et al., 2018b), but educators should be aware of the role
of patterns in math and math education and of how repeated patterns such as the paper chains
fit into (but certainly do not, alone, constitute) the large role of patterning and structure.
To begin, mathematician Lynne Steen referred to mathematics as the “science of patterns”—
patterns in number and space (1988). The theory of mathematics, according to Steen, is built on
relations among patterns and on applications derived from the fit between pattern and observa-
tions. Further, these are not “extras” in math education: Children’s competencies with pattern
and structure have been shown to predict and be an important component of their math learning
(Lüken, 2012).
 Other Content Domains 281

So, the concept of “pattern” goes far beyond sequential, repeating patterns. Patterning is the
search for mathematical regularities and structures. Identifying and applying patterns helps bring
order, cohesion, and predictability to seemingly unorganized situations and allows you to make
generalizations beyond the information in front of you. Although it can be viewed as a “content
area,” patterning is more than a content area—it is a process, a domain of study, and a habit of
mind. From this broad perspective, children begin this development from the first year of life, as
previous chapters have shown. In this chapter, we focus on repeating, numerical (e.g., “growing”)
and arithmetic patterns. But we should not forget that this is just one small aspect of Steen’s
“science of patterns.”
This position is also consistent with other documents. The NRC report on early math (NRC,
2004) is filled with references to patterns, not as a content area, but, rather, as a general math
reasoning process (see “Looking for Patterns and Structures and Organizing Information” on
p. 46). That is our main focus in this book. Similarly, two “mathematical practices” of the
Common Core relate to patterning and structures: “7. Look for and make use of structure” and
“8. Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning.”

The Development of Patterns, Structure, and Algebraic Thinking

From the earliest years, children are sensitive to patterns—of actions, behaviors, visual displays,
and so forth. An explicit understanding of patterns develops gradually during the early child-
hood years. For example, about ¾ of those entering school can copy a repeating pattern, but
only ⅓ can extend or explain such patterns. Preschoolers can learn to copy simple patterns
and, at least by kindergarten, children can learn to extend and create patterns. Further, children
learn to recognize the relationship between different representations of the same pattern (e.g.,
between visual and motoric, or movement, patterns; red, blue, red, blue … and snap, clap, snap,
clap …). This is a crucial step in using patterns to make generalizations and to reveal common
underlying structures. In the early years of school, children benefit from learning to identify the
core unit (e.g., AB) that either repeats (ABABAB) or “grows” (ABAABAAAB), and then use it to
generate both these types of patterns. Little else is known, except that patterns are one of
many elements of teaching visual literacy with positive long-term impact in the Agam program
(Clements et al., 2018a; Razel & Eylon, 1990).
Even though we argue that pattern and structure go far beyond simple repeating patterns, we
do not ignore such patterning—it is important (Lüken, 2018). For example, preschoolers’ repeating
patterning predicts later math knowledge (even after controlling for early math knowledge, see
also Rittle-Johnson et al., 2018b) although some caution that we need more evidence (Burgoyne,
Witteveen, Tolan, Malone, & Hulme, 2017). Patterning is also related to the executive functions of
patterning, cognitive flexibility, and working memory (Bock et al., 2015; Miller, Rittle-Johnson,
Loehr, & Fyfe, 2016), and these three executive functions are related to math competencies
(Schmerold et al., 2017; see also Pasnak, 2017b). Importantly, a review of research showed that
learning complex patterning is more likely to support children’s learning of math than simple
repeating (or “alternating”) patterns (Pasnak, 2017b, e.g., Collins & Laski, 2015). That suggests
teachers must help children progress to the higher levels of the learning trajectory in Table 12.2.
Where is “algebra” in patterning? Having one thing stand for another is the beginnings of
algebraic representation. Note that by the pre-K or kindergarten year, many children can name
282 Other Content Domains

patterns with conventions such as “ABAB.” This is potentially another step to algebraic thinking,
as it involves using variable names (letters) to label or identify patterns that involve different
physical embodiments. Such naming helps children recognize that math focuses on underlying
structures, not physical appearances. Further, making a one-to-one correspondence is
a primitive version of the basic algebraic notion of mapping—like a function table. Perhaps most
clear is that even preschoolers and kindergartners can make certain “early algebraic generaliza-
tions,” such as “subtracting zero from any number gives that number,” or that “subtracting
a number from itself gives zero.” Such algebraic generalizations can be further developed in
the primary grades, although students usually become conscious of these only with explicit
guidance from the teacher.
As suggested by the notion of mapping and function tables, functional thinking is closely con-
nected to such algebraic generalization. Functional thinking involves (a) generalizing relationships
between covarying quantities (e.g., the more rain, the fewer people in the park); (b) representing
and justifying these relationships in multiple ways using natural language, tables, and graphs; and
(c) reasoning with these representations to understand and predict functional behavior
(Blanton, Brizuela, Gardiner, Sawrey, & Newman-Owens, 2015). Working with Grade 1 children,
the researchers identified levels of functional thinking (Blanton et al., 2015) and use of variables to
represent algebraic relationships (Blanton, Brizuela, Gardiner, Sawrey, & Newman-Owens, 2017).
Children worked on tasks related to two sets of data, such as the relationships between the num-
bers of dogs and noses (for adults, y = x), of feet in people’s heights without or with a 1-foot or
2-foot hat (y = x + 1 or y = x + 2), or of stops a train makes and cars if it picks up 2 cars per stop
(y = x + x if exclude engine, or y = x + x + 1, see the t-chart in Table 12.1). At the earliest levels,
children did not discuss relationships in the data. They then could generate a t-chart as in the left
of Table 12.1, but didn’t see relationships even within the two columns (Stops and Cars). Later
they could see those relationships but did not relate one column to the other. At later levels they
began to be able to do so—to actually engage in functional thinking. However, there was consider-
able development here too. At first, they relate the Stops to the Cars—but one case at a time
(3 stops, 6 cars). They gradually come to see the relationships as a function, even eventually rep-
resenting it with letters (C = S ± S, for the number of cars equal the number of stops added to
itself). At the highest level, they take functions as “mental objects” that they can apply “actions”
to. At that level, they see that the relation (doubling) on the left of Table 12.1 has to be altered if
we could count the train’s engine as a car, yielding the t-chart on the right.
This body of research on young children’s understanding of patterns may be used to estab-
lish developmentally appropriate learning trajectories for pattern instruction in early math

Table 12.1 Example T-charts of the Train Problem—without considering the engine on the
left, and counting the engine on the right

Stops Cars Stops Cars

1 2 1 3
2 4 2 5
3 6 3 7
4 8 4 9

5 10 5 11
 Other Content Domains 283

education, at least for simple repeating patterns. The research regarding patterning as a way of
thinking is less developed, but still offers guidance. The next section includes some promising
approaches.

Experience and Education: Patterns, Structure, and Algebraic

Thinking
Approaches to teaching the most typical type of patterning in early childhood, repeating patterns,
have been documented in several curriculum projects around the world (see Chapter 15). The learn-
ing trajectories for this type of pattern are presented in Table 12.2, developing into numerical and
algebraic patterning. These activities show that, in addition to placing shapes or other objects in
repeating patterns, young children can also engage in rhythmic and musical patterns. They can
learn more complicated patterns than the simple ABABAB pattern. For example, they may begin
with “clap, clap, slap; clap, clap slap ….” They can talk about this pattern, representing the pattern
with words and other motions, so that “clap, clap slap …” is transformed to “jump, jump, fall down;
jump, jump, fall down …” and soon symbolized as an AABAAB pattern—discussed in that way. That
is, surprisingly early, children can name a pattern as an “AABAAB” (and eventually just naming the
core unit, “AAB”), which helps them see the same structure in patterns using different materials
and solve problems more effectively (Fyfe, McNeil, & Rittle-Johnson, 2015). Several curricula have
successfully taught such patterns to 4- to 5-year-olds. (For more on the role of rhythm in learning
math, see Steinke, 2013.)
Young children’s play and informal activities, including stories, storybooks, and songs, can be
effective vehicles for learning mathematical patterning in meaningful and motivating contexts.
However, teachers need to understand how to take advantage of such opportunities. One
teacher, for example, asked children to make clothing patterns for a paper doll. Unfortunately,
her examples were colorful, but all had complex random designs that did not include repeated
patterns!
In another study, a teacher observed a child paint four iterations of a green, pink, and purple
pattern core. The child said, “Look at my patterns.” The teacher observed this and called out,
“Looks like you are doing some lovely artwork.” She did not seem to be aware of the opportun-
ity she had missed (Fox, 2005, p. 317). In another preschool, a child was working with a hammer
and nails construction kit. Chelsea was tapping shapes on to the corkboard and described it to
other children at the table. “It is a necklace with diamonds—diamond, funny shape, diamond,
funny shape, diamond, funny shape.” The teacher questioned Chelsea about her creation. After
the teacher intervened, another child, Harriet, began to use the equipment to make a repeating
pattern (yellow circle—green triangle). A second child, Emma, joined the table and created
a necklace utilizing an ABBA pattern. Chelsea’s explicit interest in mathematical patterning, and
the teacher’s involvement and intervention, encouraged other children to join her in creating
patterns. This was useful mathematical patterning in a play-based context (p. 318).
Extending the conclusions of these research projects, we believe that teachers need to
understand the learning trajectories of patterning in all its forms and the wider implications of
patterning as a habit of mind. We agree that in patterning, as in all math areas, there is a need
to help teachers plan specific experiences and activities, capitalize on relevant child-initiated
activities, and elicit and guide mathematically generative discussions in all settings.
284 Other Content Domains

Several studies and projects illustrate this approach. First graders who studied repeating pat-
terns, but also symmetrical patterns, patterns with increasing numbers of elements, and pat-
terns involving rotation of an object through six or eight positions, scored better in reading and
math (Pasnak et al., 2012). In a related study, first graders who worked with patterns, compared
to those who worked with reading or social studies, performed better on math concepts. They
even outperformed those who worked directly with math on one of two assessments (Kidd
et al., 2013).
Similarly, additional projects from Australia show the power of emphasizing a broad range of
activities focusing on mathematical pattern and structure. The Pattern and Structure Mathemat-
ical Awareness Program (PASMAP) focuses on five structural groupings: sequences, structured
counting, shape and alignment, equal spacing, and partitioning (Mulligan & Mitchelmore, 2018).
The instructional activities developed students’ visual memory as they observed, recalled and
represented numerical and spatial structures in processes such as counting, partitioning, sub-
itizing, grouping and unitizing (this implies that many of the most important patterning activ-
ities in this book are in other chapters, as the introduction to this chapter suggested). These
activities were regularly repeated in varied form to encourage children to generalize. For
example, children reproduced patterns, including repeating patterns and simple grids and
arrays of varying sizes (including triangular or square numbers). They explained why patterns
are “the same” and described repeating patterns with ordinal numbers (e.g., “every third
block is blue”). They reproduced grid patterns when part of the pattern was hidden, or from
memory.
Thus, these “pattern and structure” activities included visual structures such as those used
in subitizing (Chapter 2) and spatial structuring (Chapters 7 and 11); structuring linear space
(Chapter 10) and the structure of numbers connected to these (Chapters 3 to 6). Thus, this view
of pattern and structure includes, but goes far beyond, simple linear patterns, and connects
seemingly separate areas of math. Children who do not develop this type of knowledge tend to
make little progress in mathematics. But all children, especially those with low entry skills, can
make substantial progress quickly when provided with learning experiences focusing on pattern
and structure (Mulligan, Mitchelmore, English, & Crevensten, 2012), defined broadly (e.g., not
just as “alternating color”; Papic, Mulligan, & Mitchelmore, 2011). They benefit substantially by
focused instruction on structure (Mulligan, English, Mitchelmore, Welsby, & Crevensten, 2011a,
2011b; Mulligan & Mitchelmore, 2018).
Moving into the elementary school years, children benefit from describing patterns with num-
bers. Even repeating patterns can be described as “two of something, then one of something
else.” The patterns of counting, arithmetic, spatial structuring, and so forth have been empha-
sized in other chapters and those in number and arithmetic are included in the learning trajec-
tory here as well. For example, we re-emphasize that children should be helped to make and
use arithmetic generalizations, such as the following:

• When you add zero to a number the sum is always that number.
• When you add one to a number the sum is always the next number in the counting
sequence.
• When you add two numbers it does not matter which number “comes first.”
• When you add three numbers it does not matter which two you add first.
 Other Content Domains 285

For many, these are the first clear links among patterns, number, and algebra. One student’s
use of a strategy might prompt another student to ask why it would work, which would lead to
discussions of general statements about a given operation. However, Carpenter and Levi found
this did not occur regularly in first- and second-grade classrooms, so they used Bob Davis’ activ-
ities from the Madison Project, in particular his activities involving true and false and open
number sentences. For example, students were asked to verify the truth of “true/false number
sentences” such as 22 − 12 = 10 (true or false?), and others such as 7 + 8 = 16, 67 + 54 = 571.
They also solved open number sentences in a variety of forms. The open number sentences
involved single variables, such as x + 58 = 84, multiple variables such as x + y = 12, and repeated
variables, such as x + x = 48. Certain cases were selected to prompt discussion of basic proper-
ties of numerical operations and relations; for example, verifying the truth of 324 + 0 = 324
led students to generalizations about zero. (Note: when you say adding a zero to a number
does not change that number, you must mean “adding just plain zero,” not concatenating
a zero, e.g., 10 and 0 is 100, or adding numbers that include zero, e.g., 100 + 100; Carpenter &
Levi, 1999.) Students also enjoyed and benefited from creating and trading their own true/
false number sentences. Another case is sentences in the form of 15 + 16 = 15 + x. This may
prompt students to recognize they do not have to compute, and then to use more sophisti-
cated strategies for problems such as 67 + 83 = x + 82, such as “I knew 83 is one more than
82, so x has to be one more than 67 to balance—68!” (Carpenter, Franke, & Levi, 2003,
pp. 47–57).
These researchers also indicated several practices to avoid (Carpenter et al., 2003). For
example, avoid using the equal sign to list objects and numbers (e.g., John = 8, Marcie = 9 …).
Do not use it to give a number in a collection (| | | = 3) or to indicate that the same number is
in two collections. Finally, do not use it to represent strings of calculations, such as 20 + 30 =
50 + 7 = 57 + 8 = 65. This last one is a common, but perhaps the most egregious, case. It could
be replaced with series of equations, if they are really needed, such as 20 + 30 = 50; 50 + 7 =
57; 57 + 8 = 65.
There are a few more research-based instructional suggestions on the equal sign, which is
often badly taught. One project introduces it only in the context of finding all the decompos-
itions for a number, and they place that number (e.g., 5) first: 5 = 5 + 0, 5 = 4 + 1, 5 = 3 + 2
(Fuson & Abrahamson, 2009). Children then write equations chains in which they write
a number in many varied ways (e.g., 9 = 8 + 1 = 23 − 14 = 109 − 100 = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 5 = …).
Such work helps avoid limited conceptualizations.
Another study found that kindergartners and first graders’ knowledge could recognize
legitimate number sentences, such as 3 + 2 = 5, but only first graders could produce such
sentences. However, they found it more difficult to recognize number sentences such as 8 =
12 – 4. Thus, teachers need to provide a variety of examples for children, including having
the operation on the right side and having multiple operations, such as 4 + 2 + 1 + 3 + 2 = 12.
In all such work, discuss the nature of addition and subtraction number sentences and the
different symbols, the role they play, and their defining and non-defining properties. For
example, students might eventually generalize to see not just that 3 + 2 = 5 and 2 + 3 = 5,
but that 3 + 2 = 2 + 3. Still, however, they might only see that the order of the numbers
“does not matter”—without understanding that this is a property of addition (not pairs of
numbers in general). Discussions can help them to understand the arithmetic operations as
286 Other Content Domains

“things to think about” and to discuss their properties (see many examples in Kaput, Carraher, &
Blanton, 2008).
Another study of third and fourth graders revealed that teaching the equal sign in equations
contrasted with the greater than (>) and less than (<) signs helped these students understand
the equal sign relational meaning (Hattikudur & Alibali, 2007). The students learned three signs
in the same time that the comparison students learned just one.
Providing second graders with equations such as 2 + 5 + 1 = 3 + □ and giving them feed-
back improved their performance substantially. In this study, the type of tasks, non-symbolic,
semi-symbolic, or symbolic, did not matter (Sherman, Bisanz, & Popescu, 2007). What prob-
ably does matter is whether students see such work and all arithmetic work as a sense-
making activity. That is, asked to solve a problem like 8 + 4 = □ + 5, students often put “12” in
the blank space/box. Others include the 5 in their total, putting “17” in the blank space/box.
Others create a running total by putting a “12” in the blank space/box and an “= 17” following
the 5 (Franke, Carpenter, & Battey, 2008). As discussed, they see the equal sign as an instruc-
tion to compute, as “the answer is coming” sign. This is not its mathematical meaning.
In a later study, the type of tasks did matter. Experience with non-symbolic problems facili-
tated performance on symbolic problems (Sherman & Bisanz, 2009). That is, children solved
problems with objects, such as what to put in the fourth tray to keep the number of objects in
two pairs of trays the same: (e.g., ••••• •• | •••• ?). Such experiences helped children map their
successful concepts and strategies to symbolic equivalence problems.
Solutions are facilitated when one understands the semantics—the meaning of each symbol.
For example, students might think as follows:

What I face is an equation, with a number I don’t know. I am supposed to find the number
in the box. The two sides of the equation must be equal. I do know how to find the sum on
the left-hand side of the equation: 8 + 4 = 12. So, I can rewrite the equation as:

12 = □ + 5

or maybe more comfortably as:

□ + 5 = 12.

So, now I’m looking for the number that has the property that when I add 5 to it, I get 12.
I know how to do that. The answer is 7, so 7 goes in the [blank space/]box. And, I can check:
8 + 4 = 12 and 7 + 5 = 12, so 8 + 4 = 7 + 5.
(Schoenfeld, 2008)

Such solutions depend on knowing the semantics of the equation. If students see these equa-
tions in terms of their meaning, they can make sense of them and solve them. Schoenfeld
argues that every problem, even 3 + 2 = 5, is related to meaning (a group of 3 is combined with
a group of 2 …) and that the more it is explicitly connected to that meaning for students, the
stronger will be both their arithmetic and early algebra competence.
 Other Content Domains 287

Figure 12.2 First graders solve the “Handshake Problem” with a t-chart

This means that teaching computation without attention to relational and algebraic thinking
erects a roadblock to students’ later progress in math. Students must see all math as a search
for patterns, structure, and relationships, as a process of making and testing ideas, and, in gen-
eral, making sense of quantitative and spatial situations (Schoenfeld, 2008). Only if they do so
throughout their work with math will they be well prepared for later math, including algebra.
A couple of recent projects are perhaps the most surprising. The Mathematics Enhancement
Project in England has developed algebra activities for preschoolers. Consider the problem of
solving two simultaneous linear equations x + y = 4 and x = y. In this project, 4- to 5-year-old
children color in the outlines of snails following two rules: they have to color in four snails, and
the number of brown snails must equal the number of yellow snails. The materials were devel-
oped by David Burghes based on the Hungary mathematics curriculum.
Similarly, an early algebra project by Maria Blanton and others (Blanton & Kaput, 2011; Blanton
et al., 2012) shows that children in pre-K to first grade can count and record patterns using
objects or drawings, and by second and third grade could organize numerical-only data independ-
ently. They suggested using t-charts (teachers’ name for simple function tables with a column of
data for the independent variable followed by a column of data for the dependent variable) with
all early grades. For example, first graders created t-charts such as shown in Figure 12.2 to
record the total number of handshakes in groups of varying size. Can you figure out the pattern
and extend it (and check it)?
Another study showed that 8-year-olds similarly could perform and represent functional
thinking (Warren & Cooper, 2008). Finally, a recent study showed that students need to both
recognize and produce number sentences in different formats to understand them in ways that
supports algebraic thinking (Mark-Zigdon & Tirosh, 2017b).

Learning Trajectory for Pattern and Structure

Two reports agree with our position that patterning is a general way of thinking mathematically.
In developing our report on early math (NRC, 2009), we decided that patterning should not be
a content domain, but, rather, a math process (and as such, belongs in Chapter 13).
288 Other Content Domains

A learning trajectory for patterns is presented in Table 12.2. Remember that almost every chap-
ter in this book contains relational thinking about the patterns and structures of math. And remem-
ber that videos for every level of the developmental progression, as well as resources, videos, and
many additional activities for every level are on [LT]2. Finally, this table also has a “forest and
trees” column that encourages you to think of the big picture, the broad levels of thinking.

Table 12.2 Learning Trajectory for Patterns, Structure, and Algebraic Thinking

Age Broad Developmental Progression Instructional Activities

0–2 Perceptual Intuitive Patterner: Foundations Detects Rhythmic Patterns and Finger Sticks Finger
Patterner and uses patterning implicitly and intuitively, Play, [LT]2: Children learn to identify pat-
such as in movement activities or common terns by using rhythmic expressions.
nursery rhymes that repeat words and Emphasize the patterns in children’s songs,
action. May be attentive to repeating pat- poems, and spontaneous movements, such
terns without recognizing them explicitly or as dancing.
accurately, often attending to individual
attributes such as color.
Names a striped shirt with no repeating
unit a “pattern.”

Math in Everyday Routines and Pattern-

ing Talk, [LT]2: Work with manipulatives,
such as blocks or puzzles, manipulatives to
order (e.g., simple materials, such as pencils
of different lengths, or such commercial
materials as those from the Montessori
group), and discussions of regularities help
children use and, eventually, recognize
patterns.
2–3 Pattern Recognizer Recognizes a simple Movement Patterns, [LT]2: Spend only a few
pattern, usually ABABAB, as a pattern, even minutes counting with children in patterns
if doesn’t yet name or describe it. of 2, or another appropriate even number;
for example, “one, two!, three, four!, five,
“I’m wearing a pattern” about a shirt with six! ….” For more fun, get a drum or use the
black, white, black, white (and so on) corners of a wooden block to tap along with
stripes. the counting, tapping harder for emphasis
at each second beat.
Patterns in the Environment, [LT]2 or
Pattern Walk: Read the book I See Patterns.
Patterns in the world may be confusing

(Continued )
 Other Content Domains 289

Table 12.2 (Cont.)

Age Broad Developmental Progression Instructional Activities

because of all the irrelevant, distracting

information available; this book will help
explain and distinguish types of patterns.
Then, go on a “pattern walk” and find, dis-
cuss, photograph, and draw the patterns
you see.
Clothes Patterns, [LT]2: Find repeating
patterns in children’s clothing colors.
Encourage them to wear clothes with pat-
terns, and to discuss the patterns they wear
to school.

3–4 Patterner AB: Recognizes, describes, and Pattern Fixer with Beads, [LT]2: Show chil-
builds repeating ABAB patterns. These dren a pattern and chant it with them (e.g.,
involve the following, which many children “square, triangle, square, triangle, square,
learn in this order, although this can vary bytriangle,” for at least three complete units
the task.1 of the pattern). Point to a space later in the
pattern where a shape “fell off.” Ask chil-
• Fixes AB: Fills in missing element of an dren what shape they need to fix the pat-
ABAB pattern. tern. If children need help, have them chant
the pattern as you point to each block,
Given objects in a row with one missing, allowing the pattern of words to indicate
ABAB_BAB, identifies and fills in the missing the missing shape.
Pattern Strips, [LT]2: Show children
element.
a strip of paper with a geometric pattern
pictured on it and have them describe the
• Duplicates AB: Duplicates ABABAB pat- pattern on the strip (“square, circle, square,
tern (at first may have to work close to circle, square, circle…”).
the model pattern, but eventually can
build the same pattern away from the
• Have the children help you copy the
model pattern or when the model is out
of sight). pattern, if necessary, by placing pat-
tern blocks directly on the pattern
strip.
Given objects in a row, ABABAB, makes • Have them chant the pattern as you
their own ABABAB row in a different point to each block.
location.
Make a Longer Pattern (Patterner AB),
• Extends AB: Extends AB patterns to add [LT]2: Show children a pattern strip with an
multiple units to the end of the pattern. ABABAB pattern and ask them to use
This is easier for children if the pattern materials to “keep going” with the pattern.
ends with a complete unit (Tsamir, Then, discuss how they knew how to do so.
Tirosh, Levenson, Barkai, & Tabach, Dancing Patterns (Patterner AB), [LT]2:
2017), but they eventually learn to Tell the children they will be dancing pat-
extend those that end with a partial unit. terns, and that the first one will be clap,
kick; clap, kick … Sing a song along with the
pattern. Later, have them describe the
pattern.
4–5 Patterner: Recognizes, describes, and builds Note: Most of the activities in the previous
repeating patterns, including AB but also pat- level can be used here with different core
terns with core units such as AAB, ABC, and units.
AABC. Dancing Patterns (Patterner), [LT]2: As
above.
• Fixes: Fills in missing element of Creative Patterns, [LT]2: This is a good
a repeating pattern.2 time to add pattern-creating materials to
• Duplicates: Duplicates repeating your creative area. Someone is sure to want
patterns. to make a pattern they can take home.

(Continued )
290 Other Content Domains

Table 12.2 (Cont.)

Age Broad Developmental Progression Instructional Activities

• Extends: Extends repeating patterns to Make a Longer Pattern (Patterner),

add multiple units to the end of the [LT]2: As above, with different core units.
pattern. This is easier for children if the Stringing Beads, [LT]2: Following
pattern ends with a complete unit a “pattern tag” at the end of the string, chil-
(Tsamir et al., 2017), but they can learn dren place beads on the string to extend
to extend those that end with a partial the pattern and make a pattern necklace.
unit. Marching Patterns 2 (and 3)—Extend:
Children extend a linear pattern of musi-
Given objects in a row, ABBABBABB, adds cians by one full repetition of an entire unit.
ABBABB to the end of the row. When they complete the pattern, the musi-
cians march in a parade. The musicians are
in patterns such as AAB and ABB in level 2
and ABC in level 3.

4–5 Abstract Pattern Translator and Unit Recognizer Pattern Strips—Extended, [LT]2: Re-introduce
Patterner Translates patterns into new media or using “Pattern Strips,” emphasizing the idea of the
new materials; that is, abstract and general- core unit of the pattern.
ize the pattern. Identifies the smallest core
unit of a repeating pattern. (Most research • Show children a pattern strip and have
indicates this develops later, Miller et al., children describe the pattern on the
2016.) strip (vertical, vertical, horizontal; ver-
tical, vertical, horizontal; vertical, ver-
• Translates Pattern. Translates patterns tical, horizontal; …).
into new media; that is, abstract and • Ask them what the “core” of this pat-
generalize the pattern (e.g., sees tern is (“vertical, vertical, horizontal”).
a “red, blue, purple” pattern of con- • Have the children help you copy the
necting cubes and builds the same pat- pattern using sticks. Each child should
tern with toothpicks,—|\,—|\,—|\, naming make one copy of the core.
both of them: “Those are ABC • Ask them to “keep going” by adding
patterns.” additional copies of the core.

(Continued )
 Other Content Domains 291

Table 12.2 (Cont.)

Age Broad Developmental Progression Instructional Activities

• Recognize Core Units. Identifies the Cube Patterns, [LT]2: Put a large group
core unit of a repeating pattern; that is, of cubes in the middle of the children. Show
the smallest portion of the pattern that them a “tower” of cubes of two colors, such
repeats to create the pattern (e.g., as blue, blue, yellow.
“red, blue, purple” in an ABCABCABC
pattern). • Have each child make a blue, blue,
yellow tower.
Given objects in an ABBABBABB pattern, • Have children link them together,
identifies the core unit of the pattern as making a long cube pattern train!
“ABB.” • Chant the colors as you point to each
In functional thinking situations (e.g., cube in the long pattern train.
p. 282), does not yet see math relationships • Repeat with a different core tower.
in sets of data (Blanton et al., 2015).
Scaffolding Strategies:

• More help—For children who have diffi-

culty making and extending a pattern,
making cube patterns step by step
may be useful. Help them to stand
several towers next to each other
(e.g., red cube, blue cube), and see
they are all the same. “Read” the pat-
tern, chanting each color as you read
one tower after another from the
bottom up. Finally, link them together
and chant the pattern again.
• Extra challenge—Use more complex
patterns. Even try ones that end with
the same item they begin with, such
as a core unit of ABBCA, which pro-
duces the confusing pattern:
ABBCAABBCAABBCA.

Patterns Free Explore: Students explore

patterning by creating rhythmic patterns of
their own. The patterns are presented in
drumbeats of two pitches and constant dur-
ation (steady beat), but also visually—
emphasizing the core unit of the pattern.

5–7 Numeric Numeric Patterner Describes a pattern Growing Patterns, [LT]2: Children observe,
Patterner numerically, can translate between geomet- copy, and create patterns that grow—espe-
ric and numeric representation of a series. In cially those such as the square growing pat-
functional thinking, builds and perceives tern and triangular growing pattern—noting
a t-chart as a sequence of particular the geometric and numerical patterns that
instances (Blanton et al., 2015). they embody.

(Continued )
292 Other Content Domains

Table 12.2 (Cont.)

Age Broad Developmental Progression Instructional Activities

Given objects in a geometric pattern,

describes the numeric progression.
Given a situation and asked to generate
data for a t-chart, children build each column
separately, by counting or skip counting.

Patterns on a Hundreds Chart (Numeric

Patterner), [LT]2: Students skip count mul-
tiples of 1 to 12 to identify patterns they find
on a hundreds chart.
Finding Patterns in Books: Children’s lit-
erature is filled with good texts that encour-
age children to be “pattern hunters” (see
examples and lists of books in Whitin &
Whitin, 2011).
Arithmetic and Algebraic Thinking: See
the many examples in the text (especially
pp. 279–280).
Arithmetic Beginning Arithmetic Patterner Recognizes Generating Conjectures, [LT]2:
and Alge- and uses arithmetic patterns with perceptual Children discuss (after teacher models)
braic or pedagogical support, often first those that different number sentences to develop
Patterner involve properties of zero. The child also understanding of the meaning of
accepts number sentences not in the form of a conjecture about arithmetic patterns or
3 + 4 = 7 (e.g., 7 = 3 + 4, or even 3 + 4 = 2 use of arithmetic properties.
+ 5). This represents a move from an
“equals-as-an answer” notion to recognizing
that equals means equivalent numbers. (See
Chapters 5 and 6.)
In functional thinking, builds two sets
(e.g., in a t-chart) following two separate
general rules (Blanton et al., 2015).
Given a situation and asked to generate
data for a t-chart, children generalize a rule
(you add 2 every time) for each column
separately.

6–7 Relational Thinker ± Recognizes and uses True or False with Number Sentences (Rela-
patterns that involve addition and subtrac- tional Thinker ±), [LT]2: Children determine
tion and, understanding equality, can com- if both sides of number sentences such as
pare two sides of a number sentence with 7 + 2 = 3 + 6 will equal the same number
reasoning, and thus does not have to carry (even without adding), that is, if the sen-
out computations. In functional thinking, cre- tences are true or false in their structure.
ates functional relationships between two Functions and T-charts: Have children
data sets but only for specific cases (Blanton solve simple function problems (e.g., dogs
et al., 2015). May use letters to represent and noses, p. 282) and discuss their
numbers, but only as representing objects or t-charts.
fixed values (Blanton et al., 2017).
Given a situation involving two data sets,
relates the columns in a t-chart but only for
one row at a time.

(Continued )
 Other Content Domains 293

Table 12.2 (Cont.)

Age Broad Developmental Progression Instructional Activities

Relational Thinker—Symbolic ± Recognizes True or False with Number Sentences (Sym-

and uses patterns that involve addition and bolic ±), [LT]2: Children determine if both
subtraction and an understanding of equal- sides of algebraic sentences such as a + b –
ity. Can compare two sides of a number sen- b = a will equal the same number, that is, if
tence with reasoning, even when the the sentences are true or false in their
quantities are represented by variables, such structure.
as a + b = b + a. In functional thinking, gener- Functions and T-charts: Have children
alizes functional relationships between two solve simple function problems (e.g., dogs
data sets, at first just noticing, and later and noses or heights-with-hats, p. 282) and
a quantitative relationship (Blanton et al., discuss how they created their t-charts.
2015). Uses letters for unknown numbers, an
initial algebraic notion.
Given a situation involving two data sets,
relates the columns in a t-chart, describing
how they added to get each number.
6–8 Relational Thinker with Multiplication Rec- Patterns on a Hundreds Chart (Relational
ognizes and uses patterns that involve multi- Thinker with Multiplication), [LT]2: Students
plication as repeated addition and use of the will skip count multiples of 1–12 to identify
distributive property to partition number patterns they find on a hundreds chart.
facts. In functional thinking, generalizes Functions and T-charts: Have children
functional relationships between two data solve function problems and discuss the
sets, using letters as variables to represent relationships between the columns.
this relationship (Blanton et al., 2015).
Given a situation involving two data sets,
relates the columns in a t-chart, describing
the specific math transformation that would
apply to each number in the first column to
generate the corresponding number in
the second column.
6–9 Functional Functions-as-Objects In functional thinking, Functions and T-charts: Have children solve
Algebraic generalizes functional relationships between function problems and discuss the relation-
Thinker two data sets, understanding the boundaries ships between the columns and how those
of generalizability and thus understanding need to change if we reconsider the situ-
the function as a math object (Blanton et al., ation, such as considering the train engine
2015). as a car in the “stops and cars” problem
Given a situation involving two data sets, (p. 282).
relates the columns in a t-chart, describing
the specific math transformation in
a formula and understands that changing
any conditions would change the relation-
ship. Uses variables to show the change,
such as C = S + S changed to C = S + S + 1 if
the engine is counted.

The Development of Data Analysis, Classification, and Probability

This learning trajectory develops children’s ability to understand, gather, and use data. In the early
years, data is an important context for solving problems but data analysis itself develops slowly.
Children first learn the foundational ideas and processes of classification, and then learn to quantify
the categories, that is, tell how many in each group. Eventually children learn to gather data to
answer a question or make a decision—an effective means to develop applied problem solving and
number and spatial sense.
294 Other Content Domains

Thus, the foundations for data analysis, especially for the early years, lie in other areas, such as
counting and classification. Object counting was discussed in Chapter 3. Classification is important
for structuring data but also as a general process that we have discussed throughout the book (see
also Chapter 13). Given its importance for data, we focus on it here. At all ages, children classify
intuitively. For example, by 2 weeks of age, infants distinguish between objects they suck and those
they do not. By 2 years, toddlers form sets with objects that are similar on some properties,
although not necessarily identical. At about age 3 most children learn to follow verbal rules for sort-
ing. In the preschool ages, many children learn to sort objects according to a given attribute, form-
ing categories, although they may switch attributes during the sorting. Not until age 5 or 6 years
do children usually sort consistently by a single attribute and re-classify by different attributes.
Turning to data analysis, development ideally begins with young children’s inquiries and investi-
gations of meaningful situations and phenomena, identifying important attributes of the phenom-
ena), and finally organizing, structuring, visualising, and representing data (English, 2010, 2018a;
Lehrer & Schauble, 2002).
Early in development, children learn to sort objects and quantify their groups. They might
sort a collection of buttons into those with one to four holes and count to find out how many
they have in each of the four groups. To do this, they focus on and describe the attributes of
objects, classifying according to those attributes, and quantify the resulting categories. Children
eventually became capable of simultaneously classifying and counting; for example, counting
the number of colors in a group of objects.
However, in data analysis, children also have to determine which attributes are relevant to solv-
ing a problem and which can be disregarded. Then the process of organizing and representing the
data can begin. This process, too, is developmental. Even after gathering pertinent data to answer
questions, children’s initial representations often do not use categories. Their interest in data is on
the particulars (Russell, 1991). For example, they might simply list each child in their class and each
child’s response to a question. They then learn to classify these responses and represent data
according to category. Finally, young children can use physical objects to make graphs (objects that
are the object of attention, such as shows, then manipulatives such as connecting cubes), then pic-
ture graphs, then line plots, and, finally, bar graphs that include grid lines to facilitate reading fre-
quencies (Friel, Curcio, & Bright, 2001). By second grade, most children should be able to organize
and display data through both simple numerical summaries such as counts, tables, and tallies, and
graphical displays, including picture graphs, line plots, and bar graphs (Russell, 1991). They can com-
pare parts of the data, make statements about the data as a whole, and generally determine
whether the graphs answer the questions posed initially.
To understand data analysis, students must learn the dual concepts of expectation and vari-
ation. Expectation deals with averages and probabilities (such as the mean, one measure of cen-
tral tendency). Variation deals with uncertainty, “spread” of values (such as the standard
deviations), outliers, and anticipated and unanticipated change. Data analysis has been called
the search for signals (expectations) within the noise (variation) (Konold & Pollatsek, 2002).
This research agrees that children often initially see only the individuals in a data display
(“That’s me. I liked chocolate best”). They do not “pull the pieces together” to think about the
data as a whole (Watson, Callingham, & Kelly, 2007). Children in the late primary or early inter-
mediate grades can learn to view ranges in data or view the mode (the number or range of
numbers that occurs most frequently). Eventually, students can focus on features of the data
 Other Content Domains 295

set as a whole, including the relative frequencies, density (“shape”), and location (centers, such
as the mean).
Probability is a difficult concept and is usually taught in later years. However, young children
do have some intuitive awareness of probability and can build on it with good experiences (Falk,
Yudilevich-Assouline, & Elstein, 2012). Children as young as preschoolers can discuss and even
document their various strategies for solving a problem such as, “One takes two marbles out of
a bag containing four (two red, two yellow) and notes the result. Which event will occur most
often if the experiment is undertaken 20 times?” (Van Bommel & Palmér, 2016, p. 101). These
might include playing freely chosen probability games which use dice and spinners. Such games
have been promoted in early chapters as building number and arithmetic concepts, and so
there is no concern of spending too much time on probability. If children are interested, alter-
ations of the random number generated could be used to stimulate discussions, such as spin-
ners with unequal areas for the different numbers.
A final note connects data representation and probability to the discussion of algebraic
thinking. The goal of both should be making sense of quantitative situations and laying the
foundation for more complex math to come. At the heart of both is the examination of quantita-
tive relationships and representing those relationships to better make sense of them.

Experience and Education: Data Analysis, Classification, and

Probability
Provide all young children with opportunities to achieve at least a minimal level of competence with
classification (and seriation, see Chapter 13) before they reach the primary grades. For classifica-
tion, they should at the least solve oddity problems—“one of these is not like the others.” Even
simple teaching strategies—demonstration, practice, and feedback with many varied concrete
examples—benefit children, especially those with special needs (Lebron-Rodriguez & Pasnak, 1977b;
Pasnak, 1987b). Children can be told and shown the rule but may need help figuring out rules and
when to use them. Game-like instruction may help children learn to induce simple rules. Consider
alternative, richer, problem-solving approaches that teach these and other competencies (see
Clements, 1984; Kamii, Rummelsburg, & Kari, 2005).
When should such instruction begin? Provide informal, child-centered experiences to children
younger than 3 years. Many 2½-year-old children know a rule and have relevant conceptual know-
ledge but fail to use it to regulate their behavior. Seemingly impervious to efforts to improve their
rule use, 32-month-olds could not label pictures in terms of appropriate categories, even with var-
ieties of extra help in sorting, including feedback and reinforcement (Zelazo, Reznick, & Piñon,
1995). Improvements in sorting by rules may require emerging control over actions. Challenge
older children to label, discuss attributes, and classify objects by more than one attribute.
Turning to data representation, such as graphs, preschoolers appear to be able to under-
stand discrete graphs as representations of numerosity based on one-to-one correspondence.
Providing them with examples, motivating tasks (such as graphing their progress toward gather-
ing all the items for a scavenger hunt), and feedback may be helpful.
The instruction in one successful exploratory study used two phases (Schwartz, 2004).
Phase 1 consists of group experiences. Selection of the topics for group graphing is guided by
children’s interest and ease of collection of data (“Who are the people that live in their houses?”
296 Other Content Domains

or “How does each child come to school?” or “What is their favorite home activity?”). Providing
a variety of models for recording data begins with concrete materials and extends to graphic,
alphabetic, and numeric representation. Teachers pose the problem of how the group could save
the information, so “we won’t forget what we said.” Some children suggested using concrete
materials for graphing the information. Also, many had little concern for sorting the data as they
recorded it. After a plan was agreed upon, children were able to help record the information.
Summarizing and interpreting the data began with the question, “What did we find out?”, which
focused attention on sorting the information. If a decision had to be made, such as what kinds of
cookies to purchase, children resorted. The second phase was independent data collection for
those children who were interested. These experiences build upon those in phase 1, with the
teacher providing tools (clipboards were popular), and working with individuals to organize,
record, and communicate their findings.
Another study reported success with children working with software that develops founda-
tional skills for data analysis (Hancock, 1995). Using “Tabletop Jr.,” children make and arrange
objects, such as cartoon characters, pizzas, stick figures, party hats, attribute “blocks,”
numerals, and abstract designs, which will be used to represent data or be the objects of the
exploration. All objects are created by combining simple attributes, just as attribute blocks are
structured (such blocks are one of the object sets). Children can choose the attributes for each
object produced, or have them generated randomly. See Figure 12.4.
Next, they can arrange them in different ways, including using loops (Venn diagrams),
bunches, stacks (picture graphs), grids, and chains. Children can make free-form arrangements

Figure 12.4 Using “Tabletop Jr.,” children create stick figures by choosing attributes
 Other Content Domains 297

manually, or they can get the objects to arrange themselves automatically, based on their attri-
butes. The objects are animated and move across the screen to meet whatever rule of arrange-
ment has been defined by the user. Arrangements may be treated as patterns and designs, or
as plots and graphs that can help with analyzing data. Figure 12.5 is a computer-generated sort
of children’s hand sizes.
These tools can be used to play “guess my rule” and others that emphasize attributes, sort-
ing, and arranging data. Anecdotal reports with children as young as 5 years of age are positive
(Hancock, 1995).
As a reminder of how all this content and processes hang together, recall the early algebra
project by Maria Blanton and others in the patterning section of this chapter, involving counting
and organizing data (e.g., using t-charts, see p. 282–287 and Figure 12.2).
Thus, we suggest that curricula and teachers might focus on one big idea: Classifying, organiz-
ing, representing, and using information to ask and answer questions. If graphing is to be part of
that type of activity, young children might use physical objects to make graphs, such as laying
down “shoes or sneakers” in two columns on a square grid laid on the floor. Next, they could use
manipulatives, or other discrete, physical objects such as connecting cubes. This could be repre-
sented next with picture graphs (Friel et al., 2001) and, in first grade, with simple bar graphs.

Learning Trajectory for Classification and Data

The CCSSM’s goals for data analysis are shown in Table 12.3 and the two other parts of the
learning trajectory in Table 12.4.

Final Words
How essential are the topics of this chapter? If viewed as “separate topics”—for example, units
of instruction on different types of repeating patterns, or on graphing—they are of secondary

Figure 12.5 Children instruct the computer to sort their data in a pictograph
298 Other Content Domains

Table 12.3 Goals for Data Analysis from the CCSSM

Measurement and Data [K.MD In CCSS]

Classify Objects and Count the Number of Objects in Each Category.
1. Classify objects into given categories; count the numbers of objects in each category and sort the categor-
ies by count.
Measurement and Data [1.MD In CCSS]
Represent and Interpret Data.
1. Organize, represent, and interpret data with up to three categories; ask and answer questions about the
total number of data points, how many in each category, and how many more or less are in one category
than in another.
Measurement and Data [2.MD In CCSS]
Represent and Interpret Data.
1. Generate measurement data by measuring lengths of several objects to the nearest whole unit, or by
making repeated measurements of the same object. Show the measurements by making a line plot, where
the horizontal scale is marked off in whole-number units.
2. Draw a picture graph and a bar graph (with single-unit scale) to represent a data set with up to four cat-
egories. Solve simple put-together, take-apart, and compare problems using information presented in
a bar graph.
Measurement and Data [3.MD In CCSS]
Represent and Interpret Data.
1. Draw a scaled picture graph and a scaled bar graph to represent a data set with several categories. Solve
one- and two-step “how many more” and “how many less” problems using information presented in
scaled bar graphs. For example, draw a bar graph in which each square in the bar graph might represent
five pets.
2. Generate measurement data by measuring lengths using rulers marked with halves and fourths of an inch.
Show the data by making a line plot, where the horizontal scale is marked off in appropriate units—whole
numbers, halves, or quarters.

Table 12.4 Learning Trajectory for Classification and Data

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

0–1 Foundations: Similarity Intuiter Classification Classifying in Play, [LT]2: Provide many objects to
Intuitively recognizes objects or situations as explore. Name objects and mention those that are
similar in some way (objects to suck or not, 2 the same and different.
weeks). Places objects together that are differ-
ent (6 months) and then alike (12 months).
Classifies informally, for example by differen-
tiating between objects they suck and those
they do not at 2 weeks of age.
1–2 Similar/dissimilar Maker Classification By 18 Everyday Classifying, [LT]2: In natural situations,
months, forms sets in which objects in each set name objects and mention those that are the same
are identical and objects in the other sets are dif- and different and the attribute(s) on which they are
ferent, and by 2 years, intuitively forms groups the same or differ.
with objects that are similar on some attributes
(may be mixed and inconsistent), but not neces-
sarily identical. May use functional relationships
as basis for sorting.

(Continued )
 Other Content Domains 299

Table 12.4 (Cont.)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

In play, puts several red toy animals together,

and then sees several red cats, so puts other
cats with them regardless of the color.
3 Simple Sorter Classification Follows verbal rules Sort Stuff, [LT]2: Provide materials to think with and
for sorting scaffolded by an adult. (These may be to sort, including by color but also by size, shape,
made with shifting criteria; nevertheless, they function, and so forth. Especially look for the initial
play an essential role in number, through the sorting that children naturally do—ask them about it
unitizing process.) Can “fix” a simple sort with and look for ways to build upon it.
mistakes. Sort Race, [LT]2: Play games that emphasize sort-
ing. Lay out bowls and objects, such as different
Told a simple rule for classifying pictures, types of buttons, beans, or letters. To focus on color,
sorts with adult assistance, such as modeling put different colors of construction paper on the
the sorting or reminding the child of the wall, and give children dot stickers to put on the
attribute. same-color paper. To avoid always sorting by color,
lay out the bowls and a lot of objects—all the same
color.
4 Sorter by Similar Attributes Classification Sorts Not Quite the Same, [LT]2: Read A Mother for Choco
objects according to an explicit attribute by Keiko Kasza and record, on a whiteboard, chil-
(although still may decide to switch attributes dren’s ideas about why Choco thought different ani-
during the sorting). The end result may appear to mals could be his mother. How is each the same as
reflect adult categorizations, but often has Choco, and different? (See Hynes-Berry & Grandau,
a different basis, such as general resemblance. 2019.)
Sort by One Attribute, [LT]2: Small group lessons
Can, especially if scaffolded, “hold fast” for involving demonstration, practice, and feedback with
some time to a criterion for sorting and rec- many varied concrete examples (especially important
ognize that alternative bases for classification for at-risk pre-K and kindergarten children, those
exist. However, may switch and are still pre- with IEPs, and others, such as children with visual
disposed to respond in certain ways. impairments). Remember many number and shape
activities involve classification!
Sorting Books, [LT]2: Read How Many Snails?
(Giganti & Crews, 1994) in which children different
subcategories of things, such as separate colors of
flowers in the meadow. Afterwards, sort objects by
an attribute such as color and then count how many
of each color. Another good story is Hannah’s Collec-
tions (Marthe, 2000). Hannah has to figure out which
of her many collections to take to school. There is
also a new math idea on every page, including a good
introduction to “guess my rule” games.
Guess My Rule, [LT]2 games are also excellent for
classifying. See Table 8.1. Giving children clues con-
cerning, or naming and discussing, a rule enables
them to represent and follow it.
Sort and Count, [LT]2: Encourage children to sort
objects and quantify their groups. They might sort
a collection of buttons into those with one to four
holes and count to find out how many they have in
each of the four groups. To do this, they focus on
and describe the attributes of objects, classifying
according to those attributes, and quantify the
resulting categories.
One Of These Things Is Not Like The Others, [LT]2:
Sing this song and play the game with a variety of
attributes and materials.

(Continued )
300 Other Content Domains

Table 12.4 (Cont.)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

4–6 Consistent, Flexible Sorter Classification Sorts Classify with Cause, [LT]2: Have children sort for a
consistently by a single attribute and re-classifies reason (“classification with good causation,” Forman
by different attributes. Sorts consistently and & Hill, 1984, see Chapter 13, p. 307). For example,
exhaustively by an attribute, given or created, they might discover math or science concepts by
and uses the terms “some” and “all.” classifying three-dimensional solids to find out which
will and will not roll down a ramp … and why. Or,
which ones stack and which don’t, and why. And so
forth for science (which objects does a magnet
attract).
Resorting to (Re-sorting), [LT]2: In a whole group,
read Five Creatures by Emily Jenkins, about a girl
who classifies “creatures” (family and cats!) many
different ways. Then divide the children into two
groups, to be sorted and sort checkers. Model one
way to sort and have children act it out, with check-
ers checking. Then children suggest new ways.
Switch roles. (See Hynes-Berry & Grandau, 2019.)
Guess My Rule, [LT]2 games are also excellent for
classifying. See Table 8.1. Research suggests that if
children need help, try direct verbal instruction, feed-
back, and modeling by peers just one level above the
target child’s assessed level.
4–6 Data Case Viewer Data Associates a value with Graph with Things, [LT]2: Work with children to use
an individual case. Uses numeric data to identify physical objects to make graphs (objects that are the
largest/smallest cases. May graph by listing all object of attention, such as shoes, then manipula-
cases. tives such as connecting cubes) on large grids.
Before this level, children may be “pointers” Picture Graphs, [LT]2: Construct other types of
in which data records point to the entire event discrete (e.g., picture) graphs with children as repre-
(“We talked about favorite colors”). They use it sentations of numerosity based on one-to-one cor-
like string tied around a finger, to remember that respondence. Interpret the graphs and use them to
they did something. solve math problems. Provide children with
examples, motivating tasks such graphing their pro-
Children may at first see only the individuals gress toward gathering items for a scavenger hunt,
in a data display (“That’s me. I’m turning 6 and feedback, may be helpful.
this year”). They do not “pull the pieces
together” to think about the data as a whole.
5–6 Data Classifier Data Treats cases with similar Classifying and Graphing for the Environment, [LT]2:
values as the same. Uses to compare category A class reads Baxter Brown’s Messy Room and helps
frequencies (most and least popular case-types). Baxter figure out which items in his room might be
Visually compares two graphs. Makes graphs by recycled, which might be reused, and which should
classifying and representing data in those be thrown away, based on the attributes of the items.
categories. They classify pictures of the items and graph the
number of each category several times, creating
“More people picked red as their favorite their own representations (for a full description, see
color than any other color.” English, 2010)
5–7 Multiple Attribute Classifier Classification Clas- Matrices, [LT]2: Have children complete two-
sifies objects by multiple attributes in a single dimensional matrices, puzzles that have, for example,
sort. rows with different shapes and columns with differ-
ent colors.
“I’ll put the big triangles here, the little ones
next to them, then the big circles there and
then the little circles.”

(Continued )
 Other Content Domains 301

Table 12.4 (Cont.)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

Red Green Orange Blue

7–8 Data Aggregater Data Classifies objects that Our Data, [LT]2: Students select a topic, decide what
may be perceptually different by more abstract attributes are important, and then invent a variety of
attributes such as function or conceptual models for recording their data. After sharing and
attributes. discussing they create different ways to model and
Focuses on features of the data set as interpret their data.
a whole. Uses to describe relative frequency and What Is the Chance of That?, [LT]2: In this series
density (shape), and location (centers). of investigations of probability and variation, children
Begins to understand the concepts of expect- create their own chance experiments and independ-
ation (averages and probabilities) and variation ently developed core probability understandings.
(“spread” of values). They record examples of events that would be cer-
tain to happen for them the following weekend, could
Reacting to a graph of the number of years possibly happen, and would be impossible to occur.
families have lived in a town: “Look at that They then play a “bingo” game where the notions of
clump. Most families have lived here 1 to 6 randomness and variation in chance events were
years.” “How many?” “It’s 11 families out of experienced. Finally, they help a game-design com-
23—almost half.” pany determine the chances of selecting various col-
Understands ranges in data or the mode (the oured counters from a mystery bag. (English, 2018a).
number that occurs most frequently). Eventually,
can focus on features of the data set as a whole,
including the relative frequencies, density
(“shape”), and location (centers, such as the
mean).
8 Hierarchical Classifier Classification Classifies Matrices, [LT]2: Have children complete Venn dia-
categories and subcategories using hierarchical grams such those in Chapter 8, Figure 8.2, or simpler
inclusion. ones to begin, such as this.
Conscientiously classifies according to mul-
tiple attributes, naming and relating the attri-
butes, understanding that objects could belong
to more than one group.
Completes two-dimensional classification
matrices or forming subgroups within groups.

(Continued )
302 Other Content Domains

Table 12.4 (Cont.)

Age Developmental Progression Instructional Tasks

8+ Data Representer Data Shows an appreciation Making Licorice, [LT]2: Students experience the “cre-
of the “center” of graphs and for their variation ation of variation” as they compared “licorice sticks”
or spread. Compares graphs of data sets of the they make by hand (with Play-Doh) to those factory-
same size accurately. Similarly, can use other made (i.e., using a Play-Doh extruder kit). That is,
representations such as tables to detect variation they discuss quality control and then in small groups
in different sets, develop models of those vari- identify, measure, compare, and record attributes of
ations, and apply them to make predictions. the sticks including their mass. Each child creates
their own representation of their group’s data.
Whole-group presentations, discussions, and a graph
of all the data identify the range and “typical”
masses displayed in each group model (English,
2018a).
Classy Art for Classification, [LT]2: Students
develop a rule-based classification model of self-
portraits drawn by children of different ages. That is,
children identify attributes that are common among
a small number of kindergarten portraits and those
that are common among Grade 2 portraits. They
then test their model on a larger number of self-
portraits for each age, using tables and graphical
representations to support their reasoning. That is,
they apply their models to predict what new self-
portraits are drawn by kindergartners and which
by second graders (for full details, see Oslington,
Mulligan, & Van Bergen, 2018b).

importance and may even take too much time away from the core instruction described in pre-
vious chapters. However, if they are viewed as fundamental processes and ways of thinking—
habits of mind that seek math patterns and structure and classify math objects and ideas—they
are an essential component of most early math education. (The importance of early graphing is
unknown, and we promote it only when a real problem arises that graphs will help answer more
than, for example, a simple table.) Similar arguments apply to the processes that are the focus
of Chapter 13.

Notes
1 For example, patterns represented by two attributes of change (shape and color) are easier than those
represented by just one (e.g., orientation). Further, this may be more difficult for some children or popu-
lations of children (Warren, Miller, & Cooper, 2012).
2 Fixing a pattern is easier than the other if only one item is missing but may be more difficult if more
than one is missing.
13 Mathematical Processes
and Practices

Carmen had almost filled her pretend pizzas with toppings. As she got ready to roll the
number cube, she said, “I’m going to get a high number and win!” “You can’t,” replied
her friend, “You have four spaces and the number cube only has 1s, 2s, and 3s on it.”

The numbers may be small, but the reasoning is impressive. Children can reason mathematic-
ally. Indeed, one could argue that math is essential for all thinking. That’s a strong statement.
How can it be true that all thinking involves math? Logic (reasoning) is a branch of mathematics
and thinking involves logic at some point.
Consider the first vignette. Before reading further, ask yourself: What reasoning do you think
Carmen’s friend was using? In our view, Carmen’s friend probably intuitively used logic that
might be described as the following:

• To win, Carmen must get at least a 4.

• The number cube has only 1, 2, and 3.
• These numbers are less than 4.
• Therefore, Carmen cannot win on her next roll.

Although logic might seem like the most abstract, least likely area of math for young chil-
dren to learn to use, researchers and other sensitive observers see implicit use of logic in all
children. An 18-month-old child pulling a blanket to bring a toy within reach shows the begin-
nings of “means–end” analysis.
Children appear to be impressive problem solvers, as we’ve seen in every previous chapter. Here,
we focus on problem solving, reasoning, and other math processes or, as the CCSS calls them, “math-
ematical practices” (see Table 13.1). These describe varieties of expertise that math educators at all
levels should seek to develop in their students. The practices rest on two important “processes and
proficiencies” with longstanding importance in math education. The first of these are the NCTM pro-
cess standards of problem solving, reasoning and proof, communication, representation, and connec-
tions. The second are the strands of mathematical proficiency specified in the National Research
Council’s report, Adding It Up (Kilpatrick et al., 2001): adaptive reasoning, strategic competence, con-
ceptual understanding (comprehension of math concepts, operations, and relations), procedural flu-
ency (skill in carrying out procedures flexibly, accurately, efficiently, and appropriately), and
productive disposition (habitual inclination to see math as sensible, useful, and worthwhile, coupled
304 Mathematical Processes and Practices

Table 13.1 The Common Core State Standards for Mathematical Practices (abbreviated from CCSSO/NGA,
2010, Pp. 6–8) and Illustrations from Early Childhood

1. Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them

Mathematically proficient students Making sense of problems and perseverance in solving them—don’t we
start by explaining to themselves the emphasize these every day? Children invent solutions that are mean-
meaning of a problem and looking for ingful to them by thinking about all the different strategies they could
entry points to its solution. […] They use (Clements et al., 2020).
monitor and evaluate their progress Do I have to put together two quantities, or take them apart (Chap-
and change course if necessary. […] ter 5)? How can I slide, turn, or flip this shape to finish that puzzle
Mathematically proficient students (Chapters 7 and 9)? How can I make sure I have just the right number
check their answers to problems for my table (Chapter 4)?
using a different method, and they
continually ask themselves, “Does
this make sense?” They can under-
stand the approaches of others to
solving complex problems and iden-
tify correspondences between differ-
ent approaches.
2. Reason abstractly and quantitatively
Mathematically proficient students We have seen children can reason quantitatively, intuitively at least,
make sense of quantities and their from birth! But can young children reason abstractly? Yes! Remember
relationships in problem situations. […] Abby thinking about her missing trains (Chapter 3, p. 36) or the first
Quantitative reasoning entails habits grader thinking about lengths saying, “If it’s an inequality, then you
of creating a coherent representation can write four statements. If it’s equal, you can only write two” (Chap-
of the problem at hand; considering ter 10, p. #)? Or 4-year-olds knowing that if four are under a cloth and
the units involved; attending to the you put another one there, “It’s 5!”
meaning of quantities, not just how to
compute them; and knowing and flex-
ibly using different properties of oper-
ations and objects.
3. Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others
Mathematically proficient students […] If you have ever argued with a preschooler over bedtime when the
make conjectures and build a logical summer sun is still shining, you know their ability to make their case
progression of statements to explore and critique your reasoning. If sharing blocks, “You got 6 and I got 4,
the truth of their conjectures. […] that’s not fair, ’cause 6 is more than 4.” Or, “I think that every time
They justify their conclusions, commu- you multiply by zero, it’s got to be zero. There’s none of them—zero!”
nicate them to others, and respond to Children from ages 1 to 5 years use mathematical properties in rea-
the arguments of others. […] Elemen- soning during free outdoor play (Sumpter & Hedefalk, 2015)! The
tary students can construct argu- beginning of real mathematics—reasoning and proof.
ments using concrete referents such
as objects, drawings, diagrams, and
actions. Such arguments can make
sense and be correct, even though
they are not generalized or made
formal until later grades. […]
4. Model with mathematics
Mathematically proficient students When they solve a problem by making sets with counters, or lay units
can apply the mathematics they know down to compare the lengths of two objects, children are modeling
to solve problems arising in everyday with mathematics. Their models get more abstract, even in the pri-
life, society, and the workplace. In mary grades. Recall the solution to the “67 + 83 = x + 82” problem: “I
early grades, this might be as simple knew 83 is one more than 82, so x has to be one more than 67 to bal-
as writing an addition equation to ance—68!”
describe a situation. […]

5. Use appropriate tools strategically

Mathematically proficient students Children love to use tools. Earlier chapters show how they use all
consider the available tools when these tools. They relate the tools, seeing how and why laying inch-

(Continued )
 Mathematical Processes and Practices 305

Table 13.1 (Cont).

solving a mathematical problem. long objects down gives the same measure as using a ruler. Counters
These tools might include pencil and are tools to build solutions and justifications for solving problems.
paper, concrete models, a ruler, Shapes are tools for arguing that equilateral triangles cannot be used
a protractor, a calculator, to completely fill a large square.
a spreadsheet […].

6. Attend to precision
Mathematically proficient students Asking young children “How do you know?” “What if…?” and similar
try to communicate precisely to questions develops their ability to communicate and be precise in their
others. They try to use clear defin- argumentation. Recall the preschooler arguing with her friend who
itions in discussion with others and in claimed a shape was “too skinny” to be a triangle: “It is a triangle. It’s
their own reasoning. […] In the elem- got three straight sides, see? One, two, three! It doesn’t matter that
entary grades, students give carefully I made it skinny.” This is justification based on mathematical definitions
formulated explanations to each and logic (Chapter 8, p. 106). In the early years, rules become increasingly
other. […] important, such as in their play. And so it is with mathematics: This is the
beginning of real mathematics—precision of thinking and reasoning.

7. Look for and make use of structure

Mathematically proficient students Children use structure from their earliest years, “It is too a dog, it’s
look closely to discern a pattern or got four legs and barks—it’s just small as a cat.” The mathematical
structure. Young students, for examples from the CCSSM are perfect: Commutativity (a + b = b + a),
example, might notice that three and associativity: 7 + 4 + 6 = 7 + (4 + 6) = 7 + 10 = 17 are algebraic patterns
seven more is the same amount as that well-taught primary-grade students abstract, use, and discuss
seven and three more, or they may (Chapter 12).
sort a collection of shapes according
to how many sides the shapes have.
Later, students will see 7 × 8 equals
the well-remembered 7 × 5 + 7 × 3, in
preparation for learning about the
distributive property. […]
8. Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning
Mathematically proficient students Similarly, children see patterns in repeated reasoning: “If you keep
notice if calculations are repeated putting another one in there … it’s like … just the next counting
and look both for general methods number!” “Look. This pattern is growing one more on the top and two
and for shortcuts. […] more on the bottom. So, the top is regular counting, and the bottom is
counting by twos.”

(Clements, Agodini, & Harris, 2013; Platas, 2019; Sarama & Clements, 2009c)

with a belief in diligence and one’s own efficacy). Table 13.1 presents an abbreviated description of the
CCSSM practices along with elaborations and illustrations of them for early childhood.

Reasoning and Problem Solving

Even though advanced mathematical reasoning would be inappropriate for most young children,
you can help them develop mathematical reasoning, along with precision of thinking and defin-
itions, at their level. Recall preschoolers arguing about whether a shape is a triangle, based on
its attributes and their definition of a triangle as a (closed) shape with three straight sides
(Chapter 8). Young children arguing that “we already found 5 + 2 is 7, so we know 2 + 5, ’cause
306 Mathematical Processes and Practices

you can always add with either number first” shows again their ability to reason from mathem-
atical properties (Chapters 5 and 6). And they can reason with data as well (Oslington et al.,
2018, Chapter 12). Children as young as 5 years can engage in all types of relational reasoning
(Jablansky, Alexander, Dumas, & Compton, 2015).
Mathematical reasoning is a core process and makes a unique contribution to children’s mathem-
atical development. For example, in one study, fluid (relational) reasoning was the only consistent
predictor of mathematics achievements decades later (Green, Bunge, Briones Chiongbian, Barrow,
& Ferrer, 2017). Another team of researchers found that mathematical reasoning and arithmetic
made separate and specific contributions to mathematical achievement (Nunes, Bryant, Barros, &
Sylva, 2012). Further, mathematical reasoning was the strongest predictor, greater than arithmetic
skill and greater than general intelligence and working memory. Training in logical reasoning
increased children’s mathematics achievement in a related study (Nunes et al., 2007).
Of course, children use such reasoning in solving problems. There are also additional strat-
egies possessed by young children. Luke, 3 years old, watched his father unsuccessfully looking
under the van for a washer that had fallen and suggested, “Why don’t you just roll the car back,
so you can find it?” Luke employed means–end analysis better than his father. This strategy
involves determining the difference between the current state and the goal, and then taking
action that reduces the difference between them, reasoning backward from the goal to set sub-
goals. Means–end problem solving may emerge between 6 and 9 months, when, as in the previ-
ous example, children learn to pull on a blanket to bring a toy into their reach.
Even young children have multiple problem-solving strategies at their disposal and the ability to
choose among them. Means–end analysis is a general strategy, as are several others. Children know
and prefer cognitively easier strategies. For example, in hill climbing, children reason forward from
the current state in the direction of the desired goal (DeLoache, Miller, & Pierroutsakos, 1998).
Children develop such abilities from the first months of life. For example, infants are shown
three crosses and one cube mixing in a machine. They are hidden. If a cube comes out, they
look at it longer than if a cross emerges. Studies show that they may use logic or probabilities
in estimating which is more likely (Denison & Xu, 2019). As another example, before 6 months
of age, children will explore objects in a variety of ways (Sarama & Clements, 2009).
By 1 year, they respond to new objects with interest, recognizing differences, and change
their actions to seek an object they want. These sorts of trial and error, with light cognitive
requirements, are related to Piagetian circular reactions—trying to make an interesting sight or
sound repeat. Between 1 and 2 years, they search for hidden toys and purposely experiment
with the effects of new actions on objects. They try a strategy they found successful in one
situation (tugging on a stuck object) in new situations. By 2 years, they vary their actions sys-
tematically, and use objects in new, creative ways to solve problems.
These strategies develop throughout the toddler and preschool years, enabling children to
address problems of increasing complexity. For example, recall that kindergartners can solve
a wide range of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division problems when they are
encouraged to use manipulatives or drawings to model the objects, actions, and relationships in
those situations.
In summary, considering their minimal experience, young children are impressive problem
solvers. They are learning to learn and learning the rules of the “reasoning game.” Research on
problem solving and reasoning again reveals that children are more skilled, and adults less
 Mathematical Processes and Practices 307

skilled, than conventionally thought. Although domain-specific knowledge is essential (Özcan &
Doğan, 2017), we should not fail to recognize that reasoning from domain-specific knowledge
builds upon the basis of mindful general problem-solving and reasoning abilities that are evident
from the earliest years. Helping children talk about problem solving (“vocal engagement”) and
make strategic plans to solve problems builds multiple abilities and reduces the risk of academic
failure (McDermott et al., 2010). Notice if some children get anxious tackling difficult problems (Ho-
Hong, 2017). Finally, remember that a reasoning approach also develops math knowledge—such as
fluency with arithmetic combinations, better than direct instruction (Baroody et al., 2016).

The Logical Operations: Classification, Seriation, and

Patterning and Algebraic Thinking
We have already discussed classification, seriation, and patterning in multiple chapters. The
development of classification, for example, was described in detail in Chapter 12 … but also, chil-
dren were classifying by number, shape, and even arithmetic type throughout all the previous
chapters. Similarly, children were seriating—putting in order—numbers and measures in multiple
chapters. And we emphasize again that patterning, writ large, is also one of the most important
processes and habits of mind for mathematical thinking (Chapter 12).
Then, why bring them up again? Because these “logical operations” (Piaget) are general
mathematical processes fundamental to children’s success in mathematics … and in school and
life (Ciancio, Rojas, McMahon, & Pasnak, 2001; Pasnak, 2017; Pasnak et al., 2015).

Experience and Education

You present problems, and they figure out what to do. You present problems, and they
figure out what to do. Then you ask what process they used. I’m amazed … they learn to
describe their processes! They’ll use this knowledge to answer science questions. They
really do critical thinking. Asking, “How do you know?” starting at pre-K is very powerful.
(Anne, preschool teacher, Building Blocks curriculum)

The NCTM, the NAEYC, mathematicians (e.g., Wu, 2011), and research all point to the same
educational goal and recommendation: essential processes, especially reasoning and problem
solving, must be central to the mathematical education of students of all ages.

Reasoning
Help children develop pre-mathematical reasoning from the earliest years. Provide an environ-
ment that invites exploration and reasoning with objects such as blocks. Encourage language to
support the growth of reasoning abilities. For example, labeling situations with both “Daddy/
Mommy/Baby” and “big/little/tiny” led to a 2-year age gain in reasoning with relations in
3-year-old children. As other chapters have shown, having children explain and justify their
308 Mathematical Processes and Practices

solutions to mathematical problems is an effective way to develop mathematical (and general)

reasoning.
Encourage, notice, and discuss children’s reasoning in play too. Consider this episode of
preschoolers climbing rocks (Sumpter & Hedefalk, 2015, adapted from p. 5). The teacher,
Kristina, notes, “That one, that one is pretty big. I think it is bigger than me.” Kasper:
“Should we measure? … It is bigger than me anyway” [walks and stands next to the rock
and looks up, using her own body as a measure]. Kristina: “Yes, it is bigger than you
anyway” [directly comparing lengths, Chapter 10]. The teacher notes that the rock is not as
tall as she is. The children disagree, stating they are the same, but when the teacher moves
next to it, they agree it comes up to her nose. The children then climb the rock and say:
“Yes, but the house is bigger than the rock.” Kristina: “The house? Yes, definitely. Because
the house, I can step in [the house], right?” [transitive reasoning]. The children open up the
mathematical questions, but the teacher provides most of the reasoning; however, providing
such models can be useful.
Later the children do the reasoning when building a tower. Sara says the tower “should be,
taller than you. Then you need to look up …. It will be fat cool when we add this [a sitting pad]
on top.” Kasper: “Yes. But not so high” [challenging the length]. Sara: “Yes, taller than her
(pointing at the observer). Taller!” [contradicting]. Sofia: “No [agreeing with Sara, not Kasper],
we are going high.” Kasper [clarifying/limiting]: “Not all the way up to the house.” Sara [agree-
ing but establishing a goal]: “No, but as tall as the slide. … Tall as Kristoffer [teacher]. So then,
we need to make it as tall as the slide …. Then it is taller than Kristoffer, ok.”
Sara suggested that they should increase the height by adding to the length: A + D >
A. Kasper challenged the estimation and Sara, with the support of Sofia, then delivered several
arguments where she narrowed the estimation, reaching a conclusion based on deductive logic:
If A = B (and B > C), then A > C.

Problem Solving1
Children make progress when they solve many problems over the course of years. Children as
young as preschoolers and kindergartners, and perhaps younger, benefit from intentional
instruction (but not prescribed strategies), from a teacher who believes problem solving is
important. They benefit from modeling a wide variety of situations (geometric, and, in arith-
metic, varied problem types, including addition, subtraction, and, appropriately, multiplication,
and division) with concrete objects, and also from drawing a representation to show their think-
ing, as well as from explaining and discussing their solutions.
Solving more complex word problems remains a challenge for primary-grade students. Their
conceptions must move from the many messy details of a real-world situation to more abstracted
(mathematized) quantitative conceptions (Fuson & Abrahamson, 2009). For example, children
might read, “Mary bought 8 candies at the store, but she ate 3 on the way home. How many did she
still have when she got home?” The children have to see that the store plays little part, but that it’s
important that there is a group of candies and some got eaten. They might then think, she had 8
but ate 3. Then, I have to find 8 take away 3. Then they might think to model this with fingers,
finally putting up 8 fingers and lowering the 3 on one hand. Using “you-language” especially at first
may help; “You bought 8 candies …” (Artut, 2015). Also, recall (Chapter 5, p. 106) that asking children
 Mathematical Processes and Practices 309

to explore problems, then instructing, and then having them check their answers is particularly
effective (Loehr et al., 2014).
As an example sequence, start by having as many students as possible solve a problem at
the chalkboard, using diagrams, numerals, and so forth, while others solve them at their seats,
on student-sized chalk- or whiteboards if available. Then ask two to three to explain their solu-
tions. Have a different group go to the chalkboard to solve the next problem. Eventually, all
children explain their thinking on at least one problem (and explain to another student on
most). English language learners (ELLs) may point to their diagram or co-present a solution
with a peer. Educational technology can make multiple contributions (Herodotou, 2018; Out-
hwaite, Faulder, Gulliford, & Pitchford, 2019).
Progress from easier to more difficult problem types. For each problem type, move from
problems with more familiar situations and language to those that are less familiar. Guide stu-
dents first to use more sophisticated strategies and then to algorithms. Also, introduce prob-
lems with extra or missing information, as well as multistep problems. Use larger or more
complex numbers (e.g., fractions). Combine new problem types with other problem types and
practice with feedback. See p. 91 for problem types.
Problem solving is particularly important in the primary grades. For example, having first
graders explain their strategies for solving problems and working on problems is related to
higher math achievement (Guarino, Dieterle, Bargagliotti, & Mason, 2013). Research suggests
that this process of mathematizing the story situation has a reverse process that is also import-
ant. That is, children should also make up word problems that fit number sentences (Fuson,
2018). Problem posing appears to be an effective way for children to express their creativity
and integrate their learning (Brown & Walter, 1990; Kilpatrick, 1987; van Oers, 1994). Solving
problems in the context of a project-based approach can be particularly motivating and
beneficial.

Classification and Seriation as Logical Operations

Ideas for teaching these processes are in most chapters (e.g., classifying by number and shape,
seriating by discrete number and continuous measures). Also, classification is in the learning
trajectory in Table 12.3 and seriation in Chapters 4, 10, and 11. Here we simply add a few notes
on these two processes as logical operations and we emphasize that these processes may best
be developed as ways to solve meaningful everyday problems for the child. As Jean Piaget
(1971/1974, p. 17) stated:

The child may on occasion be interested in seriating for the sake of seriating, in classifying
for the sake of classifying, etc., but, in general, it is when events or phenomena must be
explained and goals attained through an organization of causes that operations [logico-
mathematical knowledge] will be used [and developed] most.

For example, although many types of activities may support the learning of classification,
a guideline of “classify with good causation” (Forman & Hill, 1984) indicates that children will
310 Mathematical Processes and Practices

learn from sorting shapes according to teachers’ directions, but more from also sorting 3D
objects to find out which will and will not roll down a ramp … and why.
Taking a wider Piagetian view, researchers (Kamii et al., 2005) provided first graders from
low-resource communities a variety of physical knowledge activities, such as bowling, balancing
cubes (on a circular plate balanced on a soda bottle), and pick-up sticks, instead of typical math-
ematics instruction. When they showed “readiness” for arithmetic, they were given arithmetic
games and word problems that stimulated the exchange of viewpoints. At the end of the year,
these children outperformed others who focused narrowly on number instruction. The
researchers claim that the physical knowledge activities also develop logico-mathematical know-
ledge, as in classifying the sticks to decide which stick to pick up first and seriating them from
easiest to hardest to pick up. Effects of the physical knowledge and arithmetic activities cannot
be disaggregated, and there was no random assignment, but the results are suggestive (see
also Kamii & Kato, 2005).
Other research suggests that the processes of classification and seriation are related to
number knowledge—but in surprising ways. Preschoolers were randomly assigned to one of
three educational conditions for 8 weeks: classification and seriation, number (subitizing and
counting), and control (Clements, 1984). The first two groups improved on what they were
taught, but also improved on the other topics. Also surprisingly, the number group learned
more about classification and seriation than the classification and seriation group learned about
number. It may be that all number and counting implies some level of classification. For
example, children might count the blue cars, the red cars, and then all the cars.
And, although these studies used physical materials, the meaningfulness of the representa-
tions and tasks are more important than the form of the materials; therefore, well-designed
computer materials may be as or more useful than physical materials (Clements, 1999a, see
also Chapter 16) for those older than 3 years. In one study, children learning from computer
manipulatives learned classification and other topics as well as children learning from physical
materials, but only the computer group gained significantly on seriation (Kim, 1994). Further,
the computer manipulatives provided children with a more interesting learning environment
that generated more time thinking mathematically.
Finally, remember that high-quality classification games can be good for mathematical prac-
tices and executive function! See Guess My Rule in several levels of Table 8.1.

Final Words
Children can be impressive problem solvers. They are learning to learn and learning the rules of
the “reasoning game.” Problem posing and problem solving are effective ways for children to
express their inventiveness and integrate their learning. They develop mathematics, language,
and creativity. And they build connections among these—the essence of learning to think.
Especially for younger children, mathematical topics should not be treated as isolated topics;
rather, they should be connected to each other, often in the context of solving a significant
problem or engaging in an interesting project. Thus, this book’s main organization based on
mathematical content should not be considered a de-emphasis on other aspects of mathemat-
ics, including general processes and practices, which should be interwoven throughout the
teaching and learning of content.
 Mathematical Processes and Practices 311

This concludes the chapters focused on mathematical goals and specific learning trajectories.
Chapter 14 begins with a discussion of cognition (thinking, understanding, and learning), affect
(emotions or feelings), and equity (fairness).

Note
1 Most of the information regarding teaching problem solving is integrated within the content chapters.
14 Cognition, Affect, and Equity

Three teachers are discussing their students who are “good” and “not so good” at math:

Aretha: Some students are just good at math and others aren’t. You can’t change it. You
can tell just by watching them in your classroom.
Brenda: I don’t think so. Students get smarter at math by thinking about it. Working at it
makes them smarter.
Carina: There certainly are a few who seem to find aspects of math particularly chal-
lenging and a few who, for whatever reason, can learn new math ideas
quickly. But no one’s ability is fixed; they all need good experiences to learn
more and those experiences make them better at … more able to learn more
math.

Which teacher do you think is most accurate in her evaluation of the roles of aptitude or ability
(“nature”) compared to effort and experience (“nurture”)? Why?

Thinking, Learning, Feeling, Teaching

The last three chapters of this book discuss issues that are important for putting learning tra-
jectories into practice. This chapter describes how children think about math and how their
feelings are involved, as well as crucial issues of equity. The next one, Chapter 15, discusses
the contexts in which early childhood education occurs and the curricula that are used. We
conclude with Chapter 16, which describes instructional practices and reviews research on
which ones are particularly effective and for whom. The topics of these three chapters are
unique to this book. Because there are no corresponding chapters in the companion book,
there is more research reviewed. We have marked the final paragraph(s) in each section with
tips for practitioners with the phrase Practical Implications for those who wish to focus only
on these.
 Cognition, Affect, and Equity 313

Learning: Processes and Issues

Cognitive Science and the Processes of Learning
At the core of our theory of hierarchic interactionalism (see our companion book), and our
learning trajectories, are the learning processes of young children. This section “steps back”
from the specific math topics to focus on a few important general principles of cognition and
learning that you can use to better understand children’s thinking and learning.
When children think and learn, they build mental representations (what we call “mental
objects”). They act on these representations with cognitive processes (“actions on objects”) and
control these actions with executive function processes.

Practical Implications
Use of cognitive science to guide instruction is embedded in the very notion of learning trajec-
tories and throughout this book. Table 14.1 lists a few specific principles as examples (for a full
discussion, see Booth et al., 2017).

Executive Function (Self-regulation)

To learn and to solve problems, people need resources. Math concepts and processes are
resources that we have discussed throughout this book. Another set of resources allows people
to control, supervise, or regulate their own thinking, and behavior. Such executive function (EF)
processes develop most rapidly in the early childhood years (the following is adapted from
Clements, Sarama, & Germeroth, 2016).
Cognitive processes such as EF are palpably connected to students’ achievement in school.
Children need to plan ahead, focus attention, and remember past experiences. According to
some, EF processes constitute “a major characteristic of productive mathematics learning” (De
Corte, Mason, Depaepe, & Verschaffel, 2011, p. 155). Such EF processes support children’s

Table 14.1 Guiding Principles from Cognitive Science (from Booth et al., 2017)

Principle Description

Scaffolding Gradually fading support enables learners to solve problems fluently and
independently.
Distributed Practice Spacing out practice is better than practicing all at once.
Feedback Receiving informative feedback increases learning.
Worked Examples Studying (or explaining) worked out examples plus solving problems is better
for only problem solving.
Interleaving Practicing solving different types of problems in mixed order is better than
practicing the same type of problems.
Abstract and Concrete Linking abstract and concrete representations increases learning and transfer.
Representations
Error Reflection Thinking about errors improves problem representation and increases concep-
tual understanding.
Analogical Comparison Comparing and contrasting multiple instances leads to better understanding
than studying one instance.
314 Cognition, Affect, and Equity

learning across subject matter areas but may be particularly important to math. As one
example, when the initial reading of an arithmetic problem is not the correct one, children need
to inhibit the first impulse to answer (incorrectly) and carefully examine the problem. Consider
the following problem, “There were six birds in a tree. Three birds already flew away. How
many birds were there from the start?” Children have to inhibit the immediate desire to sub-
tract based on the phrase “flew away” and instead calculate the sum (through addition, count-
ing on, or other strategies). Over the last 100 years, the demand for the application of such EF
processes as inhibitory control has increased in math education (Baker et al., 2010). Together,
these processes allow children to complete tasks even when facing difficulties in problem solv-
ing or learning, or fatigue, distraction, or decreased motivation (e.g., Blair & Razza, 2007;
Neuenschwander, Röthlisberger, Cimeli, & Roebers, 2012). It is thus unsurprising that kindergar-
ten teachers say that such EF processes (albeit not by that name) are as important as academ-
ics (Bassok, Latham, & Rorem, 2016). Most teachers rate EF components, such as inhibitory
control and attention shifting, as important for math thinking and learning, and these ratings
increase with teaching experience (Gilmore & Cragg, 2014).
Many studies show that EF is important, leading some to assume that EF has to be developed
first, so children can learn subjects such as math. However, once early math is taken into
account, EF is not a predictor of later school success (Watts, Duncan, & Quan, 2018). Instead,
early math predicts later EF. So, the relationship may not be one-directional. We return to this
issue, but first we describe the three major EF processes.
First, attention shifting and cognitive flexibility involves switching a “mental set” from one
aspect of a situation to another as the situation requires. A simple example in math is counting
by different units (e.g., feet and inches, to find a total length). Cognitive flexibility is similarly
involved in avoiding “functional fixedness”; for example, the tendency to see represented
objects only in terms of their most familiar function. An example in math of the lack of cogni-
tive flexibility is repeating the same solution strategy even after it has failed.
Second, inhibitory control involves suppressing unproductive responses or strategies, such
as controlling a proponent response (e.g., the first solution or answer that occurs to you, as in
the “six birds in a tree” example) to think about better strategies or ideas. Ignoring irrelevant
information in a mathematics word problem is another example. A non-math example is when
children stop themselves from following a command in the game “Simon Says” when the com-
mand is given “Touch your head” without the necessary “Simon says ‘Touch your head’.”
Third, working memory involves a system that is responsible for the short-term holding and pro-
cessing of information. Working memories are the amount of mental “space” they have to think
about math and solving math problems (indeed, another useful metaphor is that working memory
is children’s capacity to attend to multiple items in memory). This allows children to consciously
think about the task or problem. Working memory affects children’s ability to solve problems, to
learn, and to remember (Ashcraft, 2006; Gilmore, Keeble, Richardson, & Cragg, 2017). For example,
working memory predicts children’s knowledge of arithmetic combinations (Geary, 2011; Geary
et al., 2012; Passolunghi et al., 2007, especially the executive functioning component of working
memory). Processes that are slower and more complex put additional demands on working
memory. Unsurprisingly, then, limits on working memory may be one cause of learning difficulties
or disabilities (Geary, Hoard, & Hamson, 1999; see the section later in this chapter). On the other
hand, a particularly large working memory may be one cause of superior competence in math.
 Cognition, Affect, and Equity 315

The EF process emphasizes updating working memory as new information is processed; that
is, maintaining, manipulating, and adding relevant information often while engaging in another
cognitively demanding task. Students solving a measurement problem may have to keep the
problem situation and their solution in mind while they perform a necessary computation, inter-
pret the result of the computation in terms of the measurement units, and then apply that to
the problem context to solve the problem.

Practical Implications
Research on EF also offers some surprising good news: High-quality math education may have
the dual benefit of teaching math and developing EF processes (Clements et al., 2020). Given
the precious few hours children—especially those most in need—have in early childhood settings,
a strategy that develops multiple critical competencies is particularly valuable. (Working
memory is particularly important to math learning, and especially for children with disabilities,
Cargnelutti & Passolunghi, 2017.) Intentional use of LT-based math education contribute to
both: See especially the “Math Plus” activities on [LT]2 that identify ways to teach that do this—
supporting math plus EF.
Research has also identified certain environments and teaching practices that can help (see
Chapter 16). Carefully guiding children to attend to specific math features, such as the number
in a collection or the corners of a polygon, is likely to improve their learning. The predisposition
to spontaneously recognize number, for example (see Chapter 2), is a skill but also a habit of
mind that includes the ability to direct attention to number (Lehtinen & Hannula, 2006). These
habits of mind generate further development of specific math knowledge and the ability to
direct attention to math in situations in which it is relevant; that is, to generalize and transfer
knowledge to new situations.
Children develop greater working memory capacity as they age, probably due to greater
self-regulation and executive control and the ability to represent content more efficiently
(Cowan, Saults, & Elliott, 2002). At all ages, one way people’s minds deal with limits on working
memory is to make certain processes automatic—fast and easy. Such automatic processes do
not take much working memory (Shiffrin & Schneider, 1984). Some automatic processes are
“bootstrap” abilities, such as the ability to recognize faces. In math, most must be learned and
experienced many times. A familiar example is knowing arithmetic combinations so well that
one “just knows” and does not have to figure them out while performing a more complicated
task. Such automaticity requires much practice. Such practice could be “drill,” but a broader
definition is repeated experiencing, which might include drill but also includes use of the skill or
knowledge in multiple difference situations, which promotes both automaticity and transfer to
new situations.
Effortful Control is also inhibitory; that is, it is the ability to suppress one response (e.g.,
grab a toy from another) so you can respond in a better way (ask for or share the toy). Effort-
ful control often focuses on more emotional and motivational responses to situations involving
risk and reward. Effortful control may affect learning behaviors and relationships with adults
and peers. Further, the lack of such social-emotional self-regulation can stand in the way of
a child’s ability to have positive teacher–child interactions in kindergarten, which, in turn, pre-
dicts later poor academic performance and behavior problems (Hamre & Pianta, 2001). Similarly,
316 Cognition, Affect, and Equity

children low in effortful control act disruptively and aggressively, and so receive less support
from their peers, which in turn hurts their learning (Valiente et al., 2011).

Practical Implications: Effortful Control

Research has also identified certain environments and teaching practices that can help children
pay attention, and grow in their ability to do so, as well as to develop general self-regulation
competencies (see Chapter 16). Instructional activities in each of this book’s learning trajector-
ies have been intentionally designed to help children direct attention.

Long-term Memory and Retrieval

Long-term memory is how people store information. Concepts (“understandings”) take effort
and time to be built into long-term memory. People have difficulty transferring their knowledge
to new situations. That is, it is easier to use knowledge within the situation which one learned
it. Without conceptual knowledge, such transfer would be even more difficult.

Practical Implications
Helping children build rich representations of concepts (called “integrated-concrete knowledge”;
see Chapter 16) and see how something they know can be used to solve new problems helps
them remember and transfer what they have learned. Varied situations do not necessarily need
to be radically different. In one study, 6- and 7-year-old children practiced using flashcards or
worksheets. The two groups performed equally well if tested in the same format that they had
practiced—with the group who had practiced with flashcards being tested with flashcards and
the group who had practiced worksheets testing with worksheets. However, if the format was
switched, their performance was significantly lower (Nishida & Lillard, 2007a).
Although material that is easy to understand can promote fast initial learning, it does not help
store knowledge in long-term memory. Challenging materials leads to better longer-term memory,
because children have to process it and understand it more thoroughly. Their extra effort trans-
lates into more active processing, and thus more likely storage, of information. This helps children
remember information longer and retrieve (“remember”) it more easily. Thus, they can retrieve
the information better and thus are more likely to transfer its use to new situations.
Next we turn to the mental objects children build. They include declarative, conceptual, and
procedural representations.

What Predicts Math Achievement?

Consideration of such general learning and cognitive process, including affect and motivation,
raise the question: Do these, or other, competencies or dispositions, predict math achievement?

Best Overall Predictors of Math Achievement

Perhaps most important, the early learning of math predicts later achievement (e.g., Bodovski &
Youn, 2012). Knowledge of math in preschool correlated 0.46 with tenth-grade math achievement
 Cognition, Affect, and Equity 317

(Stevenson & Newman, 1986). Kindergartners’ cognitive skills, such as discriminating between same
and different visual stimuli and coding visual stimuli, predicted later interest in math (see also
Curby, Rimm-Kaufman, & Ponitz, 2009). Further, the rate of growth of math skills is faster among
those with higher, rather than lower, initial math skills (Aunola, Leskinen, Lerkkanen, & Nurmi,
2004). Researchers concluded that “by far the most powerful avenue for boosting first-grade test
scores appears to be improving the basic skills of low-achieving children upon entry into kindergar-
ten.” Surprisingly, early math predicts reading, but reading does not predict math achievement
(Lerkkanen, Rasku-Puttonen, Aunola, & Nurmi, 2005). Also, “soft” or social-emotional skills, such as
being able to sit still in class or make friends upon school entry did not predict achievement
(Duncan, Claessens, & Engel, 2004). The effects of early knowledge of math is unusually strong and
notably persistent (Duncan, Claessens, & Engel, 2004; Duncan et al. 2007; Duncan & Magnuson,
2011; Romano, Babchishin, Pagani, & Kohen, 2010). (Important to note that this includes not just
education, but stable traits of the individual, family, and community, Watts, Duncan, Clements, &
Sarama, 2018.)
Several studies showed that young children’s general knowledge and especially fine motor
skills add to the predictive power of early math knowledge (Dinehart & Manfra, 2013; Grissmer,
Grimm, Aiyer, Murrah, & Steele, 2010; Pagani & Messier, 2012). However, a close look at the
assessment administration reveals that many of the items intended to capture “fine motor
skills” are also well-suited to capturing spatial or geometric competencies (e.g., use building
blocks to replicate a model, copy five figures on paper).

What Particular Math Skills are Predictive?

Answering this could be useful for screening, or early identification of those who might have
mathematical difficulties (MD, see pp. 325–332). Some research has found support for specific
tasks, such as the following:

• Early-developing representations of magnitude in the ANS, or Approximate Number System

in Chapter 2 (Geary, 2013; Mazzocco et al., 2011).
• Spontaneous focusing on number, such as using subitizing independently, which predicts
arithmetic but not later reading abilities (see Chapter 2, Hannula, Lepola, & Lehtinen,
2007).
• Subitizing, especially relating small quantities to numerals (Geary & vanMarle, 2016).
• Magnitude discrimination, as in naming the larger of two digits, which may relate to
a weakness in spatial representations (Chard et al., 2005; Cirino, 2010; Clarke & Shinn,
2004; Gersten, Jordan, & Flojo, 2005; Jordan, Hanich, & Kaplan, 2003; Lembke & Foegen,
2008; Lembke, Foegen, Whittake, & Hampton, 2008; Geary & vanMarle, 2016).
• If children cannot compare numbers, both symbolic and non-symbolic in kindergarten, they
are at risk for later mathematical disabilities (Desoete, Ceulemans, De Weerdt, & Pieters,
2012; Olkun, Altun, Göçer Şahin, & Akkurt Denizli, 2015).
• Numeral identification, such as reading numerals (really a language arts skill) (Geary & van-
Marle, 2016) (Chard et al., 2005; Gersten et al., 2005; Lembke & Foegen, 2008; Lembke
et al., 2008).
318 Cognition, Affect, and Equity

• Similarly, the ability to use symbols such as numerals and connect them to quantities (Kolk-
man, Kroesbergen, & Leseman, 2013).
• Missing number tasks, that is, naming the missing number in a series (Chard et al., 2005;
Cirino, 2010; Lembke & Foegen, 2008; Lembke et al., 2008).
• Object counting and counting strategies, without errors (see Chapters 3 and 5, Cirino, 2010;
Clarke & Shinn, 2004; Geary, Brown, & Samaranayake, 1991; Gersten et al., 2005; Passolunghi
et al., 2007) and especially advanced, not basic, counting competencies (Nguyen et al., 2016).
• Ability to map numbers on to a number line; that is, developing an explicit understanding of
the logical structure of the number system (Geary, 2013).
• A different perspective that combines several of these into a measure of “number sense”—
counting knowledge and principles, number recognition, number comparisons, nonverbal
calculation, story problems and number combinations (Jordan, Glutting, & Ramineni, 2009;
Jordan, Glutting, Ramineni, & Watkins, 2010).
• Fluency in arithmetic combinations, such as addition “facts” (for older children, Geary et al.,
1991; Gersten et al., 2005) and de/composition of number (Geary et al., 1991).
• Knowledge of patterns and math structure in kindergarten also predicts mathematical, and
in particular, arithmetical competencies at the end of Grade 2; this knowledge is almost as
predictive as knowledge of number (Lüken, 2012).
• Finally, specific math language, such as number (e.g., “more” and “less” and number words)
and spatial (e.g., “behind” and “above” and shape terms) concepts is strongly related to
early maths learning, even beyond oft-cited factors such as working memory and compari-
son abilities (Toll & Van Luit, 2014b).

Although it is important that we build our evidence base of what predicts later math abilities,
caution advised, however, because both the screening measures and the predicted measure
often ignore any math outside of routine numerical skills.
Other domains such as language and literacy are also related to math (Purpura, Day, Napoli, &
Hart, 2017). For example, both vocabulary and knowledge of print predict later numeracy scores
(Purpura, Hume, Sims, & Lonigan, 2011).
Other cognitive processes related to math for some children with MD or MLD including
working memory (e.g., reverse digit span, Geary, 2003; Gersten et al., 2005; Toll, Van der
Ven, Kroesbergen, & Van Luit, 2010); or general intelligence, working memory, and processing
speed (Geary et al., 1991). Others have found working memory not predictive of fact fluency
once attention (one of the strongest predictors) was controlled (Fuchs et al., 2005). Attention,
working memory, and nonverbal problem solving predicted conceptual competence. Recall
that competence with early counting, including counting confidently and accurate use of
counting strategies, and magnitude comparison, appear particularly important (Gersten et al.,
2005; Jordan et al., 2003).
In addition, a closer relationship with the teacher is positively related to achievement, especially
for younger and at-risk children. Finally, children who were more outgoing acquired math (and read-
ing) skills more rapidly (Burchinal, Peisner-Feinberg, Pianta, & Howes, 2002). Children who receive
more instructional support from teachers show fewer task-avoidant behaviors and this in turn leads
to higher levels of math skills (Pakarinen et al., 2010). Thus, warm, caring, and educationally sup-
portive teachers help children learn math and more.
 Cognition, Affect, and Equity 319

A common, critical, component of these studies may be engagement in mathematical thinking

and learning. One large study confirmed the importance of engagement, or “approaches to
learning,” which was the best predictor of learning as far out as fifth grade (Bodovski & Youn,
2011). Such engagement in learning, including persistence at tasks, eagerness to learn, attentive-
ness, learning independence, flexibility, and organization, is especially important for girls and
minority students.
A caution in drawing implications from all of the studies reviewed in this section is that they
are correlational, not experimental. We cannot attribute causation to them. However, they are
suggestive. Chapter 16 contains evidence from experiments in which we can say something
about the effects of providing better early math instruction. For now, we simply make several
recommendations.

Practical Implications
Teach math early. Focus on the key math topics outlined in this book. Also focus on improving
self-regulation skills. Remember that the development of self-regulation and math competencies
are mutually beneficial—growth in one supports the growth of the other (Van der Ven, Kroesber-
gen, Boom, & Leseman, 2012) and this is not true of literacy (Welsh, Nix, Blair, Bierman, &
Nelson, 2010). Once again, math is a fundamental cognitive ability.

Affect (Emotion) and Beliefs (Including “Aptitude Vs. Effort”)

and Motivation
Given that mathematical thinking and learning is cognitive, does emotion play a role? Most def-
initely (Mercader, Miranda, Presentación, Siegenthaler, & Rosel, 2017). For example, if people
are anxious about math, they may perform poorly (Pantoja et al., 2019), not necessarily because
they have limited ability or skills but because nervous thoughts “push” themselves into their
minds, limiting the amount of working memory available to work on math (Ashcraft, 2006;
Boaler, 2014; Fritz, Haase, & Räsänen, 2019). Further, it blocks young children from even trying
to use more advanced solution strategies (Ramirez, Chang, Maloney, Levine, & Beilock, 2016). In
this section, we review key findings about affect.
As a culture, people in the U.S. have unfortunate emotions (negative) and beliefs about
math. Indeed, all it takes to raise math anxiety in the approximately 17% of the population who
suffer from this is to show them that number (Ashcraft, 2006)! Anxiety harms students’ abilities
to solve math problems (Cargnelutti, Tomasetto, & Passolunghi, 2017), especially those that are
more demanding (Ho-Hong, 2017).
One deeply embedded belief is that achievement in math depends mostly on aptitude or abil-
ity, as Aretha illustrated at the beginning of this chapter. In contrast, people from other coun-
tries believe that achievement comes from effort—Brenda’s view. Even more disturbing,
research shows that this U.S. belief hurts children and, further, that it is just not true. Children
who believe—or are helped to understand—that they can learn if they try, work on tasks longer
and achieve better throughout their school careers than children who believe you either “have
it” (or “get it”) or you do not. This latter view often leads to failure and “learned helplessness.”
Similarly, those who have mastery-oriented goals—who try to learn and see the point of school
320 Cognition, Affect, and Equity

to develop knowledge and skills—achieve more than children whose goals are directed toward
high grades or outperforming others (Middleton & Spanias, 1999; NMP, 2008). They even see
failure as an opportunity to learn (cf. Papert, 1980).
As Carina argued, there certainly are differences between children, as will be discussed later
in this chapter. However, whether these are due to nature or nurture or an intricate combin-
ation is difficult to tell. All children can develop math competence, and even “intelligence,”
working in high-quality educational environments.
Fortunately, most young children have positive feelings about math and are motivated to
explore numbers and shapes (Middleton & Spanias, 1999). Unfortunately, after only a couple of
years in typical schools, they begin to believe that “only some people have the ability to do
math.” Further, by second or third grade, many experience math anxiety, especially related to
more demanding calculations and problem solving (Wu, Barth, Amin, Malcarne, & Menon, 2012),
and this may be worse for children who are underprepared in math (Wu et al., 2012). We believe
that those who experience math as a sense-making activity will build positive feelings about
math throughout their school careers. This is important, because there is a reciprocal relation-
ship between math interest and math ability—each supports the development of the other
(Fisher, Dobbs-Oates, Doctoroff, & Arnold, 2012).

Practical Implications: Math Anxiety

Provide meaningful tasks that make sense to children and connect with their everyday interests
and lives using learning trajectories and other characteristics of high-quality teaching (e.g., Ger-
vasoni, 2018). The right degree of challenge and novelty can promote interest and facilitating
and discussing skill improvement can promote a mastery orientation. Researchers have esti-
mated that children should be successful about 70% of the time to maximize motivation
(Middleton & Spanias, 1999).
In summary, many negative beliefs are embedded in our culture. However, you can help chil-
dren change them. One of the most important ways to help them is to decrease your own math
anxiety. When early childhood and elementary female teachers are math anxious—and many are
—the girls in their classrooms have worse math achievement and come to believe only boys are
good at math (Beilock, Gunderson, Ramirez, & Levine, 2010).
Returning to the emotions, we see that affect plays a significant role in problem solving,
involving both joys and frustrations (McLeod & Adams, 1989). Based on Mandler’s theory, the
source of such emotion is the interruption of a scheme. For example, if a plan is blocked, an
emotion is generated, which might be negative or positive.

Practical Implications: Affect and Motivation

If children realize they are incorrect, they may believe this warrants embarrassment, but you
can change that by directly assuring children that trying and discussing, including making
errors and being frustrated, are part of the learning process. Also, discuss how working hard to
learn and figure a problem out can make you “feel good” (Cobb, Yackel, & Wood, 1989). Hold
such discussions to build positive affect and beliefs about math and math problem solving (an
important, interesting activity that is an end in itself), as well as learning (e.g., emphasis on
effort, not ability).
 Cognition, Affect, and Equity 321

Trying hard also requires motivation. Fortunately, most children are motivated to learn. Even
better, they are intrinsically motivated—they like to learn for the sake of learning. Such intrinsic
motivation correlates with and supports academic success. However, children are not motivated
equally, and such engagement predicts later school success. Indeed, in more than one study,
children’s motivational orientation (e.g., engagement and persistence in tasks) in preschool pre-
dicted their math knowledge from kindergarten to the primary and even intermediate grades
(Fitzpatrick & Pagani, 2013; Lepola, Niemi, Kuikka, & Hannula, 2005). Further, those who begin
with the lowest math knowledge have the lowest engagement in tasks (Bodovski & Farkas,
2007). Extrinsic motivation is related to performance goals (NMP, 2008) and self-regulation.
Self-regulation is not just a cognitive process but also has a motivational component. Some
research shows that children in classrooms with more emphasis on child-centered teaching
practices show more interest in math (and reading, Lerkkanen et al., 2012). This is important,
but before drawing conclusions, note that the authors’ child-centered and teacher-directed prac-
tices are a strict (what we would call a false) dichotomy. For example, in child-centered discip-
line: “Conflict resolution is smooth; consequences are appropriate and apply equally” (p. 268).
Teacher-directed “discipline is imposed without explanation or discussion; consequences are
inconsistent.” This may serve the authors’ research purposes, but we believe this could lead to
misinterpretations of this and many similar studies. Many teacher-guided activities are quite
appropriate. Indeed, many of the activities we suggest are led by the teacher but would be
coded as “child-centered” by the authors. It is always important to know the specifics. This
leads us to our next point.

Practical Implications: Intention, Structured Activities, and Affect

Some worry that structured math activities negatively affect children’s motivations or affect.
No research we know of supports that concern. Research suggests the opposite (Malofeeva
et al., 2004)—motivation and engagement increase with intentional, structured, appropriate
math activities. Educators do have to avoid narrow views of math and learning. Teachers
hamper students’ learning if they define success only as fast, correct responses and accuracy in
following the teacher’s example (Middleton & Spanias, 1999). Finally, negative affect about math
affects children with math learning disability most of all (Lebens, Graff, & Mayer, 2011). We must
be especially conscientious about positive instructional practices with these children.
However, there are ways to structure activities to ensure they make memorable, motivating,
math moments that matter to children. See Kyle Pearce and Jon Orr’s website https://make
mathmoments.com on their four-step “curiosity path”: withholding information, anticipation,
notice & wonder, and estimation.

Equity: Group and Individual Differences

Children from higher-income families (higher levels of parental education and use of progres-
sive parenting beliefs) come to school better prepared in math than others (Burchinal et al.,
2002; Duncan & Magnuson, 2011). For most children, this “achievement gap” does not close; it
widens (Geary, 2006; Lee, 2002; Navarro et al., 2012). As will be discussed in the next section,
this gap is more appropriately deemed a learning opportunity gap given its relationship to
322 Cognition, Affect, and Equity

differences in children’s exposure to high-quality math experiences (Clements et al., 2020;

Sarama & Clements, 2018).

Opportunities to Learn: Poverty and Minority Status

Worldwide, the number of children who do not learn these basic competencies during the pri-
mary education varies from 15% in North America and Europe to about 85% in sub-Saharan
Africa (Fritz et al., 2019). As mentioned in Chapter 1, children who live in poverty and who are
members of linguistic and ethnic minority groups demonstrate significantly lower levels of
achievement (Bowman et al., 2001; Brooks-Gunn, Duncan, & Britto, 1999; Campbell & Silver,
1999; Denton & West, 2002; Entwisle & Alexander, 1990; Halle, Kurtz-Costes, & Mahoney, 1997;
Mullis et al., 2000; Natriello, McDill, & Pallas, 1990; Rouse, Brooks-Gunn, & McLanahan, 2005;
Secada, 1992; Sylva, Melhuish, Sammons, Siraj-Blatchford, & Taggart, 2005; Thomas & Tagg,
2004).
If high-quality math education does not start in preschool and continue through the early
years, children who have not been given opportunities to learn can be trapped in a trajectory of
failure (Rouse et al., 2005). This is a crime. Children with few learning opportunities, who are
from communities with fewer “charging stations” for learning math (Blevins-Knabe & Musun-
Miller, 1996; Lee & Burkam, 2002), can start out behind their peers in multiple topics, numerical,
arithmetic, spatial/geometric, patterning, and measurement knowledge (Sarama & Clements,
2009).
These children face other barriers, such as “stereotype threat”—the imposition of societal
biases such as the prejudice that people of color or women are “not as good at math”—have
a negative influence on the performance of the threatened groups (NMP, 2008).
Extra support—better “charging stations”—must be provided to those from low-resource com-
munities and those whose home language is different from that of school. We also must meet
the needs of all children, including children with disabilities.
We must take an asset-based approach. These children bring diverse experiences on which to
build meaningful math learning (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992). An asset-based approach
focuses on strengths while respecting diversity in culture, thinking, and ability as positive assets
to the math learning environment. The younger the child, the more their learning is enhanced
by contexts that they find relevant and meaningful. Research shows that all children can learn
the math that other children learn. In our studies, these children learned more than their more
advantaged peers in the same classrooms (Clements, Sarama, Spitler, Lange, & Wolfe, 2011;
Clements, Sarama, Wolfe, & Spitler, 2013).

ELs/DLLs/ELLs
This raises the important issue of children whose first language is not English (National Acad-
emies of Sciences, 2017). Too many believe that language is less of a concern in math, com-
pared with other subjects, because math is based on “numbers” or “symbols.” This is a mistake.
Children learn math mostly from oral language, rather than textbooks or math symbolism
(Janzen, 2008). Challenges include technical vocabulary, some of which is similar too but dis-
tinct from everyday phrases, and the use of complex noun phrases.
 Cognition, Affect, and Equity 323

There is often a gap between the achievement of children who are English Language Learners
and those of children proficient in English (Wilkinson, 2017) due to the language demands of math
tasks (Alt, Arizmendi, & Beal, 2014). However, the risk factor of second-language learners is not
their multilingualism but rather proficiency in the language of instruction. In fact, multilingualism
also provides cognitive benefits (Hartanto, Yang, & Yang, 2018; National Academies of Sciences,
2017; Prediger, Erath, & Opitz, 2019). Indeed, they may learn faster (Choi, Jeon, & Lippard, 2018;
Miller & Warren, 2014). Thus, the best approach is to teach these young children in their first lan-
guage (Celedón-Pattichis, Musanti, & Marshall, 2010; Espada, 2012). The long-term goal should be
to help children maintain and build the first language while adding fluency and literacy skills in
English, not replacing the child’s home language with English (Espinosa, 2005). Minimally, bilingual
teachers need to understand the linguistic characteristics of classroom language and also master
ways to connect everyday language with the language of math (Janzen, 2008).

Practical Implications
Children who live in poverty and who are members of linguistic and ethnic minority groups need
more math and better math programs (Rouse et al., 2005). They need programs that emphasize
the higher-order concepts and skills at each level, as well as base knowledge and skills (Fryer &
Levitt, 2004; Clements & Sarama, 2008). They should learn math in their native language.
What programs address these issues? Several research-based programs are discussed at
length in Chapter 15. Some general guidelines are given here (from Espinosa, 2005).
There are two important and general guidelines. First, take an asset-based approach. All chil-
dren can learn substantial math. All children have knowledge and skills on which to build (a fun-
damental principle of the learning trajectories approach). Second, provide high-quality math
education from birth through the primary grades. Children from low-resource communities who
are in high-quality care at multiple points in their lives from infancy through preschool show no
difference in their math knowledge compared to those from higher-resource communities (Dear-
ing, McCartney, & Taylor, 2009). High-quality education matters.

• Provide the following for children from low-resource communities:

○ Positive, supporting relationships.
○ Strong emphasis on language development at school and home. Families should be
strongly encouraged to talk about math, especially number, arithmetic, spatial relations,
and patterns, with children of all ages (Levine, Gunderson, & Huttenlocher, 2011) (Toll &
Van Luit, 2014).
○ A collaborative and respectful relationship with parents and other family members.
○ Small class sizes. Each child needs to have frequent individual interactions and learning
experiences that are tailored to his or her unique talents and abilities.
○ Teams of teachers who engage in collaborative planning and reflection.
○ Games and activities that connect intuitive knowledge to math verbal and written sym-
bols. Children from low-resource communities have equal informal or intuitive number
sense as more advanced peers, but may lack opportunities to link these to symbols—
number words and numerals (Jordan, Huttenlocher, & Levine, 1994; Scalise, DePascale,
McCown, & Ramani, 2019). Games and other activities can provide those missing links.
324 Cognition, Affect, and Equity
○ More, not different, high-quality math. Children may need more, but not different, high-
quality math education that is recommended for all children (Gaidoschik, 2019, cf. Burch-
inal, Zaslow, & Tarullo, 2016). Intensive tutoring may be called for (Barnes et al., 2016).
• Provide the following for ELLs (see also the “Resources” section of [LT]2 for many more
tips and help, including invaluable lists of Spanish cognates):
○ Bilingual instructional support including paraprofessionals (instructional assistant,
parent volunteers, and older and more competent students).
○ Instruction in children’s home language (Burchinal, Field, López, Howes, & Pianta, 2012)
and use of cognates and other means of explaining math concepts with familiar lan-
guage (Janzen, 2008). This includes educational technology in the home language,
which has been proven effective (Foster et al., 2018).
○ Systematic introduction of English during the infant, toddler, and preschool years with
simultaneous maintenance of the home language (National Academies of Sciences,
2017).
○ Following learning pathways, gradual progressions with modeling what is required, fol-
lowed by children of similar ability working in groups, and finally children working indi-
vidually (Warren & Miller, 2014).
○ Careful development of academic language during content area instruction including
visual and verbal supports, as well as movement, manipulating objects, and so forth to
make core content comprehensible (National Academies of Sciences, 2017; Warren &
Miller, 2014).
○ Substantial incorporation of children’s culture, including funds of knowledge (Murphey,
Madill, & Guzman, 2017; Warren & Miller, 2014).
○ Discussion between the children and the teacher and between children, explaining solutions
and working toward more formal math language and ideas (Warren & Miller, 2014).
○ Simple print material in the children’s home language in learning centers and labeled
objects.
○ Strong emphasis on language development at school and home (as above).
○ Word problems that are created from students’ personal narratives, helping children
“mathematize” situations (Janzen, 2008).
○ Generation of math problems through storytelling. This helps kindergartners learn prob-
lem solving (Turner, Celedón-Pattichis, & Marshall, 2008, who focused on Latinax), as
does giving additional time to problem solving, posing a broad range of problems
involving multiplication, division, and multiple steps, and providing consistent access to
Spanish (Turner & Celedón-Pattichis, 2011).
○ Encouragement to parents and other family members to use the home language during
family activities and early literacy and math development, as well as to visit school and
share where math is used in the home and community.
○ Age-appropriate books and stories in the child’s home language (school and loan to the
home). This might include e-books (Murphey et al., 2017; Shamir & Lifshitz, 2012).
○ Interventions in preschool through the primary grades, preferably with bilingual compo-
nents (Clements et al., 2011, 2013; Fuchs et al., 2013; Sarama, Clements, Wolfe, & Spitler,
2012) (Foster et al., 2018).
 Cognition, Affect, and Equity 325
○ Encouragement for families of children with specific language impairments to talk about
math, numbers, and arithmetic, as they tend to do so less than other families (Klee-
mans, Segers, & Verhoeven, 2013; Prediger et al., 2019).
○ High-quality math education, especially including conceptual understanding, procedural
fluency, and math practices; high cognitive demand; and positive beliefs (Moschkovich,
2013).

Other Resources
Finally, there are Spanish resources throughout [LT]2 and information for teaching those with
any languages in the Resources section. Also see the DLL!Ready app for teacher support for all
DLL/ELL/EL children.

Mathematical Learning Difficulties and Disabilities

Similar to those at risk for other reasons, children with disabilities (CWD) often do not fare well in
the typical early childhood classroom. Many children show specific learning difficulties in math at
young ages. Unfortunately, they are often not identified, or are categorized broadly with other chil-
dren as “developmentally delayed.” This is especially unfortunate because focused math interven-
tions at early ages are effective (Berch & Mazzocco, 2007; Dowker, 2004).

Two Categories: MD and MLD

Children with mathematical difficulties (MD) are those who are struggling to learn math for any
reason (Berch & Mazzocco, 2007). Often defined as all those below the 35th percentile on assess-
ments, estimates can be as high as 40% to 48% of the population. Those with a specific mathemat-
ics learning disability (MLD) have some form of memory or cognitive deficit that interferes with their
ability to learn concepts and/or procedures in one or more domains of math (Geary, 2004). They
are, therefore, a much smaller subset of all those with MD, with estimates of 6% to 7% of the popu-
lation (Berch & Mazzocco, 2007; Mazzocco & Myers, 2003). Studies have found that such classifica-
tions are not stable for many children in the early and primary grades; only 63% of those classified
as MLD in kindergarten were still so classified in third grade (Mazzocco & Myers, 2003).

MLD Identifying Behaviors

Children with MLD must, by definition, have a genetic basis, but presently are defined by their
behaviors. MLD in the primary grades is often characterized by developmental lags (Dowker,
2004; Jordan & Montani, 1997).1 However, specific behaviors that define MLD—general cognitive,
conceptual, skill, or some combination—is still debated (Berch & Mazzocco, 2007). For example,
there is research that suggests each of the following.

• MLD results from a single underlying deficit of number sense.

• MLD results from various deficits (Moeller, Fischer, Cress, & Nuerk, 2012).
• Researchers agree that children with MLD have difficulty quickly retrieving basic arithmetic
facts. Again, there are studies that suggests each of the following as the cause:
326 Cognition, Affect, and Equity

• inability to store or retrieve facts, including disruptions in the retrieval process,

• impairments in visuospatial representations (Resnick, Newcombe, & Jordan, 2019),
• deficits in working memory and speed of processing (Geary, Hoard, Byrd-Craven, Nugent, &
Numtee, 2007),
• the same factors that are thought to underlie performance limitations of normally achieving
children (Hopkins & Lawson, 2004), and
• impairments in the executive control of verbal material (Berch & Mazzocco, 2007) that prevent
learning all the counting principles and holding an error violation in working memory, lead to
long use of immature strategies such as finger counting throughout elementary school (Geary,
Bow-Thomas, & Yao, 1992; Ostad, 1998), and limit subitizing (Berch & Mazzocco, 2007).

Diverse Needs
We can see that children who have MLD or MD may have quite diverse learning needs (Dowker,
2004; Gervasoni, 2005; Gervasoni, Hadden, & Turkenburg, 2007; Verschaffel et al., 2018). These
findings support the need to understand, assess, and teach these children with topic-specific learn-
ing trajectories, as has been the theme of this book. That is, as the hierarchic interactionalism
tenet of domain specific progression would indicate, there are many relatively independent compo-
nents of arithmetical competence each of which develops along its own learning trajectory.
Research on both people with brain injuries and students with MD show that it is possible to have
a deficit in any of those areas independent of others (Dowker, 2004, 2005).
What do these needs include? As the list above, these may be any of the following.

• Number sense: number comparison, number conservation, numeral reading, nonverbal cal-
culations, story problems, and arithmetic combinations (Aunio, Hautamäki, Sajaniemi, & Van
Luit, 2008; Aunola et al., 2004; Geary et al., 1999; Gersten et al., 2005; Jordan, Kaplan,
Locuniak, & Ramineni, 2006; Mazzocco & Thompson, 2005).
• Counting: weak conceptual knowledge and skill in certain areas of counting.
• Subitizing: arithmetic (Ashkenazi et al., 2013).
• Place value and word problem solving (Dowker, 2004).

Note that these studies often ignore math topics other than number; we will address topics
beyond number in a succeeding section.

Math, Reading, and Language Learning Disabilities

Children with both MLD and reading learning disabilities (RLD) score lower on number production
and comprehension tasks, such as number naming, numeral writing, and magnitude comparison,
possibly due to inadequate experience with written numerals (Geary et al., 1999). They are more
likely to view counting as a mechanical activity (c.f. Krajewski & Schneider, 2009; Vukovic, 2012). In
contrast, MLD only and MLD/RLD children do not differ on approximate arithmetic (estimating
answers to addition and subtraction problems), suggesting that it is weaknesses in spatial represen-
tations related to numerical magnitudes (rather than verbal representations) that underpin fact
retrieval deficits (Resnick et al., 2019) (Jordan et al., 2003; Mazzocco & Myers, 2003).
 Cognition, Affect, and Equity 327

In contrast, another study showed that children with MLD and MLD/RLD could compare the
number in collections as well as their normal-developing peers, but were impaired when compar-
ing Arabic numerals (Rousselle & Noël, 2007). Importantly, there was no difference between the
MLD only and MLD/RLD groups. This suggests that, at least for some children, MLD means
having difficulty in accessing number magnitude from symbols, rather than in processing num-
bers. This is significant, as difficulty attaching meaning to numerals could confound children’s
performance in a wide variety of tasks and be the start of many other related problems with
math. Traditional teaching that separates instruction on concepts from procedures would be
particularly devastating for these children. Instead, connecting concepts and procedures, con-
crete/visual representations and abstract symbols, would be more effective.
The type of RLD may matter: Children with dyslexia were weaker in math than children with
reading comprehension difficulties and more likely to have deficits in math fact fluency, oper-
ations, and problem solving (Vukovic, Lesaux, & Siegel, 2010). The deficit in fluency may have
something to do with problems with phonological processing, although separate numerical pro-
cessing difficulties might also be involved.
Children with specific language impairments may have specific MLD, such as coordinating
the items with a structure of correspondences between speech sounds and numerical relations
(Donlan, 1998) (Prediger et al., 2019). For example, they may not acquire the quantifiers of their
grammatical system, such as “a,” “some,” “few,” or “two” (cf. Carey, 2004). Or, they may have
difficulty relating “two, three, four, five …” to “twenty, thirty, forty, fifty ….” Exact arithmetic
may depend more heavily on language systems (Berch & Mazzocco, 2007). Children with spe-
cific language impairments need qualitatively rich interactions with their teachers (Prediger
et al., 2019). Provide meaningful discourse, including explaining meanings of math concepts and
operations and describing general patterns. Equally important is using meaningful vocabulary
connected to the formal technical terms. This is most useful when it occurs in structured
phrases in math talk, instead of teaching isolated terms (Prediger et al., 2019).

Other Impairments
Specific disabilities must be considered in a complete picture of infant to adult developmental
trajectories. Different impairments in low-level processes may result in different difficulties in
children and adults.
The most prevalent disorder in the U.S. is attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)
(Berch & Mazzocco, 2007). These children habituate to stimuli rapidly and thus have difficulty
maintaining attention, spend less time rehearing, and make more errors. Attention to auditory
processes is especially problematic. This may account for their difficulty learning basic arith-
metic combinations and their difficulty with multistep problems and complex computations.
Tutoring and work with computer games have shown success (Ford, Poe, & Cox, 1993; Shaw,
Grayson, & Lewis, 2005; Chmiliar, 2017; Iuculano et al., 2015; Ok & Kim, 2017). Use of calculators
allows some children to succeed (Berch & Mazzocco, 2007).
Most children with Down Syndrome could maintain one-to-one correspondence when count-
ing, but had particular difficulties producing the count words correctly. Their errors were most
often skipping words, indicating difficulty with auditory sequential memory. That is, they had
inadequate connections between one number word and the next in the sequence. They also
328 Cognition, Affect, and Equity

lacked approaches to problem-solving or counting strategies (Porter, 1999). Teachers of chil-

dren with Down Syndrome often neglect number tasks, but this is unwise. Visually presented
number sequences may help children learn to count (Porter, 1999).
Physical impairments such as hearing difficulties may be considered risk factors for MD. However,
these children seem to learn math the same ways as their peers, and there is not a strong or neces-
sary connection (Nunes & Moreno, 1998). Visually based interventions may be effective with children
who are deaf (Nunes & Moreno, 2002). One study indicated that deaf/hard-of-hearing children’s diffi-
culties in math begin prior to the primary grades, so early intervention is particularly important
(Pagliaro & Kritzer, 2013). The study confirmed that these children often have areas of strength, such
as geometric competencies that can be used as a starting point, and also areas of challenge, including
problem solving and measurement, which can be addressed throughout the early years.
Blind children cannot rely on visual-spatial strategies for object counting, instead using tact-
ile motor systems for keeping track of which objects have been counted (Sicilian, 1988). Accur-
ate blind counters used three sets of strategies. The following brief developmental progressions
for each moves from no, to inefficient, to efficient strategies:

• Preliminary scanning strategies—no scanning (just started counting); moves the hand across
objects unsystematically; moves the hand across all objects in a fixed array systematically
or moves objects during counting.
• Organizing strategies—none; follows a row, circle, or array but does not use reference point
to mark where started; uses reference point or moves objects during counting.
• Partitioning—no one-to-one correspondence; touches objects but no systematic partitioning,
or moves objects but puts them back in same group; uses moveable partitioning system or
moves objects to new location.

Children with cerebral palsy perform worse than their peers on math, especially word-problem
solving (Jenks, van Lieshout, & de Moor, 2012). Impairments of visuospatial sketchpad and
inhibitory control predicted future word-problem solving, and fact fluency and reading ability
were both important for promoting word-problem solving ability for these children.

Geometry and Spatial Thinking

As we have seen, some researchers believe that a deficit in visuospatial strategies is a component
of MLD because these strategies may underlie numerical thinking (e.g., Geary et al., 1991; see also
Jenks et al., 2012). What about other areas of math, such as geometry, spatial reasoning, and meas-
urement? Researchers tend to only investigate number topics, so we know little. Unsurprisingly,
geometry is a more difficult area to address for children who are visually impaired. However, strat-
egies have been proposed for specific skills, such as making distance judgments from a tactile map
(Ungar, Blades, & Spencer, 1997). Students were taught to use their fingers to measure relative dis-
tances and think in terms of fractions or ratios, or at least in terms of “much longer” or “only
a little bit longer.” The 30-minute training helped them be as accurate as sighted children.
The discussion of the spatial thinking of blind children in Chapter 7 indicated that all stu-
dents can build up spatial sense and geometric notions. Spatial knowledge is spatial, not
“visual.” Even children blind from birth are aware of spatial relationships. By age 3, they begin
 Cognition, Affect, and Equity 329

to learn about spatial characteristics of certain visual language (Landau, 1988). They can learn
from spatial-kinesthetic (movement) practice (Millar & Ittyerah, 1992). They perform many
aspects of spatial tasks similar to blindfolded sighted children (Morrongiello, Timney, Humphrey,
Anderson, & Skory, 1995). Second, visual input is important, but spatial relations can be con-
structed without it (Morrongiello et al., 1995). People who are blind can learn to discriminate
the size of objects, or their shape (circle, triangle, and square) with 80% accuracy by distin-
guishing echoes (Rice, 1967, as cited in Gibson, 1969). They can certainly do so through tactile
explorations. For example, students who are blind have been successfully taught to seriate
lengths (Lebron-Rodriguez & Pasnak, 1977). Primary-grade students can develop the ability to
compare rectangular areas by tactile scanning of the two dimensions (Mullet & Miroux, 1996).
Students with low vision can often follow activities for sighted students, as long as they are
provided with enlarged print, visuals, and manipulatives. Sometimes, use of low vision devices
facilitates students’ geometry learning. Using real objects and manipulative solids to represent 2D
and 3D objects is critical for all students with visual impairments. Two-dimensional objects can be
represented in tactile form on a two-dimensional plane adequately, but care should be taken that
the entire presentation is not too complex. For example, the book Let’s Learn Shapes with
Shapely CAL presents tactile representations of common shapes (Keller & Goldberg, 1997).
However, 2D tactile representations are not adequate for representing 3D objects. Detailed,
specific guidance and elaboration of the students’ experiences with such objects is important.
Make sure the students explore all components of the object and reflect on their relationship to
each other. Students can explore and describe a 3D solid, reconstruct a solid made of compo-
nents (such as with Googooplex), and construct a cube given only one edge (e.g., with D-stix).
Research with students who are deaf has indicated that both teachers and students often did not
have substantial experience with geometry (Mason, 1995). Language, however, did play an important
role. For example, the iconic nature of the American Sign Language (ASL) sign used for triangle is
roughly equilateral or isosceles. After an 8-day geometry unit, many students spelled “triangle”
instead of using signs, indicating a differentiation in their minds between their new definition of the
word “triangle” and what they had previously associated with the sign “triangle” (Mason, 1995).
Given the sometimes-confusing vocabulary in geometry education, students with limited Eng-
lish proficiency (LEP) require special attention. One study showed that English proficient (EP)
and LEP students can work together using computers to construct the concepts of reflection
and rotation. Students experiencing the dynamic computer environment significantly outper-
formed students experiencing a traditional instructional environment on content measures of
the concepts of reflection and rotation as well as on measures of 2D visualization ability. LEP
students did not perform statistically significantly differently than their EP peers on any of the
tests when experiencing the same instructional environments (Dixon, 1995).
Although, as stated, the research has been limited, some children appear to have difficulty with
spatial organization across a wide range of tasks. Children with certain math learning difficulties
may struggle with spatial relationships, visual-motor and visual-perception, and a poor sense of dir-
ection (Lerner, 1997). They may not perceive a shape as a complete and integrated entity as chil-
dren without learning disabilities do. For example, a triangle may appear to them as three separate
lines, as a rhombus, or even as an undifferentiated closed shape (Lerner, 1997). Children with differ-
ent brain injuries show different patterns of competence. Those with right hemispheric injuries
have difficulty organizing objects into coherent spatial groupings, while those with left hemispheric
330 Cognition, Affect, and Equity

injuries have difficulty with local relations within spatial arrays (Stiles & Nass, 1991). Teaching with
learning trajectories based on the developmental sequences described here is even more important
for children with learning disabilities, as well as children with other special needs. Know the devel-
opmental sequences through which children pass as they learn geometric ideas.
As noted previously, spatial weakness may underlie children’s difficulties with numerical mag-
nitudes (e.g., knowing that 5 is greater than 4, but only by a little, whereas 12 is a lot greater
than 4) and rapid retrieval of numeral names and arithmetic combinations (Jordan et al., 2003).
These children may not be able to manipulate visual representations of a number line.
Similarly, due to the difficulties in perceiving shapes and spatial relationships, recognizing
spatial relationships, and making spatial judgments, these children are unable to copy geometric
forms, shapes, numbers, or letters. They are likely to perform poorly in handwriting as well as
in arithmetic. When children cannot write numbers easily, they also cannot read and align their
own numbers properly. As a result, they make errors in computation.

Summary and Policy Implications: Asset-based Approaches

There are substantial inequities in math experiences in the early years. U.S. children are educa-
tionally at risk due to a culture that devalues math, inhospitable schools, bad teaching, and text-
books that make little sense (Ginsburg, 1997). Children are considered learning disabled if they
do not learn despite having experienced “conventional instruction.” But that instruction is often
flawed. This has led some experts to estimate that 80% of children labeled as learning disabled
were labeled in error (Geary, 1990; Ginsburg, 1997).
There is no single cognitive deficit that causes MD (Dowker, 2005; Gervasoni, 2005; Gervasoni
et al., 2007; Ginsburg, 1997) (Fritz, Haase, & Räsänen, 2019). Children from vulnerable populations
often are deprived of adequate opportunities to learn math before school, and then attend pre-
schools, childcare, and elementary schools that are themselves low-resourced in math! This double
dilemma is then compounded as children suffer yet a third assault: Mis-identified as learning dis-
abled, they suffer from lowered expectations from all educators they encounter. This is an educa-
tional shame. We must provide complete evaluations of the child’s past experiences; present
knowledge, skills, and cognitive abilities (e.g., strategic competence, attentional abilities, memorial
competencies); and learning potential. If children have difficulties learning, we must determine
whether they lack background information and informal knowledge, foundational concepts and pro-
cedures, or connections among these. Educative experiences—beyond those regularly provided to
children—must be provided over a time frame of months to provide dynamic, formative, assessments
of the children’s needs (Feuerstein, Rand, & Hoffman, 1979) and the implications for instruction.

Practical Implications
Identify children with math difficulties as early as possible (Fritz et al., 2019, see assessments here
too)—before 3 years of age (Hojnoski et al., 2018). Enroll them in research-based math intervention
as soon as possible. Identify children who may have been miseducated and mislabeled—often high-
quality education is effective (Verschaffel et al., 2018). Better educational experience, including
practice, is indicated for such children. Other children who did not benefit substantially are in need
of specialized instruction. Often, simple drill and practice would not be indicated.
 Cognition, Affect, and Equity 331

Focus on essential areas such as components of “number sense” and “spatial sense” as
described above. Some children with MLD may have difficulty maintaining one-to-one corres-
pondence when counting or matching. They may need to physically grasp and move objects, as
grasping is an earlier skill than pointing in development (Lerner, 1997). They often understand
counting as a rigid, mechanical activity (Geary, Hamson, & Hoard, 2000). These children also
may count objects in small sets one by one for long after their peers are strategically subitizing
these amounts. Emphasizing their ability to learn to subitize the smallest number, perhaps rep-
resenting them on their fingers, may be helpful. (Children who have continued difficulty perceiv-
ing and distinguishing even small numbers are at risk of severe general MD, Dowker, 2004.)
Other children may have difficulty with subitizing (Landerl, Bevan, & Butterworth, 2004),
magnitude comparisons (e.g., knowing which of two digits is larger; Landerl et al., 2004; Wilson,
Revkin, Cohen, Cohen, & Dehaene, 2006), and in learning and using more sophisticated counting
and arithmetic strategies (Gersten et al., 2005; Wilson et al., 2006). Computer programs that
help develop ANS (Chapter 2) and symbolic (counting, numerals) competencies are effective
(Van Herwegen & Donlan, 2018). Children’s lack of progress in arithmetic, especially in master-
ing arithmetic combinations, causes consistent problems; thus, early and intensive intervention
is indicated. In another study children who show very low performance benefited from ANS-
type arithmetic experiences, whereas children with higher performance benefited from symbolic
(numeral identification) experiences (Szkudlarek & Brannon, 2018).
The relationship between counting and arithmetic needs further comment. Recall one behavior
indicator of MLD was doing arithmetic by counting. But if children have been mis-educated, what
else might they do (Gaidoschik, 2019)? Early on, meaningful counting on fingers, for example,
should be encouraged, not suppressed. However, as emphasized in Chapters 2, 5, and 6, moving, as
is common in East Asian countries, to derived facts and (de)composing numbers via subitizing and
other strategies, is a more powerful route to arithmetic (Gaidoschik, 2019). If children do not
receive such high-quality education, they may cling to counting, and be (mis)identified as MLD.
For those with MLD or MD struggling with arithmetic problem solving, schema-based
approaches that give explicit attention to naming the problem type have shown to help CWD in
the upper primary grades (see Chapter 5, p. 104, Jitendra, 2019; Peltier & Vannest, 2017). Young
children with MLD are not accurate in evaluating the accuracy of their solutions, which has impli-
cations for asking them to “check their work” or “ask for help” (Berch & Mazzocco, 2007).
Although CWD may show weaknesses in some spatial processes, they also show strengths in
others, such as mental rotation (Resnick et al., 2019). In any case, shoring up on weaknesses,
such as using number lines, and building on spatial strengths will be particularly useful for CWD
(Resnick et al., 2019).
There are many gaps in resources to help children with special needs. There is no widely used
measure to identify specific learning difficulties or disabilities in math (Geary, 2004, but see recent
efforts in Fritz et al., 2019; Olkun & Denizli, 2015). There are too few research-based programs and
instructional approaches, but there are some. Those that do exist are discussed in Chapter 15.
Finally, however, the most important implication for early childhood may be to prevent most learn-
ing difficulties by providing high-quality early childhood mathematics education to all children
(Bowman et al., 2001). Equity must be complete equity, devoid of labeling, prejudice, and unequal
access to opportunities to learn (see Bishop & Forgasz, 2007, for a more complete discus-
sion). Further, it is essential to follow through on these early interventions, as MD and MLD
332 Cognition, Affect, and Equity

may be more persistent even than reading disabilities (Powell, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2013). And these chil-
dren may need more, but not fundamentally different, high-quality education that is recommended
for all children (Gaidoschik, 2019). That is, what they do not need is “different” if that means lower-
level rote learning. They may need different ways of dealing with languages and cultures, adapta-
tions for children with disabilities, and so forth.
Summarizing, follow research on what makes interventions effective, such as the following
(Dowker, 2019; Hojnoski et al., 2018).

• Start as early as possible, before 3 years of age, with systematic, consistent interventions
(Dennis, Bryant, & Drogan, 2015; Gersten et al., 2015; Hardy & Hemmeter, 2018; Hojnoski
et al., 2018; Mononen, Aunio, Koponen, & Aro, 2014), with 2 years of high-quality preschool
(Shah et al., 2017) or transitional kindergarten (Manship et al., 2017) recommended.
• Take a learning trajectories approach and apply knowledge of how performance and know-
ledge typically develop in the age group being studied (Gervasoni, 2018).
• Assess children’s level of thinking specifically, diagnosing individual strengths and weaknesses.
• Plan carefully, taking availability of resources into account, and appropriate use of school
staff: the best-designed program will not work if teaching staff are unavailable, excessively
overburdened, or not adequately trained to deliver the program.
• Embedded instruction across routines, activities, and environments. Also, enhance families’
awareness of the importance of early math.
• Motivate children, preventing or counteracting the association of math with boredom, or
worse, fear and anxiety.
• Use games, especially with preschool and primary school children, including computer
games and activities (Cascales-Martínez, Martínez-Segura, Pérez-López, & Contero, 2017;
Chmiliar, 2017; Mohd Syah, Hamzaid, Murphy, & Lim, 2016; Mononen et al., 2014; Ok & Kim,
2017; Salminen, Koponen, Räsänen, & Aro, 2015).
• Teach the processes and practices in the previous chapters. For example, children need to
develop EF, or executive function, processes. High-quality math education can contribute to
this, along with other good educational practices (Clements & Sarama, 2019; Dowker, 2017;
Shah et al., 2017). Recall that the resource has special “Math Plus” activities to help you
teach both math and EF simultaneously.
• Use small groups. This is an important part of high-quality education for all children, but espe-
cially important for CWD because teachers can focus on children’s thinking, guide their learn-
ing, and teach concepts and then let the children apply them together and individually (Aunio,
2019). In other words, teachers can implement the learning trajectories approach fully and well.
• Use technology. Computers can assist with a variety of adaptations, sensory, motoric, emo-
tional, and cognitive. They may be especially useful in helping CWD and other special needs
learn geometry (Galitskaya & Drigas, 2020, see multiple adaptations for different children).
• Use research-validated interventions, documented here (e.g., for children with emotional
and behavior disorders, see Ralston et al., 2014).

Gifted and Talented

Although often perceived by educators as “doing just fine,” children with special needs due to
their exceptional potential, also do not fare well in most early childhood (and later) programs
 Cognition, Affect, and Equity 333

(NMP, 2008). They actually decline in some arithmetic skills relative to others, especially in the
preschool and primary grades (Mooij & Driessen, 2008). Many gifted and talented children may
not be identified.
Teachers sometimes expose gifted and talented children to concepts generally introduced to
older students; however, they most frequently teach concepts traditionally found in early child-
hood programs (Wadlington & Burns, 1993). Even though research shows that these children
possess advanced knowledge of measurement, time, and fractions, such topics are rarely
explored.
One Australian study showed that the kindergarten year math curriculum is most suited to the
least advanced children. Talented children learned little or nothing of math throughout an entire
kindergarten year (Wright, 1991). In his first year of school, Harry knew all the little math that was
presented. Harry did maintain the outward semblance of being interested in the work and, at least,
being willing to complete it. However, it seems that the strongest lesson he learned in his classroom
math experience is that “you do not have to work hard at it” (Perry & Dockett, 2005).
This is a serious concern because the beginning of preschool and kindergarten can be
a critical time for gifted children. They often cannot find peers at their level with similar inter-
ests, and become frustrated and bored (Harrison, 2004). Clearly, curricula and educators have
to do better to serve the learning needs of all children.
One study showed that parents and teachers can accurately identify gifted children. The chil-
dren’s scores were more than one standard deviation above the mean for their age. The chil-
dren tended to be almost as advanced in verbal and visual-spatial skills on psychometric
measures as on measures of math skills. Although boys’ level of performance was higher on
measures of math skills and visual-spatial working memory span, the underlying relationships
among cognitive factors were for the most part similar in girls and boys, with the exception
that, for boys, the correlation between verbal and spatial factors was greater than for girls
(Robinson, Abbot, Berninger, & Busse, 1996). The highest relationships overall, however, were
between visual-spatial and math skills.
Gifted young children show the same characteristics as do older gifted children. They are
divergent thinkers, curious, and persistent. They have exceptional memories (one 4-year-old
said, “I remember things because I have pictures in my head”). They are able to make abstract
connections and engage in independent investigations—formulating, researching, and testing
theories. They show advanced thinking, knowledge, visual representations, and creativity. They
have advanced awareness of math concepts. At 21 months, they sort out the difference between
number and letters. One said, “I’ll tell you what infinity is. A frog lays eggs, eggs hatch into
tadpoles, the tadpole grows back legs and becomes a frog and then lays eggs again. Now that’s
a circle. It’s infinity. Everything that’s alive is infinity …” (Harrison, 2004, p. 82).
Most children who are gifted and talented are not well served. This is especially true for
young children and those from low-resource communities (Little et al., 2017). Many gifted and
talented children may not be identified as such, especially the youngest. Teachers sometimes
expose gifted and talented children to concepts generally introduced to older students; how-
ever, they most frequently teach concepts traditionally found in early childhood programs
(Wadlington & Burns, 1993). Even though research shows that these children possess advanced
knowledge of measurement, time, and fractions, such topics were rarely explored. Presently,
these children are often taught through unstructured activities, discovery learning, centers, and
334 Cognition, Affect, and Equity

games within small groups, strategies that are supported by research in some contexts. How-
ever, these children also need to solve engaging, difficult problems in the domains of number,
operations, geometry, and spatial sense. They need to be challenged to engage in high-level
math reasoning, including abstract reasoning.
When they are challenged, they make remarkable gains (Little et al., 2017).

Practical Implications
Identify children with gifts in math as early as possible. And note, children who are economically
disadvantaged are not only at high education risk, they are also at risk of not being identified
as gifted. We need to identify these children early and support their learning of challenging
mathematics (Molfese et al., 2012).
Make sure they have interesting math to think about and perform. These children are often
taught through unstructured activities, unguided discovery learning, centers, and games within
small groups, which often are supported by research (Wadlington & Burns, 1993), although guided
discovery is often better (Alfieri, Brooks, Aldrich, & Tenenbaum, 2010). However, they also need to
solve engaging, difficult problems using manipulatives, number and spatial sense, and reasoning,
including abstract reasoning. Indeed, the more teachers interacted with skilled preschool children
the less they learned (Molfese et al., 2012). Why? Whereas the structure provided by teachers and
staff through close attention to their interactions was helpful for low-achieving children, more
advanced learners did not need that structure. Instead, they benefitted from teachers’ encourage-
ment of reasoning and other verbal skills, such as talking through or explaining their reasoning
when solving a problem or puzzle. Such interactions encouraged a deeper understanding of the
concepts. It may help to use gifted cluster grouping, in which a significant number of gifted children
are in one or more mixed-ability classroom (Brulles, Peters, & Saunders, 2012).
One rigorous study randomly assigned equally able gifted students to a supplemental enrich-
ment math class conducted on Saturdays over 2 years or to no treatment. The enrichment
class, with 28 sessions in all, was constructivist in philosophy, “developmentally appropriate,”
and adhered to NCTM guidelines. Teachers created social communities that engaged in open-
ended problem solving. At the end of 2 years, the participants outperformed non-participants
(effect size, 0.44, which just missed statistical significance, but is moderately large, and thus
remains promising). Children were not accelerated, which is a different strategy frequently used
successfully with older students (NMP, 2008).
Seek out challenging but achievable tasks for these children. They need rich problems and
projects (see example and a research review in Freiman, 2018). Depending on the children’s age
and abilities, problems might be the following. Find all the possibilities for dividing five counters
into two groups and prove you found them all. Using square tiles, keep building larger squares
and explain the pattern emerging from the number of tiles in each (Freiman, 2018).
The summer program in the study mentioned previously focused on geometry closely aligned
with that in Chapters 7 through 9: the study of two-dimensional shapes, with emphasis on com-
posing and decomposing shapes; describing, sorting, and classifying shapes; and investigating
congruence and symmetry of shapes. There was also a strong emphasis on math practices,
including math reasoning and communication, with specific attention to strategies for math dis-
course and written communication (Little et al., 2017).
 Cognition, Affect, and Equity 335

Gender

“My daughter just does not get numbers. I told her, ‘Don’t worry, honey. I was never good
at math either.’” “I know,” replied her friend. “Only people with special talent can really do
math well.”

Myths about math abound in our country. You probably recognized two in the above conver-
sation. The first is that only a small number of “talented” people can succeed in math—we dis-
cussed that in a previous section in this chapter. The second, just as dangerous, is that women
are not usually in that successful group. As early as second grade, children believe “math is for
boys” even though boys and girls are achieving equally (Cvencek, Meltzoff, & Greenwald, 2011).
Findings and opinions vary widely regarding gender differences in early math. A large meta-
analysis of 100 studies found that girls outperformed boys overall a negligible amount (0.05
standard deviations, Hyde, Fennema, & Lamon, 1990). On computation, 0.14; for understanding,
0.03; for complex problem solving, −0.08 (boys were slightly higher). Differences favoring men
emerged in high school (−0.29) and college (−0.32). Girls are more likely than boys to be profi-
cient in recognizing numbers and shapes, while males were more likely than females to be profi-
cient in addition and subtraction and multiplication and division. All of these differences were
small (Coley, 2002). Girls may be better at drawing tasks (Hemphill, 1987). About equal propor-
tions of girls and boys have MD (Dowker, 2004).
One study from the Netherlands found girls having superior numerical skills (Van de Rijt &
Van Luit, 1999); another found no differences (Van de Rijt, Van Luit, & Pennings, 1999). Studies
of preschoolers from Singapore, Finland, and Hong Kong reported no gender differences (Aunio,
Ee, Lim, Hautamäki, & Van Luit, 2004), although in another study in Finland, girls performed
better on a relational, but not a counting, scale (Aunio et al., 2008). Differences were found in
math self-concept among young children in Hong Kong (Cheung, Leung, & McBride-Chang,
2007). Mothers’ perceived maternal support was correlated to self-concept, but only for girls.
Brain studies show differences, but they tend to be small (Waber et al., 2007). Boys per-
formed slightly better on perceptual analysis, but girls performed a bit better on processing
speed and motor dexterity.
Several studies show that boys, more than girls, are likely to be at the low or high end of
math achievement (Clements, 1984; Hyde et al., 1990; Rathbun & West, 2004; Wright, 1991). This
applies even to the gifted young children in the study previously discussed (Robinson et al.,
1996), which reflects differences found in gifted adolescents (NMP, 2008). Some show differ-
ences in some number domains but not in geometry and measurement (Horne, 2004). The dif-
ferences that were significant in one study were not present at the beginning of school but
developed from kindergarten to Grade 4. This finding is consistent with studies showing that
boys make slightly greater progress in math than girls (Thomas & Tagg, 2004).
One of the most consistent gender differences is in spatial abilities, especially mental rota-
tion. Most research on gender differences in spatial skills has involved older students. Recent
336 Cognition, Affect, and Equity

research, however, has identified differences in young children (Ehrlich, Levine, & Goldin-
Meadow, 2006; Johnson, 1987). For example, 4- to 5-year-old males demonstrate a strong
advantage on mental rotation, with girls performing at chance levels (Rosser, Ensing, Glider, &
Lane, 1984). Similarly, boys showed an advantage by age 4 years 6 months on a spatial trans-
formation task, with the advantage no more robust for rotation than for translation items.
A comparable vocabulary task performance indicated that the boys’ advantage on the spatial
tasks was not attributable to overall intellectual advantage (Levine, Huttenlocher, Taylor, & Lan-
grock, 1999). At least some of this is caused by lack of experience (Ebbeck, 1984). Girls tend to
be more social, boys more interested in movement and action, from the first year of life (Lutch-
maya & Baron-Cohen, 2002). Boys gesture more and perform better on spatial transformation
tasks, providing one way to assess spatial abilities and suggesting that encouraging gesture,
especially for girls, may be worthwhile (Ehrlich et al., 2006).
One observational study confirmed that boys’ and girls’ puzzle play was related to their
mental transformation ability (McGuinness & Morley, 1991). However, parents’ use of spatial lan-
guage was only related to girls’, not boys’, mental transformation skill (controlling for the
effects of parents’ overall speech to children, SES, and parents’ spatial abilities). Parents’ spatial
language may be more important for girls (Levine, Ratliff, Huttenlocher, & Cannon, 2012).
Similarly, such research suggests that intentional instruction in spatial skills may be espe-
cially important for girls. The relationship between spatial skills and math achievement is higher
for girls than boys (Battista, 1990; Casey, Nuttall, & Pezaris, 2001; Friedman, 1995; Kersh et al.,
2008). Middle school girls who scored high on spatial tests solved math problems as well or
better than the boys (Fennema & Tartre, 1985). Those girls with low spatial/high verbal scores
performed most poorly. Spatial skills are stronger mediators than even math anxiety or self-
confidence (Casey, Nuttall, & Pezaris, 1997). Parents’ use of spatial language is related to girls’,
but not boys’ skill at mental transformations. For example, doing puzzles, parents might talk
about features, dimensions, or shapes of objects (e.g., “corner,” “straight,” “square”), orienta-
tion and transformations (e.g., “upside down,” “turn around,” “flip”), spatial relations (e.g.,
“top,” “under,” “between,” “near”), or part/whole relations (e.g., “whole,” “half,” “section”).
Girls may use more verbal mediation on some tasks (Levine et al., 2012).
Boys in one study were more confident in math, but they were not accurate, as confidence
did not predict math competence (Carr, Steiner, Kyser, & Biddlecomb, 2008). One important dif-
ference, however, was that girls preferred using manipulatives to solve problems, but boys pre-
ferred more sophisticated strategies. These cognitive strategies may influence their
performance and later learning. Such difference in strategy use has been replicated repeatedly
and is cause for serious concern (Carr & Alexeev, 2011; Carr & Davis, 2001; Fennema, Carpenter,
Franke, & Levi, 1998). The children solved basic arithmetic problems under two conditions:
a free-choice condition in which they were allowed to solve the problems any way they pre-
ferred and a game condition in which the children’s strategy use was constrained so that all
children used the same strategies on the same arithmetic problems. Strategy use during the
free-choice session replicated the findings of earlier research indicating that girls tend to use
strategies utilizing manipulatives and boys tend to use retrieval. During the game condition,
when we controlled the types of strategies children used on different problems, we found that
boys were as able as girls to calculate solutions using manipulatives. Girls, however, were not
as capable as boys in their retrieval of answers to arithmetic problems from memory. No
 Cognition, Affect, and Equity 337

differences were found in error rates or speed of retrieval. Gender differences were found in
the variability of correct retrieval, with boys being significantly more variable than girls (Carr &
Davis, 2001). Boys are more likely to take risks, trying to use retrieval, and they profit from that
approach (Geary et al., 2012). Risk-takers get more practice. Also, girls with strong spatial skills
are more likely to use more advanced arithmetic strategies (Laski et al., 2013).
Although the source is unknown, we know that gender differences can be minimized when all
children are provided with good education, including encouraging everyone to develop more
sophisticated strategies and to take risks. One study suggested that girls’ strategy use is guided
by classroom norms that do not actively promote the use of more mature strategies. For example,
they would continue to count out manipulatives to solve problems, compared to boys who tried to
use mental strategies, including fluency with arithmetic combinations. Unfortunately, this pattern
resulted in the highest number of failures on the competency test for girls (Carr & Alexeev, 2011).
Spatial skills also may promote more mature strategies (Carr, Shing, Janes, & Steiner, 2007).

Practical Implications
Teach spatial skills, particularly intentionally to girls, and encourage parents to do so. Encour-
age girls as well as boys to use sophisticated strategies, even if that means taking “risks.”

Final Words
To be fully professional and effective, teachers must understand children’s cognition and affect,
and issues of individual differences and equity. However, this is not sufficient—we also need to
understand how to use these understandings to promote thinking, positive dispositions, and fair-
ness. Such is the intent of the next two chapters. Chapter 15 addresses the contexts of instruc-
tion—the types of settings in which children are taught, including children’s first setting, their
families, and their homes. It also focuses on specific curricula that are effective in helping
young children learn math.

Note
1 Children who can catch up, especially with high-quality instruction, may be developmentally delayed, but
not disabled. The Response to Intervention (RTI) model includes this basic idea: If children are behind
because of a lack of high-quality experiences and education, they have no “mathematical difficulties”;
their environment is to blame and must be improved.
15 Early Childhood
Mathematics Education
Contexts and Curricula

I really enjoy teaching Building Blocks. My children have shown tremendous growth. One
child, who initially could not verbally count at all, is now able to verbally count, use one-
to-one correspondence, and make sets up to 20 with confidence.
(Carla F., preschool teacher)

What makes a good math curriculum for young children? How would you evaluate your own? Previous
chapters discussed the roles of experience, education, and teaching for specific topics. This chapter
expands that discussion to address the types of settings in which children are taught, including chil-
dren’s first setting—their families and their homes. We then focus on general findings regarding curric-
ula that are effective in helping young children learn math. Again, we have marked sections with
implications for practitioners with “Practical Implications,” for those who wish to focus on these.

Early Childhood Education—Where Is the Math?

Generally, children who attend preschool are better prepared for academic work in kindergarten
than those who do not (Barnett, Frede, Mobasher, & Mohr, 1987; Brown & Lee, 2014; Lee, Brooks-
Gunn, Schnur, & Liaw, 1990). Additionally, those who have 2 years of preschool have higher scores
on both math and executive function (Shah et al., 2017). Internationally, preschools have multiple
benefits for vulnerable children, such as those in high-poverty areas of rural Mozambique (Martinez,
Naudeau, & Pereira, 2017), Ethiopian immigrants in Israel (Korat, Gitait, Bergman Deitcher, & Mevar-
ech, 2017), and others.
However, benefits depend on achieving at least minimal standards of quality in preschool
programs (Anderson & Phillips, 2017; Barnett et al., 1987; Sobayi, 2018; Yoshikawa, Weiland, &
Brooks-Gunn, 2016). That is, early education is an effective way to enhance the lives of vulner-
able children and address inequalities in educational, economic, and social outcomes. However,
most public programs in the USA fail to invest sufficiently in the necessary quality and intensity
to achieve this potential (Barnett & Frede, 2017). In the remainder of this section, we examine
what we know about math in early childhood settings.

Math in the Primary Grades

Math in Grades 1 and 2 is driven largely by standards, curriculum, and tradition (more on this
later). However, the earlier grades tend to vary. Kindergarten teachers spend an average of
 Early Childhood Mathematics Education 339

39 minutes each session, for a total of 3.1 hours each week of math instruction (Hausken &
Rathbun, 2004). This is about half of what they spend on reading. The time spent on math,
however, might not be well spent. Achievement for children entering first grade is not sub-
stantially higher than the mean for those entering kindergarten (Heuvel-Panhuizen, 1996).
Kindergarten and first-grade curricula may spend too much time teaching children things
they already know (Engel, Claessens, & Finch, 2013), and not enough teaching them more
challenging math, including problem solving (Carpenter & Moser, 1984; Engel, Claessens,
Watts, & Farkas, 2016).

Math in Preschool
Preschool math also varies. An older study reported that the majority of 3-year-olds had no
math experiences across 180 full-day observations (Tudge & Doucet, 2004). A smaller observa-
tional study revealed that little math was presented in any of the classrooms, either directly or
indirectly (Graham, Nash, & Paul, 1997). Teachers stated that they believed that math was
important and that they engaged in math discussions. It appears that selection of and engage-
ment with materials and activities such as puzzles, blocks, games, songs, and finger plays con-
stituted math for these teachers.
In a similar vein, the National Center for Early Development and Learning (NCEDL) stud-
ies report that children are not engaged in learning or constructive activities during a large
proportion of the pre-K day (Early et al., 2005; Swinton et al., 2005). They spent the largest
part of their day, up to 44%, in routine maintenance activities (like standing in line) and
eating and about 6% to 8% of the day on average involves math activities in any form.
Teachers were observed not interacting with children 73% of the day; another 18% of
the day was spent in minimal interaction. On average, children were engaged in pre-
academic experiences less than 3% of the time, and less than half the children experienced
these at all (Swinton et al., 2005). However, recent studies suggest that may be changing.
One found only 24 minutes of math during a whole-day observation (Piasta, Pelatti, & Miller,
2014). Variability was high, however, with some children not experiencing any math (or
science).
We need to increase not just children’s access to preschool, but the quality of it (Yoshikawa
et al., 2016), and the quality of all subsequent years of education. Before we turn to programs
and curricula that attempt to address math more adequately, we consider the first and consist-
ently influential setting in which children learn math—the home.

Families
Of course, families also play a major role in young children’s development, including their learn-
ing of math. Math in the home predicts school success in math in the U.S. (Levine, Gibson, &
Berkowitz, 2019), Chile (Susperreguy, Di Lonardo Burr, Xu, Douglas, & LeFevre, 2020), China
(Huang, Zhang, Liu, Yang, & Song, 2017), Finland (Sorariutta & Silvén, 2017), Germany (Niklas &
Schneider, 2017), Russia (Vasilyeva, Laski, Veraksa, Weber, & Bukhalenkova, 2018), Tanzania
(Sobayi, 2018), Turkey (Cosgun, Ş ahin, & Aydin, 2017), and other countries (see McCoy et al.,
2018).
340 Early Childhood Mathematics Education

Families and Math

The level of parents’ education and family factors, such as adjustment and parenting practices
related to education and enrichment, are especially important to children’s early math learning
(Crosnoe & Cooper, 2010). Even parents’ ANS is related to their children’s (Navarro, Braham, &
Libertus, 2018). There may be a relationship between the frequency with which parents use
numbers and their children’s early math performance (Blevins-Knabe & Musun-Miller, 1996),
although the frequency is often so low that this relationship is not significant (Blevins-Knabe,
Berghout Austin, Musun-Miller, Eddy, & Jones, 2000). There are several sociocultural barriers.
For example, although parents believe that both home and school are important for reading
development, they consider the school more important for math development, and they provide
fewer experiences in math than in reading (Sonnenschein, Baker, Moyer, & LeFevre, 2005).
They believe it is more important to help their children learn literacy than math (Cannon, Fer-
nandez, & Ginsburg, 2005), that math is less important than social skills, general information,
reading, and language skills (Blevins-Knabe et al., 2000), and that math ability is fixed (Scalise
et al., 2019). These are profound differences that have severe implications.
Further, as with pre-K teachers, parents have a limited view of the breadth of math appropriate
for young children (Sarama, 2002). They know more about what might be taught in language than
math (Cannon et al., 2005) and are more comfortable with language (Blevins-Knabe et al., 2000).
This was true regardless of what groups to which parents belong. However, cultural differences are
occasionally relevant. For example, Chinese mothers are more likely than U.S. mothers to teach
arithmetic calculation in their everyday involvement with children’s learning, and maternal instruc-
tion was related to Chinese, but not U.S., children’s learning of proportional reasoning (Pan, Gauvain,
Liu, & Cheng, 2006). Comparatively, mothers in China rate math as equal in importance to reading,
but mothers in the U.S. rate math as less important (Miller, Kelly, & Zhou, 2005).
Let’s examine some practices in more detail. The vignette that began the section on gender
in the previous chapter, regarding the mother’s daughter who “just does not get numbers,” indi-
cates the effects—sometimes negative, but many positive—that parents and families can have on
children’s success in math. Research describes several, as follows.

• Prenatal alcohol exposure is associated with poorer calculation abilities (Burden, Jacobson,
Dodge, Dehaene, & Jacobson, 2007). This apparently is mediated entirely by alcohol’s
effect on children’s “number sense”—the basic quantitative bootstrap competence (e.g.,
Dehaene, 1997; see also Chapters 2 and 4).
• Very low birth weight may lead to less mature levels of numerical reasoning on problems
with a spatial component and those that required complex problem solving; however,
verbal tasks were affected more strongly by levels of parent education (Wakeley, 2005).
Similarly, moderate preterm children earn lower math scores than full-term children (van Baar,
de Jong, & Verhoeven, 2013). Intervention programs can be successful (Liaw, Meisels, &
Brooks-Gunn, 1995).
• Poor mother–child engagement related to lower levels of academic success (Konold &
Pianta, 2005).
• Mothers rating themselves as high on affection but also high on psychological control—
behaviors that are intrusive and manipulative of children’s thoughts, feelings, and
 Early Childhood Mathematics Education 341

attachments to parents (e.g., guilt-inducing)—is predictive of their children’s slow progress

in math. Children may become “enmeshed” in family relations and less independent or
may receive inconsistent messages of their mother’s affection and approval and thus
become more anxious about performing well.
• Parents prefer teaching language to teaching math. They are biased towards language and
believe there are “universal” grounds for helping children learn language over math. They
also have more nuanced beliefs about preschoolers’ ability to learn language than math.
For language more than math, parents believe that teaching should ensure children acquire
specific knowledge, that teachers want to delve deeply into children’s understanding, and
that teachers should facilitate children’s learning throughout the day (Cannon et al., 2005).
• Parents with “fixed” beliefs (like Aretha at the start of Chapter 14) and their children per-
form lower on some math tasks—it is a debilitating belief (Scalise et al., 2019).
• U.S. parents do not have high expectations. U.S. parents, compared to Chinese parents, set
lower standards. The U.S. culture does not value diligent work, as the Chinese culture does.
Chinese students’ favorite saying was “Genius comes from hard work and knowledge
depends on accumulation.” U.S. parents said they would be satisfied with 7 points lower
than their expectation for their children, but Chinese parents were only satisfied with 10
points higher.
• Recent international comparison, which shows the U.S. is behind, also documented that chil-
dren of parents who engaged their children in math activities at home (and got them into
high-quality early education) had higher math achievement in elementary school (Mullis
et al., 2012).
• In many low-resource communities, a limited number of math activities are provided (Ble-
vins-Knabe & Musun-Miller, 1996; Ginsburg, Klein, & Starkey, 1998; Thirumurthy, 2003). Edu-
cators should help by sharing such resources (such as [LT]2!).
• Risk factors “mount up”—the combination of low parent education, poverty, and lack of
engagement in education are especially harmful for math learning (Crosnoe & Cooper,
2010)
• One study reported that U.S. parents work less often and for less time with their children
on homework (Chen & Uttal, 1988). However, another found U.S. parents more involved
with school activities than Chinese parents, who stressed interest in math and the child’s
responsibility (Pan & Gauvain, 2007). East Asian parents also provide games, building, and
paper-folding activities; U.S. parents allow children’s time to be dominated by video games
and television.
• In some cases, Black children may start school with similar competencies, but grow at
a slower rate. Parent programs that help build bridges and prepare children for school
expectations may help alleviate these difficulties (Alexander & Entwisle, 1988; Baker,
2014). Perhaps most important is to provide learning-trajectories-based math education
in schools where there is evidence that Black children learn at a faster rate (Clements
et al., 2011).
• Home numeracy activities predict numeracy skills (Blevins-Knabe, Whiteside-Mansell, &
Selig, 2007; LeFevre, Polyzoi, Skwarchuk, Fast, & Sowinskia, 2010) including math talk and
gestures about numbers, shapes, and space, with less negative affect about math (Levine
et al., 2019).
342 Early Childhood Mathematics Education

• Math activities in the home, such as measuring and comparing quantities, discussing math facts,
and discussing time using a clock, are closely related to girls’ arithmetic skills, and mothers’ spa-
tial skills and verbal skills predicts their daughters’ spatial skills (Dearing et al., 2012).
• Computers in the home predict children’s entering math knowledge (Navarro et al., 2012).

One study showed the more the mother “provides behaviors,” the lower the child’s math
ability (Christiansen, Austin, & Roggman, 2005). Too many directive behaviors might be over-
stimulating. Introducing formal math was also negatively related to children’s informal math
knowledge. These relationships, however, appeared to hold only for boys, not girls.

Practical Implications
Schools can work to make relationships with families a positive force in children’s education.
For example, children learn more when parents and teachers match on their perspectives con-
cerning child-centered beliefs, low control, and high support (Barbarin, Downer, Odom, & Head,
2010). Policies should encourage parents to be actively invested in and managing their chil-
dren’s education (Crosnoe & Cooper, 2010), which is more challenging for parents with lower
levels of education and economic resources (Dearing et al., 2012).
Research describes several additional avenues for families to promote positive math learning
([LT]2 has an entire section with resources for families):

• Interacting with, discussing, and support infants’ play helps form foundations for later math
learning (as well as reading, Cook, Roggman, & Boyce, 2012; Sorariutta & Silvén, 2017).
• Engaging children of all ages with math (Thompson, Napoli, & Purpura, 2017).
• Making sure children get sufficient sleep—they usually do not get at least 10 hours or more
per night (Touchette et al., 2007).
• Providing learning experiences, including sensitivity, quality of assistance in problem solving, and
avoiding of harsh, punitive interactions (all highly related to IQ; Brooks-Gunn et al., 1999).
• Discussing math ideas when reading storybooks (Anderson, Anderson, & Shapiro, 2004) and
doing home numeracy activities of all types (LeFevre et al., 2010). Read math books … with
numbers above 10 (Powell & Nurnberger-Haag, 2015) and more interesting topics (see
a comprehensive list at [LT]2).
• Talking about numbers, shapes, and space consistently, from the time children are toddlers
(Gerofsky, 2015; Levine, Suriyakham, Rowe, Huttenlocher, & Gunderson, 2010a; Levine et al.,
2019; Pruden, Levine, & Huttenlocher, 2011; Vasilyeva et al., 2018). The kinds of talk matters.
Counting with cardinality or labeling sets of present, visible objects is related to children’s
later cardinal-number knowledge, just as we described in the subitizing and counting chap-
ters (Gunderson & Levine, 2011). Number talk that refers to large sets of present objects
(i.e., sets of size 4 to 10 that fall outside children’s ability to track individual objects) is
probably more helpful than talk about smaller sets.
• Talking about a variety of math topics, such as all those in this book, is valuable (Pruden
et al., 2011; Vasilyeva et al., 2018).
• Keeping fathers involved. One study showed that fathers’ teaching interactions with their
2-year-olds predicted the children’s math skills at ages 5 and 7 (McKelvey et al., 2011).
 Early Childhood Mathematics Education 343

A similar study of low-resource, ethnically diverse families showed that fathers’ participa-
tion in learning activities with young children has long-lasting effects, including higher math
achievement in Grade 5 (McFadden, Tamis-LeMonda, & Cabrera, 2011).
• Also, talking to girls as much as to boys. Research shows parents talk to their boys twice as
much as they do to their girls about numbers (Chang, Sandhofer, & Brown, 2011; Gunderson,
Ramirez, Levine, & Beilock, 2012). Also, the quality of fathers’ support of spatial concepts
during block building predicts their daughters’ early math skills (Thomson et al., 2018). Simi-
larly, the more puzzles children work on, the better they performed on a spatial transform-
ation tasks (Levine et al., 2012).
• Playing math games with children. Parents should ensure they spend some time playing
only with their young children, as positive interactions and teaching are substantially higher
in this case (Benigno & Ellis, 2004).
• Cooking with children, especially using rich vocabulary such as number and measurement
words (Young-Loveridge, 1989a). Contingent responses to children are more important than
just using the words—giving them feedback and elaborating on their responses is more
effective in building their math knowledge.
• Coding with children! That is, use resources below and in Chapter 16 to learn to program
computers. Parent–child interaction is beneficial, although asking too many questions limits
children’s learning (Sheehan, Pila, Lauricella, & Wartella, 2019).
• Maintaining high to very high expectations for children (Thomson, Rowe, Underwood, &
Peck, 2005). Engaging in challenging math at home (Ramani et al., 2015; Thompson et al.,
2017), such as arithmetic problems with higher numbers (Kleemans, Segers, & Verhoeven,
2018) and different problem types (Chapter 5).
• Being willing and able to participate actively in the school’s math program and training in
how to effectively assist in the classroom (Thomson et al., 2005).
• Supporting and encouraging children, which is associated with children’s motivation to learn
(Cheung & McBride-Chang, 2008). Parents’ achievement demands are correlated with
actual academic performance. Children’s mastery (intrinsic) motivation, not their parents’
practices or beliefs, explained their perceptions of themselves as competent.
• Using the resources available on the web, such as our Learning and Teaching with Learn-
ing Trajectories, [LT] 2 (LearningTrajectories.com), and NCTM’s site, (www.nctm.org/
resources/families.aspx). As an example, http://bedtimemath.org provides a daily math
problem for children (and adults) of all ages. See also www.figurethis.org, www.math.com/
parents/family.html, and http://sv.berkeley.edu/showcase/pages/fm_act.html. Search for
more.
• Using high-quality materials that provide activity ideas and guidance. Perhaps the most
useful suggestion for parents is to encourage them to get and use books and other
resources that provide ideas for activities that will engage their children and their whole
family. A recommended list of books is at [LT]2. Family Math is a well-established program
with books for parents (Stenmark, Thompson, & Cossey, 1986), see www.lawrencehal
lofscience.org/equals/aboutfm.html. Other books include Family Math for Young Children
(Pre-K–3); and Family Math for Young Children by Brian Gothberg (also see Ginsburg, Duch,
Ertle, & Noble, 2012). Searching with the phrase “family math” will yield these and other
resources.
344 Early Childhood Mathematics Education

Research also provides several additional avenues for educators to help families:

• Work closely with children’s schools and teachers (Crosnoe & Cooper, 2010). Parents intro-
duce more math in home activities such as cooking if teachers give them hints and guid-
ance (Vandermaas-Peeler, Boomgarden, Finn, & Pittard, 2012).
• Adapt successful programs that forge connections between homes and school (Muir, 2018;
Park, Stone, & Holloway, 2017), provide parent education (Landry et al., 2017), or guide
home visiting programs (Bierman, Welsh, Heinrichs, & Nix, 2018). Families engaged in school
matter (Sorariutta & Silvén, 2017). Programs designed to improve home math learning have
been found to be most successful when they had three components: joint and separate ses-
sions for parents and children, a structured numeracy curriculum, and “bridging” activities for
parents to develop their child’s numeracy at home (Doig, McCrae, & Rowe, 2003). Interventions
may address anxiety in families (Schaeffer, Rozek, Berkowitz, Levine, & Beilock, 2018).
• Provide intense interventions for families and for children who need it (Garon-Carrier et al.,
2018; Miller, Farkas, Vandell, & Duncan, 2014).
• Use research-based programs that contain specific suggestions written for parents (Doig
et al., 2003).

In working with parents, with policy-makers, and with children, early childhood math educa-
tors should be strong advocates for foundational and explicit math experiences for all children
of all ages. In the earliest ages especially, these can often be seamlessly integrated with chil-
dren’s ongoing play and activities, but this usually requires a knowledgeable adult who creates
a supportive environment and provides challenges, suggestions, tasks, and language.

Equity in Math Education

Children’s learning trajectories are influenced by their first educational experiences (Barnett &
Frede, 2017). Indeed, “the early grades may be precisely the time that schools have their stron-
gest effects” (Alexander & Entwisle, 1988). Early childhood schools and teachers have the
power and responsibility to have the strongest possible positive effect on math learning. As we
saw, this potential is often left unrealized. Further, those children whose communities struggled
to provide frequent experiences are just those who need—but do not receive—those experiences
in their early childhood programs.

Children at Risk
As we saw, providing high-quality educational support to children at risk results in greater
school readiness upon entry into kindergarten (Bowman et al., 2001; Magnuson & Waldfogel,
2005; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000), because such support helps young children develop
a foundation of informal math knowledge (Clements, 1984). Early knowledge has been shown to
support later school math achievement, and lack of it places minorities on a path away from
engagement in math and science (Campbell, Pungello, Miller-Johnson, Burchinal, & Ramey,
2001; Oakes, 1990; Tuğluk & Öcal, 2017). Longitudinal research indicates that attendance in
center-based (but not other types of) care in the pre-K year is associated with higher math
scores in kindergarten and (to a lesser extent) in first grade (Turner & Ritter, 2004), and that
 Early Childhood Mathematics Education 345

achievement in preschool is related to differences in elementary school achievement for His-

panic children (Shaw, Nelsen, & Shen, 2001). In another study, African American, Hispanic, and
female children who attended an intervention preschool program had a significantly greater
probability of achieving high scores in fourth grade than their peers who did not attend pre-
school (Roth, Carter, Ariet, Resnick, & Crans, 2000). Childcare in general can help, with greater
number of hours in childcare correlating with greater quantitative skills in children from low-
resource communities (Votruba-Drzal & Chase, 2004).
High-quality preschool experience is predictive of later school success in math (Campbell et al.,
2001; Peisner-Feinberg et al., 2001) for many years to come (Barnett & Frede, 2017; Brooks-Gunn,
2003). Most important for the effects on math were actual classroom practices—materials, activ-
ities, and interactions. Although the size of the effects were moderate, they were significant for
math (more than other subjects) for as long as 4 years (Peisner-Feinberg et al., 2001).
Unfortunately, children most in need of high-quality environments may not attend high-
quality elementary schools, even when their preschools were high in quality. One study revealed
very low correlation (0.06 to 0.15) between quality of care in pre-K and that of the elementary
schools (Peisner-Feinberg et al., 2001). In other cases, some effects may even emerge only later
(“sleeper effects,” Broberg, Wessels, Lamb, & Hwang, 1997; Clements et al., 2020). Thus, for
both practice and research, it is critical to evaluate children’s entire educational experience.
Other research confirms the importance of high-quality schools. Oklahoma has led the nation
in providing preschool education to 70% of its children and maintaining relatively high stand-
ards (Barnett, Hustedt, Hawkinson, & Robin, 2006). Two rigorous evaluations indicate substan-
tial positive effects on achievement scores for math and literacy (although smaller effects for
math). Children from all ethnic and SES groups benefited (Barnett et al., 2006; Gormley, Gayer,
Phillips, & Dawson, 2005). Unfortunately, a commitment to universal pre-K, high-quality pre-K,
and well-funded pre-K remain the exception, rather than the norm, in the USA (Barnett & Frede,
2017; Barnett et al., 2006; Swinton et al., 2005).
In a similar vein, state-funded preschool programs in states with high standards have been
found to positively affect preschoolers’ math achievement (Wong, Cook, Barnett, & Jung, 2008),
more than Head Start. Similarly, the Head Start Impact Study found no significant impacts for the
early math skills for 3- or 4-year-olds (DHHS, 2005; cf. Vogel, Brooks-Gunn, Martin, & Klute, 2013).
So, some programs do not yet include adequate math. However, Head Start did have
a compensatory effect for children from homes reporting low preacademic stimulation.

Practical Implications
Children living in poverty and those with special needs increase in math achievement after
high-quality interventions focused on math (Campbell & Silver, 1999; Fuson et al., 1997; Griffin,
2004; Griffin, Case, & Capodilupo, 1995; Ramey & Ramey, 1998), which can be sustained into
first (Clements et al., 2013; Rathbun & West, 2004) to third grade (Gamel-McCormick & Amsden,
2002).
Curricula and approaches exist that can help achieve this (Clements et al., 2013; Clements &
Sarama, 2008). Importantly, multiple resources and efforts are needed for successful scale up
(Sarama & Clements, 2013). Higher-quality programs result in learning benefits into elementary
school, including in math (Fuson, 2004; Griffin, 2004; Karoly et al., 1998).
346 Early Childhood Mathematics Education

Do Children at Risk Already Have Substantial Math Knowledge or Not?

There appears to be a contradiction between two pictures of the math knowledge and compe-
tencies of children of different income or SES groups. On the one hand, the evidence suggests
a substantive and widening gap. On the other hand, there are few, or no, differences between
children from different communities in the amount of math they exhibit in their free play (Gins-
burg, Ness, & Seo, 2003; Seo & Ginsburg, 2004). A possible explanation is that children from
low-resource or stressed communities have not been provided with the opportunities to reflect
on and discuss their pre-mathematical activity. Some children hear 60 times as many number
words as other children (Levine et al., 2010) These children may thus engage in pre-
mathematical play but fail to connect this activity to school math because to do so requires the
children to bring the ideas to an explicit level of awareness. One main difference between chil-
dren is not their ability to perform with physical objects but to solve problems verbally (Jordan,
Hanich, & Uberti, 2003) or explain their thinking (Sophian, 2002). Consider a child who turned 4
years of age. When asked to solve “How much is ten and one more,” she used physical blocks,
added 1 to 10, and answered, “eleven.” Five minutes later, asked several times using the same
wording, “How many is two and one more,” the child did not respond, and, asked again, said,
“fifteen” in a couldn’t-care-less tone of voice (Hughes, 1981, pp. 216–217).
In summary, we believe the pattern of results suggest that, although all children have pre-
mathematical knowledge, they may lack opportunities to learn the language of math. So, they have
not been given the tools to connect their informal pre-mathematical knowledge to school math. Chil-
dren must learn to mathematize their informal experiences, abstracting, representing, and elaborating
them mathematically, and using math ideas and symbols to create models of their everyday activities.
This includes the ability to generalize, connecting the math ideas to different situations and using the
ideas and processes adaptively. In all its multifaceted forms, they lack the language of math.

Practical Implications
Begin with number tasks in which numerosities are represented with objects and model verbal
descriptions, facilitating children’s receptive and expressive vocabularies. From toddlerhood,
naming the number in very small groups supports a variety of number competencies (Hannula,
2005). As another example, the simple task of putting blocks in and out of a box reveals that even
4-year-olds enjoy and can perform arithmetic (Hughes, 1986). (This is despite the quoted guidelines
of the time that “arithmetic for this age would be ludicrous.”) One child, faced with two blocks in
the box (which he could not see), was asked to take out three. He replied as follows:

Richard: You can’t, can you?

MH: Why not?
Richard: You just have to put one in, don’t you?
MH: Put one in?
Richard: Yea, and then you can take three out.
(p. 27)
 Early Childhood Mathematics Education 347

Eventually, facilitate children’s transition to using more abstract symbols, both verbal and writ-
ten (e.g., numerals). In general, hold the processes of communication and representation as import-
ant, not incidental, goals of math education. These processes are not merely ways to express math,
desirable but secondary accoutrements, but, rather, essential aspects of math understanding.
Connections between the development of math and literacy are numerous and bidirectional
(McGraw et al., 2019; Purpura & Napoli, in press). For example, preschoolers’ narrative abilities,
particularly their ability to convey all the main events of the story, offer a perspective on the
events in the story, and relate the main events of the story through use of conjunctions, pre-
dicts math achievement 2 years later (O’Neill, Pearce, & Pick, 2004). Rich math activities, such
as discussing multiple solutions and posing and solving narrative story problems, help lay
a groundwork for literacy, and rich literacy, that includes but goes beyond phonetic skills, helps
lay a groundwork for the development of math. Without the language of math, children’s learn-
ing suffers (Purpura et al., 2017).
The benefits of learning rich math in simultaneously developing literacy and language skills may
seem farfetched to some readers. So, it is satisfying to say that rigorous studies support this idea.
First, we conducted a randomized study of the effects of Building Blocks on pre-K children’s letter
recognition and oral language skills. The Building Blocks and control children performed perhaps
the same on letter recognition, and on three of the oral language subscales. However, children in
the Building Blocks group outperformed children in the control group on four oral language sub-
scales: (a) ability to recall key words, (b) use of complex utterances, (c) willingness to reproduce
narratives independently, and (d) inference. These had no obvious relation to the math curriculum,
but children learned important verbal language competencies. Asking “how do you know?” and
developing (Piagetian-like) logical-math abilities is cognitively fundamental. Second, a study of 5-
to 7-year-olds in the U.K. showed that an early math and logical-mathematical intervention
increased later scores on English by 14 percentile points (Shayer & Adhami, 2010). Even though it
may “take up” school time, language and literacy do not suffer when a math intervention is intro-
duced; indeed, language competencies are enhanced.

Gender
Gender equity also remains a concern, as we saw in Chapter 14. Females are socialized to view
math as a male domain and themselves as having less ability. Teachers show more concern when
boys, rather than girls, struggle. They call on and talk to boys more than girls. Finally, they
believe success in math is due to high ability more frequently for boys than girls and view boys
as the most successful students in their class. All these unintentionally undermine girls’ achieve-
ment motivation (Middleton & Spanias, 1999). In more than one study, boys are more likely
than girls to appear in the lowest and highest ranges of scores in math (Callahan & Clements,
1984; Rathbun & West, 2004). In addition, there was evidence of a faster growth rate for high-
achieving boys (Aunola et al., 2004). Reasons for this are still unclear, but there are practical
ramifications. There are also some indications that boys outperform girls as early as kindergarten
on tasks that have a spatial component (Jordan, Kaplan, Oláh, & Locuniak, 2006). However, in
the U.K., preschool girls scored higher than boys (Sylva et al., 2005). And most research shows
that, again, if opportunities are equitable, so are outcomes (e.g., Korkmaz & Yilmaz, 2017; Lee &
Bull, 2015).
348 Early Childhood Mathematics Education

Practical Implications
Thus, the problems are complex, and there are distinct concerns about boys and girls. Educa-
tors need to ensure everyone receives complete opportunities to learn. As a simple example, is
access to and use of the blocks and computer center equitable?

Children with Special Needs—MD and MLD

As we saw in Chapter 14, some children show signs of MD and MLD at young ages. Unfortu-
nately, they are often not identified, or are categorized broadly with other children as
“developmentally delayed” (Clements et al., 2020). This is especially unfortunate because
focused math interventions at early ages are effective (Dowker, 2019; Lerner, 1997). These
children often have low skills and concepts in subitizing, counting, fact retrieval, and other
aspects of computation. They appear not to use reasoning-based strategies and seem rigid
in their use of immature problem-solving, counting, and arithmetic strategies. Children with
special needs require the earliest and most consistent interventions (Gervasoni et al., 2007;
Gervasoni, 2018).
In the primary years, because children with MLD only (not MLD/RLD) performed worse than
normally developing children in timed tests, but performed just as well in untimed tests, chil-
dren who have MLD only may simply need extra time studying, and extra time to complete, cal-
culation tasks. Probably the use of a calculator and other computation aides would enable
these children to concentrate on developing their otherwise good problem-solving skills (Jordan
& Montani, 1997). Children with MLD/RLD may need more systematic remedial intervention
aimed at problem conceptualization and the development of effective computational strategies
as well as efficient fact retrieval (Jordan & Montani, 1997).

Practical Implications
Many children with special needs have quite different learning needs (Dowker, 2017; Gervasoni
et al., 2007; Gervasoni, 2018). We need to individualize instruction. Moreover, it appears that no
particular topic as a whole must precede another topic. For this reason, teaching with learning tra-
jectories is the best way to address the needs of all children, especially those with special needs.
Through formative assessment using learning trajectories, which has been featured throughout
this book, is a recommended strategy for putting learning trajectories to work, especially for chil-
dren with any type of special needs.

MD and MLD in the Primary Grades

Addressing these topics early is critical (Clements, Vinh, Lim, & Sarama, 2020). Strategies from
family collaboration (Kritzer & Pagliaro, 2013), to direct instruction (Chandler, McLaughlin,
Neyman, & Rinaldi, 2012), to distinct uses of educational technology (Chmiliar, 2017; Gay, 1989)
have reported successes. Specific approaches that help children at risk include the following.

• Identify the most critical content, such as number competencies in the Common Core (Doa-
bler et al., 2012). Target specific areas of need.
 Early Childhood Mathematics Education 349

• For these goals, use learning trajectories and formative assessment (Dowker, 2004, 2017;
Gervasoni & Sullivan, 2007).
• As our approach to learning trajectories always does, take an asset-based approach. All
young children have myriad competencies and resources, individual, family, and community,
on which to build.
• Ensure that all teachers get and use ongoing assessment data on their students and
ongoing feedback that helps them use this data to adjust instruction (Jayanthi, Gersten, &
Baker, 2008; NMP, 2008).
• Share information on their performance with students.
• Provide clear, specific feedback to parents on their children’s math achievement.
• Use peers as tutors (see also Chapter 16).
• Use explicit instruction, including modeling and demonstrating. Use clear and concise lan-
guage and have children actively participate in using several models for math concepts
(Doabler et al., 2012; Jayanthi et al., 2008; NMP, 2008).
• Sequence instructional examples carefully (Doabler et al., 2012).
• Use multiple instructional examples (Jayanthi et al., 2008; NMP, 2008).
• Encourage students to verbalize their thinking or their strategies, or even the explicit strat-
egies you model (Jayanthi et al., 2008; NMP, 2008).
• Encourage students to use multiple strategies and heuristics in solving problems (Jayanthi
et al., 2008; NMP, 2008).
• Use a special tutorial intervention (one successful example for first graders used sugges-
tions from research, including the first edition of this book; Nunes et al., 2011).
• Find other interventions that are research-based (e.g., Clements, 2000; Dowker, 2009;
Dowker & Sigley, 2010; Gersten et al., 2005) and fit your needs, as not every intervention
works for early math (e.g., Phillips & Meloy, 2012).
• Include individualized work, even for brief periods, as a component of such focused inter-
ventions (Dowker, 2004; Gersten et al., 2008).
• Provide students with MD specific instruction both on math and word problems and on the
equal sign, as this had been shown to benefit them (Powell & Fuchs, 2010).

In general, children with MD or MLD benefit most from explicit, systematic instruction (NMP,
2008; Powell et al., 2013). This instruction involves teacher demonstration, alongside teacher-guided
and independent practice, with “think-alouds” to monitor and enhance students’ understanding and
reasoning. Concepts, skills, and problem solving are all taught, often with the aid of visual representa-
tions, as well as explicit attention to heuristics, mnemonics, and strategies. Formative assessment is
key, with teachers carefully monitoring progress along learning trajectories for major math topics.
Three useful components of such explicit instruction for children with MLD or MD are model-
lead-test (or MLT), systematic error correction, and choral responding. In MLT, teachers model
a new skill, lead children in responding, then allow them to try the skill independently. For
example, “I’m going to count by 2s—2, 4, 6, 8, 10. Let’s do it together … Your turn to count by
2s.” If children make errors, the teacher corrects them. For example, if they incorrectly name
a shape, the teacher might say, “This shape is a rectangle [show]. This is a triangle [show]. Say
‘rectangle’ with me. Good. Now, everyone, what shape is this [show a rectangle again]?” (Kre-
tlow, Wood, & Cooke, 2011).
350 Early Childhood Mathematics Education

Interventions are more effective the earlier they are started, both in building content know-
ledge and in preventing negative attitudes and math anxiety (Dowker, 2004). A few additional
approaches for primary-grade students are described here.

Number and Arithmetic

Specific approaches that show promise include teaching strategies about computation, mixed
with practice (which is usually less interesting and less conceptual) and using visual models and
teaching children to analyze the structure of word problems. One example from the NMP stud-
ies provided explicit instruction for second graders with MLD who had not learned to “count on
from larger” to solve addition problems (Tournaki, 2003):

Teacher: When I get a problem, what do I do?

Student (expected repetition of the rule): I read the problem: 5 plus 3 equals how many.
Then I find the smaller number.
Teacher (points to the number): 3. Now I count the fingers. So how many fingers
am I going to count?
Student: 3. (and so forth …)

After a few problems, the teacher had students solve problems while thinking aloud, that is,
repeating the steps and asking themselves the questions. The teacher always provided clear,
immediate feedback when students made errors. The large effect size of this study (1.61) indi-
cates the benefit of teaching a strategy, not just providing more practice, especially for MLD
students.
Another study included in the NMP report, classified as more implicit, examined the effects
on achievement of vulnerable first graders’ participation in 48 small group tutorial sessions
that included the use of concrete objects to promote conceptual learning. Those randomly
assigned to this intervention, compared to a control group, improved on computation, con-
cepts/applications, and story problems, but not on fact fluency (Fuchs et al., 2005) (although
children still did not catch up to their peers who were not at risk). Thus, this appears to be an
early intervention for students who exhibit problems in math at the beginning of the first grade,
as well as an example of how concepts, procedures, and problem solving can be taught and
practiced in an intense, integrated fashion.
Two tutoring conditions, one focused on improving fluency in number combinations and one
designed to teach problem solving, both improved number combination fluency (Fuchs et al.,
2008). Both increased competence in procedural calculations, with the problem-solving condi-
tion having the greater effect size. Only the problem-solving condition also developed algebraic
thinking and strengthened the ability to solve word problems.
Recall that explicit (or a mixture of explicit and implicit) instruction is quite distinct from
older models of “direct instruction.” Students are explicitly taught strategies, building up
a repertoire a bit at a time, not just “facts” or “skills.” They participate in a considerable
amount of small-group interaction where children are encouraged to think aloud as they do
 Early Childhood Mathematics Education 351

math, receiving feedback from peers and the teacher. They are taught to solve problems, using
strategies and, often, using concrete objects and visual representations in conjunction with
more abstract representations to analyze the problem’s structure. The teacher highlights key
aspects of each type of problem (not “key words”) and supports students’ ability to discriminate
one type from another. At the end of each instructional cycle, students not only practice but
also are helped, explicitly, to generalize and transfer their knowledge.
Other interventions have been shown to be effective. For example, tutoring successfully
remediated fact retrieval deficits, procedural computation, and computational estimation (Fuchs
et al., 2008). This intervention helped all children equally (e.g., those with MD only or MD and
reading difficulties). Computer programs can help children develop mastery with arithmetic
combinations (Burns, Kanive, & DeGrande, 2012). However, extensive involvement by teachers is
usually needed as well.
Many children with MD or MLD have difficulties related to number “sense.” An intervention
targeted to exactly that is “The Number Race” computer game (Wilson et al., 2006, 2006).
The researchers stated that a basic deficit might be in abilities related to numerical sense,
the ability to represent and manipulate numerical quantities nonverbally, emphasizing
number comparison and estimation. (The authors call this “number sense,” consistent with
their previous usage, but to avoid confusion with the much broader math education research
use of the term, which they also call number sense, we use “numerical sense” here.) The
researchers hypothesize that children lack either nonverbal numerical sense or access to it
due to dissociation from symbolic representations. Results of the game were promising on
multiple math topics.
Other approaches have also shown promise, including those that are more reform-
oriented. Even children with mental handicaps are capable of meaningful learning (Baroody,
1986b). Teachers must ensure that these children develop basic subitizing and counting skills
and concepts. That is, they should avoid a narrow focus on skills when more balanced and
comprehensive instruction, building on the child’s strengths to shore up weaknesses, may
provide better long-range results. Visual-spatial training or mass practice should not substi-
tute for experience looking for and using patterns in learning the basic facts or learning
arithmetic strategies (Baroody, 1996). Poor instruction may be the reason many children
show signs of MD, and even of MLD. Helping these children build on their strengths and
informal knowledge, invent counting strategies, connect concepts and procedures, and solve
problems may show that many of these children can learn math successfully. Strategies and
patterns may need explicit teaching, but should not be neglected (Baroody, 1996). Teachers
need to carefully and sensitively assess the understanding and skills of children with mental
handicaps along the relevant learning trajectories. For example, children with moderate
retardation may not count verbally up to 5 but may count collections of 5 or more. They
may just not be motivated to perform oral counting (Baroody, 1999). Training based on these
principles showed some success, more so on near-transfer tasks (Baroody, 1996). Careful
attention to tasks was helpful. For example, helping them master a few n + 1 tasks (4 + 1,
6 + 1) helped them discover the number-after-n rule, after which children spontaneously
invented counting on (realizing, e.g., that if 7 + 1 is 8, 7 + 2 is two count words after 7).
Importantly, these children can be active learners, who, because of developing adaptive
expertise, can learn to monitor their own math activity.
352 Early Childhood Mathematics Education

Spatial Thinking and Geometry

Although most researchers’ intervention programs focus only on number, this is too limited for
educators. The link between high-scoring children’s numerical ability and their spatial and meas-
urement ability and the lack of any growth on measurement and geometry in lower-scoring chil-
dren implies that geometry and measurement must also be addressed (Stewart, Leeson, &
Wright, 1997). For example, some children have difficulty with spatial organization across a wide
range of tasks. Children with certain math learning difficulties may struggle with spatial rela-
tionships, visual-motor and visual-perception, and a poor sense of direction (Lerner, 1997). As
discussed (pp. 329–330), they may not perceive a shape as a complete and integrated entity as
children without learning disabilities do (Lerner, 1997). Children with different brain injuries show
different patterns of competence. Those with right hemispheric injuries have difficulty organiz-
ing objects into coherent spatial groupings, while those with left hemispheric injuries have diffi-
culty with local relations within spatial arrays (Stiles & Nass, 1991). Teaching with learning
trajectories based on the developmental sequences described here is even more important for
children with learning disabilities, as well as children with other special needs. Teachers should
know the developmental sequences through which children pass as they learn geometric ideas
(see [LT]2).
Spatial weakness may underlie children’s difficulties with numerical magnitudes and rapid
retrieval of numeral names and arithmetic combinations (Jordan et al., 2003). Similarly, due to
the difficulties in perceiving shapes and spatial relationships, recognizing spatial relationships,
many also cannot read and align their own numbers properly. As a result, they make errors in
computation. They must learn to copy and line up numbers accurately to calculate problems in
addition and subtraction, in place value, and in multiplication and division (Bley & Thornton,
1981; Thorton, Langrall, & Jones, 1997).

Other Issues
Recall the promising results of early emphases on structure and pattern (Chapter 12 and
others). The Pattern and Structure Math Awareness Program (PASMAP), focused on improving
students’ visual memory, the ability to identify and apply patterns, and to seek structure in
math ideas and representations, has shown to have positive effects on children at risk of later
school failure (Fox, 2006).
Children diagnosed as autistic need structured interventions from the earliest years. They
must be kept engaged with their world, including math. Use intense interests that characterize
many children with autism to motivate them to study geometry and spatial structures. For example,
if they enjoy construction, they might study how triangles are used in bridges. Many children with
autism are visually-oriented. Manipulatives and pictures can aid children’s learning of most topics,
in geometry, number, and other areas. Children benefit from illustrating even verbs with dramatiza-
tions. In a related vein, teachers might break down what might have been a long verbal explanation
or set of directions. About a tenth of children with autism exhibit savant (exceptional) abilities,
often spatial in nature, such as art, geometry, or a particular area of arithmetic. These abilities are
probably due not to a mysterious talent but from (or also from) massive engagement, the reason
and motivation for which remains unknown (Ericsson et al., 1993).
 Early Childhood Mathematics Education 353

Across all these children and math topics, focus is essential. To develop fundamental compe-
tencies, teachers might choose two to three learning trajectories (Common Core clusters) that
are central for the children’s grade (Powell et al., 2013). Using formative assessment, find where
the children are in that learning trajectory and plan activities to move them to grade level (e.g.,
see Gervasoni et al., 2012; Sarama & Clements, 2009).
In conclusion, there is substantial evidence that early inequities in knowledge of math can
be avoided or ameliorated, but also evidence that our society has not taken the necessary
steps to do either. Interventions should start in pre-K and kindergarten (Gersten et al., 2005).
Without such interventions, children in special need are often relegated to a path of failure
(Baroody, 1999; Clements and Conference Working Group, 2004; Jordan et al., 2003; Wright,
1991; Wright, Stanger, Cowper, & Dyson, 1996).

Education for All

Specific interventions can be important, but these should not be a replacement but an add-
ition to children’s math education. All children learn from good math education. If we want
to close the gap, those with low entering knowledge need more time on better math (Perry
et al., 2008). Full-day kindergarten programs have been shown to produce greater math
learning gains than half-day programs, particularly for disadvantaged children (Bodovski &
Farkas, 2007). But if other children also participate in full-day programs, the gaps will
remain.
Children at risk or with special needs need more time, more math. Attention to children
who may lack opportunities to learn might start early, as toddlers (Reikerås, 2016). As we
saw in Chapter 14, affect and motivation are also important. Children who begin kindergar-
ten with the least math knowledge have the most to gain (or to lose) from their engagement
with learning (see the previous section in this chapter on affect). The low engagement of
these students may be at least partly due to teachers’ difficulties in engaging them or keep-
ing them engaged. Thus, future instructional efforts with these students should focus on
innovative attempts to improve their engagement with learning. If students with few previ-
ous opportunities to learn spent some time daily in small-group instruction that covered the
basic number knowledge that they lack, engagement, and hopefully achievement, might be
accelerated. Finally, if the average beginning achievement of these children can be increased
by more intensive preschool interventions, they may be able also to increase their later
achievement growth (Bodovski & Farkas, 2007). Interventions that specifically address these
needs are discussed in a following section.
Taking a wider view, learning trajectories support children as members of their community
and as individuals, and simultaneously help teachers see and respect all children as learners
and “doers” of math, each with an important voice (Myers, Wilson, Sztajn, & Edgington, 2015).
In this way, learning trajectories can support a wider view of social justice.

Practical Implications
Use learning trajectories to promote equitable math education in all its aspects, as in Figure 15.1.
There are many other resources available to address this country’s severe problems with equitable
354 Early Childhood Mathematics Education

Table 15.1 Using Learning Trajectories to Provide Equitable Math Education (adapted from Myers et al., 2015)

Access Ensure that children at various levels have ways to enter the math activities.
Use curricular materials that are aligned with LTs.
Use formative assessment to understand children’s level of thinking.
Scaffold discussions to promote all children’s participation and use knowledge of LTs to build
upon ideas and to make connections among math ideas.
Build upon children’s level of thinking progressively, providing challenging but achievable
activities.

Achievement Set goals for children that are appropriate based on children’s current understandings.
Distinguish what children have already learned from what they are learning and use that
understanding to design instruction to advance the children’s learning.
Think of a variety of ways to solicit evidence about children’s understanding.
Identity Support children’s efforts and encourage movement along the learning trajectory.
Create open tasks that are relevant to and affirm their children’s homes and communities.
Recognize, encourage, and determine the validity of a variety of strategies, algorithms, and
tools to solve problems.
Assist children in making not only mathematical connections, but also real-world connections
(global, national, and local).
Power Ensure all children participate, have voice, and ensure equitable ownership of the ideas and
activities.
Position children as experts based on their usage of certain skills or strategies.
Select or create tasks that impact the communities in which children live.
Recognize various mathematical ideas present in the classroom and encourage all children to
present, justify, and defend their ideas.
Frame every student as a creator of mathematical knowledge, recognize what children already
know, and self-empower children by helping them see themselves as doers of math.

math education. See the references (and see [LT]2, Nasir & Cobb, 2007, and our new STEM Innov-
ation for Inclusion in Early Education, STEMI2E2, Center at https://stemie.fpg.unc.edu).

Research-based Early Childhood Math Curricula and Approaches

In Chapter 14, we saw that early knowledge predicted math achievement for years to come.
Also, young children were more capable learners than previously thought and need curriculum
and pedagogy that foster their potential for math thinking (Hunting & Pearn, 2003). What does
this mean for curricula and approaches to teaching?

Widely Used, General Curricula are Not Effective

Many preschool settings, such as Head Start, are using curricula such as Creative Curriculum
and Bright Beginnings. The What Works Clearinghouse is clear that high-quality research shows
that these curricula were “found to have no discernible effects on oral language, print know-
ledge, phonological processing, or math for preschool children” (Clements & Sarama, 2013;
What Works Clearinghouse, 2013, 2013). What is commonly used is not a valid criterion for what
should be used.
As other examples, two curricula, one literacy-oriented (Bright Beginnings), and one develop-
mentally focused (Creative Curriculum), engendered no more math instruction than a control
group (Aydogan et al., 2005). Another study showed that classrooms using the OWL (Opening
 Early Childhood Mathematics Education 355

the World of Learning) curriculum, which was designed to develop literacy and math (Guisti
et al., 2018), across a 360-minute day, devoted only 58 seconds to math (Farran, Lipsey,
Watson, & Hurley, 2007). There was little instruction, few opportunities for children to engage
with math materials, and few opportunities for children to talk about math (or anything else,
but they talked most in centers, less in small groups, and least in whole-group activities). No
children gained math skills, and those beginning with higher scores lost math skills over
the year. They did gain in literacy skills, but only modestly (Farran et al., 2007). Most children
stayed the same or lost math skills during the year.
Even in one of the highest-quality programs recently created and run, the Abbott programs,
the quality of math materials and teaching has been rated as very low (Lamy et al., 2004). This
may be one reason that East Asian countries tend to outperform Western countries—the culture
develops math ideas and skills more consistently at earlier ages (Aunio et al., 2004, 2006;
Sakakibara, 2014).
Curriculum that focus on domains such as math are simply more effective than widely used
whole-child curricula (Jenkins et al., 2018).

Other Curricula and Approaches are Effective

We have already described several research-based approaches with proven effectiveness. Here
we describe other illuminating studies.
One compared two approaches (Clements, 1984). The first took the then popular, and still
influential, position that early instruction on number skills is useless (cf. Baroody & Benson,
2001). Based on an interpretation of Piaget, this position held that if a child does not conserve
number (Chapter 3)—that is, believes that changing the arrangement of a collection changes
its numbers—instruction may even be harmful. If math is taught at all, it should focus on the
logical foundations of classifying, ordering, and conserving. The second approach claimed that
children build competency with numbers directly. That is, counting and arithmetic are them-
selves complex cognitive processes that play a critical and constructive role in the development
of number and logical foundations in young children (Clements & Callahan, 1983). Four-year-
olds were randomly assigned to one of three groups, a logical foundation group, a number
group, and a control group. The group taught classifying and ordering made significant gains on
those logical operations. Similarly, the group taught number concepts learned those. This is
good news, but not surprising. What is surprising is that the logical foundations group made
small gains on number concepts, but the number group made large gains on classification and
orderings—matching the performance of the group taught these specific skills. The control
group did not improve on any abilities. So, children benefited by engaging in meaningful
number activities, many of which involved classifying and ordering.
Curriculum and approaches based on learning trajectories are effective—it’s as simple as that
(Clements & Sarama, 2011, 2007, 2013; Griffin, 2009; Perry et al., 2008; Young-Loveridge,
1989b, 2004; Weiland & Yoshikawa, 2012; Wright et al., 2006). As one example, our own Build-
ing Blocks curriculum (Clements & Sarama, 2013) significantly and substantially increases the
math knowledge of vulnerable preschool children. Formative, qualitative research indicated that
the curriculum raised achievement in a variety of math topics (Clements & Sarama, 2004;
Sarama & Clements, 2002a). Summative, quantitative research confirmed these findings, with
356 Early Childhood Mathematics Education
effect sizes ranging from 0.85 (Cohen’s d) for number to 1.47 for geometry in a small-scale
study (Clements & Sarama, 2007a). In a larger study involving random assignment of 36 class-
rooms, the Building Blocks curriculum increased the quantity and quality of the math environ-
ment and teaching, and substantially increased scores on a math achievement test. The effect
size compared to the control group score was very large (d = 1.07) and the effect size compared
to a group receiving a different and extensive math curriculum was substantial (d =. 47). This
has been substantiated by other researchers (Weiland & Yoshikawa, 2012), even in other coun-
tries such as Ecuador (Bojorquea, Torbeyns, Van Hoof, Van Nijlen, & Verschaffel, 2018). Follow-
up analyses suggest that Building Blocks changes the processes of children’s development of
math, helping them transfer their knowledge from one context to another (Watts et al., 2017).
Finally, large-scale implementations showed our approach could be implemented across
entire urban school districts, again with large effects (Clements et al., 2013, 2011).
But do these effects last? In our study, they did decrease over time (Watts et al., 2017).
Skeptics have suggested that it is not worth the effort if effects “fade.” We believe that without
follow-through, it is simply not realistic to expect short-term early interventions to last indefin-
itely (Brooks-Gunn, 2003). Our projects show that if kindergarten and first-grade teachers also
use learning trajectories in their teaching, children retain more of their early advantage (Clem-
ents et al., 2013). That is, if all competent entering preschoolers’ experience is the same old
curriculum in kindergarten, their learning trajectories will be flattened. We see that with even
a moderate follow-through, children build on their early gains. In our studies, this was especially
true for African American children (Clements et al., 2013) because their teacher had and sup-
ported higher expectations for them with Building Blocks. And we could do much better. What
should persist is not just a pre-K gain, but also a dramatic trajectory of successful learning.
Note, however, results do not fade in all cases. In a study of Building Blocks in Ecuador,
benefits remained strong into first grade (Verschaffel, Bojorquea, Torbeyns, & Van Hoof, 2019).
Other evidence supports our contention that one of the reason for so-called “fade out” of
the effects of early math programs is the low quality of the math children receive afterward
(Carr, Mokrova, Vernon-Feagans, & Burchinal, 2019). Additional professional development helps
(Jenkins et al., 2018). Also, some elementary curriculum build on early competencies; Karen
Fuson’s “Math Expressions” curriculum performed well in a study of primary-grade math (Ago-
dini & Harris, 2010). A major conclusion is that early childhood classrooms through the primary
grades underestimate children’s ability to learn math and are ill-suited to help them learn. One
researcher, noting that children actually regress on some math skills during kindergarten, said
simply that sorting and classifying, and one-to-one correspondence, are just not enough (Wright
et al., 1994). We need more structured, sophisticated, and better-developed and well-sequenced
math from preschool through the elementary grades.
For CWD, the Children’s School Success curriculum (Lieber, Horn, Palmer, & Fleming, 2008)
uses math activities adapted from the Building Blocks curriculum (Clements & Sarama, 2013)
to use Universal Design for Learning. Use of this curriculum helps preschoolers with disabil-
ities develop in both academic and social domains. Another program helped at-risk children
outperform their control counterparts on standardized measures of math achievement (Clarke
et al., 2011).
Another finding from elementary curriculum, a finding that is important to teachers of any
age child, is that teaching a combination of skills, concepts, and problem solving helps children
 Early Childhood Mathematics Education 357

learn skills about as well as if they had studied only skills. These children also learn concepts
and problem solving, which children in skills-only curricula do not learn as well (e.g., Senk &
Thompson, 2003).

Final Words
Understanding the contexts of instruction and curricula used are necessary to be an effective
educator. The final area of professionalism deals with specific instructional strategies, the topic
of Chapter 16.
16 Instructional Practices and
Pedagogical Issues

The three friends turn to discussing how they teach math:

Aretha: Math is different to me. The kids have to memorize specific facts and skills. It’s
not like language, which you can help kids develop, well, more naturally or infor-
mally. Math is something you have to teach directly.
Brenda: Maybe, but don’t you think they have to see math in their world? I mean aren’t
they doing math when they build with blocks?
Carina: Both of you sound right. Does mixing those types of approaches make sense?

What do you think about teaching math? Should it be more teacher-directed or more child-
centered? What role is there for play in early math education? What are the best strategies to
meet individual children’s needs? Are specific manipulatives helpful? Should we emphasize skills
or concepts? Do children have too much technology at home? Similar to times at home, should
schools keep them away from computers, or should we use good environments to show them
how to use technology for learning? If so, what types, and how much?
This is a long chapter, because it answers these and many other critical questions. In add-
ition to large entities such as a “program” (e.g., Head Start) or a curriculum, there are specific
perspectives, approaches, and strategies for teaching math to young children that research indi-
cates are effective. Here, we briefly describe some of the most important. Although there is
research evidence for each, this evidence is in most cases qualitative and/or correlational;
therefore, we cannot be certain that the specific instructional strategy caused the learning. This
occurs when we cite studies that used randomized designs, because the data on specific compo-
nents of the instruction were not randomly assigned (only the entire curriculum was). There-
fore, these results are usually suggestive but not definitive. We note wherever one or more
studies did rigorously evaluate a specific approach.

Teaching Beliefs and Basic Pedagogical Strategies

Teachers with certain belief systems about early childhood teaching and learning, and those
who tend to use a corresponding category of instructional strategies, are more successful at
promoting children’s learning. For example, observations allowed researchers to reliably
 Instructional Practices and Pedagogy 359

categorize teachers into three belief systems: transmission, discovery, and connectionist, or
some combination (Askew, Brown, Rhodes, Wiliam, & Johnson, 1997). Transmission teachers
believe in “teacher telling” and a view of math as a collection of separate skills. They believe in
teaching primary-grade students mechanical skills with paper-and-pencil procedures. To them,
learning is predominantly an individual activity in which one routine at a time is memorized,
students’ strategies are of little importance, and mistakes are failures to grasp correct methods.
They do not expect all students to become fluent (believing that some have more “math
ability”).
Discovery-oriented teachers believe that children discover ideas, including those in math.
They believe that children should find answers by any methods and should learn to apply math
to everyday problems. They view learning as an individual activity, often involving manipula-
tives. They believe that children need to be “ready” to learn.
Finally, connectionist teachers value children’s strategies, but also teach strategies in an
attempt to establish connections between math ideas, skills, and topics. They believe in effi-
cient methods of calculation, but also an emphasis on mental strategies, on reasoning, and
on justifying results. Learning is viewed more as a social activity in which students first
develop their own strategies but are helped to refine them by the teacher. Misunderstandings
are discussed and worked on. All students are expected to become fluent in using and doing
math.

Practical Implications
The researchers also classified the teachers’ effectiveness, based on their children’s actual gain
scores in math over the year (Askew et al., 1997). Those teachers with more connectionist orien-
tations were more likely to be highly effective than teachers with strong discovery or transmis-
sion orientations. These findings are in close agreement with our theory of hierarchic
interactionalism.
It is also important that teachers have an interest and self-efficacy in, and knowledge about,
math (Thomson, Rowe, Underwood, & Peck, 2005) (Şeker & Alisinanoğlu, 2015). Unfortunately,
many teachers in early childhood tend to have negative views about math and about teaching
math (Knaus, 2017). Often due to negative experiences they have had, such attitudes can
change! For example, using children’s literature (Jett, 2018) or engaging in a research project
with an empirically validated curriculum (Clements, Sarama, Wolfe, & Spitler, 2015; Sarama,
Clements, Wolfe, & Spitler, 2016).

Group Size and Structure

Our knowledge of what group size is most effective is limited. The previous study (Askew
et al., 1997) did not find that more, compared to less, effective teachers were any more
likely to use whole-class, small-group, or individualized approaches (Askew et al., 1997). How-
ever, small-group work can significantly increase children’s scores on tests aligned with that
work (Klein & Starkey, 2004; Klein, Starkey, & Wakeley, 1999). Children can also transfer
knowledge they learned in small-group activities to tasks that they have not been taught
(Clements, 1984).
360 Instructional Practices and Pedagogy

Practical Implications
We suspect that small-group work, individual work at the computer, and perhaps to a lesser extent,
focused whole-group activities are the main keys to the success of Building Blocks. However, our cur-
riculum also uses centers and everyday activities (Clements & Sarama, 2007a, 2008). All activities
are active, but we make an extra effort to ensure that the whole-group activities are active—physically
(“Counting and Move”), intellectually and individually (“Snapshots” with “bunny ears”—all children
are solving problems and showing their solutions individually), or socially (“talk to the person next to
you about how you can figure this out”)—and usually some combination of these.
Small-group work is where formative assessment with learning trajectories works hardest
(Clements & Sarama, 2007a, 2008). One relevant finding is that these groups do not have to be
small: Groups with two children may not be any more effective than those with five at a time
(Clarke et al., 2017).
Observations in countries that use far more whole-group instruction with young children sug-
gest its advantages may be overlooked in the U.S. For example, the teacher-directed, whole-
class Korean approach provides a positive, nurturing environment that offers children the
opportunity to develop essential pre-academic skills (French & Song, 1998).
Finally, learning centers can make valuable contributions to children’s learning as well. How-
ever, as in Building Blocks, they are most effective in combination with other group sizes and
structure and when they are carefully planned, introduced, and guided by the teacher (Uyanik
Aktulun & Inal Kiziltepe, 2018).

Intentional, Planned Instruction

Intentional, planned teaching is more effective than laissez-faire approaches or teaching based on
“teachable moments” (see the following section, Helenius, 2017; Knaus, 2017; Lai et al., 2018; Lehrl,
Kluczniok, Rossbach, & Anders, 2017), even in play contexts, such as the block center (Schmitt
et al., 2018; Trawick-Smith, Swaminathan, & Liu, 2016). This is especially true for children with dis-
abilities (Hojnoski et al., 2018). However, compared to Chinese teachers, U.S. preschool teachers
are less intentional in math teaching. For example, 27% of the U.S. participants did not set any
goals for math, and 20% did not use a curriculum or any resources (Li et al., 2015). Chinese
teachers were using more emergent play-based approaches in which to infuse math as well—an
approach that may not be fully utilized in U.S. primary-grade classrooms.

Practical Implications
Understand the need for planned, intentional, sequenced teaching of math from the earliest
years (Thomson et al., 2005). Actively engage with students (Clements & Sarama, 2008; Thom-
son et al., 2005).
Planned instruction does not have to be done in a certain way—certainly not in a rigid and
boring manner. Teaching children from birth through second grade can often be play-like (see
the later section on play, pp. 368–373) (Trawick-Smith, et al., 2016) and child-centered (Gerva-
soni, 2018). As an example, Luke, 3 years of age, was ready to produce a set, but his teacher
had found him particularly uninterested in doing so during small group activities. But she knew
Luke loved cars. So, she gathered up 20 paper plates and said, “Luke, let’s make a huge car
 Instructional Practices and Pedagogy 361

show! Let’s put four cars on every stand!” Luke happily laid out the paper plates and proceeded
to put four cars on every one. If the child won’t come to you, go to the child. The activity is just
(or more) meaningful and memorable and remains intentional and planned.

Teachable Moments
If play has so much potential to elicit math thinking, should educators simply use “teachable
moments”? An old and honored tradition capitalizing on teachable moments is an important peda-
gogical strategy. The teacher carefully observes children and identifies elements in the spontan-
eously emerging situations that can be used to promote learning of math (Ginsburg, 2008).
However, there are serious problems with depending on this approach. For example, most
teachers spend little time in careful observation necessary to find such moments (Ginsburg,
2008; Lee, 2004). They spend little time with the children during their free play (Seo & Gins-
burg, 2004). Further, as we have seen, many teachers have a difficult time engaging children in
tasks at their level (Bennett, Desforges, Cockburn, & Wilkinson, 1984). Most teachers do not
have the math language and concepts at their command. For example, they do not tend to
think about relational terms in math. According to researchers, teachers’ language in general
may influence their ability to see opportunities for teaching math throughout the curriculum
(Ginsburg, 2008; Moseley, 2005). Finally, it is unrealistic to expect teachers to see opportunities
for multiple children to build multiple concepts (Ginsburg, 2008).

Practical Implications
Seek and exploit teachable moments in everyday play and routines (Lehrl et al., 2017). This could
be an important equity issue, so attend to all children, including very young children, who would not
be seen as “doing math” (Björklund & Barendregt, 2016). However, recognize that in most situations
these moments will constitute only a small portion of the math activities children need.

Using Learning Trajectories

A teacher talks about interviewing a child for report cards, and her use of learning trajectories
to understand the child fully.

She was able to do verbal counting to 8, and then when she slowed down, she could get to
11. So, I said, “Can you make me a group of 6?” And so she did. So then I added… I asked
her to make a group of 12. She couldn’t do it.
Then I noted that, so now I’m thinking in the trajectories, I think she’s a “Counter (Small
Numbers),” right? She’s on her way to being a “Counter (10).” She’s in between the two.
I know just what to do to teach her the next level of thinking. That’s what I was thinking of as
I did this.
(Pat, Anghileri, 2004)
362 Instructional Practices and Pedagogy

Throughout the book we have documented how the use of learning trajectories, in creating stand-
ards and curriculum, and in teaching, are useful. Even experiments that carefully tested if you really
need to use learning trajectories indicate that approach is superior. For example, children randomly
assigned to learn with learning trajectories performed better than children that were taught the
target level activities. Even though they spent less time on the target levels, children who moved up
the learning trajectories performed better on tasks from all levels, including the one the others had
spent all their time learning (Clements et al., 2020, 2019). Math children’s way is better for them.

Practical Implications
Engage in intentional, planned teaching in relation to learning trajectories (Carpenter & Moser,
1984; Clarke et al., 2002; Clements & Sarama, 2007c, 2008; Cobb et al., 1991, note that not all
projects use that term—the process is the key). Focus on key ideas and understand how those
key ideas develop in children. Using learning trajectories well, as suggested by Pat’s quote
above, implies a use of the next instructional strategy, formative assessment.

Formative Assessment
I (Sarama) often have teachers-in-training ask about tests and other assessments they give.
They often say they give standardized tests and all quizzes from their textbook. I ask why; what
do they do with them? They say this is for grading. I ask, how does it affect your teaching? This
is usually met with a confused silence. In our own education, we have experienced so many
tests and quizzes that we don’t always think about what purpose they should serve. Perhaps
the most effective use of tests is for the teaching strategy called “formative assessment.”
Of the ten instructional practices the National Math Advisory Panel (NMAP) researched, only
a few had an adequate number of rigorous studies supporting them. One of the most strongly
supported was teachers’ use of formative assessment (NMAP, Clements & Sarama, 2008). For-
mative assessment is the ongoing monitoring of student learning to inform instruction. One can
monitor the class and individuals within it.
Although the youngest children in NMAP’s rigorous studies were in the upper primary
grades, other studies confirm that regular assessment and individualization are key to effective
education in general (Shepard & Pellegrino, 2018) and early math education (Thomson et al.,
2005) (Connor et al., 2018) in particular, including internationally (Gallego, Näslund-Hadley, &
Alfonso, 2018). Teachers should observe not just answers but strategies as well. Second graders
experiencing such individualization gained 4 months more in achievement than those in regular
classrooms (Connor et al., 2018).
Other syntheses have reported that formative assessment as an intervention has been evalu-
ated to have effect sizes from 0.40 to 0.70, larger than effects of most instructional programs
(Black & Wiliam, 1998; Shepard, 2005). It helps all children learn but helps the lower-achieving
children the most. They gain the higher-order (metacognitive) skills already attained by higher-
achieving children.
Of course, it is important for the assessment piece to be accurate and specific. And most
early childhood teachers are neither (Kilday, Kinzie, Mashburn, & Whittaker, 2012), due to a lack
of professional development. This book, and [LT]2, have been designed to fill that gap.
 Instructional Practices and Pedagogy 363

Again, formative assessment is for everyone. In his first year of school, Harry knew all the
little math that was presented. Harry gave the appearance of being interested in the work and,
at least, being willing to complete it. However, the strongest lesson he learned in his kindergar-
ten math experience is that “you do not have to work hard at it” (Perry & Dockett, 2005). Simi-
larly, observations of early childhood teachers show they usually misjudge children’s level and
give practice (“more of the same”) problems even when they intend to provide learning oppor-
tunities (challenging problems), especially to the highest-performing children. This is simply
a reminder, discussed in Chapter 14, that it is just as important to serve the needs of the gifted
as those who are struggling (Bennett et al., 1984). Thus, the high-performing children were the
least well served—they rarely learned new math. Also mismatched were the lowest performers—
teachers rarely moved to the lower levels they needed to learn.
Ability grouping should be flexible, based on formative assessment, and sensitive to children’s
emotional and social development. Done badly, it can lead children with lower entry skills into
misbehaviors and lower their self-efficacy (e.g., Catsambis & Buttaro, 2012). Unfortunately, it is
often done badly in schools that serve low SES and high-minority students, in which primary-
grade teachers may use four or more groups (reducing instructional time) and spend more time
with higher-performing groups (Nomi, 2010). In contrast, in advantaged schools, ability group
increases achievement for all students.

Practical Implications
Use formative assessment and learning trajectories to serve the needs of all children. As with
all instructional practices, formative assessment has to be done right. Ask yourself the following
questions (Shepard, 2005):

• What is the key error?

• What is the probable reason the child made this error?
• How can I guide the child to avoid this error in the future?

Also, transfer is more likely when you focus your formative assessment on children’s under-
standing of concepts and relationships. If all this seems obvious and easy, note that an analysis
of the ECLS data showed that about half of kindergarten teachers report never using such
strategies as achievement grouping in math (NRC, 2009). Few pre-K or kindergarten teachers
use small groups at all—whole-group instruction dominates (see Group Size, above).

Interactions, Discussions, and Connecting Math: Math Talk

Effective teachers talk to their children about math (Clements et al., 2017a; Gervasoni & Perry,
2017; Trawick-Smith, Oski, DePaolis, Krause, & Zebrowski, 2016; Trawick-Smith, et al., 2016; Wal-
shaw & Anthony, 2008). There are dramatic differences between the amounts of math-related
talk that preschool teachers provide (Klibanoff, Levine, Huttenlocher, Vasilyeva, & Hedges,
2006). The more teachers talk about math, the more their children develop math knowledge.
The contexts in which the talk occurred ranged from planned math instruction to everyday
activities (e.g., children engaged in an art project that involved constructing a book were asked
to put numbered pages in order), to incidental comments about quantity (e.g., “Can you tell me
364 Instructional Practices and Pedagogy

what is different about those two beads?”). A follow-up study showed that it was not the overall
number of words but the amount of specific math talk that is related to children’s growth in
math (Ehrlich & Levine, 2007b). Another medium of communication, writing math journals, has
also been found to increase children’s learning of math (Kostos & Shin, 2010).
Further, children in classrooms with low teacher math talk actually decreased in math com-
petence. Unfortunately, most teachers do not talk to their children about math, even when the
children bring it up. In one study, when children made a math utterance, 60% of the time their
teachers ignored it. They only responded mathematically 10% of the time (Diaz, 2008). That
may be because only a quarter of the teachers thought of math beyond counting.
These studies are consistent with studies that show that children have more secure, positive
relationships with teachers who set up appropriate classroom environments and give children
high-quality feedback to stretch their emerging knowledge and skills (Howes, Fuligni, Hong,
Huang, & Lara-Cinisomo, 2013). This is especially important for Latinx children (Murphey, Madill,
& Guzman, 2017) and other groups. Specific math language concepts is strongly related to early
maths learning, especially for children who have not had previous high-quality math learning
opportunities (Toll & Van Luit, 2014).

Practical Implications
Talk about math. Effective teachers make greater use of open-ended questions than less effect-
ive teachers. Ask children, “Why?” and “How do you know?” Expect children, as young as pre-
school, to share strategies, explain their thinking, work together to solve problems, and listen to
each other (Askew et al., 1997; Carpenter, Fennema, Franke, Levi, & Empson, 1999; Carpenter,
Franke, Jacobs, Fennema, & Empson, 1998; Clarke et al., 2002; Clements & Sarama, 2007c,
2008; Cobb et al., 1991; Thomson et al., 2005) (Clements et al., 2017a, 2017b; Clements, Sarama,
et al., 2019; Fuson et al., 2015).
Place a greater emphasis on summarizing key ideas at the end of any activity. Be aware of
the properties and relationships of math. Highlight links and connections between math ideas
and between math and everyday problems to be solved (Askew et al., 1997; Clarke et al., 2002;
Clements & Sarama, 2007c, 2008).
In summary, be actively engaged in discussing math with children around planned activities.
Build on and elaborate children’s mathematical ideas and strategies and facilitate children’s
responding (Clements & Sarama, 2008). Although studies that address this specific instructional
practice are correlational rather than experimental, the results are promising.

High Expectations
High expectations of what children can learn in math helps all children realize their potential
(Kim, 2015), especially for subgroups such as African American children (Schenke et al., 2017).

Practical Implications
Challenge children. Effective teachers hold higher expectations of children than ineffective
teachers (Clarke et al., 2002; Clements & Sarama, 2007c, 2008; Thomson et al., 2005). They
hold high expectations of all children (Askew et al., 1997).
 Instructional Practices and Pedagogy 365

Developing Positive Math Attitudes and Affect

Children’s math anxiety predicts future math achievement over and above cognitive
math ability, especially tackling challenging problems (Pantoja et al., 2019). Surprisingly,
children with high achievement and high working memory may avoid using more advanced
solution strategies due to math anxiety (Ramirez et al., 2016). Unsurprisingly, most of
these simply mirror the pedagogical strategies discussed previously, but the point here is
that these have also been identified as improving children’s attitudes and beliefs about
math.

Practical Implications
Learning environments can enhance children’s early development of a positive mathematical
disposition (Anghileri, 2001, 2004; Cobb, 1990; Cobb et al., 1991, 1989; Fennema et al., 1996; Hie-
bert, 1999; Kutscher et al., 2002; McClain, Cobb, Gravemeijer, & Estes, 1999; Sarama & DiBiase,
2004). Effective strategies are necessary and include the following.

• Use problems that have meaning for children (both practical and mathematical).
• Expect that children will invent, explain, and critique their own solution strategies within
a social context.
• Provide opportunities for both creative invention and practice.
• Use manipulatives (Liggett, 2017).
• Use technology (Sarama & Clements, 2020; Silander et al., 2016).
• Encourage and support children progressing toward increasingly sophisticated and abstract
math methods and understandings, and to understand and develop more efficient and ele-
gant solution strategies.
• Help children see connections between various types of knowledge and topics, with the goal
of having each child build a well-structured, coherent knowledge of math.
• Ensure that your expectations of and interactions with girls about math are positive and
equal to that with boys (Gunderson et al., 2012).

A Word on Assignments, Grading, and “Teaching Responsibility”

I (Sarama) often have graduate students ask for an extension on assignments, saying how busy
they were or that there were hardships. I always say “OK,” and then add, “Please do one thing
in return. When your young students ask you for an extension, be just as understanding.” This
is not always obvious to teachers. I once (and only once) asked teachers what their homework
policy was. We made the list, consisting often of punishments such as a zero for any assign-
ments turned in even a day late. They claim they are teaching responsibility. I said, “That will
be our homework policy for this class.” They were outraged and said I didn’t respect them. No
one seemed to be able to reflect on the dissonance.
Remember, when a child cannot understand a math concept, we teach them. When a child
cannot tie his shoes, we teach him. When a child forgets an assignment (even just forgetting to
bring it in) we … punish? That’s not teaching.
366 Instructional Practices and Pedagogy

Collaborative Learning/Peer Tutoring

The NMP’s review of child- and adult-centered instruction in elementary and middle school
math concluded that instruction should not be either entirely “child-centered” or “teacher-
directed” (NMP, 2008). In the technique “Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies” (PALS) (http://kc.
vanderbilt.edu/pals/), teachers identify children who require help on specific skills and others
who might teach those skills. All pairs then study math. These pairs and the skills each pair
focuses on change frequently, so that all students have the opportunity to be “coaches” and
“players.” The teacher circulates, observing and providing individual remedial lessons. Findings
regarding this approach were promising, but not definitive. The clearest positive results were
for low-achieving students on computational measures. Several studies also used a form of for-
mative assessment, so the relative contributions of these two pedagogical strategies is not
known. As an example, kindergartners worked on PALS for 15 weeks (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Karns,
2001). The control group was provided teacher-directed lessons and demonstrations. Positive
and practically (but not statistically) significant effects on achievement were detected for spe-
cial education students (effect size = 0.43), low-achieving students (0.37), and medium-
achieving students (0.44).
A similar, class-wide peer tutoring program achieved substantial success (Greenwood,
Delquadri, & Hall, 1989). This approach involves weekly pairing of the entire class into
tutor-tutee pairs, with rewards for responding to the tasks. When adjustments were made
for initial Grade 1 pre-test achievement and measured IQ differences, the low-SES experi-
mental group achieved significantly greater gains in math (and literacy measures) than did
the equivalent low-SES control group, which received the standard instructional program,
including Title I services.
Other cooperative learning strategies have not been evaluated as consistently with rigorous
designs (NMP, 2008) although results are positive (Mustafa, Omar, Shafie, & Kamarudin, 2017),
particularly so for initially low-achieving children (Meloni, Fanari, Bertucci, & Berretti, 2017).
However, research provides several guidelines (Clements, 1991; Johnson & Johnson, 2009; Nas-
tasi & Clements, 1991). Children need constructive group discussions, including presentations of
different views, group engagement, solicitation and provision of explanations, and shared lead-
ership (Wilkinson, Martino, & Camilli, 1994).

Practical Implications
A recommendation for an approach designed to enhance social skills, effectance motivation,
and higher-order thinking was based on an integration of the research (Clements, 1991). Groups
in this approach have the following characteristics:

• Positive group interdependence (i.e., if you do well, I do well). Students in a group share the
same goal and resources (e.g., one activity sheet for each pair of students). Each has
a specific role to play, and these roles are rotated. Students talk together about the work,
encouraging each other to learn.
• Reciprocal sense-making (i.e., build upon your partner’s ideas). Students strive to under-
stand and elaborate upon the viewpoints of their partners. They engage in a mutual process
of constructing ideas.
 Instructional Practices and Pedagogy 367

• Cognitive conflict, then consensus (i.e., two heads are better than one—in fact, sometimes
two wrongs can make a right!). Students learn by taking the perspective of their partners
and trying to synthesize discrepant ideas to produce even better ideas. Individual account-
ability is maintained (i.e., all must learn). Each student is accountable for understanding the
concepts.

These lead to the following responsibilities that the teacher must make clear:

• Work together, explaining fully to each other.

• Try to make sense of your partner’s explanations.
• Ask specific questions when requesting help. When asked a question by your partner, you
have a responsibility to help. Do not just give answers, give explanations. Some teachers
also use the “Ask three before me” strategy. Students are not to ask the teacher
a question until three other students have been asked and were not able to help.
• Welcome conflicts of ideas; then work toward consensus. Partners must agree before writ-
ing down the final solution. Of course, they may agree just to “try out” the ideas of one
partner!
• Encourage each other. When disagreeing, criticize ideas, not people.

As students work together, the teacher’s role is to encourage interaction and cooperation,
as well as to discuss the children’s solutions. For example, if one student does not respond to
his or her partner, the teacher would do so to keep the discussion going. The teacher also lets
students know that working to understand is more important than getting the single, correct
answer. The teacher watches for situations that may be discussed profitably. For example, he/
she might tell the whole class that, although a certain pair of students worked on only two
problems, they learned a lot from each other by figuring out what the other person was think-
ing. Sometimes it is also worthwhile to have students discuss social situations that arise. For
example, the teacher might ask a pair of students to tell the class how they successfully
resolved a conflict over turn-taking. Within a small group, students might be encouraged to dis-
cuss and decide how task responsibilities are to be divided.
Suggestions for teachers wishing to promote the development of effective collaborative
skills include the following:

• Emphasize the importance of social support. Encourage students to provide help for peers.
Emphasize that the goal is for all students to learn and be successful.
• Teach specific communication skills such as active listening, asking and answering ques-
tions, providing explanations, and effective debating techniques.
• Provide students with informational feedback and social reinforcement regarding their
social interactions. Teach students to give such feedback to each other. In addition, model
appropriate interactive behavior.
• Teach and model conflict resolution skills such as negotiation, compromise, and cooperative
problem solving.
• Encourage perspective taking (“put yourself in the other person’s shoes”) consistent with
the students’ developmental levels.
368 Instructional Practices and Pedagogy

• In all phases, evaluate children’s learning and help them reflect on what they learned and
how their collaborative work helped them learn or how they could collaborate better (John-
son & Johnson, 2009).

A final suggestion from research is especially helpful to African American children and pos-
sibly other under-represented groups: Ensue active collaboration and participation, as well as
expressive creativity (Waddell, 2010).

Play
Several findings support the traditional emphasis on play and child-centered experiences. In one
study, children made more progress overall and specifically on math when they attended child-
initiated, compared to strictly academically oriented, programs (Marcon, 1992). Evidence shows
that these children’s grades were higher at the end of elementary school (sixth, but not fifth grade)
(Marcon, 2002). This may be consistent with some Asian countries. For example, Japanese pre-K
and kindergarten education places emphasis on social-emotional, rather than academic goals (but
“informal” math teaching may be ubiquitous at home and school, as we will describe later in this
section). Preschoolers engage in free play most of the day. Parents interact with their children in
math, usually in real life, such as counting down elevator numbers. Few parents mention workbooks
(Murata, 2004). Similarly, Flemish Belgium’s pre-primary education is more concerned with overall
development and less concerned with teaching specific content areas than is education in the Neth-
erlands (Torbeyns et al., 2002). Whereas Dutch children start ahead, they are met and surpassed
by Flemish children in the elementary years (reasons are not clear). Finally, a cross-national study
showed that preschools in which free-choice activities predominated, compared to those in which
personal/social activities (personal care and group social activities) predominated, had higher lan-
guage scores at age 7 (Montie, Xiang, & Schweinhart, 2006). Whole-group activities in preschool
were negatively related to cognitive scores at age 7 (cognition including math-relevant content
areas, including quantity, spatial relations, problem solving, and time). In contrast, in free play, 2-
and 3-year-old children can learn higher-order generalizations (Sim & Xu, 2017).
However, there are cautions to those interpreting this literature (Clements & Sarama, 2014).
Most are correlational—there is no way to know what caused what effects. Further, exposure to
math instruction explained a substantive portion of the greater gains of young Chinese, com-
pared to U.S. children (Geary & Liu, 1996). Perhaps most troubling to a solely “everyday-” or
“play-”oriented approach to math is that many such programs show negligible gains. One ana-
lysis of the PCER math curriculum showed that teaching math indirectly through everyday
activities did not predict achievement gains, whereas group work did. Nevertheless, the import-
ance of well-planned free-choice play should not be underestimated, appropriate to the age of
the children.
Perhaps the most important caution is the notion of what is and is not an academic goal.
Japanese preschool teachers, as stated, distinguish themselves from elementary teachers as
enhancing social and emotional growth. However, what they mean is that, instead of direct
teaching of numbers, they prepared materials that induced quantitative thinking, such as card
games, skipping ropes, scoreboards on which to write numerals, and so forth (Hatano & Sakaki-
bara, 2004). Further, they enhanced this activity by questioning the children or participating in
 Instructional Practices and Pedagogy 369

the activities. They invited children who revealed more advanced understanding to express
their ideas as a way of stimulating the thinking of other children (Hatano & Sakakibara, 2004).
Given that the broader Japanese culture puts high value on math skills and concepts, such
quantitative activities are presented frequently, and attract the children. For example, during
free play, a child took a few sheets of newspaper. Others wanted some, and the teacher inter-
vened and gave “one sheet [to] each” (number). She provided two roles of tape on the com-
bined tables of two. Some children started to create origami objects of their own, folding
two edges into triangles. One child folded, saying “Fold this into half. Fold this into half”
(making fourths, p. 197). The teacher participated by making slightly more advanced paper
objects. Children gathered around and conversations developed about geometry and quan-
tity. Children began to make more complex objects of their own. Composition and decompos-
itions of specific shapes were enacted and discussed extensively. Size and measure concepts
were threaded throughout the conversations. Thus, these “non-academic” teachers teach
math extensively, arranging situations in which children can manipulate materials and dis-
cuss ideas; offer increasingly challenging tasks; help children through modeling, participation,
and provision of guidance; and offer corrective or expanding feedback (Hatano & Sakakibara,
2004). Thus, the ubiquitous occurrence in Japanese children’s homes and schools indicates
that math education is emphasized, even if contrasted with the elementary schools’ “aca-
demic” focus on math.
Play has several different faces in math development. “Play creates a zone of proximal
development of the child. In play a child always behaves beyond his average age, above his
daily behavior; in play it is as though he were a head taller than himself” (Vygotsky, 1978,
p. 102). Preschoolers showed at least one sign of math thinking during 43% of the minutes of
which they are observed (Ginsburg et al., 1999). Of course, this may have been just a brief epi-
sode, but this illustrates that children could be involved in math during a considerable portion
of their free play. The following six categories of math content emerged from the researchers’
observations (Seo & Ginsburg, 2004).

• Classification (2%) includes grouping, sorting, or categorizing by attributes. One girl, Anna,
took out all the plastic bugs from the container and sorted them by type of bug and then
by color.
• Magnitude (13%) includes describing or comparing the size of objects. When Brianna
brought a newspaper to the art table to cover it, Amy remarked, “This isn’t big enough to
cover the table.”
• Enumeration (12%) includes saying number words, counting, instantly recognizing a number
of objects (subitizing), or reading or writing numbers. Three girls drew pictures of their fam-
ilies and discussed how many brothers and sisters they had and how old their siblings were.
• Dynamics (5%) includes putting things together, taking them apart, or exploring motions
such as flipping. Several girls flattened a ball of clay into a disk, cut it, and made “pizza.”
• Pattern and Shape (21%) includes identifying or creating patterns or shapes, or exploring
geometric properties. Jennie made a bead necklace, creating a yellow-red color pattern.
• Spatial Relations (4%) includes describing or drawing a location or direction. When Teresa
put a dollhouse couch beside a window, Katie moved it to the center of the living room,
saying, “The couch should be in front of TV” (Seo & Ginsburg, 2004, pp. 93–94).
370 Instructional Practices and Pedagogy

About 88% of children engaged in at least one such activity during their play. In comparison to
some preschools in which teachers emphasize only simple verbal counting and shape recognition,
this reveals a rich foundation on which to build interesting math. We consider these activities pre-
mathematical foundations—critically important, but not yet mathematized for most children until
teachers help children talk about them, reflect on them, and build on them.
How about younger children? Even toddlers show significant competencies in their play, across
three main areas of math: number and counting, geometry, and problem solving (Reikerås, Løge, &
Knivsberg, 2012). Observations indicate that play can support math learning if it stimulates learning
and integrates both children and educators’ interests (van Oers, 1994). One observational study
found that spontaneous use of math in young children’s (4 to 7 years) play was frequent, enough so
that there were more teaching opportunities than a teacher could possibly notice, much less seize
upon (van Oers, 1996). Although a different categorization scheme was used for categories of math,
and just one dramatic play setting, a “shoe store,” was observed, some comparisons can be made:
classification (5%), counting (5%), one-to-one correspondence (4%), measuring (27%), estimating
(1%), solving number problems (1%), simple arithmetic (1%), quantitative concepts (20%), number
words (11%), space–time (5%), notation (7%), dimensions (5%), money (5%), and seriation and con-
servation (0%). In another study, young children exposed to a play-based curriculum scored signifi-
cantly higher than national norms on math. However, the findings are equivocal, as the differences
declined from age 5 to 7 to insignificance, and the children scored significantly lower than these
norms in literacy (van Oers, 2003, notes that the tests emphasize lower-level content).
However, teachers aware of the math and children’s relationship with it can support math
learning through play (e.g., Helenius et al., 2016).

Practical Implications
Teachers support math in play by providing a fertile environment and intervening appropriately
(Clements & Sarama, 2014).

Types of Play
Stepping back, there are several types of play, such as sensorimotor/manipulative and
symbolic/pretend (Monighan-Nourot, Scales, Van Hoorn, & Almy, 1987; Piaget, 1962). Sensorimotor
play might involve rhythmic patterns, correspondences, and exploring materials such as blocks. Play
in perceptually oriented toddlers is enhanced with realistic objects. All children should also play with
structured, open-ended materials. In both China and America, the use of LEGOs and blocks is strongly
linked with math activity in general and with pattern and shape in particular. However, U.S. preschools
have many toys, some of which do not encourage math activity. Chinese preschools have only a few
play objects, and blocks and LEGOs are prominent (Ginsburg et al., 2003). Again, less is more.
Symbolic play can be further classified as constructive, dramatic, or rule-governed. In con-
structive play, children manipulate objects to make something. This constitutes about 40% of
the play of 3-year-olds and half of the play of 4- to 6-year-olds. The power lies in children’s
playing with alternate ways of building something.
Materials such as sand, play dough, and blocks offer many rich opportunities for math
thinking and reasoning (Perry & Dockett, 2002). Teachers might provide suggestive
 Instructional Practices and Pedagogy 371

materials (cookie cutters), engage in parallel play with children, and raise comments or
questions regarding shapes and amounts of things; for example, making multiple copies of
the same shape in play dough with the cookie cutters or transforming sand or play dough
objects into one another. One teacher told two boys she was “going to hide the ball” made of
play dough, covered it with a flat piece, and pressed down. The boys said the ball was still
there, but when she lifted the piece, the ball was “gone.” This delighted them and they copied
her actions and discussed that the ball was “in” the “circle” (Forman & Hill, 1984, pp. 31–32).
Such play with materials, when creative use is supported, can help children solve problems.
A research review reported that children encouraged to play productively with materials before
using them to solve problems were more effective at solving those problems than children who
had no such experience or those taught how to use the materials (Holton, Ahmed, Williams, &
Hill, 2001).
Dramatic play involves substituting some imaginary situation for the children’s immediate
environment. Math in constructive play is often enhanced when the dramatic is added. Two
children making block buildings in parallel may begin arguing whose skyscraper is the “big-
gest.” Similarly, sociodramatic play can be naturally mathematical with the right setting. One
suite of activities in the Building Blocks curriculum revolves around a Dinosaur Shop where
toys are purchased. Teachers and children put together a shop in the dramatic play area,
where the shopkeeper fills orders and asks the customer for money (simply $1 for each dino-
saur toy).
In one classroom, Gabi was the shopkeeper. Tamika handed her a 5 card (five dots and the
numeral “5”) as her order. Gabi counted out five toy dinosaurs:

Teacher (just entering the area): How many did you buy?
Tamika: Five.
Teacher: How do you know?
Tamika: Because Gabi counted.

Tamika was still working on her counting skills, and trusted Gabi’s counting more than her
own knowledge of five. The play context allowed her to develop her knowledge:

Janelle: I’m getting a big number. She handed Gabi a 2 and a 5 card.
Gabi: I don’t have that many.
Teacher: You could give Janelle two of one kind and five of another.

As Gabi counted out the two separate piles and put them in a basket, Janelle counted out
dollars. She miscounted and gave her $6:

Gabi: You need $7.

372 Instructional Practices and Pedagogy

The sociodramatic play setting, with the teacher’s help, was beneficial for children at three
levels of math thinking.
In symbolic play, teachers need to structure settings, observe play for its potential, provide
materials based on their observations (e.g., if children are comparing sizes, teachers might
introduce objects with which to measure), highlight and discuss math as it emerges within play,
and ask questions such as “How do you know?” and “Are you sure?” (about your answer or
solution) (van Oers, 1996).
Games with rules involve the gradual acceptance of prearranged, often arbitrary rules
(Van Herwegen & Donlan, 2018). Such games are a fertile ground for the growth of math
reasoning, especially strategic reasoning, and autonomy, or independence (Griffin, 2004;
Kamii, 1985). For example, games with number cards provide experiences with counting and
comparison (Kamii & Housman, 1999). Card games can be used or adapted for learning
math and reasoning, such as Compare (“War”), Odd Card (“Old Maid”), and Go Fish (Kamii &
DeVries, 1980; Sarama, 2004). These games are often central inside of a focused, sequential
curriculum.

A Special Type: Math Play

These examples bring us another type, math play, or play with math itself (cf. Steffe & Wiegel,
1994). For example, recall Abby playing with three of the five identical toy train engines her
father had brought home. Abby said,

I have 1, 2, 3. So [pointing in the air] foooour, fiiiive … two are missing, 4 and 5. [Pauses]
No! I want these to be [pointing at the three engines] 1, 3, and 5. So, 2 and 4 are missing.
Still two missing, but they’re numbers 2 and 4.

Abby transformed her symbolic play into playing with the idea that counting words themselves
could be counted.
The following features of math play have been suggested: (a) it is a solver-centered activity
with the solver in charge of the process; (b) it uses the solver’s current knowledge; (c) it devel-
ops links between the solver’s current schemes while the play is occurring; (d) it will, via “c,”
reinforce current knowledge; (e) it will assist future problem-solving/math activity as well as it
enhances future access to knowledge; and (f) these behaviors and advantages are irrespective
of the solver’s age (Holton et al., 2001).

The Need for Guided Play

Children can draw abstractions from their play, but to be educationally useful, teachers must
introduce interesting problems into their play and provide feedback regarding the meaning of
children’s actions (Pound, 2017) (van Oers & Poland, 2012). For example, if the children play in
a zoo setting, the teacher might say how interesting it would be to have a map of the zoo for
 Instructional Practices and Pedagogy 373

visitors. Once they begin making a map, the teacher can discuss it and ask questions about how
to represent objects, distances, and directions (see Chapter 7).
This is the notion of guided play. Play is fun, flexible, voluntary, and intrinsically motivated; it
involves active engagement and often incorporates make believe. Guided play maintains the
joyful child-directed aspects of free play, maintaining child agency, and adds a focus on learning
goals through gentle adult scaffolding (Hassinger-Das et al., 2017).
Play “versus” Academics: A False and Harmful Dichotomy (Clements & Sarama, 2014; Merkley
& Ansari, 2018): Some argue that all math learning should be through play and suggest that
“academic” approaches and play approaches are in conflict (Fisher, Hirsh-Pasek, & Golinkoff,
2012). However, they also say (p. 87) that Building Blocks is a play-based learning program. We
agree—if you define “play” broadly and refuse to accept that academics and play are in conflict.
Although math can and should be playful and joyous, this does not mean that “letting chil-
dren play” provides high-quality, or even barely adequate, math education (Sarama & Clements,
2012 and see “teachable moments” on p. 361). “Free play” classrooms have the lowest gains in
math (Chien et al., 2010). Children, especially those at risk, need intentional and sequenced
instruction. Traditional approaches to early childhood, such as “developmentally appropriate
practice” (DAP) have not been shown to increase children’s learning (Van Horn, Karlin, Ramey,
Aldridge, & Snyder, 2005). Programs based only on an “everyday” or “play” approach to math
education frequently show negligible gains. In comparison, more academic approaches have
strong, consistent, positive effects (Fuller et al., 2017) with no harm to social-emotional develop-
ment (Le at al., 2019).
We need ways to keep the probable benefits of DAP, such as socio-emotional growth
(Van Horn et al., 2005; Curby, Brock, & Hamre, 2013), and yet infuse the young child’s day
with interesting, equally appropriate, opportunities to engage in math thinking (Lange,
Meaney, Riesbeck, & Wernberg, 2013) (Peisner-Feinberg et al., 2001). In another study, teach-
ing math indirectly through everyday activities did not predict achievement gains, whereas
sequential, intentional group work did (Klein, Starkey, Clements, Sarama, & Iyer, Clements &
Sarama, 2008). Mathematization is requisite to basic math ability. Adults must help children
discuss and think about the math they learn in their play. Further, math is a hierarchical
subject. Intentional teaching using a sequenced math curriculum is an essential complement
to rich, scaffolded free play. This is especially important for children from low-resource
communities.
In summary, high-quality, explicit, and sequential teaching should be the core of children’s
math experiences. This helps children learn, helps teachers see the math potential of other,
everyday activities, and—this is important—such math promotes higher-quality play. Really? Yes:
Children in classrooms with stronger emphasis on math were more likely to be engaged at
a higher-quality level during free-choice (play) time (Aydogan et al., 2005). Thus, high-quality
instruction in math and high-quality free play do not have to “compete” for time in the class-
room. Doing both makes each richer, and children benefit in every way. Unfortunately, many
adults believe that “open-ended free play” is good and “lessons” in math are not (Sarama,
2002; Sarama & DiBiase, 2004). They do not believe that preschoolers need specific math
teaching. They do not realize that they are depriving their children both of the joy and fascin-
ation of math and of higher-quality free play as well. Everyone wins.
374 Instructional Practices and Pedagogy

Direct Instruction, Child-centered Approaches, Discovery

Learning, and Play—How to Develop Math Knowledge and
Self-regulation Skills
We have seen research supporting explicit instruction (especially for those with few previous
opportunities to learn), and some evidence for child-centered approaches. Other studies have
indicated that direct instruction techniques may affect achievement, especially in the short
term, but more child-centered techniques favor overall intelligence in the long term (Schwein-
hart & Weikart, 1988, 1997). What are educators to conclude? In this section, we synthesize
research to provide clear recommendations.
The term “child-centered approaches” has been the catch-all for everything from a laissez-
faire classroom where teachers do not teach anything to well-planned teacher–child interactions
that lead the child toward the development of more mature levels of underlying skills such as
self-regulation. No wonder those considering only laissez-faire approaches conclude that child-
centered approaches are not effective. Likewise, “teacher-directed” has meant everything from
appropriately scaffolded activities to prison-like rigidity (Lerkkanen et al., 2012). Again, no
wonder some considering only rigid drill reject teacher-guided work.
As we just saw, child-centered activities, such as play, when planned and implemented carefully,
can support the development of underlying cognitive and social-emotional skills necessary for
school readiness and performance on academic tasks. Specific child-centered pedagogical strat-
egies can build the essential competence of self-regulation and executive function. Encouraging
children to talk to each other in solving a problem in small-group or large-group settings (“turn to
your partner and figure out what you think the number will be”) facilitates this development. Pro-
moting high-level sociodramatic play is one way to develop self-regulation, as children have to
negotiate roles and rules—and keep to them, if they want to be included. Equally important is elimin-
ating the dead times, dull routines, and overly authoritarian environments that do not develop chil-
dren’s self-regulation. Such strategies have been proven successful in improving young children’s
self-regulation competencies and academic achievement (e.g., Bodrova & Leong, 2006). Used as
a part of a comprehensive preschool curriculum as well as a part of an early literacy intervention,
these strategies may be useful in improving young children’s self-regulation and academic achieve-
ment (Barnett, Yarosz, Thomas, & Hornbeck, 2006; Bodrova & Leong, 2001; Bodrova, Leong, Nor-
ford, & Paynter, 2003; Diamond, Barnett, Thomas, & Munro, 2007). However, a recent research
symposium presented four separate studies (including one of our own with Bodrova and Leong) in
which teachers used the play-based strategy with good fidelity, but found no gains in executive
function (Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness Annual Conference, Washington, DC,
March 7, 2012). Therefore, this approach is useful, but not sufficient. It may be that the benefits
that do occur have more to do with improving classroom management, reducing children’s problem
behaviors, and reducing children’s stress, which leads to gains in self-regulation and achievement
(Raver et al., 2011, 2009). Effective models for developing these teacher competencies exist (Fox,
2006; Hsieh, Hemmeter, McCollum, & Ostrosky, 2009).
Recent research indicates that a key way that children develop executive function abilities
such as attention is interacting with adults who provide guidance. This can be done in a variety
of settings, such as small groupwork music training, or special training in focusing attention
(Neville et al., 2008). And also high-quality math activities (Clements et al., 2020).
 Instructional Practices and Pedagogy 375

Also, unfortunately, much of the research against direct instruction (Schweinhart & Weikart,
1988, 1997) may not be reliable. Results are mostly non-significant, the approaches used in dif-
ferent groups were not as different as one might suppose, numbers are very small, and so forth
(Bereiter, 1986; Gersten, 1986; Gersten & White, 1986). Finally, research supports certain types
of explicit instruction, as we saw previously.
Research indicates that curricula designed to improve self-regulation skills and enhance
early academic abilities are most effective in helping children succeed in school (e.g., Blair &
Razza, 2007). Further, research has shown that children in classrooms with intentional focus on
math do better in math, but that is not all. Children in classrooms with math content are more
likely to engage at high-quality level during free play (Aydogan, Plummer, Kang, Bilbrey, Farran, &
Lipsey, 2005).
Finally, what about direct versus discovery instruction? The findings of a large meta-analysis
of many studies agree with our perspective. First, unassisted discovery tasks are ineffective.
However, enhanced or guided discovery was generally better than all others: direct teaching,
providing explanations, or unassisted discovery learning. That is, children learn best when they
construct their own explanations and participate in guided discovery. Such enhanced discovery
tasks require children to be actively engaged for their learning to be optimized. “Unassisted dis-
covery does not benefit learners, whereas feedback, worked examples, scaffolding, and elicited
explanations do” (Alfieri et al., 2010, p. 1). (Baroody et al., 2015) (Levesque, 2010, found similar
results.)

Practical Implications
Our conclusions from these diverse bodies of research are as follows:

• When explicit content-oriented instruction is mistakenly implemented as (only) direct

instruction activities at the expense of engaging children in activities of their choice, chil-
dren practice being “teacher-regulated” and are not given an opportunity to develop self-
regulated behaviors which affect their ability to later engage in learning behaviors of their
own accord. The dichotomy between explicit instruction and a child-centered approach is
a false one, and high-quality early math programs combine an explicit focus on content with
equally explicit focus on promoting play and self-regulatory behaviors.
• Child-centered approaches, such as the implementation of dramatic, make-believe play, and
the use of small-group discussions (including pairs of children discussing solutions during
whole-group time) make a valuable contribution to a child’s development, when well-
structured and guided by the teacher.
• Curricula designed both to improve self-regulation skills and to enhance early academic abil-
ities are most effective in helping children succeed in school.
• Children learn better from instruction when they explore problems first. For example,
if second graders tried to solve problems such as 3 + 5 = 4 + _ before they were instructed,
they learned better than when they followed the typical “instruction-then-practice”
sequence. Exploration helped children more accurately gauge their own understanding and
competence, encouraged them to try a larger variety of strategies, and directed them to
the important features of the problems (DeCaro & Rittle-Johnson, 2012).
376 Instructional Practices and Pedagogy

• A combination of teaching strategies, emphasizing guided discovery, is beneficial. Scaffold

children’s engagement in guided tasks. Have and help children to explain their own ideas
and ensure that these ideas are accurate by providing timely feedback and math vocabulary
and ideas. Provide worked examples of how to succeed in the tasks (Alfieri et al., 2010;
Baroody et al., 2006).
• Math curricula and approaches that teach a combination of skills, concepts, and problem
solving help children learn skills about as well as if they had studied only skills, but also con-
cepts and problem solving, which children in skills-only curricula do not (e.g., Senk & Thomp-
son, 2003).

Projects
Math should be gleaned from myriad everyday situations, including play, but going beyond it as
well. For example, a group of young children in Reggio Emilia investigated many measurement
ideas as they attempted to draw plans for a carpenter, so that he could build them a new table
(Malaguzzi, 1997). Preschoolers learned STEM making a skyscraper (McCormick & Twitchell, 2017).
However, the PCER studies found no differences in children’s development of math in project
approach, compared to control, classrooms. Was the problem that the teachers did not or could
not implement their projects well? Or was it that project-based programs are not effective in
supporting long-term, comprehensive growth of math skills and ideas? It is not clear. We need
research to see if rich environments such as Reggio Emilia and project-based programs can be
implemented well at scale and what the benefits are. We do know that the use of a variety of
pedagogical approaches based on learning trajectories, culminating in a project, is promising
(Sarama, et al., 2017)

Time (“on Task”)

Generally, the more time they spend learning, the more children learn. Children spent more
time on math in full-day compared to half-day programs (Lee, Burkam, Ready, Honigman, & Mei-
sels, 2006; Walston & West, 2004; Anghileri, 2004), although the effects may not persist to
Grade 3 (Walston, West, & Rathbun, 2005). Further, average-quality centers may have negative
impact on social-emotional development. Attending more than 15–30 hours may benefit children
from low-resource communities, but not those from higher-resource communities. Children
gained the most if they entered centers between the ages of 2 and 3 years (Loeb et al., 2007;
Clements & Sarama, 2008). Remember that these studies involve large numbers of children but
are correlational only.
Similarly, the more time in the school day children spent on math, and the more math activ-
ities in which they engaged (up to about 20–30 minutes per day in pre-K), the more they learn—
without harming their development in other areas (Clements & Sarama, 2008). In a single but
provocative study, preschoolers benefited more not from more time on task so much as the
number of math activities they engaged in (Sarama et al., 2012). Children learn better from
a variety of activities emphasizing the same level of thinking. They may learn concepts more
readily from generalizing math structures from different situations that require the same con-
cepts and processes (e.g., mental actions-on-objects).
 Instructional Practices and Pedagogy 377

Class Size and Teachers’ Aides

A meta-analysis found that small class size might have the greatest positive effects on reading
and math achievement and on students in grades K–3. This is especially so when the class size
was 22 or fewer students, and when students were economically disadvantaged or belonged to
a racial/ethnic minority group (Robinson, 1990). The Project STAR studies, large-scale random-
ized experiments (Finn & Achilles, 1990; Finn, Gerber, Achilles, & Boyd-Zaharias, 2001; Finn, Pan-
nozzo, & Achilles, 2003), indicated that at every grade, K–3 students who attended smaller
classes outperformed students who attended regular-size classrooms or regular-size classrooms
with aides on every academic measure (Finn & Achilles, 1990; Finn et al., 2001). The greatest
benefits were to students who started attending small classes in the earliest grades, and who
attended small classes for more years.
Less attention has been given to why small classes are helpful. Some studies suggest that
teacher morale is improved, teachers spend more time in direct instruction and less on mere
management, there are fewer discipline problems, students’ engaging in learning is increased,
and in-grade retentions and drop-outs are reduced (Finn, 2002). Thus, teachers may teach
more effectively. In addition, students may become better students. They may be more
engaged, exhibiting more pro-learning and pro-social behaviors and fewer anti-social behaviors
(Finn et al., 2003).
There are at least two policy pitfalls, or “how to do small classes the wrong way” (Finn, 2002).
First, administrators might overlook the need for expert teachers (California reduced class sizes so
quickly that it accepted many low-quality teachers who lacked credentials—STAR had all creden-
tialed teachers). Second, they might confuse student–teacher ratios (two adults in a classroom
with 30 children has a small ratio but a large class size—and the research is on class size). Just
reducing class size without planning will likely make no difference (Milesi & Gamoran, 2006).

Practical Implications
In summary, there are benefits of smaller classes, especially for younger students, and espe-
cially for children at risk for school failure (Finn, 2002; Finn et al., 2001). They are not
a “cause” of better teaching and learning but an opportunity for both to be more effective. Pro-
ject STAR had no additional intervention. One could hope for larger-effect sizes when teachers
had been engaged in professional development specifically designed to show them how to use
innovative curriculum and formative assessment effectively in the context of the smaller
classes.
Another surprising result from these studies is that the presence of teacher aides makes
little difference in learning (Finn, 2002; see also NMP, 2008). Funding might be better spent on
additional teachers and/or additional professional development (see Chapter 14 of the compan-
ion book). And just doing more advanced math may yield similar gains for virtually no extra
expense (Engel et al., 2016).

Practice, or Repeated Experiencing

For young children learning knowledge that needs to be practiced, such as subitizing, counting,
comparing number, shape naming, or arithmetic combinations, research has some clear
378 Instructional Practices and Pedagogy

guidelines. Substantial practice is required. We prefer the term repeated experience because it
suggests many contexts and different types of activities, none of which has to be “drill” for
young children and because varying contexts support generalization and transfer. Also, dis-
tributed, spaced practice is better than massed (all in one session, repetition of the same item
over and over) practice (Cepeda, Pashler, Vul, Wixted, & Rohrer, 2006). Because we want
such knowledge available quickly throughout the student’s life, short, frequent practice ses-
sions of facts and skills whose conceptual foundations have been well learned and understood
are recommended.

Manipulatives and “Concrete” Representations

The notion of “concrete,” from concrete manipulatives to pedagogical sequences such as “con-
crete to abstract,” is embedded in educational theories, research, and practice, especially in
math education. Although widely accepted notions often have a good deal of truth behind them,
they can also become immune from critical reflection (Sarama & Clements, 2016).
Generally, students who use manipulatives in their math classes outperform those who do not
(Driscoll, 1983; Guarino et al., 2013; Johnson, 2000; Raphael & Wahlstrom, 1989; Sowell, 1989;
Suydam, 1986; Thompson, 2012). These benefits hold across grade level, ability level, and topic,
given that the use of a manipulative “makes sense” for that topic. Manipulative use also increases
scores on retention and problem-solving tests. Attitudes toward math are improved when students
have instruction with concrete materials provided by teachers knowledgeable about their use
(Sowell, 1989). As an example, using cubes increased math scores of second graders (Liggett, 2017).
However, manipulatives do not guarantee success (Baroody, 1989). One study showed that
classes not using manipulatives outperformed classes using manipulatives on a test of transfer
(Fennema, 1972). Second graders were taught multiplication as repeated addition with manipula-
tives (colored rods) or symbolically (e.g., 2 + 2 + 2). Both groups learned multiplication, but the
symbolic group scored higher on a transfer test. All teachers in this study emphasized learning
with understanding whether using manipulatives, mental math, or paper and pencil.
Another study revealed that there is often a lack of connection between children’s represen-
tations, such as with manipulatives or paper and pencil. For example, they found that some stu-
dents who performed subtraction best with manipulatives were the worst with paper and pencil,
and vice versa (Resnick & Omanson, 1987). The researchers explored the benefit of “mapping
instruction,” designed to help children link their “concrete” knowledge shown by their use of
manipulatives to symbolic work with numerals. Although this sounded reasonable, it had limited
benefit. “Concrete” experience did not help—it was attention to quantities. In contrast, students
sometimes learn to use manipulatives only in a rote manner. For example, a student working on
place value with beans and beansticks used the (one) bean as ten and the beanstick (with ten
beans on it) as one (Hiebert & Wearne, 1992). The lesson? Manipulatives do not “carry” math-
ematical ideas. To understand the role of concrete manipulatives and any concrete-to-abstract
pedagogical sequence, we must further define what we mean by “concrete.”
Most practitioners and researchers argue that manipulatives are effective because they are
concrete. By “concrete,” most mean physical objects that students can grasp with their hands.
This sensory nature ostensibly makes manipulatives “real,” connected with one’s intuitively
meaningful personal self, and therefore helpful. There are, however, problems with this view.
 Instructional Practices and Pedagogy 379

First, students cannot necessarily “read off” math ideas from manipulatives. Working with Cui-
senaire rods, John Holt said that he and his fellow teacher …

were excited about the rods because we could see strong connections between the world of
rods and the world of numbers. We therefore assumed that children, looking at the rods and
doing things with them, could see how the world of numbers and numerical operations worked.
The trouble with this theory is that [my colleague] and I already knew how the numbers worked.
We could say, ‘Oh, the rods behaved just the way numbers do.’ But if we hadn’t known how num-
bers behaved, would looking at the rods enable us to find out? Maybe so, maybe not.
(Holt, 1982, pp. 138–139)

Second, even if children begin to make connections between manipulatives and nascent
ideas, physical actions with certain manipulatives may suggest different mental actions than those
we wish students to learn. For example, researchers found a mismatch among students using the
number line to perform addition. When adding 6 + 3, the students located 6, counted “one, two,
three” and read the answer as “9.” This did not help them solve the problem mentally, for to do so
they have to count “seven, eight, nine” and at the same time count the counts—7 is 1, 8 is 2, and so
on. These actions are quite different (Gravemeijer, 1991). These researchers also found that stu-
dents’ external actions on an abacus do not always match the mental activity intended by the
teacher. Indeed, some authors believe that the number line model does not help young children
learn addition and subtraction, and that, certainly, using the number line model to assess children’s
knowledge of arithmetic makes several important assumptions about what else they know (Ernest,
1985). In any case, the number line cannot be viewed as a “transparent” model (Núñez, Cooperri-
der, & Wassmann, 2012); if used, it must be taught.
Similarly, second graders did not learn more sophisticated strategies (e.g., adding 34 and 52
by counting by tens: “34, 44, 54 …”) using a hundreds board, because it did not correspond to
students’ activity or help them to build useful imagery that supported creation of abstract com-
posite units of ten (Cobb, 1995).
Therefore, although manipulatives have an important place in learning, their physicality does
not carry—and may not even be essential in supporting—the meaning of the mathematical idea.
Students may require concrete materials to build meaning initially, but they must reflect on
their actions with manipulatives, thinking conceptually, to do so. They need teachers who can
reflect on their students’ representations for math ideas and help them develop increasingly
sophisticated math representations.

Although kinesthetic experience can enhance perception and thinking, understanding does
not travel through the fingertips and up the arm.
(Ball, 1992, p. 47)

Further, when we speak of concrete understanding, we are not always referring to physical
objects. Teachers of later grades expect students to have a concrete understanding that goes
beyond manipulatives. For example, we like to see that numbers—as mental objects (“I can think
380 Instructional Practices and Pedagogy

of 43 + 26”)—are “concrete” for older students. It appears that there are different ways to think
about “concrete.”
We have “sensory-concrete knowledge” when we need to use sensory material to make
sense of an idea. For example, at early stages, children cannot count, add, or subtract meaning-
fully unless they have actual things. Remember the story of Brenda (see p. 41). The interviewer
had covered four of seven squares with a cloth, told Brenda that four were covered, and asked
how many in all. Brenda tried to raise the cloth but was thwarted by the interviewer. She then
counted the three visible squares.
Brenda’s attempt to lift the cloth indicates that she was aware of the hidden squares and wanted
to count the collection. This did not lead to counting because she could not yet coordinate saying the
number word sequence with items that she only imagined. She needed physically present items to
count. This does not mean that manipulatives were the root of the idea (Gelman & Williams, 1997).
However, there appears to be a level of thinking when children can solve tasks with physical objects
that they cannot solve without such objects. For example, consider asking a girl who just turned 4
years of age to add small numbers with and without blocks (“bricks”) (Hughes, 1981).

(1)

E: Let’s just put one more in (does so). Ten and one more, how many’s that?
C: Err … (thinks) eleven!
E: Yes, very good. Let’s just put one more in (does so). Eleven and one more, how many’s
that?
C: Twelve!

Five minutes later, with the bricks put away:

(2)

E: I’m just going to ask you some questions, OK? How many is two and one more?
C: (No response.)
E: Two and one more, how many’s that?
C: Err … makes …
E: Makes … how many?
C: Err … fifteen (in couldn’t-care-less tone of voice).
(pp. 216–217)

The following involved a slightly older boy.

E: What’s three and one more? How many is three and one more?
C: Three and what? One what? Letter—I mean number? (We had earlier been playing
a game with magnetic numbers, and he is presumably referring to them here.)
 Instructional Practices and Pedagogy 381

E: How many is three and one more?

C: One more what?
E: Just one more, you know?
C: I don’t know (disgruntled).
(p. 218)

This is consistent with research showing that most children do not solve larger-number prob-
lems without the support of concrete objects until 5 ½ years of age (Levine, Jordan, & Hutten-
locher, 1992) but have also developed the ability to convert verbal number words to
quantitative meaning (cf. the ordinal-to-cardinal shift in Fuson, 1992a). Preschoolers are more
successful solving arithmetic problems when they have blocks available (Carpenter & Moser,
1982) and may not be able to solve even the simplest of problems without such physical, con-
crete support (Baroody, Eiland, Su, & Thompson, 2007).
At an even younger age, researchers argue that children have a relatively concrete under-
standing of number until they learn number words. At that point, they gain a more abstract
understanding (Spelke, 2003).
In summary, those with sensory-concrete knowledge need to use or at least refer directly to
sensory material to make sense of a concept or procedure (Jordan et al., 1994). Such material
often facilitates children’s development of math operations by serving as material support for
children’s action schemes (Correa, Nunes, & Bryant, 1998). This does not mean that their under-
standing is only concrete; even infants make and use abstractions in thinking (Gelman, 1994).
As another example, preschoolers understand—at least as “theories in action”—principles of geo-
metric distance and do not need to depend on concrete, perceptual experience to judge dis-
tances (Bartsch & Wellman, 1988).

Concrete “Versus” Abstract?

What about abstraction? Some worry that “abstract” knowledge is developmentally inappropri-
ate. They are probably thinking of what results from inappropriate (limited) teaching. Almost 90
years ago Vygotsky warned that:

Direct teaching of concepts is impossible and fruitless. A teacher who tries to do this usu-
ally accomplishes nothing but empty verbalism, a parrot-like repetition of words by the
child, simulating a knowledge of the corresponding concepts but actually covering up
a vacuum.
(Vygotsky, 1934/1986, p. 150)

This is abstract-only knowledge.

382 Instructional Practices and Pedagogy

However, abstraction is not to be avoided, at any age. Math is about abstraction and general-
ization. “Two”—as a concept—is an abstraction. Further, even infants use conceptual categories
that are abstract as they classify things (Lehtinen & Hannula, 2006; Mandler, 2004), including
by quantity. These are enabled by innately specified knowledge-rich predispositions that give
children a head start in constructing knowledge. These are “abstractions-in-action,” not repre-
sented explicitly by the child but used to build knowledge (Karmiloff-Smith, 1992). When an
infant says “two doggies,” she is using abstraction structures of numerosity to label a concrete
situation. Thus, the situation is analogical to Vygotsky’s (1934/1986) formulation of spontaneous
(“concrete”) versus scientific (“abstract”) concepts in that abstractions-in-action guide the
development of concrete knowledge and eventually, depending largely on social mediation,
become explicated as linguistic abstractions. We discuss this type of knowledge, a synthesis of
concrete and abstract understandings, next.

Integrated-concrete Knowledge
“Integrated-concrete” knowledge is knowledge that is connected in special ways. This is the
root of the word concrete—“to grow together.” What gives sidewalk concrete its strength is the
combination of separate particles in an interconnected mass. What gives integrated-concrete
thinking its strength is the combination of many separate ideas in an interconnected structure
of knowledge. For students with this type of interconnected knowledge, physical objects, actions
performed on them, and abstractions are all interrelated in a strong mental structure. Ideas
such as “75,” “3/4,” and “rectangle” become as real, tangible, and strong as a concrete side-
walk. Each idea is as concrete as a wrench is to a plumber—an accessible and useful tool. Know-
ledge of money was in the process of becoming such a tool for him.
Therefore, an idea is not simply concrete or not concrete. Depending on what kind of relation-
ship you have with the knowledge (Wilensky, 1991), it might be “sensory-concrete,” “abstract”
only, or “integrated-concrete.” Further, we as educators cannot engineer math into sensory-
concrete materials because ideas such as number are not “out there.” As Piaget has shown us,
they are constructions—reinventions—of each human mind. “Fourness” is no more “in” four blocks
than it is “in” a picture of four blocks. The child creates “four” by building a representation of
number and connecting it with either physical or pictured blocks (Battista, 1990; Clements, 1989;
Kamii, 1973, 1985, 1986). As Piaget’s collaborator, Hermine Sinclair says, “… numbers are made by
children, not found (as they may find some pretty rocks, for example) or accepted from adults (as
they may accept and use a toy)” (Sinclair, Forward, in Steffe & Cobb, 1988, p. v).
What, ultimately, makes math ideas integrated-concrete is not their physical characteristics.
Indeed, physical knowledge is a different kind of knowledge than logical/mathematical knowledge,
according to Piaget (Kamii, 1973). Also, some research indicates that pictures are as effective for
learning as physical manipulatives (Scott & Neufeld, 1976). What makes ideas integrated-concrete is
how “meaning-full”—connected to other ideas and situations—they are. John Holt reported that chil-
dren who already understood numbers could perform the tasks with or without the blocks.

But children who could not do these problems without the blocks didn’t have a clue about
how to do them with the blocks…. They found the blocks … as abstract, as disconnected
 Instructional Practices and Pedagogy 383

from reality, mysterious, arbitrary, and capricious as the numbers that these blocks were
supposed to bring to life.
(Holt, 1982, p. 219)

Good uses of manipulatives are those that aid students in building, strengthening, and connect-
ing various representations of math ideas. Older students’ greater facility with math may stem
from their greater knowledge or procedures or strategies. However, sometimes younger chil-
dren do possess the relevant knowledge but cannot effectively create a mental representation
of the necessary information (Greeno & Riley, 1987). This is where good manipulatives can play
a role.
Comparing the two levels of concrete knowledge, we see a shift in what the adjective “con-
crete” describes. “Sensory-concrete” refers to knowledge that demands the support of concrete
objects and children’s knowledge of manipulating these objects. “Integrated-concrete” refers to
knowledge that is “concrete” at a higher level because it connected to other knowledge, both
physical knowledge that has been abstracted and thus distanced from concrete objects and
abstract knowledge of a variety of types. Such knowledge consists of units that “are primarily
concrete, embodied, incorporated, lived” (Varela, 1999, p. 7). Ultimately, these are descriptions
of changes in the configuration of knowledge as children develop. Consistent with other theor-
eticians (Anderson, 1993), we do not believe there are fundamentally different, incommensur-
able types of knowledge, such as “concrete” versus “abstract” or “concrete” versus “symbolic.”

Practical Implications: Use of Manipulatives

Justification for using manipulatives is that they are “concrete” and thus understandable.
We have seen, however, that—like beauty—“concrete” is, quite literally, in the mind of the
beholder. What role should manipulatives play? Research offers some guidelines:

• Model with manipulatives. We noted that young children can solve problems and, at the
earliest ages, appear to need concrete manipulatives—or, more precisely, sensory-concrete
support—to do so. One study showed higher achievement in children who used manipula-
tives for counting tasks (Guarino et al., 2013). However, the key is that children are success-
ful because they can model the situation (Carpenter, Ansell, Franke, Fennema, & Weisbeck,
1993; Outhred & Sardelich, 1997). Nevertheless, early number recognition, counting, and
arithmetic may require (recall Brenda), or benefit from, the use of sensory-concrete sup-
port, if they help children investigate and understand the math structures and processes
(Griffiths, Back, & Gifford, 2017). For example, children benefit more from using chenille
sticks (“pipe cleaners”) than pictures to make non-triangles into triangles (Martin, Lukong,
& Reaves, 2007). They merely drew on top of the pictures, but they transformed the non-
triangles made with chenille sticks, which is more likely to expand the actions and their
thinking. One study showed that 3-year-olds who used more “interesting” manipulatives
(fruit instead of plain blocks) were more likely to accurately identify numbers in a recall
task and answer subtraction questions correctly (Nishida & Lillard, 2007b).
• Ensure manipulatives serve as symbols. Recall the work on models and maps (DeLoache,
1987). Multiple studies such as this (Björklund, 2014) (Munn, 1998; Uttal, Scudder, &
384 Instructional Practices and Pedagogy

DeLoache, 1997) and research reviews (Griffiths et al., 2017) support this guideline: Phys-
ical “concreteness” is not necessarily an instructional advantage. This “concreteness”
can physically make it difficult for children to use a manipulative as a symbol. To be
useful, children must interpret the manipulative as representing a math idea. A second
example comes from early introduction of algebraic thinking. When the goal is abstrac-
tion, concrete materials may not help. For example, working with differences in children’s
heights (e.g., Mary is 4 inches taller than Tom), agreeing that Tom’s height would be T,
children resisted representing Mary’s height as “T + 4,” preferring “M” (Schliemann, Car-
raher, & Brizuela, 2007). Others solved some problems but still said “T” stood for “tall”
or “ten.” Also, students tended to think of the differences in height as the (absolute)
heights. Part of their difficulty was thinking of any letter as a variable amount when the
concrete situations used in the instruction implied that there was a particular quantity—
unknown, perhaps, but not one that varies. That is, children could think of the value of
a height, or the amount of money in a wallet as unknown, or a “surprise,” but had diffi-
culty thinking of it as a range of values. In contrast, they learned more playing activities
such as “guess my rule,” in which the context was simply math, not with physical manip-
ulatives, objects, or settings. The pure number activities were meaningful and had advan-
tages in helping children from a low-performing school to think about numerical
relationships and to use algebraic notations.
• Children must be able to see the manipulative as a symbol for a math idea. The relationship
of manipulatives to the concepts they are to represent is not transparent to children (Uttal,
Marzolf et al., 1997; Schweinhart & Weikart, 1997). In addition, in some contexts the physic-
ality of a manipulative may interfere with students’ math development, and other represen-
tations may be more effective for learning. Further, active teaching must guide children to
make, maintain, and use manipulatives as symbols or tools for doing math. As we describe
in more detail in a subsequent section, connecting manipulative work (e.g., place value
blocks) with verbal and representations can build both concepts and skills successfully
(Brownell & Moser, 1949; Fuson & Briars, 1990; Hiebert & Wearne, 1993) (Griffiths et al.,
2017).

In summary, children must construct, understand, and use the structural similarities between
any representation and the problem situation to use objects as tools for thinking. When children
do not see those similarities, manipulatives may fail to help, and many even hinder, problem
solving and learning (Outhred & Sardelich, 1997). As we saw in the previous section, if they do
not mirror the mental actions we wish children to develop, their use could be a waste of time or
even counterproductive. Manipulatives, drawings, and other representations should, as far as
possible, be used instructionally in ways consistent with the mental actions on objects that stu-
dents are to develop (Figure 16.1).

• Encourage appropriate play with manipulatives (Griffiths et al., 2017). Is it good to let
children play with manipulatives? Usually yes, sometimes no. Most teachers recognize
that if young children have not explored a manipulative on their own (say, toy dino-
saurs), getting them to address the teacher’s agenda (say, counting) can be at best
 Instructional Practices and Pedagogy 385

Figure 16.1 Effective teachers use manipulatives and discussion to build integrated-concrete
knowledge

inefficient, and at worst, near impossible. Further, children can and do learn pre-
mathematical foundations through their self-directed play, especially with structured
manipulatives, such as pattern blocks or building blocks (Griffiths et al., 2017) (Seo & Gins-
burg, 2004). However, these experiences are rarely mathematical without teacher guidance.
Counterintuitively, play can sometimes be counterproductive. When a physical object is
intended to serve as a symbol, playing with the object can interfere with understanding. For
example, having children play with a model of a room decreased young children’s success in
using it as a symbol in a map search task, and eliminating any interaction increased their suc-
cess (Bryant, 1997). Thus, the purpose and intended learning with the manipulatives must be
considered carefully.
• Use few manipulatives well. Some research indicates the more manipulatives used, the
better. However, U.S. teachers tend to use different manipulatives to increase “motiv-
ation” and “make math more fun” (Moyer, 2000; Uttal, Marzolf et al., 1997; Schweinhart &
Weikart, 1997). Further, Dienes’ “multiple embodiment” theory suggests that to truly
abstract a math concept, students need to experience it in more than one context. How-
ever, there are opposing practices and evidence. For example, too many attributes can
distract young children (Björklund, 2014). Successful teachers in Japan tend to reuse the
same manipulatives repeatedly (Uttal, Marzolf et al., 1997; Schweinhart & Weikart, 1997).
Research indicates that deeper experience with one manipulative is more productive than
equivalent experiences using various manipulatives (Hiebert & Wearne, 1996). A synthesis
seems to indicate that multiple representations are useful (e.g., a manipulative, drawings,
verbalizations, symbols), but many different manipulatives may be less useful. These
manipulatives should be used for multiple tasks, so children do not view them as objects
to play with but tools for thinking (Björklund, 2014) (Sowell, 1989).
386 Instructional Practices and Pedagogy

• Use caution in beginning with “prestructured” manipulatives. We must be wary of using

“prestructured” manipulatives—ones where the math is built in by the manufacturer, such
as base-ten blocks (as opposed to interlocking cubes). They can be as colored rods for John
Holt’s students—“another kind of numeral, symbols made of colored wood rather than
marks on paper” (Holt, 1982). Sometimes the simpler the better. For example, educators
from the Netherlands found students did not learn well using base-ten blocks and other
structured base-ten materials. There may have been a mismatch between trading one base-
ten block for another and the actions of mentally separating a ten into ten ones or thinking
of the same quantity simultaneously as “one ten” and “ten ones.” The Netherlands’ stu-
dents were more successful hearing a story of a sultan who often wants to count his gold.
The setting of the story gave students a reason for counting and grouping: The gold had to
be counted, packed, and sometimes unwrapped—and an inventory constantly maintained
(Gravemeijer, 1991). So, students might best start using manipulatives with which they
create and break up groups of tens into ones (e.g., interlocking cubes) rather than base-ten
blocks (Baroody, 1990). Settings that provide reasons for grouping are ideal.
• Use drawings, visualizations, and symbols—move away from manipulatives, at least for
number and operations, as soon as possible (Griffiths et al., 2017). Children using manip-
ulatives in second grade to do arithmetic tend to do so even in fourth grade (Carr &
Alexeev, 2011). That is a failure to move along the learning trajectory. Although modeling
necessitates manipulatives at some early levels of thinking, even preschoolers and kin-
dergartners can use other representations, such as drawings and symbols, with, or
instead of, physical manipulatives (Carpenter et al., 1993; Outhred & Sardelich, 1997; van
Oers, 1994). Even for children as young as 5 years of age, physical manipulatives may
play a surprisingly small role. For example, in one study there was no significant differ-
ence in the accuracy or in the discovery of arithmetic strategies between kindergartners
given and not given manipulatives (Grupe & Bray, 1999). The similarities go on: Children
without manipulatives used their fingers on 30% of all trials, while children with manip-
ulatives used the bears on 9% of the trials but used their fingers on 19% of trials for
a combined total of 28%. Finally, children stopped using external aids approximately
halfway through the 12-week study. Physical objects can make an important contribution,
but are not guaranteed to help (Baroody, 1989; Clements, 1999a). Drawings can include
models, such as the “empty number line” approach (Klein, Beishuizen, & Treffers, 1998;
see Chapter 5). Another consideration is children’s use of images. High-achieving chil-
dren build images that have a spectrum of quality and a more conceptual and relational
core. They are able to link different experiences and abstract similarities. Low-achieving
children’s images tended to be dominated by surface features. Instruction might help
these children develop more sophisticated images (Gray & Pitta, 1999).

With both physical and computer manipulatives, we should choose meaningful representa-
tions in which the objects and actions available to the student parallel the math objects
(ideas) and actions (processes or algorithms) we wish the students to learn. We then need
to guide students to make connections between these representations (Fuson & Briars, 1990;
Lesh, 1990).
 Instructional Practices and Pedagogy 387

Technology—Computers (iPads, Tablets, Phones, Etc.) and TV

Kindergartner Chris is making shapes with a simplified version of Logo (Clements et al., 2001).
He has been typing “R” (for rectangle) and then two numbers for the side lengths. This time he
chooses 9 and 9. He sees a square and laughs.

Adult: Now, what do the two nines mean for the rectangle?
Chris: I don’t know, now! Maybe I’ll name this a square rectangle!

Chris uses his invented terminology of “square rectangle” repeatedly on succeeding days.

Appropriateness of Technology
In Clements, 1995, we argued that “we no longer need to ask whether the use of technology is
‘appropriate’” in early childhood education (Clements & Swaminathan, 1995). The research sup-
porting that statement was, and remains, convincing. However, misunderstandings and
unfounded criticisms of computers in early childhood continue to be published (e.g., Cordes &
Miller, 2000). This is important, because some teachers retain a bias against computers that
contradicts research evidence:

I just hate computers for children this age… It’s just too removed, too far removed from
the senses…. There’s no thought involved. It’s totally just pressing buttons. If this doesn’t
work right with one button, they just randomly press another button. There’s no thinking,
there’s no process involved. There’s no logical analysis of anything going on there.
I think that computers tend to just block in one child at a time. I mean, maybe it’ll take in
two or three, doing group activity. But it kind of isolates the child. I really don’t think that
computers have a place in early childhood.
(Lee & Ginsburg, 2007, p. 15)

We have countered such criticisms elsewhere (Clements & Sarama, 2003b) (Sarama & Clem-
ents, 2019). Here, we simply summarize some basic findings from research on young children
and computers (Clements & Sarama, 2010) (Sarama & Clements, 2019) in the U.S. and across
the world (e.g., the Latin America and the Caribbean, Sarama & Clements, 2020).

• Children overwhelmingly display positive emotions when using computers (Ishigaki, Chiba, &
Matsuda, 1996; Shade, 1994). They show higher positive affect and interest when they use
the computer together (Shade, 1994) and prefer to work with a peer rather than alone
(Lipinski, Nida, Shade, & Watson, 1986; Rosengren, Gross, Abrams, & Perlmutter, 1985; Swig-
ger & Swigger, 1984). Further, working on the computer can instigate new instances and
forms of collaborative work such as helping or instructing, and discussing and building upon
each other’s ideas (Clements, 1994).
388 Instructional Practices and Pedagogy

• Children who had access to a computer at home performed better on measures of school
readiness and cognitive development, controlling for children’s developmental stage and
family socioeconomic status (Li & Atkins, 2004). Computers in the home predict children’s
entering math knowledge (Navarro et al., 2012). “Screen time” may not be the issue—the
type of activity is—TV viewing might decrease executive function, but high-quality, inter-
active programs increase executive function (Huber et al., 2018).
• The addition of a computer center does not disrupt ongoing play or social interaction but
facilitates extensive positive social interaction, cooperation, and helping behaviors (Binder &
Ledger, 1985; King & Alloway, 1992; Rhee & Chavnagri, 1991; Rosengren et al., 1985). Even in
the preschool classroom, a computer center fosters a positive climate characterized by
praise and encouragement of peers (Klinzing & Hall, 1985).
• Computers may represent an environment in which both cognitive and social interactions
simultaneously are encouraged, each to the benefit of the other (Clements, 1986; Clements
& Nastasi, 1985).
• Computers can motivate academic work (see the many references in Clements & Sarama,
2003b). Children are energized. They are active and take charge of their learning pro-
cesses. Those behind in other areas excelled at computer learning (Primavera, Wiederlight,
& DiGiacomo, 2001).
• Technology can support children often denied opportunities (Outhwaite, Gulliford, & Pitch-
ford, 2017), such as children of immigrants (Moon & Hofferth, 2018) and CWD (Ok & Kim,
2017).
• Computers can engender creativity, including creative mathematical thinking (Clements,
1986, 1995; Clements & Sarama, 2003b).
• Teachers need and deserve support to realize these benefits for their children (Urbina &
Polly, 2017).

This last point is most directly relevant to this book, so we will elaborate on it especially.

Computer Aided Instruction (CAI)

Even children as young as 2 or 3 years of age can benefit from technology-assisted instruction
(TAI) to develop math skills and concepts, in subitizing, counting, addition, and other topics.
One review of rigorous studies indicated that TAI applications that are well designed and imple-
mented could have a positive impact on math performance (National Mathematics Advisory
Panel, 2008), and recent studies support this conclusion across math topics and age, especially
pre-K through the primary grades (Foster, Anthony, Clements, & Sarama, 2016; Moradmand,
Datta, & Oakley, 2013; Nusir, Alsmadi, Al-Kabi, & Sharadgah, 2013; Outhwaite et al., 2019;
Reeves, Gunter, & Lacey, 2017; Schacter & Jo, 2016; Thompson & Davis, 2014; van der Ven,
Segers, Takashima, & Verhoeven, 2017; Van Herwegen & Donlan, 2018; Zaranis, 2018a, 2018b)
and for DLLs (Foster et al., 2018). Another recent review concluded that there are positive
effects, although they are modest (e.g., effect size of +.15 standard deviations, Cheung & Slavin,
2013). This review also suggested differences due to the model of TAI used. Supplemental TAI
had the largest effect, at a size of +0.18. The other two interventions, technology-management
learning and comprehensive programs, which integrated TAI and traditional instruction, had
 Instructional Practices and Pedagogy 389

a smaller effect size, +0.08 and +0.07, respectively. However, another meta-analysis of educa-
tional technology for early math found a moderate effect size of .48 (.53 for number sense; .42
for operations; .57 for word problems; and .59 for geometry and measurement) (Harskamp,
2015). Individual research-based programs, however, have shown high effect sizes, including
more than 1 SD (Aragón-Mendizábal, Aguilar-Villagrán, Navarro-Guzmán, & Howell, 2017). And
a recent study in the U.K. showed strong effects of math apps compared to standard practice
for 4- and 5-year-olds, on everything from basic facts and concepts to higher-level math rea-
soning and problem-solving skills (Outhwaite et al., 2019).

Practice/Repeated Experiencing
A common use of TAI is to provide practice; for example, TAI has produced significant increases in
skills such as sorting and counting for children as young as 3 years (Clements & Nastasi, 1993), as
well as addition facts and computational estimation (Fuchs et al., 2006, 2008; Salminen et al., 2015).
Indeed, some reviewers claim that the largest gains in the use of TAI have been in practicing math
for lower-primary-grade students (Fletcher-Flinn & Gravatt, 1995), especially in compensatory educa-
tion programs (Clements & Nastasi, 1993). About 10 minutes per day proved to be sufficient time for
significant gains; 20 minutes was even better (note that research suggests short repeated sessions,
so for young children, 5 to 15 minutes in a session is suggested). Another program showed good
effects in arithmetic fluency for a first grader who practiced for 15 minutes three times per week for
4 months (Smith, Marchand-Martella, & Martella, 2011). Similarly, first-grade students improved their
learning of whole-number concepts in skills working with TAI for 48 15-minute sessions (Fien et al.,
2016). Preschoolers using Math Shelf as a supplement to their regular curriculum for 15 weeks made
sizable gains (> 1 SD) compared to control children (Schacter & Jo, 2016). Kindergarteners learned
more math than their peers using the Building Blocks software for 21 weeks (Foster et al., 2016).
Geometry and spatial reasoning via TAI is also more effective than traditional approaches in school
(Lin & Chen, 2016; Lin & Hou, 2016; Zaranis & Synodi, 2017) and home (Silander et al., 2016).
The practical goal of these studies was to address equity issues, such as closing early learn-
ing opportunity gaps. Others have addressed similar equity problems with different populations,
and again there are many advantages of technology if used well (Clements & Sarama, 2017;
Fien et al., 2016). Children with special needs also benefit from TAI, more so than other
approaches (Cascales-Martínez et al., 2017). For instance, technology practice can be especially
helpful for children who have mathematical difficulties (MD) or mathematical learning disabil-
ities (MLD) (Harskamp, 2015; Mohd Syah et al., 2016). However, this must come at the right
point in the learning trajectory (see below) and it should be the right kind of practice. For
example, “bare bones” practice, such as repeated, speed-based, drill in arithmetic “facts,” does
not help children who are at the level of more immature counting strategies. Instead, research
suggests practice that helps them understand concepts and learn arithmetic facts before any
time-pressured drills (Clements & Sarama, 2017).
Also, practice that teaches fluency and cognitive strategies is more effective than either
alone especially for boys (Carr, Taasoobshirazi, Stroud, & Royer, 2011). After 40 30-minute ses-
sions, the combination of these was most effective (effect size, .53 compared to the control
group). However, boys seemed to benefit more on the use of the strategies and on fluency.
Girls tended to continue to use simple counting; they improved, but did not use more
390 Instructional Practices and Pedagogy

sophisticated strategies, perhaps because the boys had more number sense at pre-test (Carr
et al., 2011). Both technology and non-technology approaches may need to better support girls’
development. Finally, make sure that children practice on paper as well as computers. Practicing
on only paper or only computers does not generalize as well as practice on both (Rich et al.,
2017).
Research has shown that technology applications, not even necessarily designed for this pur-
pose, can help children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). One study showed
a substantial improvement in first graders’ logic, math and concentration skills, problem solving,
and sometimes even the stoppage of involuntary tics (Zaretsky, 2017). There are promising find-
ings also for children who are dual language learners (DLLs) (Lysenko et al., 2016). Technology
use for math was associated with a reduced gap in math achievement between native English-
speaking and DLL students (Kim & Chang, 2010). Use of Building Blocks software (Clements &
Sarama, 2007/2018) as a supplement significantly improved the math competencies of Hispanic
dual language learners from low-income backgrounds (Foster et al., 2016).
A caveat is that drills should be used carefully and usually in moderation, especially with the
youngest children, whose creativity may be harmed by a consistent diet of drills (Haugland,
1992). Some students may be less motivated to perform academic work or less creative follow-
ing a steady diet of only drills (Clements & Nastasi, 1993). There is also a possibility that chil-
dren will be less motivated to perform academic work following drills and that drills on
computers alone may not generalize as well as paper-and-pencil work (Clements & Nastasi,
1993; Duhon, House, & Stinnett, 2012). Having children practice about 20% of the time on paper
and pencil seems to solve that generalization limitation (Rich et al., 2017). In contrast, practice
that encourages the development and use of strategies, provides different contexts (supporting
generalization), and promotes problem solving may be more appropriate than drills, or may be
best used in combination with it. To be effective, all types of practice must follow and be con-
sistent with Phase 1 and Phase 2 instruction, and appropriate for the children’s culture.
Practice does not have to be restricted to routine drills. Deliberate practice is more intentional,
involving thinking, problem solving, and reflection for analyzing, conceptualizing, and cultivating
one’s strategies and understandings (Lehtinen, Hannula- Sormunen, McMullen, & Gruber, 2017). TAI
can include such deliberate practice. For example, the Number Navigation Game (NNG) is based on
research on adaptive arithmetic strategies and principles of deliberate practice (Lehtinen et al.,
2015). Children create their own calculation strategies to progress, with the tasks and constraints
becoming gradually more demanding, requiring more and more advanced numerical strategies. The
game provides strategic scaffolding and continuous feedback (Lehtinen et al., 2015). NNG achieves
its goals and, with teacher support, can be transferred to pre-algebraic skills (Lehtinen et al., 2017).
We return to the use of games in a later section. Another example is the use of Realistic Mathemat-
ics Education with learning trajectories, a well-established approach, to teach arithmetic by using
stories that presents arithmetic problems (Zaranis, 2017). Kindergartners engaged in this approach,
which combined non-computer contexts as introductions followed by similar work on computers,
learned substantially more arithmetic than children who followed the regular school program
(including some simple software).
Other TAI models include and often combine approaches that also go beyond simple practice.
In one study, combinations of problem solving, stories, and practice taught preschoolers
number concepts and natural science (solubility and recycling). Further, measurement concepts
 Instructional Practices and Pedagogy 391

provided through the use of tutorials or video models have taught length to preschoolers
(Aladé, Lauricella, Beaudoin-Ryan, & Wartella, 2016) and area to primary-grade students (Clem-
ents et al., 2018).
Successes have been reported for other research-based programs. For example, TAI, even
with minimal scaffolding, has been found to be a feasible means of helping at-risk first graders
discover the add-1 rule (adding one is the same as “counting one more”) by way of pattern
detection (Baroody et al., 2015). The software might pose, “What number comes after three
when we count?” and then was immediately followed by answering a related addition question,
“3 + 1 = ?” Also, an “add-zero” item and an addition item (with both addends greater than one)
served as nonexamples of the add-1 rule to discourage overgeneralizing this rule. A similar tech-
nology program that combined fluency and cognitive strategy use helped second graders, espe-
cially boys, improve their arithmetic achievement (Carr et al., 2011).
Different types and different ways of using TAI can achieve different goals. For example, all
kindergartners working in multimedia environments improved their math skills more than those
not working with any technology environment. Those working individually performed at the
highest level, while those working cooperatively increased their positive attitude about coopera-
tive learning (Weiss, Kramarski, & Talis, 2006). Finally, longer tutorials are rare in early math,
but some programs are developing new approaches. One program used collaborative multi-
media environments with problems that children (4 to 7 years old) solved cooperatively with
feedback (Kramarski & Weiss, 2007). These children outperformed those who worked collabora-
tively but without the multimedia environment. In another approach, children created digital
images that represented a person or character and used that character to share thoughts and
ideas through typed text or the computer microphone (Cicconi, 2014).

Games and Exploratory Environments

Properly chosen, technology games are effective, facilitating both greater skills and conceptual
change (Ketamo & Kiili, 2010). Second graders with an average of 1 hour of interaction with
a technology game over a 2-week period responded correctly to twice as many items on an
addition facts speed test as did students in a control group (Kraus, 1981). Even younger children
benefit from a wide variety of technology-based as well as non-technology games (Clements &
Sarama, 2008). For example, in one simple game, young children place finger combinations on
an iPad to play a game of recognizing and representing numbers before time runs out. Early
pilot work with this novel interface, which also promotes use of children’s most accessible
manipulative, their fingers, is promising (Barendregt et al., 2012). Even a popular game, Angry
Birds, has been shown to help 4- and 5-year-olds learn science concepts such as projectile
motion (Herodotou, 2018). Interactive 3D visualization helps second graders learn about the
Earth-Sun-Moon system by allowing them to observe the space objects moving in the virtual
space. This technology provided a hands-on experience that may support young children’s abil-
ity to view phenomena that could typically demand direct, long-term observations in outer
space (Isik-Ercan, Zeynep Inan, Nowak, & Kim, 2014). And exploratory environments can engage
young children in investigations of symmetry (Chorney & Sinclair, 2018; Seloraji & Eu, 2017).
Game-based learning also shows promise for children with disabilities, as well as migrant chil-
dren, because they attract children with imaginary worlds, interesting stories, and shared
392 Instructional Practices and Pedagogy

experiences with peers. They also may offer a variety of new affordances to explore and play
with (Kankaanranta, Koivula, Laakso, & Mustola, 2017). Moreover, well-designed games can
facilitate the development of a wide range of skills such as phonological awareness, memory
enhancement strategies, motor skills and coordination, and logical and math competencies
(Peirce, 2013).
Newer technology games can take quite different forms and can target different areas of
a child’s learning. For example, the robot Nao promotes engagement, social interaction, and
geometry learning through social games and activities (Keren & Fridin, 2014). The robot pic-
tured on a screen identifies a shape and asks children to find and touch the same shape on the
physical robot. Evaluations revealed that these experiences improved both geometric thinking
and meta-cognitive tasks in kindergartners (Keren & Fridin, 2014). Geometry education benefits
from technology in many ways, providing technological supports on visualization, manipulation,
cognitive tools, discourse promoters, and ways of thinking (Crompton, Grant, & Shraim, 2018).
Thus, games and exploratory environments, again of high quality, can make unique contribu-
tions to STEM learning, and a greater variety are sure to be invented. The following sections
discuss other approaches to educational technology.

Programming, Coding, and Robotics

Programming, or coding—instructing a computer to follow a set of commands—is possible for
children as young as preschoolers, with the proper technology environment and guidance from
teachers (Gedik, Çetin, & Koca, 2017). Lower-primary-grade children have shown greater explicit
awareness of the properties of shapes and the meaning of measurements after programming
a robotic turtle to move and draw shapes with Logo. They learn about the measurement of
length and angle (Sarama et al., 2003) and competencies such as sequencing (Kazakoff, Sulli-
van, & Bers, 2013). Especially now with new versions of computer languages, such as Scratch
Jr. (Flannery et al., 2013; Portelance, Strawhacker, & Bers, 2016), young children can learn
related language and can transfer their knowledge to other tasks, such as map reading and
interpreting the right and left rotation of objects. For example, first grader Ryan wanted to turn
the turtle to point into his rectangle. He asked the teacher, “What’s half of 90?” After she
responded, he typed RT 45 (for “right turn 45°”). When the turtle said nothing, Ryan said, “Oh,
I went the wrong way,” while keeping his eyes on the screen. “Try LEFT 90,” he said at last.
This inverse operation produced exactly the desired effect. These effects are not limited to
small studies. A major evaluation of a coding-based geometry curriculum included 1,624 stu-
dents and their teachers (Clements et al., 2001).
The original Logo turtle was a robot that moved about on the floor. Computer coding of
more modern robotics environments have even stronger focus on engineering, including LEGO-
Logo and robots (Keren & Fridin, 2014; Palmér, 2017). In LEGO-Logo, children create LEGO
structures, including lights, sensors, motors, gears, and pulleys, and they control their struc-
tures through computer codes. Another study shows how students 5 to 7 years of age learned
modeling, exploring, and evaluating building and programming LEGO robots in Australia (McDo-
nald & Howell, 2012). Such studies show that technological and hands-on learning environments
complement each other. For example, second graders who acted out programming commands
with their bodies demonstrated better problem-solving skills than a group who planned only
 Instructional Practices and Pedagogy 393

with paper and pencil (Sung, Ahn, Kai, & Black, 2017), one more validation of Papert’s notion of
“body synchrony” (Papert, 1980, see also Sarama & Clements, 2016). Such experiences can posi-
tively affect math and science achievement and competencies in higher-order thinking skills
(Sarama & Clements, 2020), especially for students at risk for academic failure (Day, 2002).
This approach addresses equity concerns in other ways as well. If started as young as kinder-
garten, few differences appear between boys and girls, and both benefit from work with robots
(Sullivan & Bers, 2013).
Younger children can meaningfully and joyfully play with programmable digital toys such as
Beebot, but explicit scaffolding may be important to have them think about the sequencing that
defines “programming” (Newhouse, Cooper, & Cordery, 2017; Palmér, 2017). From directing
robots to carry, push, and/or sort recyclable materials found in the classroom (Sullivan, Kazak-
off, & Bers, 2013) to learning more advanced geometry, programming and robotics are access-
ible, engaging, and beneficial for young children. Recent projects have created and evaluated
new environments for young children’s coding, such as tablet environments with appealing con-
texts, such as dinosaurs, for 4- and 5-year-olds (Sheehan et al., 2019), as well as explicit instruc-
tion in programming for CWD (Taylor, 2017).
Children with disabilities (CWD) can fully participate in programming and learn computational
thinking (Israel, Jeong, Ray, & Lash, 2020). Research suggests that supports that CWD needed
were not CT-specific, but rather they needed the same supports, specific to each child, that
were successful in other educational areas (Snodgrass, Israel, & Reese, 2016). For one child, for
example, that included access to materials, verbal directions about what to do and how to do it,
models of problem-solving techniques (e.g., watching the researcher try different combinations
of programming code), and models of how to complete the assigned task (e.g., watching the
researcher complete an activity while the computer stayed in front of the child).

Computer Manipulatives
Even if we agree that “concrete” cannot simply be equated with physical manipulatives as we
discussed earlier in this chapter, we might have difficulty accepting objects on the computer
screen as valid manipulatives. However, computers might provide representations that are just
as personally meaningful to students as physical objects. Paradoxically, research indicates that
computer representations are more manageable, “clean,” flexible, and extensible than their
physical counterparts. For example, one group of young students learned number concepts with
a computer environment. They constructed “bean-stick pictures” by selecting and arranging
beans, sticks, and number symbols. Compared to a physical bean-stick environment, this com-
puter environment offered equal, and sometimes greater, control and flexibility to students
(Char, 1989).
The computer manipulatives were just as meaningful and easier to use for learning. Both
computer and physical manipulatives are worthwhile. However, addressing the issues of peda-
gogical sequencing, work with one did not need to precede work with the other. In a similar
vein, students who used physical and software manipulatives demonstrated a much greater
sophistication in classification and logical thinking than did a control group that used physical
manipulatives only (Olson, 1988). Other studies support the use of both physical and concrete
manipulatives (Thompson, 2012) (Tucker et al., 2017).
394 Instructional Practices and Pedagogy

The reason partially lies in the ways that computer manipulatives can follow the guidelines
described in the previous section. These and other potential advantages of using computer
manipulatives are summarized in two broad categories: those that offer mathematical or psy-
chological benefits to the student and teacher, and those that offer practical and pedagogical
benefits.

1. Mathematical/psychological benefits. Perhaps the most powerful feature of the software

is that the actions possible with the software embody the processes we want children to
develop and internalize as mental actions:

• Bringing math ideas and processes to conscious awareness. Most students can use
physical manipulatives to perform motions such as slides, flips, and turns; however,
they make intuitive movements and corrections without being aware of these geomet-
ric motions. Even young children can move puzzle pieces into place without conscious
awareness of the geometric motions that can describe these physical movements. Our
research has shown that using computer tools to manipulate shapes brings those geo-
metric motions to an explicit level of awareness (Sarama et al., 1996). For example,
pre-K children working on pattern block puzzles off-computer were unable to explain
the motions needed to make the pieces fit. On-computer, the children were quickly able
to adapt to the tools and were able to explain to peers what they needed to do: “You
need to click there. You need to turn it.”
• Encouraging and facilitating complete, precise, explanations. Compared to students
using paper and pencil, students using computers work with more precision and exact-
ness (Clements et al., 2001; Gallou-Dumiel, 1989; Johnson-Gentile, Clements, & Battista,
1994).
• Supporting mental “actions on objects.” The flexibility of computer manipulatives
allows them to mirror mental “actions on objects” better than physical manipulatives.
For example, physical manipulations can become so disconnected that students see
only the trees—manipulations of many pieces—and miss the forest—place value ideas. In
addition, students can break computer base-ten blocks into ones, or glue ones together
to form tens. Such actions are more in line with the mental actions that we want stu-
dents to learn. Geometric tools can encourage composition and decomposition of
shapes (Clements & Sarama, 2007; Sarama et al., 1996). As an example, Mitchell started
making a hexagon out of triangles (Sarama et al., 1996). After placing two, he counted
with his finger on the screen around the center of the incomplete hexagon, imaging the
other triangles. He announced that he would need four more. After placing the next
one, he said, “Whoa! Now, three more!” Whereas off-computer, Mitchell had to check
each placement with a physical hexagon, the intentional and deliberate actions on the
computer lead him to form mental images (decomposing the hexagon imagistically) and
predict each succeeding placement. Further, composing shapes can encourage children
to build units of units in their tilings and patterning. Teachers can help by discussing
the unit of units that forms the core of such structures. If included in the software,
teachers can also show children how the glue tool can be used to actually make such
a unit and then copy, slide, turn, and flip it as a unit.
 Instructional Practices and Pedagogy 395

• It also makes building such patterns much easier (and more elegant). Sets of grouped
shapes turn, flip, and otherwise act as a unit. Thus, the actions children perform on the
computer are a reflection of the mental operations we wish to help children develop.
Actions on computer manipulatives can include precise decompositions that cannot
easily be duplicated with manipulatives; for example, cutting a shape (e.g., a regular
hexagon) into other shapes (e.g., not only into two trapezoids but also two pentagons
and a variety of other combinations). Computer manipulatives have supported dramatic
gains in this competency (Clements, Battista, Sarama, & Swaminathan, 1997; Clements
& Sarama, 2007c; Sarama et al., 1996).
• Changing the very nature of the manipulative. In a similar vein, computer manipulatives’
flexibility allows children to explore geometric figures in ways not available with phys-
ical shape sets. For example, children can change the size of the computer shapes,
altering all shapes or only some. Matthew wanted to make an all-blue man and recog-
nized that he could overlap the computer rhombuses to exactly cover a triangle space.
In a study of patterning, researchers stated that the computer manipulative’s flexibility
had several positive effects on kindergartners’ patterning (Moyer, Niezgoda, & Stanley,
2005). They made a greater number of patterns and used more elements in their pat-
terns with computer manipulatives than with physical manipulatives or drawing. Finally,
only when working on the computer did they create new shapes (by partial occlusion).
• Symbolizing and making connections. Computer manipulatives can also serve as sym-
bols for math ideas, often better than physical manipulatives. For example, the manipu-
lative can have just the math features that we wish it to have, and just the actions on
it that we wish to promote, and not additional properties that may be distracting.
• Linking the concrete and the symbolic with feedback. Closely related, the computer can
link manipulatives to symbols—the notion of multiple linked representations. For
example, the number represented by the base-ten blocks is dynamically linked to the
students’ actions on the blocks, so that when the student changes the blocks the
number displayed is automatically changed as well. This can help students make sense
of their activity and the numbers. Is it too restrictive or too hard to have to operate on
symbols rather than directly on the manipulatives? Ironically, less “freedom” might be
more helpful. In a study of place value, one group of students worked with a computer
base-ten manipulative. The students could not move the computer blocks directly.
Instead, they had to operate on symbols (Thompson, 1992; Thompson & Thompson,
1990). Another group of students used physical base-ten blocks. Although teachers fre-
quently guided students to see the connection between what they did with the blocks
and what they wrote on paper, the physical blocks group did not feel constrained to
write something that represented what they did with blocks. Instead, they appeared to
look at the two as separate activities. In comparison, the computer group used symbols
more meaningfully, tending to connect them to the base-ten blocks. In computer envir-
onments such as computer base-ten blocks or computer programming, students cannot
overlook the consequences of their actions, whereas that is possible to do with physical
manipulatives. So, computer manipulatives can help students build on their physical
experiences, tying them tightly to symbolic representations. In this way, computers
396 Instructional Practices and Pedagogy

help students link sensory-concrete and abstract knowledge so they can build inte-
grated-concrete knowledge.
• Recording and replaying students’ actions. Computers allow us to store more than
static configurations. Once we finish a series of actions, it’s often difficult to reflect on
them. But computers have the power to record and replay sequences of our actions on
manipulatives. We can record our actions and later replay, change, and view them. This
encourages real math exploration. Computer games such as “Tetris” allow students to
replay the same game. In one version, Tumbling Tetrominoes (Clements, Russell, Tier-
ney, Battista, & Meredith, 1995), students try to cover a region with a random sequence
of tetrominoes. If students believe they could improve their strategy, they can elect to
receive the same tetrominoes in the same order and try a new approach.

2. Practical/pedagogical benefits. This group includes advantages that help students in

a practical manner or provide pedagogical opportunities for the teacher:
• Providing another medium, one that can store and retrieve configurations. Shape
software can serve as another medium for building, especially one in which careful
development can take place day after day (i.e., physical blocks have to be put away
most of the time—on the computer, they can be saved and worked on again and again,
and there’s an infinite supply for all children). We observed this advantage when
a group of children were working on a pattern with physical manipulatives. They wanted
to move it slightly on the rug. Two girls (four hands) tried to keep the design together,
but they were unsuccessful. Marissa told Leah to fix the design. Leah tried, but in recre-
ating the design, she inserted two extra shapes and the pattern wasn’t the same. The
girls experienced considerable frustration at their inability to get their “old” design back.
Had the children been able to save their design, or had they been able to move their
design and keep the pieces together, their group project would have continued.
• Providing a manageable, clean, flexible manipulative. Shapes manipulatives are more
manageable and clean than their physical counterparts. For example, they always snap
into correct position even when filling an outline and—also unlike physical manipula-
tives—they stay where they are put. If children want them to stay where they’re put
no matter what, they can “freeze” them into position. We observed that while working
on the Shapes software, children quickly learned to glue the shapes together and move
them as a group when they needed more space to continue their designs.
• Providing an extensible manipulative. Certain constructions are easier to make with the
software than with physical manipulatives, for example, trying to build triangles from
different classes. That is, we have observed children making non-equilateral triangles
by partially occluding shapes with other shapes, creating many different types of tri-
angle. Making right angles by combining and occluding various shapes is a similar
example.
• Recording and extending work. The printouts make instant record-your-work, take-it-
home paper copies. (Although we are also in favor of kids recording their work with
templates and/or cut-outs, this is time-consuming and should not be required all the
time.)
 Instructional Practices and Pedagogy 397

Computers encourage students to make their knowledge explicit, which helps them build
integrated-concrete knowledge. Using both computer and physical manipulatives is better than
using no manipulatives or using just one or the other (Lane, 2010).

Computers and Play

Research shows that the dynamic aspects of the computer often engage children in math play
more so than do physical manipulatives or paper media (Steffe & Wiegel, 1994). For example,
two preschoolers were playing with the free explore level of a set of activities called “Party
Time” from the Building Blocks project (Sarama, 2004) in which they could put out any number
of items that the computer then counted and labeled for them. “I have an idea!” said one girl,
clearing off all the items and dragging placemats to every chair. “You have to put out cups for
everybody. But first you have to tell me how many cups that’ll be.” Before her friend could
start counting, she interrupted—“And everyone needs one cup for milk and one for juice!” The
girls worked hard cooperatively, at first trying to find cups in the house center, but finally
counting two times on each placemat on the screen. Their answer—initially 19—wasn’t exact, but
they were not upset to be corrected when they actually placed the cups and found they needed
20. These children played with the math in the situation, with solutions, as they played with
each other.
Math can be intrinsically interesting to children if they are building ideas while engaged in
math play (Steffe & Wiegel, 1994). To do so, the materials, physical, on a computer, or just
verbal, must be of high quality.

Practical Implications: Effective Teaching with Computers

Initial adult support helps young children use computers to learn (Rosengren et al., 1985;
Shade, Nida, Lipinski, & Watson, 1986). With such help, children can often use computers inde-
pendently. Still, children are more attentive, more engaged, and less frustrated when an adult is
nearby (Binder & Ledger, 1985). One implication of research, therefore, is that teachers make
the computer one of many choices, placed where they or other adults can supervise and assist
children (Sarama & Clements, 2002b).
In this section, we provide more details on research implications regarding arranging and
managing the classroom, choosing software, strategies for interacting with children in computer
environments, and supporting children with special needs:

• Arranging the classroom. The physical arrangement of the computers in the classroom can
enhance their social use (Davidson & Wright, 1994; Shade, 1994). The parts of the computer
with which the children interact, the keyboard, mouse or trackpad, and monitor, should be
at the children’s eye level, on a low table or even on the floor. Software might be changed,
along with other centers, to match educational themes. The other parts should be out of
children’s reach. All parts can be stabilized and locked down as necessary. If computers are
to be shared, rolling carts might be used.
• Placing two seats in front of the computer and one at the side for the teacher encourages
positive social interaction. If more than two children work with a computer, they assert the
right to control the keyboard frequently (Shrock, Matthias, Anastasoff, Vensel, & Shaw,
398 Instructional Practices and Pedagogy

1985). Placing computers close to each other can facilitate the sharing of ideas among chil-
dren. Computers that are centrally located in the classroom invite other children to pause
and participate in the computer activity. Such an arrangement also helps keep teacher par-
ticipation at an optimum level. Teachers are nearby to provide supervision and assistance
as needed (Clements, 1991). Other factors, such as the ratio of computers to children, may
also influence social behaviors. Less than a 10:1 ratio of children to computers might ideally
encourage computer use, cooperation, and equal access to girls and boys (Lipinski et al.,
1986; Yost, 1998). Cooperative use of computers raises achievement (Xin, 1999); a mixture
of use in pairs and individual work may be ideal (Shade, 1994).
• Encouraging children to connect off- and on-computer experiences by placing print mater-
ials, manipulatives, and real objects next to the computer (Hutinger & Johanson, 2000).
This also provides good activities for children who are observing or waiting for their turn.
• Managing the computer center. As you might with any center, teach children proper com-
puter use and care, and post signs to remind them of the rules (e.g., no liquids, sand, food,
or magnets near computers). Using a child-oriented utility that helps children find and use
the programs they want and prevents them from inadvertently harming other programs or
files makes everyone’s life easier.
• Monitoring the time children spend on computers and giving everyone fair access. However,
at least one study has found that rigid time limits generated hostility and isolation instead
of social communication (Hutinger & Johanson, 2000). A better idea is flexible time with
sign-up lists that encourage children to manage themselves. The sign-up list itself can have
a positive effect on preschoolers’ emergent literacy (Hutinger & Johanson, 2000).
• Introducing computer work gradually. Provide substantial support and guidance initially,
even sitting with children at the computer to encourage turn-taking. Gradually foster self-
directed and cooperative learning. When necessary, teach children effective collaboration,
for example, communication and negotiation skills. For young children, this might include
such matters as what constitutes a “turn” in a particular game or free explore environment.
However, do not mandate sharing the computer all the time. Especially with construction-
oriented programs such as manipulatives, free explore environments, or Logo, children
sometimes need to work alone. If possible, make at least two computers available so that
peer teaching and other kinds of interaction can take place, even if children are working on
one computer.
• Providing enough guidance, but not too much, especially after children are working inde-
pendently. Intervening too much or at the wrong times can decrease peer tutoring and col-
laboration (Bergin, Ford, & Mayer-Gaub, 1986; Emihovich & Miller, 1988; Riel, 1985). On the
other hand, without any teacher guidance, children tend to “jockey” for position at the com-
puter and use the computer in the turn-taking, competitive manner of video games (Lipinski
et al., 1986; Silvern, Countermine, & Williamson, 1988).
• Planning carefully to use only computer programs that will substantially benefit children.
Research shows that the introduction of a microcomputer often places many additional
demands on the teacher (Shrock et al., 1985). The computer should not be an end unto
itself. Computers can help children learn and should be used reflectively by both children
and their teachers. Children should learn to understand how and why the programs they
use work the way they do (Turkle, 1997).
 Instructional Practices and Pedagogy 399

• Using effective teaching strategies. Critical to effective use of computers is teacher plan-
ning, participation, and support. Optimally, the teacher’s role should be that of a facilitator
of children’s learning. Such facilitation includes not only physical structuring of the environ-
ment but also establishing standards for and supporting specific types of learning environ-
ments. When using open-ended programs, for example, considerable support may need to
precede independent use. Other important aspects of support include structuring and dis-
cussing computer work to help children form viable concepts and strategies, posing ques-
tions to help children reflect on these concepts and strategies, and “building bridges” to
help children connect their computer and non-computer experiences. Ideally, the computer
software should be closely aligned with the rest of the curriculum.
• Staying actively involved. Across the educational goals, we find that teachers whose chil-
dren benefit significantly from using computers are always active. Such active mentoring
has significant positive effects on children’s learning with computers (Primavera et al.,
2001). These teachers closely guide children’s learning of basic tasks, and then encourage
experimentation with open-ended problems. They are frequently encouraging, questioning,
prompting, and demonstrating without offering unnecessary help or limiting children’s
opportunity to explore (Hutinger & Johanson, 2000). They redirect inappropriate behaviors,
model strategies, and give children choices (Hutinger et al., 1998). Such scaffolding leads
children to reflect on their own thinking behaviors and brings higher-order thinking pro-
cesses to the fore. Such metacognitively oriented instruction includes strategies of identify-
ing goals, active monitoring, modeling, questioning, reflecting, peer tutoring, discussion, and
reasoning (Elliott & Hall, 1997; Schweinhart & Weikart, 1997).
• Making the subject matter to be learned clear and extending the ideas children encounter.
Teachers focus attention on critical aspects and ideas of the activities. When appropriate,
they facilitate disequilibrium by using the computer feedback to help children reflect on and
question their ideas and eventually strengthen their concepts. Teachers also help children
build links between computer and non-computer work. Whole-group discussions that help
children communicate about their solution strategies and reflect on what they’ve learned
are also essential components of good teaching with computers (Galen & Buter, 1997).
Effective teachers avoid overly directive teaching behaviors (except as necessary for some
populations and on topics such as using the computer equipment), and, as has been stated,
strict time limits (which generate hostility and isolation instead of social communication),
and offering unnecessary help without allowing children the opportunity to explore (Hutin-
ger et al., 1998). Instead, teachers prompt children to teach each other by physically placing
one child in a teaching role or verbally reminding a child to explain his or her actions and
respond to specific requests for help (Paris & Morris, 1985).
• Remembering that preparation and follow-up are as necessary for computer activities as
they are for any other. Do not omit critical whole-group discussion sessions following com-
puter work. Consider using a single computer with a large screen or with a projector.
• Supporting DLL/ELL/EL children. Remember the many resources throughout [LT]2 and in
its Resources section. Also remember the DLL!Ready app for teacher support for all DLL/
ELL/EL children.
• Supporting children with special needs. Even critics of technology support its use in sup-
porting young children with special needs. Used well, technology can increase children’s
400 Instructional Practices and Pedagogy

ability to function in diverse and less restrictive settings. Computers’ unique advantages
include (Fritz, Haase, & Räsänen, 2019) (Schery & O’Connor, 1997): assessing children’s level of
thinking, being patient and non-judgmental, providing undivided attention, proceeding at the
child’s pace, and providing immediate reinforcement. These advantages lead to significant
improvements for children with special needs. Teachers should attempt to ensure that they
select such software and guide children with special needs to use it successfully. However, we
should be careful not to limit children with special needs to “compensatory” software. They
also can benefit from exploratory and problem-solving software. For example, several studies
reveal that Logo is a particularly engaging activity to young children, fostering higher-order
thinking in children from preschool through the primary grades, including special needs stu-
dents (Battista, 1990; Clements & Nastasi, 1988; Degelman, Free, Scarlato, Blackburn, & Golden,
1986; Lehrer, Harckham, Archer, & Pruzek, 1986; Nastasi, Clements, & Battista, 1990).
• Using high-quality software. One of the most important guidelines is to use high-quality
software with empirical evidence of its effectiveness. Recall that the Building Blocks and
TRIAD evaluations showed that teachers’ use of the software increased children’s learning.
Even independent evaluations of the software alone show increased math achievement
(Clements & Sarama, 2011).
• Considering the full range of technologies. Computers are in tablets, tables, phones, and so
forth. All types of technologies provide a wide range of tools. For example, having young
children record experiences with widely available cameras can be effective in promoting
their learning of math (Northcote, 2011).

Software can help, but we could do better. Few software programs are designed based on
explicit (i.e., published) theoretical and empirical research foundations (but see Clements, 2007;
Clements & Sarama, 2007c; Ritter, Anderson, Koedinger, & Corbett, 2007). More continuous, com-
mitted, iterative research and development projects are needed in this area. Research-based itera-
tive cycles of evaluation and development, fine-tuning software’s math and pedagogy within each
cycle, can make a substantial difference in learning (e.g., see Aleven & Koedinger, 2002; Clements &
Battista, 2000; Clements et al., 2001; Laurillard & Taylor, 1994; Steffe & Olive, 2002). Such research
could identify how and why software designs could be improved (NMP, 2008).
We mentioned that high-quality, interactive programs can increase executive function but
viewing cartoons on TV might decrease it (Huber et al., 2018). What else do we know about TV?

TV
There is even more debate in the early childhood field about the influences—positive and espe-
cially negative—of television. There is an extensive literature (see Clements & Nastasi, 1993).
The following summarize key findings:

• Content matters—violent TV can lead to aggressiveness, but educational programming can

lead to prosocial behaviors.
• Many experts advise no TV for children less than 3 years of age (and some advise none
until the primary school years).
 Instructional Practices and Pedagogy 401

• Educational TV such as Sesame Street, Blue’s Clues, and Peep and the Big Wide World have
positive effects on learning and continue to be updated in content and pedagogy. Watching
educational programs predicts school readiness at age 5.
• Longitudinal studies show that high school students who watched educational television have
higher grades than those who did not. This is probably due to the early learning model—learning
leads to success in the first grades of school, which leads to positive motivation, perceptions of
teachers of competence, placement in higher-ability groups, receiving more attention, and thus
continuous success in school.
• Children’s learning is increased when adults mediate the children’s use of TV (as well as
other media). Parents might watch educational TV with their children and discuss what is
viewed. They might involve the child in active engagement with the material, following sug-
gestions from the show or creating their own.
• Providing parents with print materials or in-person workshops on how to follow up on
media is necessary and helpful.

One disturbing result is that preschoolers from high-resource communities understand the
math ideas presented on Sesame Street better than their counterparts from lower-resource
communities. Also, the better the vocabulary and math understanding the child has, the better
that child can comprehend the math presented on the screen (Morgenlander, 2005). Another
finding that “the rich get richer” presents a challenge to educators and the society as a whole.

Integrate Teaching of Concepts, Skills, and Problem Solving

The National Math Panel concluded, “The curriculum must simultaneously develop conceptual
understanding, computational fluency, and problem-solving skills.” The debate about whether
teachers should concentrate on “skills” or “ideas” should end—both are needed, and both
should be developed at the same time, in an integrated fashion (Gilmore et al., 2017; Özcan &
Doğan, 2017). As just one example, second-grade classes were randomly assigned to one of two
instructional programs. The first was a reformed-based program based on “Realistic Math Edu-
cation,” in which students create and discuss their solution procedure. From the beginning of
instruction, this program emphasized developing both conceptual understanding simultaneously
with procedural skill, and flexible application of multiple strategies. These students outper-
formed those in a traditional textbook program that focused on mastery of procedures initially,
and varied application of strategies only toward the end of instruction. The reform group chil-
dren more often selected strategies related to the number properties of the problems and used
strategies more adaptively, such as solving problems with an integer ending with the digit 8
with compensation strategies. That is, flexible problem solvers are those who can adapt their
strategies to the number characteristics of the problem at hand; for example, solving 62 – 49
as 62 – 50 = 12, 12 + 1 = 13, but solving 62 – 44 as 44 + 6 = 50, 50 + 10 = 60, 60 + 2 = 62, and
6 + 10 + 2 = 18. Such flexible use indicates both conceptual understanding and procedural skill.
The traditional group did not use the procedures flexibly, even after months of instruction in
that program emphasized such flexible use. The reform group scored higher on three measures,
showing superior conceptual understanding. Children in both groups developed conceptual
402 Instructional Practices and Pedagogy

understanding before achieving procedural skill, but the two domains were more interconnected
for the reform group (Blöte, Van der Burg, & Klein, 2001).
Other studies send the same message. For example, low-SES, urban first and second graders
benefit when taught conceptually, by connecting place value block and written representations
(Fuson & Briars, 1990). A far older study had similar conclusions. Second graders taught mechan-
ically were faster and more accurate on an immediate post-test, but those taught meaningfully
were better able to explain why the algorithm worked, scored better on the retention test, and
transferred their knowledge more successfully (Brownell & Moser, 1949). A third study similarly
showed the benefits of conceptual instruction (Hiebert & Wearne, 1993), bringing low-achieving
children up to the level of their high-achieving peers. Each of these has limitations but the pattern
is clear: Good conceptual and procedural instruction is superior to mechanical instruction in help-
ing children achieve today’s math goals (Hiebert & Grouws, 2007).
A final study found that, unlike the usual “skills” approach, poor children benefit more from
a greater emphasis on meaning, understanding, and problem solving (Knapp, Shields, & Turnbull,
1992). Such an approach is more effective at building advanced skills and is more—or at least as—
effective at teaching basic skills. Further, it engages children more extensively in academic
learning.
For the least to the most able children, studies show that the foundation of flexible and cre-
ative use of math procedures is conceptual understanding. Children’s knowledge must connect
procedures to ideas, to everyday experiences, to analogies, and to other skills and concepts
(Baroody & Dowker, 2003).

Practical Implications
Teach students conceptually to help them build skills and ideas, helping them use skills adap-
tively. Students then have fluent and adaptive expertise rather than mere efficiency (Baroody,
2003). Pose problems, make connections, and then work out these problems in ways that make
the connections visible, playing both more and less active roles.

Final Words
Teachers matter more than other factors, and teachers in the early years matter the most
(Tymms, Jones, Albone, & Henderson, 2009). So, teachers of early math have to use the best
pedagogical strategies.
Teaching techniques are tools, and as such, must be used carefully, thoughtfully, and appro-
priately. Every strategy, from play to direct instruction, can be educative or mis-educative. “Any
experience is mis-educative that has the effect of arresting or distorting the growth of further
experience” (Dewey, 1938/1997, p. 25). For example, mis-educative experiences resulting from
inappropriate direct teaching may decrease sensitivity to the wide range of applications of
math ideas or develop automatic skill but narrow the range of further experience with the idea
underlying the skill. Conversely, child-centered education that totally rejects the structures or
sequencing of subject matter content may be motivating to children at the time yet be so dis-
connected as to limit later integrative experiences. “High-quality learning results from formal
and informal experiences during the preschool years. ‘Informal’ does not mean unplanned or
 Instructional Practices and Pedagogy 403

haphazard” (NCTM, 2000, p. 75). As Dewey said, “Just because traditional education was
a matter of routine in which the plans and programs were handed down from the past, it does
not follow that progressive education is a matter of planless improvisation” (p. 28). Such every-
day activities have been shown to effectively raise math knowledge in Head Start classrooms
(Arnold, Fisher, Doctoroff, & Dobbs, 2002).
In summary, in this new educational arena, we know mainly that several approaches, if per-
formed in high-quality settings, can be effective. Most successful pedagogical strategies, even
those with focused goals, include play or play-like activities. All approaches have a shared core
of concern for children’s interest and engagement and content matched to children’s cognitive
level. Although some studies support general, play-oriented approaches, learning math seems
to be a distinct process, even in preschool (Day, Engelhardt, Maxwell, & Bolig, 1997), and
approaches focused on math have been successful.
Regardless of instructional approach or strategy, educators must remember that the ideas
young children construct can be uniquely different from those of adults (e.g., Piaget & Inhelder,
1967; Steffe & Cobb, 1988). Early childhood teachers must be particularly careful not to assume
that children “see” situations, problems, or solutions as adults do. Successful teachers interpret
what the child is doing and thinking and attempt to see the situation from the child’s point of
view. Based on their interpretations, teachers conjecture what the child might be able to learn
or abstract from his or her experiences. Similarly, when they interact with the child, they also
consider their own actions from the child’s point of view. This makes early childhood teaching
both demanding and rewarding.
Not only are children’s conceptions uniquely different from those of adults, they are the best
foundation on which to build subsequent learning. Research and expert practice agree that chil-
dren should learn skills in conjunction with learning the corresponding concepts—indeed, learn-
ing skills before developing understanding can lead to learning difficulties (Baroody, 2004a;
2004b; Fuson, 2004; Kilpatrick et al., 2001; Sophian, 2004; Steffe, 2004). Successful innovative
curricula and teaching build directly on students’ thinking (the understandings and skills they
possess), provide opportunities for both invention and practice, and ask children to explain their
various strategies (Hiebert, 1999). Such programs facilitate conceptual growth and higher-order
thinking without sacrificing the learning of skills.
In all their interactions with children, teachers should help children develop strong relationships
between concepts and skills because skill development is promoted by a strong conceptual founda-
tion. They should encourage children to create and describe their own solution methods and
encourage methods found to be effective, introducing them when appropriate. They should
encourage children to describe and compare different solution methods. Research indicates that
instruction that views children as active learners with relevant initial knowledge and that provides
substantial support during learning is superior to traditional instruction that lacks these character-
istics (Fuson, 2004). Teachers need to consistently integrate real-world situations, problem solv-
ing, and math content (Fuson, 2004). This integration is more than a pedagogical strategy; it is
necessary to achieve both sense-making and the development of skills such as computational flu-
ency. It supports transfer to future learning and out-of-school contexts.
Math itself involves a vast web of connections among concepts and topics (NCTM, 2000).
Programs for prekindergarten through the primary grades should interweave real-world, mean-
ingful contexts; problem solving; and math concepts and skills. Such programs have a good
404 Instructional Practices and Pedagogy

chance of countering the unfortunate pattern in U.S. math education, in which young children
who are initially motivated to explore math (Perlmutter, Bloom, Rose, & Rogers, 1997) come to
“learn” that effort does not matter and that only a select few are “talented” at math (Middleton
& Spanias, 1999). Teachers should use inquiry-based and discourse-rich approaches (Walshaw &
Anthony, 2008), emphasize working hard to understand math (rather than “finishing” or “cor-
rectness”), and focus on intrinsic motivation. Making connections to real-life situations may also
enhance children’s knowledge and beliefs about math (Perlmutter et al., 1997).
Nevertheless, early competence still reflects limited understanding. Varied reasons account for
this. Expectations have risen. Only a few hundred years ago, college-level work in math involved
simple arithmetic. Cultural tools for math have multiplied. Most instruction in the U.S. is not based
on awareness of these tools and/or of the power of children’s thinking and the necessity of plumb-
ing the depths of that thinking, engendering children’s inventions, leading to our final point.
Teachers are critical but cannot do it alone. The system needs to change (Bodovski, Nahum-
Shani, & Walsh, 2013). We need to work at all levels, federal to the individual child, to integrate
research-validated approaches to goals, curriculum, assessments, and professional develop-
ment—all based on learning trajectories (Hiebert & Stigler, 2017).
We believe that the knowledge we have tried to help you develop through this book and
[LT]2 will empower you to be a truly effective, professional educator who works for a better
system and a better education for every child.
References

Agodini, R., & Harris, B. (2010). An experimental evalu- Alvarado, M. (2015). The utility of written numerals
ation of four elementary school math curricula. for preschool children when solving additive
Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, problems/La utilidad de los numerales escritos en
3(3), 199–253. doi: 10.1080/19345741003770693 la resolución de problemas aditivos en niños pre-
Akers, J., Battista, M. T., Goodrow, A., Clements, D. H., escolares. Estudios De Psicología, 36(1), 92–112.
& Sarama, J. (1997). Shapes, halves, and symmetry: doi: 10.1080/02109395.2014.1000026
Geometry and fractions. Dale Seymour. Anantharajan, M. (2020). teacher noticing of mathem-
Aksoy, A. B., & Aksoy, M. K. (2017). The role of block atical thinking in young children's representations
play in early childhood. In I. Koleva & G. Duman of counting. Journal for Research in Mathematics
(Eds.), Educational research and practice (pp. 104– Education, 51(3), 268–300. www.jstor.org/stable/
113). Sofia, Bulgaria: St. Kliment Ohridski University 10.5951/jresemtheduc-2019-0068
Press. Anderson, A., Anderson, J., & Shapiro, J. (2004).
Aktas-Arnas, Y., & Aslan, D. (2004). The develop- Mathematical discourse in shared storybook
ment of geometrical thinking in 3 to 6 years old reading. Journal for Research in Mathematics
children group. In O. Ramazan, K. Efe, & G. Güven Education, 35(1), 5–33.
(Eds.), 1st international pre-school education con- Anderson, J. R. (Ed.). (1993). Rules of the mind. Hills-
ference (Vol. I, pp. 475–494). I˙stanbul, Turkey: dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ya-Pa Yayıncılık. Anderson, S., & Phillips, D. (2017). Is pre-K classroom
Aladé, F., Lauricella, A. R., Beaudoin-Ryan, L., & quality associated with kindergarten and middle-
Wartella, E. (2016). Measuring with Murray: school academic skills? Developmental Psych-
Touchscreen technology and preschoolers' STEM ology, 53(6), 1063. doi: 10.1037/dev0000312
learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, Anghileri, J. (2001). What are we trying to achieve in
433–441. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.080 teaching standard calculating procedures? In
Aleven, V. A. W. M. M., & Koedinger, K. R. (2002). An M. V. D. Heuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.), Proceedings of
effective metacognitive strategy: Learning by the 25th Conference of the International Group
doing and explaining with a computer-based Cog- for the Psychology in Mathematics Education
nitive Tutor. Cognitive Science, 26(2), 147–179. (Vol. 2, pp. 41–48). Utrecht, The Netherlands:
Alexander, K. L., & Entwisle, D. R. (1988). Achievement Freudenthal Institute.
in the first 2 years of school: Patterns and Anghileri, J. (2004). Disciplined calculators or flexible
processes. Monographs of the Society for Research problem solvers? In M. J. Høines & A. B. Fuglestad
in Child Development, 53(2), 1–157. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the
Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, International Group for the Psychology in Math-
H. R. (2010). Does discovery-based instruction ematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 41–46). Bergen,
enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psych- Norway: Bergen University College.
ology, 103(1), 1–18. doi: 10.1037/a0021017 Angier, N. (2018). Many animals can count, some
Alt, M., Arizmendi, G. D., & Beal, C. R. (2014). The better than you, The New York Times. Retrieved
relationship between mathematics and lan- from www.nytimes.com/2018/02/05/science/ani
guage: Academic implications for children with mals-count-numbers.html?hp&action=click&pgty
specific language impairment and English lan- pe=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&modu
guage learners. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch, 45 le=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.
(3), 220–233. doi: 10.1044/2014_LSHSS-13-0003 nav=top-news
406 References

Anthony, J., Hecht, S. A., Williams, J., Clements, D. H., & Teaching and learning early number (pp. 20–29).
Sarama, J. (2011a). Efficacy of computerized Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Earobics and Building Blocks instruction for kin- Aunio, P. (2019). Small group interventions for children
dergarteners from low SES, minority and ELL aged 5–9 years old with mathematical learning dif-
backgrounds: Year 2 results. Paper presented at ficulties. In A. Fritz, V. G. Haase & P. Räsänen (Eds.),
the Institute of Educational Sciences Research International handbook of mathematical learning
Conference, Washington, DC. difficulties: From the laboratory to the classroom
Arditi, A., Holtzman, J. D., & Kosslyn, S. M. (1988). (pp. 709–731). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Mental imagery and sensory experience in con- Aunio, P., Ee, J., Lim, S. E. A., Hautamäki, J., & Van
genital blindness. Neuropsychologia, 26(1), 1–12. Luit, J. E. H. (2004). Young children’s number
Aragón-Mendizábal, E., Aguilar-Villagrán, M., Navarro- sense in Finland, Hong Kong and Singapore. Inter-
Guzmán, J. I., & Howell, R. (2017). Improving national Journal of Early Years Education, 12(3),
number sense in kindergarten children with low 195–216.
achievement in mathematics. Anales de Psicología, Aunio, P., Hautamäki, J., Sajaniemi, N., & Van Luit,
33(2), 311–318. doi: 10.6018/analesps.33.2.239391 J. E. H. (2008). Early numeracy in low-performing
Arnold, D. H., Fisher, P. H., Doctoroff, G. L., & young children. British Educational Research Jour-
Dobbs, J. (2002). Accelerating math development nal, 35(1), 25–46.
in Head Start classrooms: Outcomes and gender Aunio, P., Korhonen, J., Bashash, L., & Khoshbakht, F.
differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, (2014). Children’s early numeracy in Finland and
94(4), 762–770. Iran. International Journal of Early Years Educa-
Artut, P. D. (2015). Preschool children’s skills in solv- tion, 1–18. doi: 10.1080/09669760.2014.988208
ing mathematical word problems. Educational Aunio, P., Niemivirta, M., Hautamäki, J., Van
Research and Reviews, 10(18), 2539–2549. doi: Luit, J. E. H., Shi, J., & Zhang, M. (2006). Young
10.5897/ERR2015.2431 children’s number sense in China and Finland.
Ashcraft, M. H. (2006, November). Math perform- Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 50(5),
ance, working memory, and math anxiety: Some 483–502.
possible directions for neural functioning work. Aunio, P., & Räsänen, P. (2015a). Core numerical skills
Paper presented at the Neural Basis of Mathemat- for learning mathematics in children aged five to
ical Development, Nashville, TN. eight years – A working model for educators. Euro-
Ashkenazi, S., Mark-Zigdon, N., & Henik, A. (2013). Do pean Early Childhood Education Research Journal,
subitizing deficits in developmental dyscalculia 1–21. doi: 10.1080/1350293x.2014.996424
involve pattern recognition weakness? Develop- Aunio, P., & Räsänen, P. (2015b). Core numerical skills
mental Science, 16(1), 35–46. doi: 10.1111/j.1467- for learning mathematics in children aged five to
7687.2012.01190.x eight years – A working model for educators. Euro-
Askew, M., Brown, M., Rhodes, V., Wiliam, D., & pean Early Childhood Education Research Journal,
Johnson, D. (1997). Effective teachers of numeracy 1–21. doi: 10.1080/1350293x.2014.996424
in UK primary schools: Teachers’ beliefs, practices, Aunola, K., Leskinen, E., Lerkkanen, M.-K., &
and children’s learning. In M. V. D. Heuvel- Nurmi, J.-E. (2004). Developmental dynamics of
Panhuizen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 21st Confer- math performance from preschool to grade 2.
ence of the International Group for the Psychology Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 699–713.
of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 25–32). Aydogan, C., Plummer, C., Kang, S. J., Bilbrey, C.,
Utrecht, The Netherlands: Freudenthal Institute. Farran, D. C., & Lipsey, M. W. (2005, June 5–8).
Aslan, D. (2004). The investigation of 3 to 6 year-olds An investigation of prekindergarten curricula:
preschool children’s recognition of basic geometric Influences on classroom characteristics and child
shapes and the criteria they employ in distinguish- engagement. Paper presented at the NAEYC,
ing one shape group from the other (Anaokuluna Washington, DC.
devam eden 3-6 yas grubu çocuklarina temel geo- Bachman, H. J., Votruba-Drzal, E., El Nokali, N. E., &
metrik sekilleri tanimalari ve sekilleri ayirtetmede Castle Heatly, M. (2015). Opportunities for learning
kullandiklari kriterlerin incelenmesi). (Masters), math in elementary school: Implications for SES
Adana, Turkey: Cukurova University. disparities in procedural and conceptual math
Aslan, D., & Aktas-Arnas, Y. (2007). Three-to six- skills. American Educational Research Journal, 52
year-old children’s recognition of geometric (5), 894–923. doi: 10.3102/0002831215594877
shapes. International Journal of Early Years Edu- Bagiati, A., & Evangelou, D. (2018). Identifying engin-
cation, 15(1), 81–101. eering in a prek classroom: An observation proto-
Aubrey, C. (1997). Children’s early learning of col to support guided project-based instruction. In
number in school and out. In I. Thompson (Ed.), L. D. English & T. Moore (Eds.), Early engineering
 References 407

learning (pp. 83–111). Gateway East, Singapore: Barnett, W. S., Yarosz, D. J., Thomas, J., &
Springer. Hornbeck, A. (2006). Educational effectiveness of
Baker, C. E. (2014). Does parent involvement and a Vygotskian approach to preschool education:
neighborhood quality matter for African Ameri- A randomized trial. New Brunswick, NJ: National
can boys’ kindergarten mathematics achieve- Institute of Early Education Research (NIEER).
ment? Early Education and Development, 26(3), Barnes, M. A., Klein, A., Swank, P., Starkey, P.,
342–355. doi: 10.1080/10409289.2015.968238 McCandliss, B., Flynn, K., … Roberts, G. (2016).
Baker, D., Knipe, H., Collins, J., Leon, J., Effects of tutorial interventions in mathematics and
Cummings, E., Blair, C. B., & Gramson, D. (2010). attention for low-performing preschool children.
One hundred years of elementary school math- Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness,
ematics in the United States: A content analysis 9(4), 577–606. doi: 10.1080/19345747.2016.1191575
and cognitive assessment of textbooks from 1900 Baroody, A. J. (1986b). Counting ability of moder-
to 2000. Journal for Research in Mathematics ately and mildly handicapped children. Education
Education, 41(4), 383–423. and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 21(4),
Ball, D. L. (1992). Magical hopes: Manipulatives and 289–300.
the reform of math education. American Educa- Baroody, A. J. (1987a). Children’s mathematical
tor, 16(2), 14; 16–18; 46–47. thinking. New York, NY: Teachers College.
Banse, H. W., Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., Day-Hess, Baroody, A. J. (1987b). The development of counting
C. A., Simoni, M., Ratchford, J., & Pugia, A. (2020). strategies for single-digit addition. Journal for
What teaching moves support young children’s in- Research in Mathematics Education, 18, 141–157.
the-moment understanding of early addition and Baroody, A. J. (1989). Manipulatives don’t come with
subtraction? Manuscript submitted for publication. guarantees. Arithmetic Teacher, 37(2), 4–5.
Baratta-Lorton, M. (1976). Mathematics their way: An Baroody, A. J. (1990). How and when should place
activity-centered mathematics program for early value concepts and skills be taught? Journal for
childhood education. Menlo Park, CA: Addison- Research in Mathematics Education, 21, 281–286.
Wesley. Baroody, A. J. (1996). An investigative approach to
Barbarin, O. A., Downer, J. T., Odom, E., & Head, D. the mathematics instruction of children classified
(2010). Home–school differences in beliefs, sup- as learning disabled. In D. K. Reid, W. P. Hresko, &
port, and control during public pre-kindergarten H. L. Swanson (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to
and their link to children’s kindergarten readi- learning disabilities (3rd ed., pp. 547–615). Austin,
ness. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25(3), TX: Pro-Ed.
358–372. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.02.003 Baroody, A. J. (1999). The development of basic
Barendregt, W., Lindström, B., Rietz-Leppänen, E., counting, number, and arithmetic knowledge
Holgersson, I., & Ottosson, T. (2012). Development among children classified as mentally handi-
and evaluation of Fingu: A mathematics iPad capped. In L. M. Glidden (Ed.), International
game using multi-touch interaction. Paper pre- review of research in mental retardation (Vol. 22,
sented at the Proceedings of the 11th Inter- pp. 51–103). New York, NY: Academic Press.
national Conference on Interaction Design and Baroody, A. J. (2003). The development of adaptive
Children, Bremen, Germany. expertise and flexibility: The integration of concep-
Barnett, W. S., & Frede, E. C. (2017). Long-term effects tual and procedural knowledge. In A. J. Baroody &
of a system of high-quality universal preschool A. Dowker (Eds.), The development of arithmetic
education in the United States. In H. P. Blossfeld, concepts and skills: Constructing adaptive expert-
N. Kulic, J. Skopek, & M. Triventi (Eds.), Childcare, ise (pp. 1–33). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Early Education and Social Inequality: An Inter- Associates.
national Perspective (pp. 152–172). Cheltenham, Baroody, A. J. (2004a). The developmental bases for
UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. early childhood number and operations standards.
Barnett, W. S., Frede, E. C., Mobasher, H., & Mohr, P. In D. H. Clements, J. Sarama, & A.-M. DiBiase
(1987). The efficacy of public preschool programs (Eds.), Engaging young children in mathematics:
and the relationship of program quality to Standards for early childhood mathematics educa-
efficacy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Ana- tion (pp. 173–219). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
lysis, 10(1), 37–49. Associates.
Barnett, W. S., Hustedt, J. T., Hawkinson, L. E., & Baroody, A. J. (2004b). The role of psychological
Robin, K. B. (2006). The state of preschool 2006: research in the development of early childhood
State preschool yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ: mathematics standards. In D. H. Clements,
National Institute for Early Education Research J. Sarama, & A.-M. DiBiase (Eds.), Engaging young
(NIEER). children in mathematics: Standards for early
408 References

childhood mathematics education (pp. 149–172). discovery instruction on promoting the learning of
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. reasoning strategies for basic add-1 and doubles
Baroody, A. J. (2016). Curricular approaches to intro- combinations. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
ducing subtraction and fostering fluency with 30, Part A(0), 93–105. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.
basic differences in grade 1. In R. Bracho (Ed.), 2014.09.003
The development of number sense: From theory Baroody, A. J., Purpura, D. J., Eiland, M. D., Reid, E. E., &
to practice. Monograph of the Journal of Pensa- Paliwal, V. (2016). Does fostering reasoning strat-
miento Numérico y Algebraico (Numerical and egies for relatively difficult basic combinations
Algebraic Thought) (Vol. 10, pp. 161–191). Univer- promote transfer by K-3 students? Journal of Edu-
sity of Granada. cational Psychology, 108(4), 576–591.
Baroody, A. J., Bajwa, N. P., & Eiland, M. (2009). Why Baroody, A. J., & Rosu, L. (2004, April). Adaptive
can’t Johnny remember the basic facts? Develop- expertise with basic addition and subtraction
mental Disabilities, 15(1), 69–79. combinations—The number sense view. Paper pre-
Baroody, A. J., & Benson, A. P. (2001). Early number sented at the American Educational Research
instruction. Teaching Children Mathematics, 8(3), Association, San Francisco, CA.
154–158. Baroody, A. J., & Tiilikainen, S. H. (2003). Two perspec-
Baroody, A. J., & Dowker, A. (2003). The develop- tives on addition development. In A. J. Baroody &
ment of arithmetic concepts and skills: Construct- A. Dowker (Eds.), The development of arithmetic
ing adaptive expertise. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. concepts and skills: Constructing adaptive expertise
Baroody, A. J., Eiland, M., Su, Y., & Thompson, B. (pp. 75–125). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
(2007). Fostering at-risk preschoolers’ number Associates.
sense. Paper presented at the American Educa- Barrett, J. E., Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2017).
tional Research Association. Children’s measurement: A longitudinal study of
Baroody, A. J., Eiland, M. D., Purpura, D. J., & children’s knowledge and learning of length, area,
Reid, E. E. (2012). Fostering at-risk kindergarten and volume. In B. Herbel-Eisenmann (Ed.), Jour-
children’s number sense. Cognition and Instruc- nal for Research in Mathematics Education (Vol.
tion, 30(4), 435–470. doi: 10.1080/07370008. 16). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of
2012.720152 Mathematics.
Baroody, A. J., Eiland, M. D., Purpura, D. J., & Bartsch, K., & Wellman, H. M. (1988). Young chil-
Reid, E. E. (2013). Can computer-assisted discov- dren’s conception of distance. Developmental
ery learning foster first graders’ fluency with the Psychology, 24(4), 532–541.
most basic addition combinations? American Bassok, D., Latham, S., & Rorem, A. (2016). Is kinder-
Educational Research Journal, 50(3), 533–573. garten the new first grade? How early elementary
doi: 10.3102/0002831212473349 school is changing in the age of accountability.
Baroody, A. J., Lai, M.-L., & Mix, K. S. (2005, Decem- AERA Open, 1(4), 1–31. doi: 10.1177/2332858
ber). Changing views of young children’s numer- 415616358
ical and arithmetic competencies. Paper Batchelor, S., & Gilmore, C. (2015). Magnitude represen-
presented at the National Association for the tations and counting skills in preschool children.
Education of Young Children, Washington, DC. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 17(2–3),
Baroody, A. J., Lai, M.-L., & Mix, K. S. (2006). The 116–135. doi: 10.1080/10986065.2015. 1016811
development of young children’s number and Battista, M. T. (1990). Spatial visualization and
operation sense and its implications for early gender differences in high school geometry.
childhood education. In B. Spodek & O. N. Saracho Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
(Eds.), Handbook of research on the education of 21(1), 47–60.
young children (pp. 187–221). Mahwah, NJ: Law- Beilin, H. (1984). Cognitive theory and mathemat-
rence Erlbaum Associates. ical cognition: Geometry and space. In
Baroody, A. J., Li, X., & Lai, M.-L. (2008). Toddlers’ B. Gholson & T. L. Rosenthal (Eds.), Applications
spontaneous attention to number. Mathematical of cognitive-developmental theory (pp. 49–93).
Thinking and Learning, 10(3), 240–270. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Baroody, A. J., & Purpura, D. J. (2017). Number and Beilock, S. L., Gunderson, E. A., Ramirez, G., &
operations. In J. Cai (Ed.), Handbook for research Levine, S. C. (2010). Female teachers’ math anx-
in mathematics education (pp. 308–354). Reston, iety affects girls math achievement. Proceedings
VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(5),
(NCTM) 1860–1863.
Baroody, A. J., Purpura, D. J., Eiland, M. D., & Reid, E. E. Benigno, J. P., & Ellis, S. (2004). Two is greater than
(2015). The impact of highly and minimally guided three: Effects of older siblings on parental
 References 409

support of preschoolers’ counting in middle- Björklund, C. (2018). Powerful frameworks for con-
income families. Early Childhood Research Quar- ceptual understanding. In V. Kinnear, M. Y. Lai, &
terly, 19(1), 4–20. T. Muir (Eds.), Forging connections in early math-
Bennett, N., Desforges, C., Cockburn, A., & ematics teaching and learning. Gateway East,
Wilkinson, B. (1984). The quality of pupil learning Singapore: Springer.
experiences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and class-
Associates. room learning. Assessment in Education: Prin-
Berch, D. B., & Mazzocco, M. M. M. (Eds.). (2007). ciples, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–76.
Why is math so hard for some children? The Blair, C., & Razza, R. P. (2007). Relating effortful
nature and origins of mathematical learning diffi- control, executive function, and false belief
culties and disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Paul understanding to emerging math and literacy
H. Brooks. ability in kindergarten. Child Development, 78
Bereiter, C. (1986). Does direct instruction cause (2), 647–663.
delinquency? Response to Schweinhart and Blanton, M., Brizuela, B. M., Gardiner, A. M.,
Weikart. Educational Leadership, 44(3), 20–21. Sawrey, K., & Newman-Owens, A. (2015). A learn-
Bergin, D. A., Ford, M. E., & Mayer-Gaub, G. (1986). ing trajectory in 6-year-olds’ thinking about gen-
Social and motivational consequences of micro- eralizing functional relationships. Journal for
computer use in kindergarten. San Francisco, CA: Research in Mathematics Education, 46, 511–558.
American Educational Research Association. doi: 10.5951/jresematheduc.46.5.0511
Bierman, K. L., Welsh, J., Heinrichs, B. S., & Nix, R. L. Blanton, M., Brizuela, B. M., Gardiner, A. M.,
(2018). Effect of preschool home visiting on Sawrey, K., & Newman-Owens, A. (2017).
school readiness and need for services in elemen- A progression in first-grade children’s thinking
tary school: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA about variable and variable notation in func-
Pediatrics, e181029. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics. tional relationships. Educational Studies in
2018.1029 Mathematics, 95(2), 181–202. doi: 10.1007/
Binder, S. L., & Ledger, B. (1985). Preschool computer s10649-016-9745-0
project report. Oakville, Ontario, Canada: Sheri- Blanton, M. L., & Kaput, J. J. (2011). Functional
dan College. thinking as a route into algebra in the elemen-
Bishop, A. J. (1980). Spatial abilities and mathemat- tary grades. In J. Cai & E. J. Knuth (Eds.),
ics education—A review. Educational Studies in Early algebraization: A global dialogue from
Mathematics, 11(3), 257–269. multiple perspectives (pp. 5–23). New York, NY:
Bishop, A. J. (1983). Space and geometry. In Springer.
R. A. Lesh & M. S. Landau (Eds.), Acquisition of Blanton, M. L., Stephens, A. C., Knuth, E. J.,
mathematics concepts and processes (pp. 7–44). Gardiner, A. M., Isler, I., Marum, T. et al. (2012).
New York, NY: Academic Press. The development of children’s algebraic thinking
Bishop, A. J., & Forgasz, H. J. (2007). Issues in using a learning progressions approach. Paper
access and equity in mathematics education. In presented at the Research Presession of the 2012
F. K. Lester, Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of Annual Meeting of the National Council of
research on mathematics teaching and learning Teachers of Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA.
(pp. 1145–1167). New York, NY: Information Age Blevins-Knabe, B., Berghout Austin, A., Musun-Miller,
Publishing. L., Eddy, A., & Jones, R. M. (2000). Family home
Björklund, C. (2012). What counts when working care providers’ and parents’ beliefs and practices
with mathematics in a toddler-group? Early concerning mathematics with young children.
Years, 32(2), 215–228. doi: 10.1080/09575146. Early Child Development and Care, 165(1), 41–58.
2011.652940 doi: 10.1080/0300443001650104
Björklund, C. (2014). Less is more–mathematical Blevins-Knabe, B., & Musun-Miller, L. (1996). Number
manipulatives in early childhood education. Early use at home by children and their parents and
Child Development and Care, 184(3), 469–485. its relationship to early mathematical perform-
Björklund, C. (2015). Pre-primary school teachers’ ance. Early Development and Parenting, 5(1),
approaches to mathematics education in Finland. 35–45.
Journal of Early Childhood Education Research, 4 Blevins-Knabe, B., Whiteside-Mansell, L., & Selig, J.
(2), 69–92. (2007). Parenting and mathematical development.
Björklund, C., & Barendregt, W. (2016). Teachers’ Academic Exchange Quarterly, 11, 76–80.
pedagogical mathematical awareness in diverse Bley, N. S., & Thornton, C. A. (1981). Teaching math-
child-age-groups. Nordic Studies in Mathematics ematics to the learning disabled. Rockville, MD:
Education, 21(4), 115–133. Aspen Systems Corporation.
410 References

Blöte, A. W., Van der Burg, E., & Klein, A. S. of the Building Blocks program for enhancing
(2001). Students’ flexibility in solving two-digit Ecuadorian kindergartners’ numerical competen-
addition and subtraction problems: Instruction cies. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 44(3),
effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93 231–241. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2017.12.009
(3), 627–638. Bonny, J. W., & Lourenco, S. F. (2013). The approxi-
Boaler, J. (2014). Research suggests that timed tests mate number system and its relation to early
cause math anxiety. Teaching Children Mathem- math achievement: Evidence from the preschool
atics, 20(8), 469–474. years. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
Bock, A., Cartwright, K. B., Gonzalez, C., O’Brien, S., 114(3), 375–388. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2012.09.015
Robinson, M. F., Schmerold, K., … Pasnak, R. Bower, C., Zimmermann, L., Verdine, B. N.,
(2015). The role of cognitive flexibility in pat- Toub, T. S., Islam, S. S., Foster, L., … Hirsh-Pasek,
tern understanding. Journal of Education and K. (2020). Piecing together the role of a spatial
Human Development, 4(1). doi: 10.15640/jehd. assembly intervention in preschoolers’ spatial
v4n1a3 and mathematics learning: Influences of gesture,
Bodovski, K., & Farkas, G. (2007). Mathematics spatial language, and socioeconomic status.
growth in early elementary school: The roles of Developmental Psychology, 56(4), 686–698. doi:
beginning knowledge, student engagement, and 10.1037/dev0000899
instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 108 Bowman, B. T., Donovan, M. S., & Burns, M. S. (Eds.).
(2), 115–130. (2001). Eager to learn: Educating our preschool-
Bodovski, K., Nahum-Shani, I., & Walsh, R. (2013). ers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
School climate and students’ early mathematics Brendefur, J. L., Strother, S., & Rich, K. (2018).
learning: Another search for contextual effects. Building place value understanding through
American Journal of Education, 119(2), 209–234. modeling and structure. Journal of Mathematics
doi: 10.1086/667227 Education, 11(1), 31–45. doi: 10.26711/00757715
Bodovski, K., & Youn, M.-J. (2011). The long term 2790017
effects of early acquired skills and behaviors on Broberg, A. G., Wessels, H., Lamb, M. E., &
young children’s achievement in literacy and Hwang, C. P. (1997). Effects of day care on the
mathematics. Journal of Early Childhood development of cognitive abilities in 8-year-olds:
Research, 9(1), 4–19. A longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology,
Bodovski, K., & Youn, M.-J. (2012). Students’ math- 33(1), 62–69.
ematics learning from kindergarten through 8th Brooks-Gunn, J. (2003). Do you believe in magic?
grade: The long-term influence of school readi- What we can expect from early childhood interven-
ness. International Journal of Sociology of Educa- tion programs. Social Policy Report, 17(1), 1, 3–14.
tion, 1(2), 97–122. doi: 10.4471/rise.2012.07 Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G. J., & Britto, P. R. (1999).
Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. J. (2001). The tools of the Are socioeconomic gradients for children similar
mind: A case study of implementing the Vygots- to those for adults? In D. P. Keating &
kian approach in American early childhood and C. Hertzman (Eds.), Developmental health and the
primary classrooms. Geneva, Switzerland: Inter- wealth of nations (pp. 94–124). New York, NY:
national Bureau of Education. Guilford Press.
Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. J. (2006). Self-regulation as Brosnan, M. J. (1998). Spatial ability in children’s
a key to school readiness: How can early child- play with LEGO blocks. Perceptual and Motor
hood teachers promote this critical competency? Skills, 87(1), 19–28. doi: 10.2466/pms.1998.
In M. Zaslow & I. Martinez-Beck (Eds.), Critical 87.1.19
issues in early childhood professional develop- Brown, S. I., & Walter, M. I. (1990). The art of prob-
ment (pp. 203–224). Baltimore, MD: Brookes lem posing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Publishing. Associates.
Bodrova, E., Leong, D. J., Norford, J. S., & Brownell, W. A., & Moser, H. E. (1949). Meaningful vs.
Paynter, D. E. (2003). It only looks like child’s mechanical learning: A study in grade III subtrac-
play. Journal of Staff Development, 24(2), 47–51. tion. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Bofferding, L., & Alexander, A. (2011). Nothing is Bruce, C. D., Flynn, T. C., & Bennett, S. (2015).
something: First graders’ use of zero in relation A focus on exploratory tasks in lesson study:
to negative numbers. Paper presented at the The Canadian ‘Math for Young Children’ project.
American Educational Research Association, New ZDM Mathematics Education. doi: 10.1007/
Orleans, LA. s11858-015-0747-7
Bojorquea, G., Torbeyns, J., Van Hoof, J., Van Brulles, D., Peters, S. J., & Saunders, R. (2012).
Nijlen, D., & Verschaffel, L. (2018). Effectiveness Schoolwide mathematics achievement within the
 References 411

gifted cluster grouping model. Journal of Burny, E., Valcke, M., & Desoete, A. (2012). Clock read-
Advanced Academics, 23(3), 200–216. doi: ing: An underestimated topic in children with
10.1177/1932202x12451439 mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Dis-
Bryant, P. E. (1997). Mathematical understanding in abilities, 45(4), 351–360. doi: 10.1177/00222194
the nursery school years. In T. Nunes & P. Bryant 11407773
(Eds.), Learning and teaching mathematics: An Burny, E., Valcke, M., Desoete, A., & Van Luit, J. E. H.
international perspective (pp. 53–67). East Sussex, (2013). Curriculum sequencing and the acquisi-
England: Psychology Press. tion of clock-reading skills among Chinese and
Burchinal, M. R., Field, S., López, M. L., Howes, C., & Flemish children. International Journal of Science
Pianta, R. (2012). Instruction in Spanish in and Mathematics Education, 11, 761–785.
pre-kindergarten classrooms and child outcomes Butterworth, B. (2010). Foundational numerical cap-
for English language learners. Early Childhood acities and the origins of dyscalculia. Trends in
Research Quarterly, 27(2), 188–197. doi: 10.1016/j. Cognitive Sciences, 14, 534–541.
ecresq.2011.11.003 Callahan, L. G., & Clements, D. H. (1984). Sex differ-
Burchinal, M. R., Zaslow, M., & Tarullo, L. (2016). ences in rote counting ability on entry to first
Quality thresholds, features, and dosage in early grade: Some observations. Journal for Research
care and education: Secondary data analyses of in Mathematics Education, 15, 378–382.
child outcomes. Monographs of the Society for Campbell, F. A., Pungello, E. P., Miller-Johnson, S.,
Research in Child Development. Burchinal, M., & Ramey, C. T. (2001). The devel-
Burchinal, M. R., Peisner-Feinberg, E., Pianta, R., & opment of cognitive and academic abilities:
Howes, C. (2002). Development of academic skills Growth curves from an early childhood educa-
from preschool through second grade: Family tional experiment. Developmental Psychology,
and classroom predictors of developmental 37, 231–242.
trajectories. Developmental Psychology, 40(5), Campbell, P. F., & Silver, E. A. (1999). Teaching and
415–436. learning mathematics in poor communities.
Burden, M. J., Jacobson, S. W., Dodge, N. C., Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of
Dehaene, S., & Jacobson, J. L. (2007). Effects Mathematics.
of prenatal alcohol and cocaine exposure on Cannon, J., Fernandez, C., & Ginsburg, H. P. (2005,
arithmetic and “number sense.” Paper pre- April). Parents’ preference for supporting pre-
sented at the Society for Research in Child schoolers’ language over mathematics learning:
Development. A difference that runs deep. Paper presented at
Burger, W. F., & Shaughnessy, J. M. (1986). Charac- the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research
terizing the van Hiele levels of development in in Child Development, Atlanta, GA.
geometry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Canobi, K. H., Reeve, R. A., & Pattison, P. E. (1998).
Education, 17(1), 31–48. The role of conceptual understanding in chil-
Burgoyne, K., Witteveen, K., Tolan, A., Malone, S., & dren’s addition problem solving. Developmental
Hulme, C. (2017). Pattern understanding: Relation- Psychology, 34, 882–891.
ships with arithmetic and reading development. Capraro, K. (2017). “Making change” in second grade:
Child Development Perspectives. doi: 10.1111/ Exploring money through project-based learning.
cdep.12240 YC Young Children, 72(3), 30–36.
Burns, M. K., Kanive, R., & DeGrande, M. (2012). Carey, S. (2004). Bootstrapping and the origin of
Effect of a computer-delivered math fact inter- concepts. Daedulus, 133(1), 59–68.
vention as a supplemental intervention for math Carpenter, T. P., Ansell, E., Franke, M. L.,
in third and fourth grades. Remedial and Special Fennema, E. H., & Weisbeck, L. (1993). Models
Education, 33(3), 184–191. doi: 10.1177/07419325 of problem solving: A study of kindergarten
10381652 children’s problem-solving processes. Journal
Burny, E. (2012). Towards an understanding of chil- for Research in Mathematics Education, 24,
dren’s difficulties with conventional time sys- 428–441.
tems. In Time-related competences in primary Carpenter, T. P., Coburn, T., Reys, R. E., & Wilson, J.
education (Chapter 2), doctoral dissertation. Bel- (1976). Notes from National Assessment: Recog-
gium: Ghent University. nizing and naming solids. Arithmetic Teacher, 23,
Burny, E., Valcke, M., & Desoete, A. (2009). Towards 62–66.
an agenda for studying learning and instruction Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E. H., Franke, M. L.,
focusing on time-related competences in children. Levi, L., & Empson, S. B. (1999). Children’s math-
Educational Studies, 35(5), 481–492. doi: 10.1080/ ematics: Cognitively guided instruction. Ports-
03055690902879093 mouth, NH: Heinemann.
412 References

Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E. H., Franke, M. L., skills in elementary school students. Child Devel-
Levi, L., & Empson, S. B. (2014). Children’s math- opment, 89(2), 446–460. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12753
ematics: Cognitively guided instruction (2nd ed.). Carr, R. C., Mokrova, I. L., Vernon-Feagans, L., &
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Burchinal, M. R. (2019). Cumulative classroom
Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., Jacobs, V. R., quality during pre-kindergarten and kindergarten
Fennema, E. H., & Empson, S. B. (1998). and children’s language, literacy, and mathemat-
A longitudinal study of invention and under- ics skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 47,
standing in children’s multidigit addition and 218–228.
subtraction. Journal for Research in Mathemat- Cargnelutti, E., & Passolunghi, M. C. (2017). Cognitive
ics Education, 29, 3–20. and affective factors in second-grade children
Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., & Levi, L. (2003). with math difficulties. Perspectives on Language
Thinking mathematically: Integrating arithmetic and Literacy, 43(1), 41.
and algebra in elementary school. Portsmouth, Cargnelutti, E., Tomasetto, C., & Passolunghi, M. C.
NH: Heinemann. (2017). The interplay between affective and cog-
Carpenter, T. P., & Levi, L. (1999). Developing con- nitive factors in shaping early proficiency in
ceptions of algebraic reasoning in the primary mathematics. Trends in Neuroscience and Educa-
grades. Montreal, Canada: American Educational tion, 8-9, 2836. doi: 10.1016/j.tine.2017.10.002
Research Association. Cascales-Martínez, A., Martínez-Segura, M.-J., Pérez-
Carpenter, T. P., & Moser, J. M. (1982). The develop- López, D., & Contero, M. (2017). Using an aug-
ment of addition and subtraction problem solv- mented reality enhanced tabletop system to
ing skills. In T. P. Carpenter, J. M. Moser, & T. A. promote learning of mathematics: A case study
Romberg (Eds.), Addition and subtraction: A cog- with students with special educational needs.
nitive perspective (pp. 9–24). Erlbaum. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science &
Carpenter, T. P., & Moser, J. M. (1984). The acquisi- Technology Education, 13(2), 355–380.
tion of addition and subtraction concepts in Casey, B. M., Paugh, P., & Ballard, N. (2002). Sneeze
grades one through three. Journal for Research builds a castle. Bothell, WA: The Wright Group/
in Mathematics Education, 15, 179–202. McGraw-Hill.
Carper, D. V. (1942). Seeing numbers as groups in Casey, B., Andrews, N., Schindler, H., Kersh, J. E.,
primary-grade arithmetic. The Elementary School Samper, A., & Copley, J. (2008a). The develop-
Journal, 43, 166–170. ment of spatial skills through interventions
Carr, M., & Alexeev, N. (2011). Fluency, accuracy, and involving block building activities. Cognition and
gender predict developmental trajectories of Instruction, 26(3), 1–41.
arithmetic strategies. Journal of Educational Casey, B., Erkut, S., Ceder, I., & Young, J. M. (2008).
Psychology, 103(3), 617–631. Use of a storytelling context to improve girls’ and
Carr, M., & Davis, H. (2001). Gender differences in boys’ geometry skills in kindergarten. Journal of
arithmetic strategy use: A function of skill and Applied Developmental Psychology, 29(1), 29–48.
preference. Contemporary Educational Psych- Casey, B., Nuttall, R. L., & Pezaris, E. (1997). Medi-
ology, 26, 330–347. ators of gender differences in mathematics col-
Carr, M., Shing, Y. L., Janes, P., & Steiner, H. H. lege entrance test scores: A comparison of
(2007). Early gender differences in strategy use spatial skills with internalized beliefs and
and fluency: Implications for the emergence of anxieties. Developmental Psychology, 33(4),
gender differences in mathematics. Paper pre- 669–680.
sented at the Society for Research in Child Casey, B., Nuttall, R. L., & Pezaris, E. (2001). Spatial–
Development. mechanical reasoning skills versus mathematics
Carr, M., Steiner, H. H., Kyser, B., & Biddlecomb, B. self-confidence as mediators of gender differences
(2008). A comparison of predictors of early on mathematics subtests using cross-national
emerging gender differences in mathematics gender-based items. Journal for Research in Math-
competence. Learning and Individual Differences, ematics Education, 32(1), 28–57.
18, 61–75. Casey, B. M., Andrews, N., Schindler, H., Kersh, J. E.,
Carr, M., Taasoobshirazi, G., Stroud, R., & Royer, M. Samper, A., & Copley, J. V. (2008b). The develop-
(2011). Combined fluency and cognitive strategies ment of spatial skills through interventions
instruction improves mathematics achievement involving block building activities. Cognition and
in early elementary school. Contemporary Educa- Instruction, 26, 1–41.
tional Psychology, 36, 323–333. Catsambis, S., & Buttaro, A., Jr. (2012). Revisiting
Carr, M., Alexeev, N., Wang, L., Barned, N., Horan, E., “Kindergarten as academic boot camp”: A nation-
& Reed, A. (2018). The development of spatial wide study of ability grouping and psycho-social
 References 413

development. Social Psychology of Education, 15 maternal academic support. Paper presented at

(4), 483–515. doi: 10.1007/s11218-012-9196-0 the Society for Research in Child Development.
CCSSO/NGA. (2010). Common core state standards Cheung, A. C. K., & Slavin, R. E. (2013). The effective-
for mathematics. Washington, DC: Council of ness of educational technology applications for
Chief State School Officers and the National Gov- enhancing mathematics achievement in K-12 class-
ernors Association Center for Best Practices. rooms: A meta-analysis. Educational Research
Celedón-Pattichis, S., Musanti, S. I., & Marshall, M. E. Review, 9(1), 88–113. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2013.
(2010). Bilingual elementary teachers’ reflections 01.001
on using students’ native language and culture to Cheung, C., & McBride-Chang, C. (2008). Relations of
teach mathematics. In M. Q. Foote (Ed.), Mathem- perceived maternal parenting style, practices,
atics teaching & learning in K–12: Equity and pro- and learning motivation to academic competence
fessional development (pp. 7–24). New York, NY: in Chinese children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,
Palgrave Macmillan. 54(1), 1–22.
Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Chien, N. C., Howes, C., Burchinal, M. R., Pianta, R. C.,
Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal Ritchie, S., Bryant, D. M., Clifford, R. M. …
recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Barbarin, O. A. (2010). Children’s classroom
Psychological Bulletin, 132, 354–380. engagement and school readiness gains in prekin-
Chalufour, I., Hoisington, C., Moriarty, R., Winokur, J., dergarten. Child Development, 81(5), 1534–1549.
& Worth, K. (2004). The science and mathematics doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01490.x
of building structures. Science and Children, 41 Chmiliar, L. (2017). Improving learning outcomes:
(4), 30–34. The iPad and preschool children with disabilities.
Chandler, A., McLaughlin, T. F., Neyman, J., & Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–11. doi: 10.3389/
Rinaldi, L. (2012). The differential effects of direct fpsyg.2017.00660
instruction flashcards with and without a shorter Choi, J. Y., Jeon, S., & Lippard, C. (2018). Dual
math racetrack to teach numeral identification to language learning, inhibitory control, and math
preschoolers: A failure to replicate. Academic achievement in Head Start and kindergarten.
Research International, 2(3), 308–313. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 42(Supple-
Chang, A., Sandhofer, C. M., & Brown, C. S. (2011). ment C), 66–78. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2017.
Gender biases in early number exposure to 09.001
preschool-aged children. Journal of Language Chorney, S., & Sinclair, N. (2018). Fingers-on geom-
and Social Psychology, 30(4), 440–450. etry: The emergence of symmetry in a primary
Chang, A., Zmich, K. M., Athanasopoulou, A., Hou, L., school classroom with multi-touch dynamic
Golinkoff, R. M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2011). Manipu- geometry. In N. Calder, K. Larkin, & N. Sinclair
lating geometric forms in two-dimensional space: (Eds.), Using mobile technologies in the teaching
Effects of socio-economic status on preschoolers’ and learning of mathematics (pp. 213–230). Cham,
geometric-spatial ability. Paper presented at the Switzerland: Springer.
Society for Research in Child Development, Mon- Christiansen, K., Austin, A., & Roggman, L. (2005,
treal, Canada. April). Math interactions in the context of play:
Char, C. A. (1989). Computer graphic feltboards: New Relations to child math ability. Paper presented
software approaches for young children’s math- at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for
ematical exploration. San Francisco, CA: Ameri- Research in Child Development, Atlanta, GA.
can Educational Research Association. Ciancio, D. S., Rojas, A. C., McMahon, K., & Pasnak, R.
Chard, D. J., Clarke, B., Baker, S., Otterstedt, J., (2001). Teaching oddity and insertion to Head Start
Braun, D., & Katz, R. (2005). Using measures of children: An economical cognitive intervention.
number sense to screen for difficulties in math- Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,
ematics: Preliminary findings. Assessment for 22, 603–621.
Effective Intervention, 30(2), 3–14. Cicconi, M. (2014). Vygotsky meets technology:
Chen, C., & Uttal, D. H. (1988). Cultural values, par- A reinvention of collaboration in the early child-
ents’ beliefs, and children’s achievement in the hood mathematics classroom. Early Childhood
United States and China. Human Development, 31, Education Journal, 42(1), 57–65. doi: 10.1007/
351–358. s10643-013-0582-9
Cheng, Y.-L., & Mix, K. S. (2012). Spatial training Cirino, P. T. (2010). The interrelationships of math-
improves children’s mathematics ability. Journal ematical precursors in kindergarten. Journal of
of Cognition and Development, 15(1), 2–11. doi: Experimental Child Psychology, 108(4). doi:
10.1080/15248372.2012.725186 10.1016/j.jecp.2010.11.004
Cheung, C., Leung, A., & McBride-Chang, C. (2007). Clarke, B., Doabler, C. T., Kosty, D., Nelson, E. K.,
Gender differences in mathematics self concept Smolkowski, K., Fien, H., & Turtura, J. (2017). Test-
in Hong Kong children: A function of perceived ing the efficacy of a kindergarten mathematics
414 References

intervention by small group size. AERA Open, 3(2), Clements, D. H. (1999b). Subitizing: What is it? Why
1–16. doi: 10.1177/2332858417706899 teach it? Teaching Children Mathematics, 5,
Clarke, B., & Shinn, M. R. (2004). A preliminary 400–405.
investigation into the identification and develop- Clements, D. H. (1999c). Teaching length measure-
ment of early mathematics curriculum-based ment: Research challenges. School Science and
measurement. School Psychology Review, 33(2), Mathematics, 99(1), 5–11.
234–248. Clements, D. H. (2000). Translating lessons from
Clarke, B., Smolkowski, K., Baker, S., Fien, H., research into mathematics classrooms: Mathem-
Doabler, C. T., & Chard, D. (2011). The impact of a atics and special needs students. Perspectives,
comprehensive Tier I core kindergarten program 26(3), 31–33.
on the achievement of students at risk in Clements, D. H. (2001). Mathematics in the preschool.
mathematics. Elementary School Journal, 111(4), Teaching Children Mathematics, 7, 270–275.
561–584. Clements, D. H., & Conference Working Group.
Clarke, B. A., Clarke, D. M., & Horne, M. (2006). (2004). Part one: Major themes and recom-
A longitudinal study of children’s mental compu- mendations. In D. H. Clements, J. Sarama, &
tation strategies. In J. Novotná, H. Moraová, A.-M. DiBiase (Eds.), Engaging young children in
M. Krátká, & N. Stehlíková (Eds.), Proceedings of mathematics: Standards for early childhood
the 30th Conference of the International Group mathematics education (pp. 1–72). Mahwah, NJ:
for the Psychology in Mathematics Education Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
(Vol. 2, pp. 329–336). Prague, Czech Republic: Clements, D. H. (2007). Curriculum research: Toward
Charles University. a framework for “research-based curricula”.
Clarke, D. M., Cheeseman, J., Gervasoni, A., Gronn, D., Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
Horne, M., McDonough, A., Montgomery, P. … 38, 35–70.
Rowley, G. (2002). Early numeracy research pro- Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2008). Mathematics
ject: Final report. Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: and technology: Supporting learning for students
Department of Education, Employment and Train- and teachers. In O. N. Saracho & B. Spodek (Eds.),
ing, the Catholic Education Office, and the Associ- Contemporary perspectives on science and tech-
ation of Independent Schools. nology in early childhood education (pp. 127–147).
Clements, D. H. (1984). Training effects on the devel- Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
opment and generalization of Piagetian logical Clements, D. H., Agodini, R., & Harris, B. (2013).
operations and knowledge of number. Journal of Instructional practices and student math achieve-
Educational Psychology, 76, 766–776. ment: Correlations from a study of math
Clements, D. H. (1986). Effects of Logo and CAI envir- curricula. Retrieved from NCEE (National Center
onments on cognition and creativity. Journal of for Education Evaluation and Regional Assist-
Educational Psychology, 78, 309–318. ance) website: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/
Clements, D. H. (1989). Computers in elementary 20134020/
mathematics education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2014, March 3, 2014).
Prentice-Hall. Play, mathematics, and false dichotomies [Blog
Clements, D. H. (1991). Current technology and the post]. Preschool matters…today! (New Brunswick
early childhood curriculum. In B. Spodek & NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research
O. N. Saracho (Eds.), Yearbook in early childhood (NIEER) at Rutgers University). Retrieved from
education, Volume 2: Issues in early childhood http://preschoolmatters.org/2014/03/03/play-
curriculum (pp. 106–131). New York, NY: Teachers mathematics-and-false-dichotomies/
College Press. Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., Wolfe, C. B., &
Clements, D. H. (1994). The uniqueness of the com- Spitler, M. E. (2015). Sustainability of a scale-up
puter as a learning tool: Insights from research intervention in early mathematics: Longitudinal
and practice. In J. L. Wright & D. D. Shade (Eds.), evaluation of implementation fidelity. Early Edu-
Young children: Active learners in a technological cation and Development, 26(3), 427–449. doi:
age (pp. 31–50). Washington, DC: National Associ- 10.1080/10409289.2015.968242
ation for the Education of Young Children. Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., & Germeroth, C. (2016).
Clements, D. H. (1995). Teaching creativity with Learning executive function and early mathemat-
computers. Educational Psychology Review, 7(2), ics: Directions of causal relations. Early Childhood
141–161. Research Quarterly, 36(3), 79–90. doi: 10.1016/j.
Clements, D. H. (1999a). “Concrete” manipulatives, ecresq.2015.12.009
concrete ideas. Contemporary Issues in Early Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2017). Valid issues but
Childhood, 1(1), 45–60. limited scope: A response to Kitchen and Berk's
 References 415

research commentary on educational technology. for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(1),

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 70–95.
48(5), 474–482. Clements, D. H., & Callahan, L. G. (1983). Number or
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2007/2018). Building prenumber experiences for young children: Must
Blocks Software [Computer software]. Columbus, we choose? The Arithmetic Teacher, 31(3), 34–37.
OH: McGraw-Hill Education. Clements, D. H., & Callahan, L. G. (1986). Cards:
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2019). Executive func- A good deal to offer. The Arithmetic Teacher, 34
tion and early mathematical learning difficulties. (1), 14–17.
In A. Fritz, V. G. Haase & P. Räsänen (Eds.), Inter- Clements, D. H., Dumas, D., Dong, Y., Banse, H. W.,
national handbook of mathematical learning diffi- Sarama, J., & Day-Hess, C. A. (2020). Strategy
culties: From the laboratory to the classroom (pp. diversity in early mathematics classrooms. Con-
755–771). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. temporary Educational Psychology, 60. doi:
Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., Baroody, A. J., 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101834
Joswick, C., & Wolfe, C. B. (2019). Evaluating the Clements, D. H., Fuson, K. C., & Sarama, J. (2017a).
efficacy of a learning trajectory for early shape The research-based balance in early childhood
composition. American Educational Research mathematics: A response to Common Core
Journal, 56(6), 2509–2530. doi: 10.3102/00028 criticisms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
31219842788 40, 150–162.
Clements, D. H., Vinh, M., Lim, C.-I., & Sarama, J. Clements, D. H., Fuson, K. C., & Sarama, J. (2017b).
(2020). STEM for inclusive excellence and equity. What is developmentally appropriate teaching?
Early Education and Development. doi: 10.1080/ Teaching Children Mathematics, 24(3), 179–188.
10409289.2020.1755776 doi: 10.5951/teacchilmath.24.3.0178
Clements, D. H., & Battista, M. T. (1990). Constructiv- Clements, D. H., Fuson, K. C., & Sarama, J. (2019). Cri-
ist learning and teaching. Arithmetic Teacher, tiques of the Common Core in early math: A
38(1), 34–35. research-based response. Journal for Research in
Clements, D. H., & Battista, M. T., (Artist). (1991). Mathematics Education, 50(1), 11–22. doi: 10.5951/
Logo geometry. Morristown, NJ: Silver Burdett & jresematheduc.50.1.0011
Ginn. Clements, D. H., & Meredith, J. S. (1993). Research on
Clements, D. H., & Battista, M. T. (1992). Geometry Logo: Effects and efficacy. Journal of Computing
and spatial reasoning. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Hand- in Childhood Education, 4, 263–290.
book of research on mathematics teaching and Clements, D. H., & Meredith, J. S. (1994). Turtle math
learning (pp. 420–464). New York, NY: Macmillan. [Computer software]. Montreal, Quebec: Logo
Clements, D. H., & Battista, M. T. (2000). Designing Computer Systems, Inc. (LCSI).
effective software. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh Clements, D. H., & Nastasi, B. K. (1985). Effects of
(Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathemat- computer environments on social-emotional devel-
ics and science education (pp. 761–776). Mahwah, opment: Logo and computerassisted instruction.
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Computers in the Schools, 2(2–3), 11–31.
Clements, D. H., Battista, M. T., & Sarama, J. (1998). Clements, D. H., & Nastasi, B. K. (1988). Social and
Students’ development of geometric and cognitive interactions in educational computer
measurement ideas. In R. Lehrer & D. Chazan environments. American Educational Research
(Eds.), Designing learning environments for Journal, 25, 87–106.
developing understanding of geometry and Clements, D. H., & Nastasi, B. K. (1993). Electronic
space (pp. 201–225). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence media and early childhood education. In B. Spodek
Erlbaum Associates. (Ed.), Handbook of research on the education of
Clements, D. H., Battista, M. T., & Sarama, J. (2001). young children (pp. 251–275). New York, NY:
Logo and geometry. Journal for Research in Macmillan.
Mathematics Education Monograph Series, 10. Clements, D. H., Russell, S. J., Tierney, C.,
Clements, D. H., Battista, M. T., Sarama, J., & Battista, M. T., & Meredith, J. S. (1995). Flips,
Swaminathan, S. (1997). Development of students’ turns, and area. Cambridge, MA: Dale Seymour
spatial thinking in a unit on geometric motions Publications.
and area. The Elementary School Journal, 98, Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (1996). Turtle Math:
171–186. Redesigning Logo for elementary mathematics.
Clements, D. H., Battista, M. T., Sarama, J., Learning and Leading with Technology, 23(7), 10–15.
Swaminathan, S., & McMillen, S. (1997). Students’ Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (1997). Research on
development of length measurement concepts in Logo: A decade of progress. Computers in the
a Logo-based unit on geometric paths. Journal Schools, 14(1–2), 9–46.
416 References

Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2003a). Strip mining for early childhood mathematics education.
for gold: Research and policy in educational tech- Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
nology—A response to “Fool’s Gold”. Educational Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., Layzer, C., Unlu, F., &
Technology Review, 11(1), 7–69. Fesler, L. (2020). Effects on mathematics and
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2003c). Young chil- executive function of a mathematics and play
dren and technology: What does the research intervention versus mathematics alone. Journal
say? Young Children, 58(6), 34–40. for Research in Mathematics Education, 51(3),
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2004). Building Blocks 301–333. doi: 10.5951/jresemtheduc-2019-0069
for early childhood mathematics. Early Childhood Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., & MacDonald, B. L.
Research Quarterly, 19, 181–189. (2019). Subitizing: The neglected quantifier. In
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2007a). Effects of A. Norton & M. W. Alibali (Eds.), Constructing
a preschool mathematics curriculum: Summative number: Merging perspectives from psychology
research on the Building Blocks project. Journal and mathematics education (pp. 13–45). Gateway
for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(2), East, Singapore: Springer.
136–163. doi: 10.2307/748360 Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., Spitler, M. E.,
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2007b). Building Lange, A. A., & Wolfe, C. B. (2011). Mathematics
Blocks—SRA Real Math, Teacher’s Edition, Grade learned by young children in an intervention
PreK. Columbus, OH: SRA/McGraw-Hill. based on learning trajectories: A large-scale clus-
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2008). Experimental ter randomized trial. Journal for Research in
evaluation of the effects of a research-based pre- Mathematics Education, 42(2), 127–166. doi:
school mathematics curriculum. American Educa- 10.5951/jresematheduc.42.2.0127
tional Research Journal, 45(2), 443–494. doi: Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., Swaminathan, S.,
10.3102/0002831207312908 Weber, D., & Trawick-Smith, J. (2018). Teaching
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2010). Technology. In and learning Geometry: Early foundations. Quad-
V. Washington & J. Andrews (Eds.), Children of rante, 27(2), 7–31.
2020: Creating a better tomorrow (pp. 119–123). Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., Wolfe, C. B., &
Washington, DC: Council for Professional Recog- Spitler, M. E. (2013). Longitudinal evaluation of a
nition/National Association for the Education of scale-up model for teaching mathematics with
Young Children. trajectories and technologies: Persistence of
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2011). Early childhood effects in the third year. American Educational
mathematics intervention. Science, 333(6045), Research Journal, 50(4), 812–850. doi: 10.3102/
968–970. doi: 10.1126/science.1204537 0002831212469270
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2013). Building Blocks Clements, D. H., & Stephan, M. (2004). Measurement
(Volumes 1 and 2). Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill in pre-K–2 mathematics. In D. H. Clements,
Education. J. Sarama, & A.-M. DiBiase (Eds.), Engaging young
Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., Baroody, A. J., & children in mathematics: Standards for early
Joswick, C. (2020). Efficacy of a learning trajec- childhood mathematics education (pp. 299–317).
tory approach compared to a teach-to-target Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
approach for addition and subtraction. ZDM Clements, D. H., & Swaminathan, S. (1995). Technol-
Mathematics Education. doi: 10.1007/s11858-019- ogy and school change: New lamps for old? Child-
01122-z hood Education, 71, 275–281.
Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., Baroody, A. J., Clements, D. H., Swaminathan, S., Hannibal, M. A. Z.,
Joswick, C., & Wolfe, C. B. (2019). Evaluating the & Sarama, J. (1999). Young children’s concepts of
efficacy of a learning trajectory for early shape shape. Journal for Research in Mathematics Edu-
composition. American Educational Research cation, 30, 192–212.
Journal, 56(6), 2509–2530. doi: 10.3102/0002 Clements, D. H., Vinh, M., Lim, C.-I., & Sarama, J.
831219842788 (2020). STEM for inclusive excellence and equity.
Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., Barrett, J. E., Van Early Education and Development. doi: 10.1080/
Dine, D. W., Cullen, C. J., Hudyma, A., … 10409289.2020.1755776
Eames, C. L. (2018). Evaluation of three interven- Cobb, P. (1990). A constructivist perspective on
tions teaching area measurement as spatial information-processing theories of mathematical
structuring to young children. The Journal of activity. International Journal of Educational
Mathematical Behavior, 50, 23–41. doi: 10.1016/j. Research, 14, 67–92.
jmathb.2017.12.004 Cobb, P. (1995). Cultural tools and mathematical
Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., & DiBiase, A.-M. (2004). learning: A case study. Journal for Research in
Engaging young children in mathematics: Standards Mathematics Education, 26, 362–385.
 References 417

Cobb, P., Wood, T., Yackel, E., Nicholls, J., Cooper, R. G., Jr. (1984). Early number development:
Wheatley, G., Trigatti, B., Perlwitz, M. (1991). Discovering number space with addition and sub-
Assessment of a problem-centered second-grade traction. In C. Sophian (Ed.), Origins of cognitive
mathematics project. Journal for Research in skills (pp. 157–192). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erl-
Mathematics Education, 22(1), 3–29. baum Associates.
Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & Wood, T. (1989). Young chil- Cordes, C., & Miller, E. (2000). Fool’s gold: A critical
dren’s emotional acts during mathematical prob- look at computers in childhood. Retrieved Novem-
lem solving. In D. B. McLeod & V. M. Adams (Eds.), ber 7, 2000, from www.allianceforchildhood.net/
Affect and mathematical problem solving: A new projects/computers/computers_reports.htm
perspective (pp. 117–148). New York, NY: Springer- Correa, J., Nunes, T., & Bryant, P. (1998). Young chil-
Verlag. dren’s understanding of division: The relationship
Codding, R. S., Hilt-Panahon, A., Panahon, C. J., & between division terms in a noncomputational
Benson, J. L. (2009). Addressing mathematics task. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90,
computation problems: A review of simple and 321–329.
moderate intensity interventions. Education and Cosgun, A. A., Şahin, F. T., & Aydin, Z. N. (2017). Role
Treatment of Children, 32(2), 279–312. of family in promoting math skills in early child-
Cohen, L. E., & Emmons, J. (2017). Block play: Spatial hood. In R. Efe, E. Atasoy, I. Koleva, & V. Kotseva
language with preschool and school-age children. (Eds.), Current Trends in Educational Sciences
Early Child Development and Care, 187(5-6), (pp. 635–646). Sofia, Bulgaria: St. Kliment
967–977. Ohridski University Press.
Cohen, L. E., & Uhry, J. (2007). Young children’s dis- Cowan, N., Saults, J. S., & Elliott, E. M. (2002). The
course strategies during block play: A Bakhtinian search for what is fundamental in the develop-
approach. Journal of Research in Childhood Edu- ment of working memory. Advances in Child
cation, 21(3), 302–315. Development and Behavior, 29, 1–49.
Colburn, W. (1849). Colburn's first lessons: Intellec- Crollen, V., & Noël, M.-P. (2015). The role of fingers in
tual arithmetic upon the inductive method of the development of counting and arithmetic
instruction. William J. Reynolds. skills. Acta Psychologica, 156(0), 37–44. doi:
Coley, R. J. (2002). An unequal start: Indicators of 10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.01.007
inequality in school readiness. Princeton, NJ: Edu- Crosnoe, R., & Cooper, C. E. (2010). Economically dis-
cational Testing Service. advantaged children’s transitions into elementary
Collins, M. A., & Laski, E. V. (2015). Preschoolers’ school: Linking family processes, school contexts,
strategies for solving visual pattern tasks. Early and educational policy. American Educational
Childhood Research Quarterly, 32, 204–214. doi: Research Journal, 47, 258–291.
10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.04.004 Curby, T. W., Brock, L. L., & Hamre, B. K. (2013).
Confrey, J., Maloney, A. P., Nguyen, K. H., & Teachers’ emotional support consistency predicts
Rupp, A. A. (2014). Equipartitioning: A foundation children’s achievement gains and social skills.
for rational number reasoning. Elucidation of Early Education & Development, 24(3), 292–309.
a learning trajectory. In A. P. Maloney, J. Confrey, doi: 10.1080/10409289.2012.665760
& K. H. Nguyen (Eds.), Learning over time: Learn- Curby, T. W., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Ponitz, C. C.
ing trajectories in mathematics education (pp. (2009). Teacher–child interactions and children’s
61–96). New York, NY: Information Age Publishing. achievement trajectories across kindergarten
Connor, C. M., Mazzocco, M. M. M., Kurz, T., and first grade. Journal of Educational Psych-
Crowe, E. C., Tighe, E. L., Wood, T. S., & ology, 101(4), 912–925. doi: 10.1037/a0016647
Morrison, F. J. (2018). Using assessment to indi- Curtis, R. P. (2005). Preschoolers’ counting in peer
vidualize early mathematics instruction. Journal interaction. Paper presented at the American Edu-
of School Psychology, 66, 97–113. doi: 10.1016/j. cational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
jsp.2017.04.005 Cvencek, D., Meltzoff, A. N., & Greenwald, A. G. (2011).
Crompton, H., Grant, M. R., & Shraim, K. Y. H. (2018). Math–gender stereotypes in elementary school
Technologies to enhance and extend children’s children. Child Development, 82(3), 766–779. doi:
understanding of geometry: A configurative the- 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01529.x
matic synthesis of the literature. Educational Davenport, L. R., Henry, C. S., Clements, D. H., &
Technology & Society, 21(1), 59–69. Sarama, J. (2019a). No more math fact frenzy.
Cook, G. A., Roggman, L. A., & Boyce, L. K. (2012). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Fathers’ and mothers’ cognitive stimulation in Davenport, L. R., Henry, C. S., Clements, D. H., &
early play with toddlers: Predictors of 5th grade Sarama, J. (2019b). No more math fact frenzy.
reading and math. Family Science, 2, 131–145. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
418 References

Davidson, J., & Wright, J. L. (1994). The potential 1329–1349. doi: 10.1111/cdev.2009.80.issue-510.1111/
of the microcomputer in the early childhood j.1467-8624.2009.01336.x
classroom. In J. L. Wright & D. D. Shade (Eds.), Dennis, M. S., Bryant, B. R., & Drogan, R. (2015). The
Young children: Active learners in a techno- impact of Tier 2 mathematics instruction
logical age (pp. 77–91). Washington, DC: on second graders with mathematics difficulties.
National Association for the Education of Exceptionality, 23(2), 124–145. doi: 10.1080/
Young Children. 09362835.2014.986613
Day, S. L. (2002). Real kids, real risks: Effective DeLoache, J. S. (1987). Rapid change in the symbolic
instruction of students at risk of failure. Bulletin, functioning of young children. Science, 238,
86(682). doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/019263650 1556–1557.
208663203 DeLoache, J. S., Miller, K. F., & Pierroutsakos, S. L.
Duhon, G. J., House, S. H., & Stinnett, T. A. (2012). (1998). Reasoning and problem solving. In
Evaluating the generalization of math fact flu- D. Kuhn & R. S. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of child
ency gains across paper and computer perform- psychology: Vol. 2. Cognition, perception, & lan-
ance modalities. Journal of School Psychology, guage (5th ed.) (pp. 801–850). New York, NY:
50, 335–345. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2012.01.003 Wiley.
Davis, R. B. (1984). Learning mathematics: The cogni- DeLoache, J. S., Miller, K. F., Rosengren, K., &
tive science approach to mathematics education. Bryant, N. (1997). The credible shrinking room:
Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Very young children’s performance with symbolic
Dawson, D. T. (1953). Number grouping as a function and nonsymbolic relations. Psychological Science,
of complexity. The Elementary School Journal, 8, 308–313.
54, 35–42. Denison, S., & Xu, F. (2019). Infant statisticians: The
Day, J. D., Engelhardt, J. L., Maxwell, S. E., & origins of reasoning under uncertainty. Perspec-
Bolig, E. E. (1997). Comparison of static and tives on Psychological Science, 14(4), 499–509.
dynamic assessment procedures and their rela- doi: 10.1177/1745691619847201
tion to independent performance. Journal of Edu- Denton, K., & West, J. (2002). Children’s reading and
cational Psychology, 89(2), 358–368. mathematics achievement in kindergarten and
Dearing, E., Casey, B. M., Ganley, C. M., Tillinger, M., first grade. from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/
Laski, E., & Montecillo, C. (2012). Young girls’ pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2002125.
arithmetic and spatial skills: The distal and prox- Desoete, A., Ceulemans, A., De Weerdt, F., & Pieters, S.
imal roles of family socioeconomics and home (2012). Can we predict mathematical learning dis-
learning experiences. Early Childhood Research abilities from symbolic and non-symbolic com-
Quarterly, 27, 458–470. parison tasks in kindergarten? Findings from
DeCaro, M. S., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2012). Exploring a longitudinal study. British Journal of Educa-
mathematics problems prepares children to learn tional Psychology, 82(1), 64–81. doi: 10.1348/
from instruction. Journal of Experimental Child 2044-8279.002002
Psychology, 113(4), 552–568. doi: 10.1016/j. Dewey, J. (1938/1997). Experience and education.
jecp.2012.06.009 New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
De Corte, E., Mason, L., Depaepe, F., & Verschaffel, L. DHHS. (2005). Head Start impact study: First year
(2011). Self-regulation of mathematical knowledge findings. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
and skills. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk Health and Human Services; Administration for
(Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning Children and Families.
and performance (pp. 155–172). New York: Diamond, A., Barnett, W. S., Thomas, J., & Munro, S.
Routledge. (2007). Preschool program improves cognitive
Degelman, D., Free, J. U., Scarlato, M., control. Science, 318, 1387–1388.
Blackburn, J. M., & Golden, T. (1986). Concept Diaz, R. M. (2008). The role of language in early
learning in preschool children: Effects of a childhood mathematics: A parallel mixed method
short-term Logo experience. Journal of Educa- study. Doctoral dissertation, Florida International
tional Computing Research, 2(2), 199–205. University. Retrieved from http://search.pro
Dehaene, S. (1997). The number sense: How the mind quest.com/docview/304815869.
creates mathematics. New York, NY: Oxford Uni- Dindyal, J. (2015). Geometry in the early years: A
versity Press. commentary. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(3),
Dearing, E., McCartney, K., & Taylor, B. A. (2009). 519–529.
Does higher-quality early child care promote low- Dinehart, L., & Manfra, L. (2013). Associations
income children’s math and literacy achievement between low-income children’s fine motor skills in
in middle childhood? Child Development, 80(5), preschool and academic performance in second
 References 419

grade. Early Education & Development, 24(2), T. Nakahara & M. Koyama (Eds.), Proceedings of
138–161. doi: 10.1080/10409289.2011.636729 the 24th Conference of the International Group
Dixon, J. K. (1995). Limited English proficiency and for the Psychology in Mathematics Education
spatial visualization in middle school student’s (Vol. 2, pp. 257–264).
construction of the concepts of reflection and Driscoll, M. J. (1983). Research within reach: Elemen-
rotation. The Bilingual Research Journal, 19(2), tary school mathematics and reading. St. Louis:
221–247. CEMREL, Inc.
Doabler, C. T., Cary, M. S., Jungjohann, K., Clarke, B., Dumas, D., McNeish, D., Sarama, J., & Clements, D.
Fien, H., Baker, S., Smolkowski, K., Chard, D. (2019). Preschool mathematics intervention can
(2012). Enhancing core mathematics instruction significantly improve student learning trajector-
for students at risk for mathematics disabilities. ies through elementary school. AERA Open, 5(4),
Teaching Exceptional Children, 44(4), 48–57. 1–5. doi: 10.1177/2332858419879446
Doig, B., McCrae, B., & Rowe, K. (2003). A good start Duncan, G. J., Claessens, A., & Engel, M. (2004). The
to numeracy: Effective numeracy strategies from contributions of hard skills and socio-emotional
research and practice in early childhood. Can- behavior to school readiness. Evanston, IL: North-
berra ACT, Australia: Australian Council for Edu- western University.
cational Research. Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A.,
Donlan, C. (1998). Number without language? Stud- Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C., Klebanov, P.
ies of children with specific language impair- Pagani, L. … Japel, C. (2007). School readiness
ments. In C. Donlan (Ed.), The development of and later achievement. Developmental Psych-
mathematical skills (pp. 255–274). East Sussex, ology, 43(6), 1428–1446.
UK: Psychology Press. Duncan, G. J., & Magnuson, K. (2011). The nature and
Dowker, A. (2004). What works for children with impact of early achievement skills, attention
mathematical difficulties? (Research Report No. skills, and behavior problems. In G. J. Duncan &
554). Nottingham, UK: University of Oxford/DfES. R. Murnane (Eds.), Whither opportunity? Rising
Dowker, A. (2005). Early identification and interven- inequality and the uncertain life chances of low-
tion for students with mathematics difficulties. income children (pp. 47–70). New York, NY: Rus-
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 324–332. sell Sage Press.
Dowker, A. (2009). What works for children with Duran, C. A. K., Byers, A., Cameron, C. E., &
mathematical difficulties? The effectiveness of Grissmer, D. (2018). Unique and compensatory
intervention schemes. Nottingham, England: associations of executive functioning and visuo-
DCSF Publications. motor integration with mathematics performance
Dowker, A. (2017). Interventions for primary school in early elementary school. Early Childhood
children with difficulties in mathematics. Research Quarterly, 42, 21–30. doi: 10.1016/j.
Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 53, ecresq.2017.08.005
255–287. doi: 10.1016/bs.acdb.2017.04.004 Duval, R. (2014). The first crucial point in geometry
Dowker, A. (2019). Children’s mathematical learning dif- learning: Visualization. Mediterranean Journal for
ficulties: Some contributory factors and interven- Research in Mathematics Education, 13, 1–28.
tions. In A. Fritz, V. G. Haase, & P. Räsänen (Eds.), Early, D., Barbarin, O., Burchinal, M. R., Chang, F.,
International handbook of mathematical learning Clifford, R., Crawford, G., Weaver, W. …
difficulties: From the laboratory to the classroom Barnett, W. S. (2005). Pre-kindergarten in
(pp. 773–787). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. eleven states: NCEDL’s multi-state study of
Dowker, A., & Sigley, G. (2010). Targeted interven- pre-kindergarten & study of State-Wide Early
tions for children with arithmetical difficulties. Education Programs (SWEEP). Chapel Hill, NC:
British Journal of Educational Psychology Mono- University of North Carolina.
graphs, II(7), 65–81. Ebbeck, M. (1984). Equity for boys and girls: Some
Downs, R. M., & Liben, L. S. (1988). Through the map important issues. Early Child Development and
darkly: Understanding maps as representations. Care, 18, 119–131.
The Genetic Epistemologist, 16, 11–18. Eberle, R. S. (2014, September). The role of children’s
Downs, R. M., Liben, L. S., & Daggs, D. G. (1988). On mathematical aesthetics: The case of tessella-
education and geographers: The role of cognitive tions. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 35,
developmental theory in geographic education. 129–143. doi: 10.1016/j.jmathb.2014.07.004
Annals of the Association of American Geograph- Ebersbach, M., Luwel, K., & Verschaffel, L. (2015).
ers, 78, 680–700. The relationship between children’s familiarity with
Draisma, J. (2000). Gesture and oral computation as numbers and their performance in bounded and
resources in the early learning of mathematics. In unbounded number line estimations. Mathematical
420 References

Thinking and Learning, 17(2–3), 136–154. doi: Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35(2),
10.1080/10986065.2015.1016813 157–178. doi: 10.3102/0162373712461850
Edens, K. M., & Potter, E. F. (2013). An exploratory Engel, M., Claessens, A., Watts, T., & Farkas, G. (2016).
look at the relationships among math skills, Mathematics content coverage and student learn-
motivational factors and activity choice. Early ing in kindergarten. Educational Researcher, 45
Childhood Education Journal, 41(3), 235–243. doi: (5), 293–300. doi: 10.3102/0013189x16656841
10.1007/s10643-012-0540-y English, L. D. (2010). Young children’s early model-
Edwards, C., Gandini, L., & Forman, G. E. (1993). The ling with data. Mathematics Education Research
hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia Journal, 22(2), 24–47.
approach to early childhood education. Norwood, English, L. D. (2018a). Young children’s statistical lit-
N.J.: Ablex Publishing Corp. eracy in modelling with data and chance. In
Ehrlich, S. B., & Levine, S. C. (2007, April). The A. Leavy, M. Meletiou-Mavrotheris, &
impact of teacher “number talk” in low-and E. Paparistodemou (Eds.), Statistics in early child-
middle-SES preschool classrooms. Paper pre- hood and primary education (pp. 295–313).
sented at the American Educational Research Springer doi: 10.1007/978-981-13-1044-7_17.
Association, Chicago, IL. English, L. D. (Ed.). (2018b). Early engineering learn-
Ehrlich, S. B., Levine, S. C., & Goldin-Meadow, S. ing. Gateway East, Singapore: Springer.
(2006). The importance of gesture in children’s Entwisle, D. R., & Alexander, K. L. (1990). Beginning
spatial reasoning. Developmental Psychology, 42 school math competence: Minority and majority
(6), 1259–1268. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.42.6.1259 comparisons. Child Development, 61, 454–471.
Eimeren, L. V., MacMillan, K. D., & Ansari, D. (2007, Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C.
April). The role of subitizing in childrens develop- (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the
ment of verbal counting. Paper presented at the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological
Society for Research in Child Development, Review, 100, 363–406.
Boston, MA. Ernest, P. (1985). The number line as a teaching aid.
Elia, I. (2018). Observing the use of gestures in young Educational Studies in Mathematics, 16, 411–424.
children’s geometric thinking. In I. Elia, Espada, J. P. (2012). The native language in teaching
J. Mulligan, A. Anderson, A. Baccaglini-Frank, & kindergarten mathematics. Journal of Inter-
C. Benz (Eds.), Contemporary Research and Per- national Education Research, 8(4), 359–366.
spectives on Early Childhood Mathematics Educa- Espinosa, L. M. (2005). Curriculum and assessment
tion (pp. 159–182). Cham: Springer International considerations for young children from cultur-
Publishing. ally, linguistically, and economically diverse
Elia, I., Gagatsis, A., & Demetriou, A. (2007). The backgrounds. Psychology in the Schools, 42(8),
effects of different modes of representation on 837–853. doi: 10.1002/pits.20115
the solution of one-step additive problems. Evans, D. W. (1983). Understanding infinity and zero
Learning and Instruction, 17, 658–672. in the early school years. Unpublished doctoral
Elia, I., van den Heuvel-panhuizen, M., & dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Gagatsis, A. (2018). Geometry learning in the Falk, R., Yudilevich-Assouline, P., & Elstein, A. (2012).
early years: Developing understanding of Children’s concept of probability as inferred from
shapes and space with a focus on visualization. their binary choices—revisited. Educational Stud-
In V. Kinnear, M. Y. Lai, & T. Muir (Eds.), For- ies in Mathematics, 81(2), 207–233. doi: 10.1007/
ging connections in early mathematics teaching s10649-012-9402-1
and learning (pp. 73–95). Gateway East, Singa- Farran, D. C., Lipsey, M. W., Watson, B., & Hurley, S.
pore: Springer. (2007). Balance of content emphasis and child
Elliott, A., & Hall, N. (1997). The impact of content engagement in an early reading first
self-regulatory teaching strategies on “at-risk” program. Paper presented at the American Edu-
preschoolers mathematical learning in a computer- cational Research Association.
mediated environment. Journal of Computing in Fennema, E. H. (1972). The relative effectiveness of
Childhood Education, 8(2/3), 187–198. a symbolic and a concrete model in learning
Emihovich, C., & Miller, G. E. (1988). Talking to the a selected mathematics principle. Journal for
turtle: A discourse analysis of Logo instruction. Research in Mathematics Education, 3, 233–238.
Discourse Processes, 11, 183–201. Fennema, E. H., Carpenter, T. P., Frank, M. L., Levi, L.,
Engel, M., Claessens, A., & Finch, M. A. (2013). Teach- Jacobs, V. R., & Empson, S. B. (1996). A longitu-
ing students what they already know? The (mis) dinal study of learning to use children’s thinking
alignment between mathematics instructional in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research
content and student knowledge in kindergarten. in Mathematics Education, 27, 403–434.
 References 421

Fennema, E. H., Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., & Flexer, R. J. (1989). Conceptualizing addition. Teach-
Levi, L. (1998). A longitudinal study of gender dif- ing Exceptional Children, 21(4), 21–25.
ferences in young childrens mathematical Fluck, M. (1995). Counting on the right number: Mater-
thinking. Educational Researcher, 27, 6–11. nal support for the development of cardinality.
Fennema, E. H., & Tartre, L. A. (1985). The use of spa- Irish Journal of Psychology, 16, 133–149.
tial visualization in mathematics by girls and Fluck, M., & Henderson, L. (1996). Counting and car-
boys. Journal for Research in Mathematics Edu- dinality in English nursery pupils. British Journal
cation, 16, 184–206. of Educational Psychology, 66, 501–517.
Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y. A., & Hoffman, M. B. (1979). Ford, M. J., Poe, V., & Cox, J. (1993). Attending
The dynamic assessment of retarded performers: behaviors of ADHD children in math and reading
The Learning Potential Assessment Device, using various types of software. Journal of Com-
theory, instruments, and techniques. Baltimore, puting in Childhood Education, 4, 183–196.
MD: University Park Press. Forman, G. E., & Hill, F. (1984). Constructive play:
Finn, J. D. (2002). Small classes in American schools: Applying Piaget in the preschool (rev. ed.). Menlo
Research, practice, and politics. Phi Delta Kappan, Park, CA: Addison Wesley.
83, 551–560. Foster, M. E., Anthony, J. L., Clements, D. H.,
Finn, J. D., & Achilles, C. M. (1990). Answers and Sarama, J., & Williams, J. J. (2018). Hispanic dual
questions about class size. American Educational language learning kindergarten students' response
Research Journal, 27(3), 557–577. to a numeracy intervention: A randomized con-
Finn, J. D., Gerber, S. B., Achilles, C. M., & Boyd- trol trial. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
Zaharias, J. (2001). The enduring effects of small 43, 83–95. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.01.009
classes. Teachers College Record, 103(2), 145–183. Fien, H., Doabler, C. T., Nelson, N. J., Kosty, D. B.,
Finn, J. D., Pannozzo, G. M., & Achilles, C. M. (2003). Clarke, B., & Baker, S. K. (2016). An examination
The “why’s” of class size: Student behavior in of the promise of the Numbershire level 1 gaming
small classes. Review of Educational Research, intervention for improving student mathematics
73, 321–368. outcomes. Journal of Research on Educational
Fisher, K., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2012). Effectiveness, 9(4), 635–661. doi: 10.1080/
Fostering mathematical thinking through playful 19345747.2015.1119229
learning. In S. Suggate & E. Reese (Eds.), Contem- Flannery, L. P., Silverman, B., Kazakoff, E. R.,
porary Debates in Childhood Education and Devel- Bers, M. U., Bonta, P., & Resnick, M. (2013).
opment (pp. 81–91). New York, NY: Routledge. Designing ScratchJr: Support for early childhood
Fisher, K. R., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., & learning through computer programming. Paper
Newcombe, N. (2013). Taking shape: Supporting presented at the Proceedings of the 12th Inter-
preschoolers acquisition of geometric knowledge national Conference on Interaction Design and
through guided play. Child Development, 84(6), Children, New York, New York. http://dl.acm.org/
1872–1878. citation.cfm?id=2485785
Fisher, P. H., Dobbs-Oates, J., Doctoroff, G. L., & Foster, M. E., Anthony, J. L., Clements, D. H., &
Arnold, D. H. (2012). Early math interest and the Sarama, J. (2016). Improving mathematics learn-
development of math skills. Journal of Educa- ing of kindergarten students through computer
tional Psychology, 104(3), 673–681. doi: 10.1037/ assisted instruction. Journal for Research in
a0027756 Mathematics Education, 47(3), 206–232. doi:
Fitzpatrick, C., & Pagani, L. S. (2013). Task-oriented https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.47.3.0206
kindergarten behavior pays off in later Fuller, B., Bein, E., Bridges, M., Kim, Y., & Rabe-
childhood. Journal of Developmental & Behav- Hesketh, S. (2017). Do academic preschools yield
ioral Pediatrics, 34(2), 94–101. doi: 10.1097/ stronger benefits? Cognitive emphasis, dosage,
DBP.0b013e 31827a3779 and early learning. Journal of Applied Develop-
Fletcher-Flinn, C. M., & Gravatt, B. (1995). The effi- mental Psychology, 52, 1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.
cacy of computer assisted instruction (CAI): A appdev.2017.05.001
meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Fox, J. (2005). Child-initiated mathematical pattern-
Research, 12, 219–242. ing in the pre-compulsory years. In H. L. Chick &
Flevares, L. M., & Schiff, J. R. (2014). Learning math- J. L. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th
ematics in two dimensions: A review and look Conference of the International Group for the
ahead at teaching and learning early childhood Psychology in Mathematics Education (Vol. 2,
mathematics with children’s literature. Frontiers pp. 313–320). Melbourne, AU: PME.
in Psychology, 5(459), 1–12. doi: 10.3389/ Fox, J. (2006). A justification for mathematical mod-
fpsyg.2014.00459 elling experiences in the preparatory classroom.
422 References

In P. Grootenboer, R. Zevenbergen, & Effects of peer-assisted learning strategies.

M. Chinnappan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Elementary School Journal, 101, 495–510.
annual conference of the Mathematics Education Fuchs, L. S., Geary, D. C., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D.,
Research Group of Australia (pp. 221–228). Can- Schatschneider, C., Hamlett, C. L., DeSelms, J., …
berra, Australia: MERGA. Changas, P. (2013). Effects of first-grade number
Franke, M. L., Carpenter, T. P., & Battey, D. (2008). knowledge tutoring with contrasting forms of
Content matters: Algebraic reasoning in teacher practice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105
professional development. In J. J. Kaput, (1), 58–77. doi: 10.1037/a0030127.supp
D. W. Carraher, & M. L. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in Fuchs, L. S., Powell, S. R., Cirino, P. T., Fletcher, J. M.,
the early grades (pp. 333–359). Mahwah, NJ: Law- Fuchs, D., & Zumeta, R. O. (2008). Enhancing
rence Erlbaum Associates. number combinations fluency and math
Freiman, V. (2018). Complex and open-ended tasks problem-solving skills in third-grade students
to enrich mathematical experiences of kindergar- with math difficulties: A field-based randomized
ten students. In F. M. Singer (Ed.), Mathematical control trial. Paper presented at the Institute of
creativity and mathematical giftedness: enhan- Education Science 2007 Research Conference.
cing creative capacities in mathematically promis- Fuchs, L. S., Powell, S. R., Hamlett, C. L., Fuchs, D.,
ing students (pp. 373–404). Cham: Springer Cirino, P. T., & Fletcher, J. M. (2008). Remediating
International Publishing. computational deficits at third grade:
French, L., & Song, M.-J. (1998). Developmentally A randomized field trial. Journal of Research on
appropriate teacher-directed approaches: Images Educational Effectiveness, 1, 2–32.
from Korean kindergartens. Journal of Curricu- Fuchs, L. S., Powell, S. R., Seethaler, P. M.,
lum Studies, 30, 409–430. Cirino, P. T., Fletcher, J. M., Fuchs, D.
Friedman, L. (1995). The space factor in mathemat- Hamlett, C. L. (2010). The effects of strategic
ics: Gender differences. Review of Educational counting instruction, with and without deliberate
Research, 65(1), 22–50. practice, on number combination skill among stu-
Friel, S. N., Curcio, F. R., & Bright, G. W. (2001). Making dents with mathematics difficulties. Learning and
sense of graphs: Critical factors influencing com- Individual Differences, 20(2), 89–100. doi: 10.1016/
prehension and instructional implications. Jour- j.lindif.2009.09.003
nal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32, Fuhs, M. W., McNeil, N. M., Kelley, K., O’Rear, C., &
124–158. Villano, M. (2016). The role of non-numerical
Fritz, A., Haase, V. G., & Räsänen, P. (Eds.). (2019). stimulus features in approximate number system
International handbook of mathematical learning training in preschoolers from low-income homes.
difficulties: From the laboratory to the classroom. Journal of Cognition and Development, 17(5),
Cham, Switzerland: Springer. 737–764. doi: 10.1080/15248372.2015.1105228
Frontera, M. (1994). On the initial learning of math- Fuson, K. C. (1988). Children’s counting and concepts
ematics: Does schooling really help? In of number. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
J. E. H. Van Luit (Ed.), Research on learning and Fuson, K. C. (1992a). Research on learning and teach-
instruction of mathematics in kindergarten and ing addition and subtraction of whole numbers. In
primary school (pp. 42–59). Doetinchem, The G. Leinhardt, R. Putman, & R. A. Hattrup (Eds.),
Netherlands: Graviant. Handbook of research on mathematics teaching
Fryer, J., & Levitt, S. D. (2004). Understanding the and learning (pp. 53–187). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Black–White test score gap in the first two years Erlbaum Associates.
of school. The Review of Economics and Statis- Fuson, K. C. (1992b). Research on whole number add-
tics, 86(2), 447–464. ition and subtraction. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Hand-
Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Paulson, K., book of research on mathematics teaching and
Bryant, J. D., & Hamlett, C. L. (2005). The preven- learning (pp. 243–275). New York, NY: Macmillan.
tion, identification, and cognitive determinants of Fuson, K. C. (2003). Developing mathematical power
math difficulty. Journal of Educational Psych- in whole number operations. In J. Kilpatrick,
ology, 97, 493–513. W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research com-
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Powell, S. R., panion to Principles and Standards for School
Capizzi, A. M., & Seethaler, P. M. (2006). The Mathematics (pp. 68–94). Reston, VA: National
effects of computer-assisted instruction on Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
number combination skill in at-risk first graders. Fuson, K. C. (2004). Pre-K to grade 2 goals and
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 467–475. standards: Achieving 21st century mastery for all.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Karns, K. (2001). Enhancing In D. H. Clements, J. Sarama, & A.-M. DiBiase
kindergartners’ mathematical development: (Eds.), Engaging young children in mathematics:
 References 423

Standards for early childhood mathematics edu- Gadanidis, G., Hoogland, C., Jarvis, D., & Scheffel, T.-L.
cation (pp. 105–148). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erl- (2003). Mathematics as an aesthetic experience.
baum Associates. In Proceedings of the 27th Conference of the
Fuson, K. C. (2009). Mathematically-desirable and International Group for the Psychology in Mathem-
accessible whole-number algorithms: Achieving atics Education (Vol. 1, p. 250). Honolulu, HI: Uni-
understanding and fluency for all students. Chi- versity of Hawai’i.
cago, IL: Northwestern University. Gallego, F. A., Näslund-Hadley, E., & Alfonso, M.
Fuson, K. C. (2018). Building on Howe’s three pillars (2018). Tailoring instruction to improve mathem-
in kindergarten to grade 6 classrooms. In Y. Li, atics skills in preschools [IDB Working Paper
W. J. Lewis, & J. J. Madden (Eds.), Mathematics Series ; 905]. Inter-American Development Bank.
matters in education: Essays in honor of Roger www.povertyactionlab.org/sites/default/files/pub
E. Howe (pp. 185–207). Cham: Springer Inter- lications/613_1026_Tailoring-Instructions-to-
national Publishing. Improve-Mathematics-Skills-in-PreSchool_
Fuson, K. C. (2020). The best multidigit computation June2017.pdf
methods: A cross-cultural cognitive, empirical, Gedik, N., Çetin, M., & Koca, C. (2017). Examining the
and mathematical analysis. Universal Journal of experiences of preschoolers on programming via
Educational Research, 8(4), 1299–1314. doi: tablet computers. Mediterranean Journal of
10.13189/ujer.2020.080421 Humanities, 7(1), 193–203. doi: 10.13114/
Fuson, K. C., & Abrahamson, D. (2009). Word prob- mjh.2017.330
lem types, numerical situation drawings, and Gervasoni, A., & Perry, B. (2017). Notice, explore and
a conceptual -phase model to implement an alge- talk about mathematics: Making a positive differ-
braic approach to problem-solving in elementary ence for preschool children, educators and fam-
classrooms. Chicago, IL: Northwestern University. ilies in Australian communities that experience
Fuson, K. C., & Briars, D. J. (1990). Using a base-ten multiple disadvantages. Advances in Child Devel-
blocks learning/teaching approach for first- and opment and Behavior, 53, 169–225. doi: 10.1016/
second-grade place-value and multidigit addition bs.acdb.2017.03.002
and subtraction. Journal for Research in Mathem- Griffiths, R., Back, J., & Gifford, S. (2017). Using
atics Education, 21, 180–206. manipulatives in the foundations of arithmetic.
Fuson, K. C., Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2015). Retrieved from University of Leicester website:
Making early math education work for all www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/
children. Phi Delta Kappan, 97, 63–68. files/Nuffield%20Main%20Report%20Mar%
Fuson, K. C., Perry, T., & Kwon, Y. (1994). Latino, 202017web(1).pdf
Anglo, and Korean childrens finger addition Gaidoschik, M. (2019). Didactics as a source and
methods. In J. E. H. Van Luit (Ed.), Research on remedy of mathematical learning difficulties. In
learning and instruction of mathematics in kinder- A. Fritz, V. G. Haase & P. Räsänen (Eds.), Inter-
garten and primary school (pp. 220–228). Doe- national handbook of mathematical learning diffi-
tinchem, The Netherlands: Graviant. culties: From the laboratory to the classroom (pp.
Fuson, K. C., Smith, S. T., & Lo Cicero, A. (1997). Sup- 73–89). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
porting Latino first graders’ ten-structured think- Gagatsis, A., & Elia, I. (2004). The effects of different
ing in urban classrooms. Journal for Research in modes of representation on mathematical prob-
̇ ̇
Mathematics Education, 28, 738–760. lem solving. In M. J. Høines & A. B. Fuglestad
Fuson, K. C., Wearne, D., Hiebert, J. C., Murray, H. G., (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the
Human, P. G., Olivier, A. I., Carpenter, T. P., International Group for the Psychology in Math-
Fennema, E. H. (1997). Children’s conceptual ematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 447–454). Bergen,
structures for multidigit numbers and methods of Norway: Bergen University College.
multidigit addition and subtraction. Journal for Gagatsis, A., & Patronis, T. (1990). Using geometrical
Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 130–162. models in a process of reflective thinking in learn-
Fyfe, E. R., McNeil, N. M., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2015). ing and teaching mathematics. Educational Stud-
Easy as ABCABC: Abstract language facilitates ies in Mathematics, 21, 29–54.
performance on a concrete patterning task. Galen, F. H. J., & Buter, A. (1997). De rol van interactie
Child Development, 86(3), 927–935. doi: 10.1111/ bij leren rekenen met de computer [Computer tasks
cdev.12331 and classroom discussions in mathematics].
Galitskaya, V., & Drigas, A. (2020). Special education: Panama-Post. Tijdschrift Voor Nascholing En Onder-
Teaching geometry with ICTs. International Jour- zoek Van Het Reken-w Iskundeonderwijs, 16(1), 11–18.
nal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), Gallou-Dumiel, E. (1989). Reflections, point symmetry
15(06). doi: 10.3991/ijet.v15i06.11242 and Logo. In C. A. Maher, G. A. Goldin, & R. B. Davis
424 References

(Eds.), Proceedings of the eleventh annual meet- Geary, D. C. (2013). Early foundations for mathemat-
ing, North American Chapter of the International ics learning and their relations to learning
Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Educa- disabilities. Current Directions in Psychological
tion (pp. 149–157). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Science, 22(1), 23–27. doi: 10.1177/0963721
University. 412469398
Gamel-McCormick, M., & Amsden, D. (2002). Invest- Geary, D. C., Bow-Thomas, C. C., & Yao, Y. (1992).
ing in better outcomes: The Delaware early child- Counting knowledge and skill in cognitive add-
hood longitudinal study. New Castle, DE: ition: A comparison of normal and mathematically
Delaware Interagency Resource Management disabled children. Journal of Experimental Child
Committee and the Department of Education. Psychology, 54, 372–391.
Garon-Carrier, G., Boivin, M., Lemelin, J.-P., Kovas, Y., Geary, D. C., Brown, S. C., & Samaranayake, V. A.
Parent, S., Séguin, J., … Dionne, G. (2018). Early (1991). Cognitive addition: A short longitudinal
developmental trajectories of number knowledge study of strategy choice and speed-of-processing
and math achievement from 4 to 10 years: differences in normal and mathematically dis-
Low-persistent profile and early-life predictors. abled children. Developmental Psychology, 27(5),
Journal of School Psychology, 68, 84–98. doi: 787–797.
10.1016/j.jsp.2018.02.004 Geary, D. C., Hamson, C. O., & Hoard, M. K. (2000).
Gathercole, S. E., Tiffany, C., Briscoe, J., Thorn, A., & Numerical and arithmetical cognition: A longitu-
The, A. T. (2005). Developmental consequences dinal study of process and concept deficits in chil-
of poor phonological short-term memory function dren with learning disability. Journal of
in childhood: A longitudinal study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 77, 236–263.
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46(6), 598–611. Geary, D. C., Hoard, M. K., Byrd-Craven, J.,
doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00379.x Nugent, L., & Numtee, C. (2007). Cognitive mech-
Gavin, M. K., Casa, T. M., Adelson, J. L., & anisms underlying achievement deficits in chil-
Firmender, J. M. (2013). The impact of challenging dren with mathematical learning disability. Child
geometry and measurement units on the achieve- Development, 78, 1343–1359.
ment of grade 2 students. Journal for Research Geary, D. C., Hoard, M. K., & Hamson, C. O. (1999).
in Mathematics Education, 44(3), 478–509. Numerical and arithmetical cognition: Patterns of
Gay, P. (1989). Tactile turtle: Explorations in space functions and deficits in children at risk for
with visually impaired children and a floor turtle. a mathematical disability. Journal of Experimen-
British Journal of Visual Impairment, 7(1), 23–25. tal Child Psychology, 74, 213–239.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/026461968900700106 Geary, D. C., Hoard, M. K., & Nugent, L. (2012). Inde-
Geary, D. C. (1990). A componential analysis of an pendent contributions of the central executive,
early learning deficit in mathematics. Journal of intelligence, and in-class attentive behavior to
Experimental Child Psychology, 49, 363–383. developmental change in the strategies used to
Geary, D. C. (1994). Children’s mathematical develop- solve addition problems. Journal of Experimental
ment: Research and practical applications. Wash- Child Psychology, 113(1), 49–65. doi: 10.1016/j.
ington, DC: American Psychological Association. jecp.2012.03.003
Geary, D. C. (2003). Learning disabilities in arith- Geary, D. C., & Liu, F. (1996). Development of arith-
metic: Problem solving differences and cognitive metical competence in Chinese and American
deficits. In H. L. Swanson, K. Harris, & S. Graham children: Influence of age, language, and
(Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities(pp. schooling. Child Development, 67(5), 2022–2044.
199–212). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Geary, D. C., van Marle, K., Chu, F. W., Rouder, J.,
Geary, D. C. (2004). Mathematics and learning Hoard, M. K., & Nugent, L. (2017). Early concep-
disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, tual understanding of cardinality predicts super-
4–15. ior school-entry number-system knowledge.
Geary, D. C. (2006). Development of mathematical Psychological Science, 29(2), 191–205. doi:
understanding. In D. Kuhn, R. S. Siegler, 10.1177/0956797617729817
W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of Geary, D. C., & vanMarle, K. (2016). Young children's
child psychology: Volume 2—Cognition, percep- core symbolic and nonsymbolic quantitative
tion, and language (6th ed.) (pp. 777–810). Hobo- knowledge in the prediction of later mathematics
ken, NJ: Wiley. achievement. Dev Psychol, 52(12), 2130–2144. doi:
Geary, D. C. (2011). Cognitive predictors of achieve- 10.1037/dev0000214
ment growth in mathematics: A 5-year longitu- Gebuis, T., & Reynvoet, B. (2011). Generating nonsym-
dinal study. Developmental Psychology, 47(6), bolic number stimuli. Behavior Research Methods,
1539–1552. doi: 10.1037/a0025510 43(4), 981–986.
 References 425

Gelman, R. (1994). Constructivism and supporting inform the development of a professional learn-
environments. In D. Tirosh (Ed.), Implicit and ing plan for teachers in the Ballarat Diocese as
explicit knowledge: An educational approach (Vol. a means of building community capacity. In
6, pp. 55–82). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. J. Watson & K. Beswick (Eds.), Mathematics:
Gelman, R., & Williams, E. M. (1997). Enabling con- Essential research, essential practice (Proceed-
straints for cognitive development and learning: ings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Math-
Domain specificity and epigenesist. In D. Kuhn & ematics Education Research Group of
R. Siegler (Eds.), Cognition, perception, and lan- Australasia) (Vol. 3, pp. 305–314). Hobart, Austra-
guage. Vol. 2: Handbook of Child Psychology (5th lia: MERGA.
ed., pp. 575–630). New York, NY: John Wiley & Gervasoni, A., Parish, L., Hadden, T., Livesey, C.,
Sons. Bevan, K., Croswell, M., Turkenburg, K. (2012).
Gerofsky, P. R. (2015). Why Asian preschool children The progress of grade 1 students who partici-
mathematically outperform preschool children pated in an extending mathematical understand-
from other countries. Western Undergraduate ing intervention program. In J. Dindyalm,
Psychology Journal, 3(1). Retrieved from http://ir. L. P. Cheng, & S. F. Ng (Eds.), Mathematics educa-
lib.uwo.ca/wupj/vol3/iss1/11 tion research group of Australasia (pp. 306–313).
Gersten, R. (1986). Response to “consequences of M. Evans and Company.
three preschool curriculum models through age Gervasoni, A., & Sullivan, P. (2007). Assessing and
15.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 1, teaching children who have difficulty learning
293–302. arithmetic. Educational & Child Psychology, 24(2),
Gersten, R., Chard, D. J., Jayanthi, M., Baker, M. S., 40–53.
Morpy, S. K., & Flojo, J. R. (2008). Teaching math- Gibson, E. J. (1969). Principles of perceptual learning
ematics to students with learning disabilities: and development. New York, NY: Appleton-
A meta-analysis of the intervention research. Century-Crofts, Meredith Corporation.
Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Giganti, P., Jr., & Crews, D. (1994). How Many Snails?
Center on Instruction. New York, NY: Harper Trophy.
Gersten, R., Jordan, N. C., & Flojo, J. R. (2005). Early Gilligan, K. A., Flouri, E., & Farran, E. K. (2017). The
identification and interventions for students with contribution of spatial ability to mathematics
mathematical difficulties. Journal of Learning Dis- achievement in middle childhood. Journal of
abilities, 38, 293–304. Experimental Child Psychology, 163, 107–125. doi:
Gersten, R., Rolfhus, E., Clarke, B., Decker, L. E., 10.1016/j.jecp.2017.04.016
Wilkins, C., & Dimino, J. (2015). Intervention for Gilmore, C., & Cragg, L. (2014). Teachers' under-
first graders with limited number knowledge: standing of the role of executive functions in
Large-scale replication of a randomized con- mathematics learning. Mind, Brain, and Education,
trolled trial. American Educational Research 8(3), 132–136. doi: 10.1111/mbe.12050
Journal, 52(3), 516–546. doi: 10.3102/ Gilmore, C., Keeble, S., Richardson, S., & Cragg, L.
0002831214565787 (2017). The interaction of procedural skill, con-
Gersten, R., & White, W. A. T. (1986). Castles in the ceptual understanding and working memory in
sand: Response to Schweinhart and Weikart. Edu- early mathematics achievement. Journal of
cational Leadership, 44(3), 19–20. Numerical Cognition, 3(2), 400–416. doi: 10.5964/
Gervasoni, A. (2005). The diverse learning needs of jnc.v3i2.51
children who were selected for an intervention Gilmore, C. K., & Papadatou-Pastou, M. (2009). Pat-
program. In H. L. Chick & J. L. Vincent (Eds.), Pro- terns of individual differences in conceptual
ceedings of the 29th Conference of the Inter- understanding and arithmetical skill: A
national Group for the Psychology in Mathematics meta-analysis. Mathematical Thinking and Learn-
Education (Vol. 3, pp. 33–40). Melbourne, Austra- ing, 10, 25–40.
lia: PME. Ginsburg, H. P. (1977). Children’s arithmetic. Austin,
Gervasoni, A. (2018). The impact and challenges of TX: Pro-Ed.
early mathematics intervention in an Australian Ginsburg, H. P. (1997). Mathematics learning disabil-
context. In G. Kaiser, H. Forgasz, M. Gravenm, ities: A view from developmental psychology.
A. Kuzniak, E. Simmt, & B. Xu (Eds.), 13th Inter- Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 20–33.
national Congress on Mathematical Education Ginsburg, H. P. (2008). Mathematics education for
(pp. 115–133). Cham: Springer International young children: What it is and how to promote it.
Publishing. Social Policy Report, 22(1), 1–24.
Gervasoni, A., Hadden, T., & Turkenburg, K. (2007). Ginsburg, H. P., Duch, H., Ertle, B., & Noble, K. G.
Exploring the number knowledge of children to (2012). How can parents help their children learn
426 References

math? In B. H. Wasik (Ed.), Handbook of family lit- development in elementary arithmetic. In

eracy (2nd ed., p. 496). New York, NY: Routledge. O. Zaslavsky (Ed.), Proceedings of the 23rd Con-
Ginsburg, H. P., Inoue, N., & Seo, K.-H. (1999). Young ference of the International Group for the Psych-
children doing mathematics: Observations of ology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp.
everyday activities. In J. V. Copley (Ed.), Mathem- 49–56). Haifa, Israel: Technion.
atics in the early years (pp. 88–99). Reston, VA: Green, C. T., Bunge, S. A., Briones Chiongbian, V.,
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Barrow, M., & Ferrer, E. (2017). Fluid reasoning
Ginsburg, H. P., Klein, A., & Starkey, P. (1998). The predicts future mathematical performance
development of children’s mathematical thinking: among children and adolescents. Journal of
Connecting research with practice. In W. Damon, Experimental Child Psychology, 157, 125–143. doi:
I. E. Sigel, & K. A. Renninger (Eds.), Handbook of 10.1016/j.jecp.2016.12.005
child psychology. Volume 4: Child psychology in Greeno, J. G., & Riley, M. S. (1987). Processes and
practice (pp. 401–476). New York, NY: John Wiley development of understanding. In R. E. Weinert &
& Sons. R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and
Ginsburg, H. P., Ness, D., & Seo, K.-H. (2003). Young understanding (pp. 289–313). Mahwah, NJ: Law-
American and Chinese children’s everyday math- rence Erlbaum Associates.
ematical activity. Mathematical Thinking and Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J. C., & Hall, R. V.
Learning, 5, 235–258. (1989). Longitudinal effects of classwide peer
Gold, Z. S. (2017). Engineering play: Exploring associ- tutoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81,
ations with executive function, mathematical abil- 371–383.
ity, and spatial ability in preschool. (THESIS. Griffin, S. (2004). Number Worlds: A research-based
DEGREE), Purdue University, Ann Arbor. mathematics program for young children. In
Goldschmeid, E., & Jackson, S. (1994). People under D. H. Clements, J. Sarama, & A.-M. DiBiase (Eds.),
three: Young children in daycare. London, UK: Engaging young children in mathematics: Stand-
Routledge. ards for early childhood mathematics education
Gormley, W. T., Jr., Gayer, T., Phillips, D., & (pp. 325–342). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Dawson, B. (2005). The effects of universal Associates.
pre-Kon cognitive development. Developmental Griffin, S. (2009). Learning sequences in the acquisi-
Psychology, 41, 872–884. tion of mathematical knowledge: Using cognitive
Graham, T. A., Nash, C., & Paul, K. (1997). Young chil- developmental theory to inform curriculum
dren’s exposure to mathematics: The child care design for pre-K–6 mathematics education. Mind,
context. Early Childhood Education Journal, 25, Brain & Education, 3(2), 96–107.
31–38. Griffin, S., Case, R., & Capodilupo, A. (1995). Teaching
Granrud, C. E. (1987). Visual size constancy in new- for understanding: The importance of the Central
born infants. Investigative Ophthalmology & Conceptual Structures in the elementary math-
Visual Science, 28(Suppl. 5), 5. ematics curriculum. In A. McKeough, J. Lupart, &
Gravemeijer, K. P. E. (1990). Realistic geometry A. Marini (Eds.), Teaching for transfer: Fostering
instruction. In K. P. E. Gravemeijer, M. van den generalization in learning (pp. 121–151). Mahwah,
Heuvel, & L. Streefland (Eds.), Contexts free pro- NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
ductions tests and geometry in realistic mathem- Griffin, S., Case, R., & Siegler, R. S. (1994). Rightstart:
atics education (pp. 79–91). Utrecht, The Providing the central conceptual prerequisites
Netherlands: OW&OC. for first formal learning of arithmetic to students
Gravemeijer, K. P. E. (1991). An instruction- at risk for school failure. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Class-
theoretical reflection on the use of manipulatives. room lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and
In L. Streefland (Ed.), Realistic mathematics edu- classroom practice (pp. 25–49). Cambridge, MA:
cation in primary school (pp. 57–76). Utrecht, The MIT Press.
Netherlands: Freudenthal Institute, Utrecht Grissmer, D., Grimm, K. J., Aiyer, S. M., Murrah, W. M.,
University. & Steele, J. S. (2010). Fine motor skills and early
Gray, E. M., & Pitta, D. (1997). Number processing: comprehension of the world: Two new school
Qualitative differences in thinking and the role of readiness indicators. Developmental Psychology,
imagery. In L. Puig & A. Gutiérrez (Eds.), Proceed- 46(5), 1008–1017. doi: 10.1037/a0020104.supp
ings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Math- Grissmer, D., Mashburn, A. J., Cottone, E.,
ematics Education Research Group of Australasia Chen, W. B., Brock, L. L., Murrah, W. M., &
(Vol. 3, pp. 35–42). Cameron, C. E. (2013). Play-based after-school
Gray, E. M., & Pitta, D. (1999). Images and their curriculum improves measures of executive func-
frames of reference: A perspective on cognitive tion, visuospatial and math skills and classroom
 References 427

behavior for high risk K–1 children. Paper pre- data analysis by doing something else: Founda-
sented at the Society for Research in Child Devel- tions of data literacy in grades 1–7]. Computer
opment, Seattle, WA. Und Unterricht, 17(1), 33–39.
Grupe, L. A., & Bray, N. W. (1999). What role do Hannibal, M. A. Z., & Clements, D. H. (2010). Young
manipulatives play in kindergartners’ accuracy children’s understanding of basic geometric
and strategy use when solving simple addition shapes. Manuscript submitted for publication.
problems? Albuquerque, NM: Society for Hannula, M. M. (2005). Spontaneous focusing on
Research in Child Development. numerosity in the development of early mathem-
Guarino, C., Dieterle, S. G., Bargagliotti, A. E., & atical skills. Turku, Finland: University of Turku.
Mason, W. M. (2013). What can we learn about Hannula, M. M., Lepola, J., & Lehtinen, E. (2007).
effective early mathematics teaching? A frame- Spontaneous focusing on numerosity at Kinder-
work for estimating causal effects using longitu- garten predicts arithmetical but not reading skills
dinal survey data. Journal of Research on at grade 2. Paper presented at the Society for
Educational Effectiveness, 6, 164–198. Research in Child Development.
Guisti, J., Hinkle, K., Oldenburg, G., Paul, H., Vlasie, J., Hannula-Sormunen, M. M., Lehtinen, E., &
Lincoln, B., & Moulton, C. (2018). Critique of the Räsänen, P. (2015). Children’s spontaneous focus-
OWL curriculum. University of Montana Journal ing on numerosity, subitizing, and counting skills
of Early Childhood Scholarship and Innovative as predictors of their mathematical performance
Practice, 2(1), 1–9. seven years later at school. Mathematical Think-
Gunderson, E., Ramirez, G., Levine, S., & Beilock, S. ing and Learning, 17(2–3), 155–177. doi: 10.1080/
(2012). The role of parents and teachers in the 10986065.2015.1016814
development of gender-related math attitudes. Hardy, J. K., & Hemmeter, M. L. (2018). Systematic
Sex Roles, 66(3–4), 153–166. doi: 10.1007/s11199- instruction of early math skills for preschoolers
011-9996-2 at risk for math delays. Topics in Early Childhood
Gunderson, E. A., & Levine, S. C. (2011). Some types of Special Education. doi: 10.1177/0271121418792300
parent number talk count more than others: Rela- Hartanto, A., Yang, H., & Yang, S. (2018). Bilingualism
tion between parents’ input and children’s number positively predicts mathematical competence:
knowledge. Developmental Science, 14(5), Evidence from two large-scale studies. Learning
1021–1032. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01050.x and Individual Differences, 61, 216–227. doi:
Gunderson, E. A., Ramirez, G., Beilock, S., & 10.1016/j.lindif.2017.12.007
Levine, S. C. (2012). The relation between spatial Harris, L. J. (1981). Sex-related variations in spa-
skill and early number knowledge: The role of the tial skill. In L. S. Liben, A. H. Patterson, &
linear number line. Developmental Psychology, N. Newcombe (Eds.), Spatial representation
48(5), 1229–1241. doi: 10.1037/a0027433 and behavior across the life span (pp. 83–125).
Gupta, D. (2014). Early elementary students' frac- New York, NY: Academic Press.
tional understanding: examination of cases from Harrison, C. (2004). Giftedness in early childhood:
a multi-year longitudinal study Baylor University]. The search for complexity and connection.
Curriculum & Instruction. http://hdl.handle.net/ Roeper Review, 26(2), 78–84.
2104/9162 Hassidov, D., & Ilany, B.-S. (2017). Between natural
Halle, T. G., Kurtz-Costes, B., & Mahoney, J. L. (1997). language and mathematical symbols (<,>,=): The
Family influences on school achievement in comprehension of pre-service and preschool
low-income, African American children. Journal teachers-perspective of numbers. Creative Edu-
of Educational Psychology, 89, 527–537. cation, 8, 1903–1911. doi: 10.4236/ce.2017.812130
Hamdan, N., & Gunderson, E. A. (2017). The number Hassinger-Das, B., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M.
line is a critical spatial-numerical representation: (2017). The case of brain science and guided play:
Evidence from a fraction intervention. Develop- A developing story. Young Children, 72(2), 45.
mental Psychology, 53(3), 587–596. doi: 10.1037/ Hatano, G., & Sakakibara, T. (2004). Commentary:
dev0000252 Toward a cognitive-sociocultural psychology of
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher- mathematical and analogical development. In
child relationships and the trajectory of children’s L. D. English (Ed.), Mathematical and analogical
school outcomes through eighth grade. Child reasoning of young learners (pp. 187–200).
Development, 72, 625–638. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hancock, C. M. (1995). Das Erlernen der Datenana- Hattikudur, S., & Alibali, M. (2007). Learning about
lyse durch anderweitige Beschäftigungen: Grun- the equal sign: Does contrasting with inequalities
dlagen von Datencompetenz bei Schülerinnen help? Paper presented at the Society for
und Schülern in den klassen 1 bis 7. [Learning Research in Child Development.
428 References

Haugland, S. W. (1992). Effects of computer software From the laboratory to the classroom (pp.
on preschool children’s developmental gains. 543–560). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 3 Hiebert, J. C. (1999). Relationships between research
(1), 15–30. and the NCTM Standards. Journal for Research in
Hausken, E. G., & Rathbun, A. (2004). Mathematics Mathematics Education, 30, 3–19.
instruction in kindergarten: Classroom practices Hiebert, J. C., & Grouws, D. A. (2007). The effects of
and outcomes. Paper presented at the American classroom mathematics teaching on students’
Educational Research Association. learning. In F. K. Lester, Jr. (Ed.), Second hand-
Hawes, Z., LeFevre, J.-A., Xu, C., & Bruce, C. D. (2015). book of research on mathematics teaching and
Mental rotation with tangible three-dimensional learning (Vol. 1, pp. 371–404). New York, NY: Infor-
objects: A new measure sensitive to developmen- mation Age Publishing.
tal differences in 4- to 8-year-old children. Mind, Hiebert, J. C., & Wearne, D. (1992). Links between
Brain, and Education, 9(1), 10–18. doi: 10.1111/ teaching and learning place value with under-
mbe.12051 standing in first grade. Journal for Research in
Hawes, Z., Moss, J., Caswell, B., Naqvi, S., & Mathematics Education, 23, 98–122.
MacKinnon, S. (2017). Enhancing children’s spatial Hiebert, J. C., & Wearne, D. (1993). Instructional
and numerical skills through a dynamic spatial tasks, classroom discourse, and student learning
approach to early geometry instruction: Effects in second-grade classrooms. American Educa-
of a 32-week intervention. Cognition and Instruc- tional Research Journal, 30, 393–425.
tion, 35(3), 236–264. doi: 10.1080/07370008. Hiebert, J. C., & Wearne, D. (1996). Instruction,
2017.1323902 understanding, and skill in multidigit addition and
Hegarty, M., & Kozhevnikov, M. (1999). Types of subtraction. Cognition and Instruction, 14,
visual-spatial representations and mathematical 251–283.
problems-solving. Journal of Educational Psych- Ho-Hong, C. B. (2017). Mathematics anxiety and
ology, 91, 684–689. working memory: Longitudinal associations with
Hemmeter, M. L., Ostrosky, M. M., & Fox, L. (2006). mathematical performance in Chinese children.
Social emotional foundations for early learning: Contemporary Educational Psychology, 51, 99–113.
A conceptual model for intervention. School doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.06.006
Psychology Review, 35, 583–601. Hojnoski, R. L., Caskie, G. I. L., & Miller Young, R.
Hemphill, J. A. R. (1987). The effects of meaning and (2018). Early numeracy trajectories: Baseline per-
labeling on four-year-olds’ ability to copy tri- formance levels and growth rates in young chil-
angles. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University. dren by disability status. Topics in Early
Henry, V. J., & Brown, R. S. (2008). First-grade basic Childhood Special Education, 37(4), 206–218. doi:
facts: An investigation into teaching and learning 10.1177/0271121417735901
of an accelerated, high-demand memorization Holt, J. (1982). How children fail. New York, NY: Dell.
standard. Journal for Research in Mathematics Holton, D., Ahmed, A., Williams, H., & Hill, C. (2001).
Education, 39(2), 153–183. On the importance of mathematical play. Inter-
Herodotou, C. (2018). Young children and tablets: national Journal of Mathematical Education in
A systematic review of effects on learning and Science and Technology, 32, 401–415.
development. Journal of Computer Assisted Harskamp, E. (2015). The effects of computer tech-
Learning, 34(1), 1–9. nology on primary school students' mathematics
Herzog, M., Ehlert, A., & Fritz, A. (2019). Development achievement: A meta-analysis. In S. Chinn (Ed.),
of a sustainable place value understanding. In The Routledge international handbook of dyscal-
A. Fritz, V. G. Haase, & P. Räsänen (Eds.), Inter- culia (pp. 383–392). Abingdon, Oxon, UK:
national handbook of mathematical learning diffi- Routledge.
culties: From the laboratory to the classroom (pp. Helenius, O. (2017). Theorizing professional modes of
561–579). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. action for teaching preschool mathematics.
Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. V. D. (1996). Assessment and Paper presented at the Nordic Conference on
realistic mathematics education. Utrecht, The Mathematics Education, NORMA 17, Stockholm,
Netherlands: Freudenthal Institute, Utrecht Sweeden.
University. Helenius, O., Johansson, M. L., Lange, T., Meaney, T.,
Hickendorff, M., Torbeyns, J., & Verschaffel, L. & Wernberg, A. (2016). Measuring temperature
(2019). Multi-digit addition, subtraction, multipli- within the didaktic space of preschool. Nordic
cation, and division strategies. In A. Fritz, Studies in Mathematics Education, 21(4), 155–176.
V. G. Haase, & P. Räsänen (Eds.), International Hiebert, J., & Stigler, J. W. (2017). Teaching versus
handbook of mathematical learning difficulties: teachers as a lever for change: Comparing
 References 429

a Japanese and a U.S. perspective on improving Hunting, R. P. (2003). Part-whole number knowledge
instruction. Educational Researcher, 46(4), in preschool children. The Journal of Mathemat-
169–176. doi: 10.3102/0013189X17711899 ical Behavior, 22, 217–235.
Huber, B., Yeates, M., Meyer, D., Fleckhammer, L., & Hunting, R., & Pearn, C. (2003). The mathematical
Kaufman, J. (2018). The effects of screen media thinking of young children: Pre-K–2. In
content on young children’s executive function- N. S. Pateman, B. J. Dougherty, & J. Zilliox (Eds.),
ing. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, Proceedings of the 27th Conference of the Inter-
170, 72–85. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2018.01.006 national Group for the Psychology in Mathematics
Hopkins, S. L., & Lawson, M. J. (2004). Explaining Education (Vol. 1, p. 187). Honolulu, HI: University
variability in retrieval times for addition produced of Hawai’i.
by students with mathematical learning difficul- Hurst, M., Monahan, K. L., Heller, E., & Cordes, S.
ties. In M. J. Høines & A. B. Fuglestad (Eds.), Pro- (2014). 123s and ABCs: Developmental shifts in
ceedings of the 28th Conference of the logarithmic-to-linear responding reflect fluency
International Group for the Psychology in Math- with sequence values. Developmental Science.
ematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 57–64). Bergen, doi: 10.1111/desc.12165
Norway: Bergen University College. Hutinger, P. L., Bell, C., Beard, M., Bond, J.,
Horne, M. (2004). Early gender differences. In Johanson, J., & Terry, C. (1998). The early child-
M. J. Høines & A. B. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings hood emergent literacy technology research
of the 28th Conference of the International study. Final report. Macomb, IL: Western Illinois
Group for the Psychology in Mathematics Educa- University.
tion (Vol. 3, pp. 65–72). Bergen, Norway: Bergen Hutinger, P. L., & Johanson, J. (2000). Implementing
University College. and maintaining an effective early childhood
Howe, R. E. (2018). Cultural knowledge for teaching comprehensive technology system. Topics in
mathematics. In Y. Li, W. J. Lewis, & J. J. Madden Early Childhood Special Education, 20(3), 159–173.
(Eds.), Mathematics matters in education: Essays Huttenlocher, J., Jordan, N. C., & Levine, S. C. (1994).
in honor of Roger E. Howe (pp. 19–39). Cham: A mental model for early arithmetic. Journal of
Springer International Publishing. Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 284–296.
Howes, C., Fuligni, A. S., Hong, S. S., Huang, Y. D., & Huttenlocher, J., Levine, S. C., & Ratliff, K. R. (2011).
Lara-Cinisomo, S. (2013). The preschool instruc- The development of measurement: From holistic
tional context and child–teacher relationships. perceptual comparison to unit understanding. In
Early Education & Development, 24(3), 273–291. N. L. Stein & S. Raudenbush (Eds.), Developmental
doi: 10.1080/10409289.2011.649664 science goes to school: Implications for education
Hsieh, W.-Y., Hemmeter, M. L., McCollum, J. A., & and public policy research (pp. 175–188).
Ostrosky, M. M. (2009). Using coaching to New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.
increase preschool teachers’ use of emergent lit- Huttenlocher, J., Newcombe, N. S., & Sandberg, E. H.
eracy teaching strategies. Early Childhood (1994). The coding of spatial location in young
Research Quarterly, 24, 229–247. children. Cognitive Psychology, 27(2), 115–147.
Huang, Q., Zhang, X., Liu, Y., Yang, W., & Song, Z. Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E. H., & Lamon, S. J. (1990).
(2017). The contribution of parent–child numer- Gender differences in mathematics performance:
acy activities to young Chinese children’s math- A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 107,
ematical ability. British Journal of Educational 139–155.
Psychology, 87(3), 328–344. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12152 Hynes-Berry, M., & Grandau, L. (2019). Where’s the
Hudson, T. (1983). Correspondences and numerical math? Washington, DC: National Association for
differences between disjoint sets. Child Develop- the Education of Young Children.
ment, 54, 84–90. Irwin, K. C., Vistro-Yu, C. P., & Ell, F. R. (2004). Under-
Hughes, M. (1981). Can preschool children add and standing linear measurement: A comparison of
subtract? Educational Psychology, 1, 207–219. Filipino and New Zealand children. Mathematics
Hughes, M. (1986). Children and number: Difficulties Education Research Journal, 16(2), 3–24.
in learning mathematics. Oxford, England: Basil Ishigaki, E. H., Chiba, T., & Matsuda, S. (1996). Young
Blackwell. children’s communication and self expression in
Humphrey, G. K., & Humphrey, G. K. (1995). The the technological era. Early Childhood Develop-
role of structure in infant visual pattern ment and Care, 119, 101–117.
perception. Canadian Journal of Psychology, Isik-Ercan, Z., Zeynep Inan, H., Nowak, J. A., & Kim, B.
43(2), 165–182. (2014). "We put on the glasses and moon comes
Hunting, R., & Davis, G. (Eds.). (1991). Early fraction closer!" Urban second graders exploring the
learning. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. earth, the sun and moon through 3d technologies
430 References

in a science and literacy unit. International Jour- From the laboratory to the classroom (pp.
nal of Science Education, 36(1), 129–156. 595–609). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Israel, M., Jeong, G., Ray, M., & Lash, T. (2020). Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educa-
Teaching elementary computer science through tional psychology success story: Social inter-
universal design for learning. Paper presented at dependence theory and cooperative learning.
the Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Sym- Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365–379.
posium on Computer Science Education. Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind. Chicago:
Iuculano, T., Rosenberg-Lee, M., Richardson, J., The University of Chicago Press.
Tenison, C., Fuchs, L. S., Supekar, K., & Menon, V. Johnson, V. M. (2000). An investigation of the
(2015). Cognitive tutoring induces widespread effects of instructional strategies on conceptual
neuroplasticity and remediates brain function in understanding of young children in mathematics.
children with mathematical learning disabilities. New Orleans, LA: American Educational Research
Nat Commun, 6, 8453. doi: 10.1038/ncomms9453 Association.
Jablansky, S., Alexander, P. A., Dumas, D., & Johnson-Gentile, K., Clements, D. H., & Battista, M. T.
Compton, V. (2015). Developmental differences in (1994). The effects of computer and noncompu-
relational reasoning among primary and second- ter environments on student’s conceptualizations
ary school students. Journal of Educational of geometric motions. Journal of Educational
Psychology Advanced Online Publication 18. doi: Computing Research, 11, 121–140.
10.1037/edu0000070 Jordan, K. E., Suanda, S. H., & Brannon, E. M. (2008).
Janzen, J. (2008). Teaching English language Intersensory redundancy accelerates preverbal
learners. Review of Educational Research, 78, numerical competence. Cognition, 108, 210–221.
1010–1038. Jordan, N. C., Glutting, J., & Ramineni, C. (2009). The
Jayanthi, M., Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2008). Math- importance of number sense to mathematics
ematics instruct ion for students with learning achievement in first and third grades. Learning
disabilities or difficulty learning mathematics: and Individual Differences, 22(1), 82–88.
A guide for teachers. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Jordan, N. C., Glutting, J., Ramineni, C., &
Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. Watkins, M. W. (2010). Validating a number sense
Jenkins, J. M., Duncan, G. J., Auger, A., Bitler, M. P., screening tool for use in kindergarten and first
Domina, T., & Burchinal, M. R. (2018). Boosting grade: Prediction of mathematics proficiency in
school readiness: Should preschool teachers third grade. School Psychology Review, 39(2),
target skills or the whole child? Economic of Edu- 181–195.
cation Review, 65, 107–125. doi: 10.1016/j. Jordan, N. C., Hanich, L. B., & Kaplan, D. (2003).
econedurev.2018.05.001 A longitudinal study of mathematical competen-
Jenkins, J. M., Watts, T. W., Magnuson, K. A., cies in children with specific mathematics difficul-
Gershoof, E., Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., & ties versus children with comorbid mathematics
Duncan, G. J. (2018). Do high quality kindergarten and reading difficulties. Child Development, 74,
and first grade classrooms mitigate preschool 834–850.
fadeout? Journal of Research on Educational Jordan, N. C., Hanich, L. B., & Uberti, H. Z. (2003).
Effectiveness, 11(3), 339–374. doi: 10.1080/ Mathematical thinking and learning difficulties. In
19345747.2018.1441347 A. J. Baroody & A. Dowk-er (Eds.), The develop-
Jenks, K. M., van Lieshout, E. C. D. M., & de ment of arithmetic concepts and skills: Construct-
Moor, J. M. H. (2012). Cognitive correlates of ing adaptive expertise (pp. 359–383). Mahwah,
mathematical achievement in children with cere- NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
bral palsy and typically developing children. Brit- Jordan, N. C., Huttenlocher, J., & Levine, S. C. (1994).
ish Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), Assessing early arithmetic abilities: Effects of
120–135. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02034.x verbal and nonverbal response types on the cal-
Jett, C. (2018). The effects of children’s literature on culation performance of middle- and low-income
preservice early childhood mathematics teachers’ children. Learning and Individual Differences, 6,
thinking. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching 413–432.
and Learning, 18(1), 96–114. doi: 10.14434/josotl. Jordan, N. C., Kaplan, D., Locuniak, M. N., &
v18i1.20722 Ramineni, C. (2006). Predicting first-grade math
Jitendra, A. K. (2019). Using schema-based instruc- achievement from developmental number sense
tion to improve students’ mathematical word trajectories. Learning Disabilities Research and
problem solving performance. In A. Fritz, Practice, 22(1), 36–46.
V. G. Haase, & P. Räsänen (Eds.), International Jordan, N. C., Kaplan, D., Oláh, L. N., & Locuniak, M. N.
handbook of mathematical learning difficulties: (2006). Number sense growth in kindergarten:
 References 431

A longitudinal investigation of children at risk for Kamii, C. (1985). Young children reinvent arithmetic:
mathematics difficulties. Child Development, 77, Implications of Piaget’s theory. New York, NY:
153–175. Teaching College Press.
Jordan, N. C., & Montani, T. O. (1997). Cognitive arith- Kamii, C. (1986). Place value: An explanation of its
metic and problem solving: A comparison of chil- difficulty and educational implications for the pri-
dren with specific and general mathematics mary grades. Journal of Research in Childhood
difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, Education, 1, 75–86.
624–634. Kamii, C. (1989). Young children continue to reinvent
Kankaanranta, M., Koivula, M., Laakso, M.-L., & arithmetic: 2nd grade. Implications of Piaget’s
Mustola, M. (2017). Digital games in early child- theory. New York, NY: Teaching College Press.
hood: Broadening definitions of learning, literacy, Kamii, C., & DeVries, R. (1980). Group games in early
and play. In M. Ma & A. Oikonomou (Eds.), Serious education: Implications of Piaget’s theory. Wash-
Games and Edutainment Applications : Volume II ington, DC: National Association for the Educa-
(pp. 349–367). Cham: Springer International tion of Young Children.
Publishing. Kamii, C., & Dominick, A. (1997). To teach or not to
Kazakoff, E., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. (2013). The teach algorithms. Journal of Mathematical Behav-
effect of a classroom-based intensive robotics ior, 16, 51–61.
and programming workshop on sequencing ability Kamii, C., & Dominick, A. (1998). The harmful effects
in early childhood. Early Childhood Education of algorithms in grades 1–4. In L. J. Morrow &
Journal, 41(4), 245–255. doi: 10.1007/s10643-012- M. J. Kenney (Eds.), The teaching and learning of
0554-5 algorithms in school mathematics (pp. 130–140).
Ketamo, H., & Kiili, K. (2010). Conceptual change takes Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of
time: Game based learning cannot be only supple- Mathematics.
mentary amusement. Journal of Educational Multi- Kamii, C., & Housman, L. B. (1999). Young children
media and Hypermedia, 19(4), 399–419. reinvent arithmetic: Implications of Piaget’s theory
Kilday, C. R., Kinzie, M. B., Mashburn, A. J., & (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Whittaker, J. V. (2012). Accuracy of teachers' Kamii, C., & Kato, Y. (2005). Fostering the develop-
judgments of preschoolers' math skills. Journal ment of logico-mathematical knowledge in a card
of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30(2), 48–158. game at ages 5–6. Early Education & Develop-
doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.06.007 ment, 16, 367–383.
Kim, H. (2015). Foregone opportunities: Unveiling Kamii, C., Miyakawa, Y., & Kato, Y. (2004). The devel-
teacher expectancy effects in kindergarten using opment of logico-mathematical knowledge in a
counterfactual predictions. Social Psychology of block-building activity at ages 1-4. Journal of
Education, 1–24. doi: 10.1007/s11218-014-9284-4 Research in Childhood Education, 19, 13–26.
Kim, S., & Chang, M. (2010). Does computer use pro- Kamii, C., Rummelsburg, J., & Kari, A. R. (2005).
mote the mathematical proficiency of ELL Teaching arithmetic to low-performing, low-SES
students? Journal of Educational Computing first graders. Journal of Mathematical Behavior,
Research, 42, 285–305. 24, 39–50.
Knaus, M. J. (2017). Supporting early mathematics Kamii, C., & Russell, K. A. (2012). Elapsed time: Why is
learning in early childhood settings. Australasian it so difficult to teach? Journal for Research in
Journal of Early Childhood, 42(3), 4–13. doi: Mathematics Education, 43(3), 296–315.
10.23965/AJEC.42.3.01 Kaput, J. J., Carraher, D. W., & Blanton, M. L. (Eds.).
Kramarski, B., & Weiss, I. (2007). Investigating (2008). Algebra in the early grades. Mahwah, NJ:
preschool children's mathematical engagement Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
in a multimedia collaborative environment. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992). Beyond modularity:
Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, A developmental perspective on cognitive sci-
6, 411–432. ence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kraus, W. H. (1981). Using a computer game to Karoly, L. A., Greenwood, P. W., Everingham, S. S.,
reinforce skills in addition basic facts in second Houbé, J., Kilburn, M. R., Rydell, C. P., Sanders, M.,
grade. Journal for Research in Mathematics Edu- Chiesa, J. (1998). Investing in our children: What
cation, 12, 152–155. we know and don’t know about the costs and
Kamii, C. (1973). Pedagogical principles derived from benefits of early childhood interventions. Santa
Piaget’s theory: Relevance for educational prac- Monica, CA: Rand Education.
tice. In M. Schwebel & J. Raph (Eds.), Piaget in the Kawai, N., & Matsuzawa, T. (2000). Numerical
classroom (pp. 199–215). New York, NY: Basic memory span in a chimpanzee. Nature, 403,
Books. 39–40.
432 References

Keller, S., & Goldberg, I. (1997). Let’s Learn Shapes Childhood Research Quarterly, 28(2), 415–423.
with Shapely-CAL. Great Neck, NY: Creative doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.10.004
Adaptations for Learning, Inc. Kleemans, T., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2018). Indi-
Keren, G., & Fridin, M. (2014). Kindergarten social vidual differences in basic arithmetic skills in chil-
assistive robot (KindSAR) for children’s geomet- dren with and without developmental language
ric thinking and metacognitive development in disorder: Role of home numeracy experiences.
preschool education: A pilot study. Computers in Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 43(2),
Human Behavior, 35, 400–412. doi: 10.1016/j. 62–72. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.01.005
chb.2014.03.009 Klein, A., & Starkey, P. (2004). Fostering preschool
Kersh, J., Casey, B. M., & Young, J. M. (2008). children’s mathematical development: Findings
Research on spatial skills and block building in from the Berkeley Math Readiness Project. In
girls and boys: The relationship to later mathem- D. H. Clements, J. Sarama, & A.-M. DiBiase (Eds.),
atics learning. In B. Spodek & O. N. Saracho Engaging young children in mathematics: Stand-
(Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on mathemat- ards for early childhood mathematics education
ics in early childhood education (pp. 233–251). (pp. 343–360). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Associates.
Kidd, J. K., Carlson, A. G., Gadzichowski, K. M., Klein, A., Starkey, P., Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., &
Boyer, C. E., Gallington, D. A., & Pasnak, R. (2013). Iyer, R. (2008). Effects of a pre-kindergarten math-
Effects of patterning instruction on the academic ematics intervention: A randomized experiment.
achievement of 1st-grade children. Journal of Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 1
Research in Childhood Education, 27(2), 224–238. (2), 155–178. doi: 10.1080/19345740802114533
doi: 10.1080/02568543.2013.766664 Klein, A., Starkey, P., & Wakeley, A. (1999). Enhancing
Kilpatrick, J. (1987). Problem formulating: Where do pre-kindergarten children’s readiness for school
good problems come from? In A. H. Schoenfeld mathematics. Paper presented at the American
(Ed.), Cognitive science and mathematics educa- Educational Research Association.
tion (pp. 123–147). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erl- Klein, A. S., Beishuizen, M., & Treffers, A. (1998). The
baum Associates. empty number line in Dutch second grades: Real-
Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.) (2001). istic versus gradual program design. Journal for
Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Research in Mathematics Education, 29,
Washington, DC: Mathematics Learning Study 443–464.
Committee, National Research Council; National Klibanoff, R. S., Levine, S. C., Huttenlocher, J.,
Academies Press. Vasilyeva, M., & Hedges, L. V. (2006). Preschool
Kim, B., Pack, Y. H., & Yi, S. H. (2017). Subitizing in children’s mathematical knowledge: The effect of
children and adults, depending on the object indi- teacher “math talk”. Developmental Psychology,
viduation level of stimulus: Focusing on perform- 42, 59–69.
ance according to spacing, color, and shape of Klim-Klimaszewska, A., & Nazaruk, S. (2017). The
objects. Family and Environment Research, 55(5), scope of implementation of geometric concepts
491–505. doi: 10.6115/fer.2017.036 in selected kindergartens in Poland. Problems of
Kim, S.-Y. (1994). The relative effectiveness of Education in the 21st Century, 75(4), 345–353.
hands-on and computer-simulated manipulatives Klinzing, D. G., & Hall, A. (1985). A study of the behav-
in teaching seriation, classification, geometric, ior of children in a preschool equipped with com-
and arithmetic concepts to kindergarten children. puters. Chicago: American Educational Research
Dissertation Abstracts International, 54/09, 3319. Association.
King, J. A., & Alloway, N. (1992). Preschooler’s use of Knapp, M. S., Shields, P. M., & Turnbull, B. J. (1992).
microcomputers and input devices. Journal of Academic challenge for the children of poverty.
Educational Computing Research, 8, 451–468. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Kinnear, V., & Wittmann, E. C. (2018). Early mathem- Kolkman, M. E., Kroesbergen, E. H., & Leseman, P. P. M.
atics education: A plea for mathematically (2013). Early numerical development and the role
founded conceptions. In V. Kinnear, M. Y. Lai, & of non-symbolic and symbolic skills. Learning and
T. Muir (Eds.), Forging connections in early math- Instruction, 25(165), 95–103. doi: 10.1016/j.
ematics teaching and learning (pp. 17–35). Gate- learninstruc.2012.12.001
way East, Singapore: Springer. Konold, C., & Pollatsek, A. (2002). Data analysis as the
Kleemans, T., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2013). search for signals in noisy processes. Journal for
Relations between home numeracy experiences Research in Mathematics Education, 33, 259–289.
and basic calculation skills of children with and Konold, T. R., & Pianta, R. C. (2005). Empirically-
without specific language impairment. Early derived, person-oriented patterns of school
 References 433

readiness in typically- developing children: education: Essays in honor of Roger E. Howe (pp.
Description and prediction to first-grade 149–171). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
achievement. Applied Developmental Science, Lamy, C. E., Frede, E., Seplocha, H., Strasser, J.,
9, 174–187. Jambunathan, S., Juncker, J. A., Jambunathan, S. …
Koontz, K. L., & Berch, D. B. (1996). Identifying simple Wolock, E. (2004). Inch by inch, row by row, gonna
numerical stimuli: Processing inefficiencies exhib- make this garden grow: Classroom quality and lan-
ited by arithmetic learning disabled children. guage skills in the Abbott Preschool Program
Mathematical Cognition, 2, 1–23. [Publication]. Retrieved September 29, 2007, from
Koponen, T., Salmi, P., Eklund, K., & Aro, T. (2013). http://nieer.org/docs/?DocID=94
Counting and RAN: Predictors of arithmetic cal- Landau, B. (1988). The construction and use of spa-
culation and reading fluency. Journal of Educa- tial knowledge in blind and sighted children. In
tional Psychology, 105(1), 162–175. doi: 10.1037/ J. Stiles-Davis, M. Kritchevsky, & U. Bellugi (Eds.),
a0029285 Spatial cognition: Brain bases and development
Korat, O., Gitait, A., Bergman Deitcher, D., & (pp. 343–371). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Mevarech, Z. (2017). Early literacy programme as Associates.
support for immigrant children and as transfer to Landerl, K., Bevan, A., & Butterworth, B. (2004).
early numeracy. Early Child Development and Developmental dyscalculia and basic numerical
Care, 187(3), 18. capacities: A study of 8–9-year-old children. Cog-
Korkmaz, H. İ., & Yilmaz, A. (2017). Investigating kin- nition, 93, 99–125.
dergartners geometric and spatial thinking skils: Landry, S. H., Zucker, T. A., Williams, J. M.,
In context of gender and age. European Journal Merz, E. C., Guttentag, C. L., & Taylor, H. B. (2017).
of Education Studies, 3(9), 55–69. doi: 10.5281/ Improving school readiness of high-risk pre-
zenodo.845498 schoolers: Combining high quality instructional
Kostos, K., & Shin, E.-K. (2010). Using math journals strategies with responsive training for teachers
to enhance second graders’ communication of and parents. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
mathematical thinking. Early Childhood Education 40, 38–51. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2016.12.001
Journal, 38(3), 223–231. Lane, C. (2010). Case study: The effectiveness of vir-
Krajewski, K., & Schneider, W. (2009). Exploring the tual manipulatives in the teaching of primary
impact of phonological awareness, visual–spatial mathematics. (Master thesis), University of Lim-
working memory, and preschool quantity–number erick, Limerick, UK. Retrieved from http://digital
competencies on mathematics achievement in commons.fiu.edu/etd/229
elementary school: Findings from a 3-year longi- Langhorst, P., Ehlert, A., & Fritz, A. (2012). Non-
tudinal study. Journal of Experimental Child numerical and numerical understanding of the
Psychology, 103(4), 516–531 doi: 10.1016/j. part–whole concept of children aged 4 to 8 in
jecp.2009.03.009 word problems. Journal Für Mathematik-
Kretlow, A. G., Wood, C. L., & Cooke, N. L. (2011). Didaktik, 33(2), 233–262. doi: 10.1007/s13138-
Using in-service and coaching to increase kinder- 012-0039-5
garten teachers’ accurate delivery of group Lansdell, J. M. (1999). Introducing young children to
instructional units. The Journal of Special Educa- mathematical concepts: Problems with “new” ter-
tion, 44(4), 234–246. minology. Educational Studies, 25, 327–333.
Kritzer, K. L., & Pagliaro, C. M. (2013). An intervention Larson, L. C., & Rumsey, C. (2018). Bringing stories to
for early mathematical success: Outcomes from life: Integrating literature and math manipulatives.
the hybrid version of the Building Math Readiness The Reading Teacher, 71(5), 589–596. doi:
Parents as Partners (MRPP) project. Journal of 10.1002/trtr.1652
Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 18(1), 30–46. Laski, E. V., Casey, B. M., Yu, Q., Dulaney, A.,
doi: 10.1093/deafed/ens033 Heyman, M., & Dearing, E. (2013). Spatial skills as
Kutscher, B., Linchevski, L., & Eisenman, T. (2002). a predictor of first grade girls’ use of higher
From the Lotto game to subtracting two-digit level arithmetic strategies. Learning and Individ-
numbers in first-graders. In A. D. Cockburn & ual Differences, 23(1), 123–130. doi: 10.1016/j.
E. Nardi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Confer- lindif.2012.08.001
ence of the International Group for the Psych- Laski, E. V., & Siegler, R. S. (2014). Learning from
ology in Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. number board games: You learn what you
249–256). University of East Anglia. encode. Developmental Psychology, 50(3), 853.
Lai, Y., Carlson, M. A., & Heaton, R. M. (2018). Giving doi: 10.1037/a0034321
reason and giving purpose. In Y. Li, W. J. Lewis, & Laski, E. V., & Yu, Q. (2014). Number line estimation
J. J. Madden (Eds.), Mathematics matters in and mental addition: Examining the potential
434 References

roles of language and education. Journal of Conference of Mathematics Education Research

Experimental Child Psychology, 117, 29–44. Group of Australasia (pp. 384–389). Darwin, AU:
Laurillard, D., & Taylor, J. (1994). Designing the Step- Mathematics Education Research Group of
ping Stones: An evaluation of interactive media in Australasia.
the classroom. Journal of Educational Television, Leeson, N., Stewart, R., & Wright, R. J. (1997). Young
20, 169–184. children’s knowledge of three-dimensional
Leavy, A., Pope, J., & Breatnach, D. (2018). From shapes: Four case studies. In F. Biddulph & K. Carr
cradle to classroom: Exploring opportunities to (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Annual Confer-
support the development of shape and space ence of the Mathematics Education Research
concepts in very young children. In V. Kinnear, Group of Australasia (Vol. 1, pp. 310–317). Hamil-
M. Y. Lai, & T. Muir (Eds.), Forging Connections in ton, New Zealand: MERGA.
Early Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. LeFevre, J.-A., Polyzoi, E., Skwarchuk, S.-L., Fast, L.,
115–138). Singapore: Springer Singapore. & Sowinskia, C. (2010). Do home numeracy and
Lebens, M., Graff, M., & Mayer, P. (2011). The affective literacy practices of Greek and Canadian parents
dimensions of mathematical difficulties in predict the numeracy skills of kindergarten
schoolchildren. Education Research International, children? International Journal of Early Years
2011, 1–13. Education, 18(1), 55–70.
Lebron-Rodriguez, D. E., & Pasnak, R. (1977). Induc- Lehrer, R. (2003). Developing understanding of
tion of intellectual gains in blind children. Journal measurement. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, &
of Experimental Child Psychology, 24, 505–515. D. Schifter (Eds.), A Research companion to Prin-
Lee, J. (2002). Racial and ethnic achievement gap ciples and Standards for School Mathematics (pp.
trends: Reversing the progress toward equity? 179–192). Reston, VA: National Council of
Educational Researcher, 31, 3–12. Teachers of Mathematics.
Lee, J. (2004). Correlations between kindergarten Lehrer, R., Harckham, L. D., Archer, P., &
teachers’ attitudes toward mathematics and Pruzek, R. M. (1986). Microcomputer-based
teaching practice. Journal of Early Childhood instruction in special education. Journal of Edu-
Teacher Education, 25(2), 173–184. cational Computing Research, 2, 337–355.
Lee, J. S., & Ginsburg, H. P. (2007). What is appropri- Lehrer, R., Jacobson, C., Thoyre, G., Kemeny, V.,
ate mathematics education for four-year-olds? Strom, D., Horvarth, J., Gance, S.& Koehler, M.
Journal of Early Childhood Research, 5(1), 2–31. (1998). Developing understanding of geometry
Lee, K., & Bull, R. (2015). Developmental changes in and space in the primary grades. In R. Lehrer &
working memory, updating, and math achievement. D. Chazan (Eds.), Designing learning environ-
Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(6), ments for developing understanding of geometry
869–882. and space (pp. 169–200). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Lee, S. A., Spelke, E. S., & Vallortigara, G. (2012). Erlbaum Associates.
Chicks, like children, spontaneously reorient by Lehrer, R., Jenkins, M., & Osana, H. (1998). Longitu-
three-dimensional environmental geometry, not dinal study of children’s reasoning about space
by image matching. Biology Letters, 8(4), and geometry. In R. Lehrer & D. Chazan (Eds.),
492–494. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2012.0067 Designing learning environments for developing
Lee, V. E., Brooks-Gunn, J., Schnur, E., & Liaw, F.-R. understanding of geometry and space (pp.
(1990). Are Head Start effects sustained? 137–167). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
A longitudinal follow-up comparison of disadvan- Lehrer, R., & Pritchard, C. (2002). Symbolizing space
taged children attending Head Start, no pre- into being. In K. P. E. Gravemeijer, R. Lehrer,
school, and other preschool programs. Child B. Van Oers, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Symbolizing,
Development, 61, 495–507. modeling and tool use in mathematics educa-
Lee, V. E., & Burkam, D. T. (2002). Inequalit y at the tion (pp. 59–86). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
starting gate. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Publishers.
Institute. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (Eds.). (2002). Investigat-
Lee, V. E., Burkam, D. T., Ready, D. D., ing real data in the classroom: Expanding chil-
Honigman, J. J., & Meisels, S. J. (2006). Full-day dren’s understanding of math and science.
vs. half-day kindergarten: In which program do New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
children learn more? American Journal of Educa- Lehrer, R., Strom, D., & Confrey, J. (2002). Ground-
tion, 112, 163–208. ing metaphors and inscriptional resonance: Chil-
Leeson, N. (1995). Investigations of kindergarten stu- dren’s emerging understandings of mathematical
dent’s spatial constructions. In B. Atweh & similarity. Cognition and Instruction, 20(3),
S. Flavel (Eds.), Proceedings of 18th Annual 359–398.
 References 435

Lehtinen, E., & Hannula, M. M. (2006). Attentional as longitudinal predictors of reading and arith-
processes, abstraction and transfer in early metic achievement: A follow-up study from kin-
mathematical development. In L. Verschaffel, dergarten to grade 2. International Journal of
F. Dochy, M. Boekaerts, & S. Vosniadou (Eds.), Educational Research, 43, 250–271.
Instructional psychology: Past, present and future Lerkkanen, M.-K., Kiuru, N., Pakarinen, E.,
trends. Fifteen essays in honour of Erik De Corte Viljaranta, J., Poikkeus, A.-M., Rasku-Puttonen, H.
(Vol. 49, pp. 39–55). Amsterdam, The Nether- Siekkinen, M., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2012). The role of
lands: Elsevier. teaching practices in the development of chil-
Leibovich, T., Katzin, N., Harel, M., & Henik, A. (2016). dren’s interest in reading and mathematics in kin-
From ‘sense of number’ to ‘sense of magnitude’– dergarten. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
The role of continuous magnitudes in numerical 37(4), 266–279. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.
cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences In Press, 03.004
60. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X1600096 Lerkkanen, M.-K., Rasku-Puttonen, H., Aunola, K., &
Lembke, E. S., & Foegen, A. (2008). Identifying indi- Nurmi, J.-E. (2005). Mathematical performance
cators of performance in early mathematics for predicts progress in reading comprehension
kindergarten and grade 1 students. Submitted for among 7-year-olds. European Journal of Psych-
publication. ology of Education, 20(2), 121–137.
Lembke, E. S., Foegen, A., Whittake, T. A., & Lerner, J. (1997). Learning disabilities. Boston, MA:
Hampton, D. (2008). Establishing technically Houghton Mifflin Company.
adequate measures of progress in early Lesh, R. A. (1990). Computer-based assessment of
numeracy. Assessment for Effective Interven- higher order understandings and processes in
tion, 33(4), 206–210. elementary mathematics. In G. Kulm (Ed.),
Lange, T., Meaney, T., Riesbeck, E., & Wernberg, A. Assessing higher order thinking in mathematics
(2014). Mathematical teaching moments: between (pp. 81–110). Washington, DC: American Associ-
instruction and construction. In C. Benz, ation for the Advancement of Science.
B. Brandt, U. Kortenkamp, G. Krummheuer, Levesque, A. (2010). An investigation of the conditions
S. Ladel, & R. Vogel (Eds.), Early mathematics under which procedural content enhances concep-
learning: Selected papers of the POEM 2012 con- tual self-explanations in mathematics. Master’s
ference (pp. 37–54). Springer. https://doi.org/ thesis, Concordia University. Available from Pro-
10.1007/978-1-4614-4678-1_4 Quest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI no.
Le, V.-N., Schaack, D., Neishi, K., Hernandez, M. W., & MR67234). Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.
Blank, R. K. (2019). Advanced content coverage com/pqdlink?did=2191474161&Fmt=7&clientId=
at kindergarten: Are there trade-offs between 39334&RQT=309&VName=PQD
academic achievement and social-emotional Levine, S. C., Gibson, D. J., & Berkowitz, T. (2019).
skills? American Educational Research Journal, Mathematical development in the early home
56(4). doi: 10.3102/0002831218813913 environment. In D. C. Geary, D. B. Berch, &
Lehrl, S., Kluczniok, K., Rossbach, H.-G., & Anders, Y. K. M. Koepke (Eds.), Cognitive foundations for
(2017). Longer-term effects of a high-quality pre- improving mathematical learning (Vol. 5, pp.
school intervention on childrens mathematical 107–142). San Diego, CA: Academic Press (an Else-
development through age 12: Results from the vier imprint).
German model project Kindergarten of the Levine, S. C., Gunderson, E., & Huttenlocher, J. (2011).
Future in Bavaria. Global Education Review, 4(3), Mathematical development during the preschool
70–87. years in context: Home and school input vari-
Lehtinen, E., Brezovszky, B., Rodríguez-Aflecht, G., ations. In N. L. Stein & S. Raudenbush (Eds.),
Lehtinen, H., Hannula-Sormunen, M. M., Developmental Science Goes to School: Implica-
McMullen, J., … Jaakkola, T. (2015). Number Navi- tions for Education and Public Policy Research
gation Game (NNG): Design principles and game (pp. 190–202). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.
description Describing and Studying Domain- Levine, S. C., Huttenlocher, J., Taylor, A., &
Specific Serious Games (pp. 45–61). Langrock, A. (1999). Early sex differences in spatial
Lehtinen, E., Hannula- Sormunen, M. M., McMullen, J., skill. Developmental Psychology, 35(4), 940–949.
& Gruber, H. (2017). Cultivating mathematical Levine, S. C., Jordan, N. C., & Huttenlocher, J. (1992).
skills: From drill-and-practice to deliberate prac- Development of calculation abilities in young
tice. ZDM Mathematics Education. doi: 10.1007/ children. Journal of Experimental Child Psych-
s11858-017-0856-6 ology, 53, 72–103.
Lepola, J., Niemi, P., Kuikka, M., & Hannula, M. M. Levine, S. C., Ratliff, K. R., Huttenlocher, J., &
(2005). Cognitive-linguistic skills and motivation Cannon, J. (2012). Early puzzle play: A predictor
436 References

of preschoolers’ spatial transformation skill. puzzle game at primary school level. Computers
Developmental Psychology, 48(2), 530–542. doi: in Human Behavior, 57, 23–30. doi: 10.1016/j.
10.1037/a0025913 chb.2015.12.026
Levine, S. C., Suriyakham, L. W., Rowe, M. L., Lin, G. (2020a). Circle! sphere! Watertown, MA: Char-
Huttenlocher, J., & Gunderson, E. A. (2010). What lesbridge Publishing.
counts in the development of young children’s Lin, G. (2020b). The last marshmallow [math notes
number knowledge? Developmental Psychology, by Douglas H. Clements]. Watertown, MA: Char-
46(5), 1309–1319. doi: 10.1037/a0019671 lesbridge Publishing.
Li, X., Chi, L., DeBey, M., & Baroody, A. J. (2015). Lin, Y.-H., & Hou, H.-T. (2016). Exploring young chil-
A study of early childhood mathematics teaching dren’s performance on and acceptance of an edu-
in the United States and China. Early Education cational scenario-based digital game for teaching
and Development, 26(3), 450–478. doi: 10.1080/ route-planning strategies: A case study. Inter-
10409289.2015.994464 active Learning Environments, 24(8), 1967–1980.
Li, Z., & Atkins, M. (2004). Early childhood computer Link, T., Moeller, K., Huber, S., Fischer, U., &
experience and cognitive and motor development. Nuerk, H.-C. (2013). Walk the number line – An
Pediatrics, 113, 1715–1722. embodied training of numerical concepts. Trends
Liaw, F.-R., Meisels, S. J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1995). in Neuroscience and Education, 2(2), 74–84.
The effects of experience of early intervention on Linnell, M., & Fluck, M. (2001). The effect of maternal
low birth weight, premature children: The Infant support for counting and cardinal understanding
Health and Development program. Early Child- in pre-school children. Social Development, 10,
hood Research Quarterly, 10, 405–431. 202–220.
Liben, L. S. (2008). Understanding maps: Is the Lipinski, J. M., Nida, R. E., Shade, D. D., &
purple country on the map really purple? Know- Watson, J. A. (1986). The effects of microcom-
ledge Question, 36, 20–30. puters on young children: An examination of
Libertus, M. E. (2019). Understanding the link free-play choices, sex differences, and social
between the approximate number system and interactions. Journal of Educational Computing
math abilities. In D. C. Geary, D. B. Berch, & Research, 2, 147–168.
K. M. Koepke (Eds.), Cognitive foundations for Lippard, C. N., Riley, K. L., & Lamm, M. H. (2018).
improving mathematical learning (Vol. 5, pp. Encouraging the development of engineering
91–106). San Diego, CA: Academic Press (an Else- habits of mind in prekindergarten learners. In
vier imprint). L. D. English & T. Moore (Eds.), Early engineering
Libertus, M. E., Feigenson, L., & Halberda, J. (2011a). learning (pp. 19–36). Gateway East, Singapore:
Preschool acuity of the Approximate Number Springer.
System correlates with math abilities. Develop- Little, C. A., Adelson, J. L., Kearney, K. L., Cash, K., &
mental Science, 14(6), 1292–1300. doi: 10.1111/ O’Brien, R. (2017). Early opportunities to
j.1467-7687.2011.080100x strengthen academic readiness: Effects of
Libertus, M. E., Feigenson, L., & Halberda, J. (2011b). summer learning on mathematics achievement.
Effects of approximate number system training Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(1), 83–95. doi: 10.1177/
for numerical approximation and school math 0016986217738052
abilities. Poster presented at NICHD Math Cogni- Loeb, S., Bridges, M., Bassok, D., Fuller, B., &
tion Conference, Bethesda, MD. Rumberger, R. (2007). How much is too much?
Libertus, M. E., Feigenson, L., & Halberda, J. (2013, The influence of preschool centers on children’s
May). Effects of approximate number system development nationwide. Economics of Education
training for numerical approximation and school Review, 26, 52–56.
math abilities. Paper presented at the NICHD Loehr, A. M., Fyfe, E. R., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2014).
Mathematics Meeting, Bethesda, MD. Wait for it. delaying instruction improves math-
Lieber, J., Horn, E., Palmer, S., & Fleming, K. (2008). ematics problem solving: Classroom study. The
Access to the general education curriculum for Journal of Problem Solving, 7(1). doi: 10.7771/
preschoolers with disabilities: Children’s School 1932-6246.1166
Success. Exceptionality, 16(1), 18–32. doi: 10.1080/ Lüken, M. M. (2012). Young children’s structure
09362830701796776 sense. Journal Für Mathematik-Didaktik, 33(2),
Liggett, R. S. (2017). The impact of use of manipula- 263–285. doi: 10.1007/s13138-012-0036-8
tives on the math scores of grade 2 students. Lüken, M. M. (2018). Repeating pattern competen-
Brock Education Journal, 26(2), 87–101. cies in three- to five-year old kindergartners:
Lin, C.-H., & Chen, C.-M. (2016). Developing spatial A closer look at strategies. In I. Elia, J. Mulligan,
visualization and mental rotation with a digital A. Anderson, A. Baccaglini-Frank, & C. Benz
 References 437

(Eds.), Contemporary Research and Perspectives with mathematical performance of pre-school

on Early Childhood Mathematics Education (pp. students. European Journal of Education Studies,
35–53). Cham: Springer International Publishing. 3(12). doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1098252
Lutchmaya, S., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2002). Human sex Manship, K., Holod, A., Quick, H., Ogut, B., de los
differences in social and non-social looking pref- Reyes, I. B., Anthony, J., … Keuter, S. (2017). The
erences, at 12 months of age. Infant Behavior and impact of transitional kindergarten on California
Development, 25, 319–325. students: Final report from the study of Califor-
Lyons, I. M., Bugden, S., Zheng, S., De Jesus, S., & nia's transitional kindergarten program. Retrieved
Ansari, D. (2018). Symbolic number skills predict from American Institutes for Research website:
growth in nonsymbolic number skills in www.air.org
kindergarteners. Developmental Psychology, 54 Marcon, R. A. (1992). Differential effects of three pre-
(3), 440–457. doi: 10.1037/dev0000445 school models on inner-city 4-year-olds. Early
Lysenko, L., Rosenfield, S., Dedic, H., Savard, A., Childhood Research Quarterly, 7, 517–530.
Idan, E., Abrami, P. C., … Naffi, N. (2016). Using Marcon, R. A. (2002). Moving up the grades: Rela-
interactive software to teach foundational math- tionship between preschool model and later
ematical skills. Journal of Information Technology school success. Early Childhood Research & Prac-
Education: Innovations in Practice, 15, 19–34. tice. Retrieved from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v4n1/
MacDonald, B. L. (2015). Ben’s perception of space marcon.html
and subitizing activity: A constructivist teaching Maričić, S. M., & Stamatović, J. D. (2017). The effect
experiment. Mathematics Education Research of preschool mathematics education in develop-
Journal, 27(4), 563–584. doi: 10.1007/s13394- ment of geometry concepts in children. Eurasia
015-0152-0 Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology
MacDonald, B. L., & Shumway, J. F. (2016). Subitizing Education, 13(9), 6175–6187. doi: 10.12973/
games: Assessing preschool children’s number eurasia.2017.01057a
understanding. Teaching Children Mathematics, Mark, W., & Dowker, A. (2015a). Linguistic influence
22(6), 340–348. on mathematical development is specific rather
MacDonald, B. L., & Wilkins, J. L. M. (2017). Amy’s than pervasive: Revisiting the Chinese number
subitizing activity relative to number understand- advantage in Chinese and English children. Acta
ing and item orientation. Manuscript submitted Psychologica, 6, 203. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.
for publication. 00203
Magargee, S. D. (2017). An exploration of the math Markovits, Z., & Hershkowitz, R. (1997). Relative and
names for numbers: An early childhood mathem- absolute thinking in visual estimation processes.
atics intervention. (Doctoral dissertation), Univer- Educational Studies in Mathematics, 32, 29–47.
sity of the Incarnate Word, Ann Arbor. ProQuest Markworth, K. A. (2016). A repeat look at repeating
Dissertations & Theses Global database. patterns. Teaching Children Mathematics, 23(1),
Magnuson, K. A., Meyers, M. K., Rathbun, A., & 22–29. doi: 10.5951/teacchilmath.23.1.0022
West, J. (2004). Inequality in preschool education Mark-Zigdon, N., & Tirosh, D. (2017). What is
and school readiness. American Educational a legitimate arithmetic number sentence? The
Research Journal, 41, 115–157. case of kindergarten and first-grade children. In
Magnuson, K. A., & Waldfogel, J. (2005). Early child- J. J. Kaput, D. W. Carraher, & M. L. Blanton (Eds.),
hood care and education: Effects on ethnic and Algebra in the early grades (pp. 201–210).
racial gaps in school readiness. The Future of Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Children, 15, 169–196. Marthe, J. (2000). Hannah’s collections. New York,
Malaguzzi, L. (1997). Shoe and meter. Reggio Emilia, NY: Dutton Children’s Books.
Italy: Reggio Children. Martin, R. B., Cirino, P. T., Sharp, C., & Barnes, M. A.
Malofeeva, E., Day, J., Saco, X., Young, L., & (2014). Number and counting skills in kindergar-
Ciancio, D. (2004). Construction and evaluation ten as predictors of grade 1 mathematical skills.
of a number sense test with Head Start children. Learning and Individual Differences, 34, 12–23.
Journal of Education Psychology, 96, 648–659. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2014.05.006
Mandler, J. M. (2004). The foundations of mind: Ori- Martin, T., Lukong, A., & Reaves, R. (2007). The role
gins of conceptual thought. New York, NY: Oxford of manipulatives in arithmetic and geometry
University Press. tasks. Journal of Education and Human Develop-
Manginas, J., Nikolantonakis, C., & Papageorgioy, A. ment, 1(1), 27–50. doi: 10.1080/07370008.2015.
(2017). Cognitive skills and mathematical per- 1124882.
formance, memory (short-term, long-term, work- Martinez, S., Naudeau, S., & Pereira, V. A. (2017). Pre-
ing) mental performance and their relationship school and child development under extreme
438 References

poverty: Evidence from a randomized experiment McFadden, K. E., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., &
in rural Mozambique. World Bank Policy Research Cabrera, N. J. (2011). Quality matters: Low-income
Working Paper No. 8290. fathers engagement in learning activities in early
Mason, M. M. (1995). Geometric knowledge in a deaf childhood predict children’s academic perform-
classroom: An exploratory study. Focus on Learn- ance in fifth grade. Family Science, 2, 120–130.
ing Problems in Mathematics, 17(3), 57–69. McGarvey, L. M., Luo, L., & Hawes, Z., & Spatial Rea-
Mazzocco, M. M. M., Feigenson, L., & Halberda, J. soning Study Group. (2018). Spatial skills frame-
(2011). Preschoolers’ precision of the approximate work for young engineers. In L. D. English &
number system predicts later school mathemat- T. Moore (Eds.), Early engineering learning
ics performance. PLoS ONE, 6(9), e23749. doi: (pp. 53–81). Gateway East, Singapore: Springer.
10.1371/journal.pone.0023749.t001 McGee, M. G. (1979). Human spatial abilities: Psycho-
Mazzocco, M. M. M., & Myers, G. F. (2003). Complex- metric studies and environmental, genetic, hor-
ities in identifying and defining mathematics monal, and neurological influence? Psychological
learning disability in the primary school-age Bulletin, 86, 889–918.
years. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 218–253. McGraw, A. L., Ganley, C. M., Powell, S. R.,
Mazzocco, M. M. M., & Thompson, R. E. (2005). Kin- Purpura, D. J., Schoen, R. C., & Schatschneider, C.
dergarten predictors of math learning disability. (2019, March). An investigation of mathematics
Quarterly Research and Practice, 20, 142–155. language and its relation with mathematics
McClain, K., Cobb, P., Gravemeijer, K. P. E., & Estes, B. and reading. 2019 SRCD Biennial Meeting, Bal-
(1999). Developing mathematical reasoning timore, MD.
within the context of measurement. In L. V. Stiff McGuinness, D., & Morley, C. (1991). Gender differ-
& F. R. Curcio (Eds.), Developing mathematical ences in the development of visuospatial ability
reasoning in grades K–12 (pp. 93–106). Reston, in pre-school children. Journal of Mental Imagery,
VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. 15, 143–150.
McCormick, K. K., & Twitchell, G. (2017). A preschool McKelvey, L. M., Bokony, P. A., Swindle, T. M., Conners-
investigation: The skyscraper project. Teaching Burrow, N. A., Schiffman, R. F., & Fitzgerald, H. E.
Children Mathematics, 23(6), 340–348. (2011). Father teaching interactions with toddlers at
McCoy, D. C., Salhi, C., Yoshikawa, H., Black, M., risk: Associations with later child academic
Britto, P., & Fink, G. (2018). Home- and outcomes. Family Science, 2, 146–155.
center-based learning opportunities for pre- McLeod, D. B., & Adams, V. M. (Eds.). (1989). Affect
schoolers in low- and middle-income countries. and mathematical problem solving. New York, NY:
Children and Youth Services Review, 88, 44–56. Springer-Verlag.
doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.02.021 McMullen, J., Hannula-Sormunen, M. M., &
McCoy, D. C., Yoshikawa, H., Ziol-Guest, K. M., Lehtinen, E. (2014). Spontaneous focusing on
Duncan, G. J., Schindler, H. S., Magnuson, K., … quantitative relations in the development of chil-
Shonkoff, J. P. (2017). Impacts of early childhood dren's fraction knowledge. Cognition and Instruc-
education on medium- and long-term educational tion, 32(2), 198–218.
outcomes. Educational Researcher, 46(8), McNeil, N. M. (2008). Limitations to teaching chil-
474–487. doi: 10.3102/0013189x17737739 dren 2 + 2 = 4: Typical arithmetic problems can
McCrink, K., & de Hevia, M. D. (2018). From innate hinder learning of mathematical equivalence.
spatial biases to enculturated spatial cognition: Child Development, 79(5), 1524–1537.
The case of spatial associations in number and McNeil, N. M., Fyfe, E. R., & Dunwiddie, A. E. (2015).
other sequences. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(Art- Arithmetic practice can be modified to promote
icle 415). doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00415 understanding of mathematical equivalence.
McDermott, P. A., Fantuzzo, J. W., Warley, H. P., Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(2),
Water Man, C., Angelo, L. E., Gadsden, V. L., & 423–436. doi: 10.1037/a0037687
Sekino, Y. (2010). Multidimensionality of teachers McNeil, N. M., Fyfe, E. R., Petersen, L. A.,
graded responses for preschoolers’ stylistic Dunwiddie, A. E., & Brletic-Shipley, H. (2011). Bene-
learning behavior: The learning-to-learn scales. fits of practicing 4 = 2 + 2: Nontraditional prob-
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71 lem formats facilitate children’s understanding of
(1), 148–169. doi: 10.1177/0013164410387351 mathematical equivalence. Child Development,
McDonald, S., & Howell, J. (2012). Watching, creating 82(5), 1620–1633.
and achieving: Creative technologies as a conduit Meaney, T. (2016). Locating learning of toddlers in
for learning in the early years. British Journal of the individual/society and mind/body divides.
Educational Technology, 43(4), 641–651. doi: Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education, 21(4),
10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01231.x 5–28.
 References 439

Meloni, C., Fanari, R., Bertucci, A., & Berretti, S. Miller, K. F., Smith, C. M., Zhu, J., & Zhang, H. (1995).
(2017). Impact of early numeracy training on kin- Preschool origins of cross-national differences in
dergarteners from middle-income families. Paper mathematical competence: The role of
presented at the 14th International Conference number-naming systems. Psychological Science,
on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital 6, 56–60.
Age. Miller, M. R., Rittle-Johnson, B., Loehr, A. M., &
Mercader, J., Miranda, A., Presentación, M. J., Fyfe, E. R. (2016). The influence of relational
Siegenthaler, R., & Rosel, J. F. (2017). Contribu- knowledge and executive function on preschool-
tions of motivation, early numeracy skills, and ers’ repeating pattern knowledge. Journal of Cog-
executive functioning to mathematical perform- nition and Development, 17(1), 85–104. doi:
ance. A longitudinal study. Frontiers in Psych- 10.1080/15248372.2015.1023307
ology, 8. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02375 Miller, J., & Warren, E. (2014). Exploring ESL stu-
Merkley, R., & Ansari, D. (2018). Foundations for dents’ understanding of mathematics in the early
learning: Guided play for early years maths years: Factors that make a difference. Mathemat-
education. Chartered College of Teaching. ics Education Research Journal. doi: 10.1007/
https://impact.chartered.college/article/merkley- s13394-014-0121-z
ansari-learning-guided-play-early-years-maths/ Mitchelmore, M. C. (1989). The development of chil-
Methe, S., Kilgus, S., Neiman, C., & Chris Riley- dren’s concepts of angle. In G. Vergnaud,
Tillman, T. (2012). Meta-analysis of interventions J. Rogalski, & M. Artique (Eds.), Proceedings of
for basic mathematics computation in single-case the 13th Annual Conference of the International
research. Journal of Behavioral Education, 21(3), Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Edu-
230–253. doi: 10.1007/s10864-012-9161-1 cation (Vol. 2, pp. 304–311). Paris, France: City
Middleton, J. A., & Spanias, P. (1999). Motivation for University.
achievement in mathematics: Findings, generaliza- Mitchelmore, M. C. (1992). Children’s concepts of per-
tions, and criticisms of the research. Journal for pendiculars. In W. Geeslin & K. Graham (Eds.),
Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 65–88. Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference of the
Milesi, C., & Gamoran, A. (2006). Effects of class size International Group for the Psychology in Math-
and instruction on kindergarten achievement. ematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 120–127). Durham,
Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(4), NH: Program Committee of the 16th PME
287–313. Conference.
Millar, S., & Ittyerah, M. (1992). Movement imagery in Mitchelmore, M. C. (1993). The development of pre-
young and congenitally blind children: Mental angle concepts. In A. R. Baturo & L. J. Harris
practice without visuospatial information. Inter- (Eds.), New directions in research on geometry
national Journal of Behavioral Development, 15, (pp. 87–93). Centre for Mathematics and Science
125–146. Education, Queensland University of Technology.
Miller, E. B., Farkas, G., Vandell, D. L., & Duncan, G. J. Mitchelmore, M. C., & White, P. (1998). Development
(2014). Do the effects of Head Start vary by par- of angle concepts: A framework for research.
ental pre-academic stimulation? Child Develop- Mathematics Education Research Journal, 10,
ment, 85, 1385–1400. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12233 4–27.
Miller, K. F. (1984). Child as the measurer of all Mix, K. S., Levine, S. C., Cheng, Y. L., Young, C.,
things: Measurement procedures and the devel- Hambrick, D. Z., Ping, R., & Konstantopoulos, S.
opment of quantitative concepts. In C. Sophian (2016). Separate but correlated: The latent
(Ed.), Origins of cognitive skills: The eighteenth structure of space and mathematics across
annual Carnegie symposium on cognition development. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
(pp. 193–228). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 145(9), 1206–1227. doi: 10.1037/xge0000182.
Miller, K. F. (1989). Measurement as a tool of Mix, K. S., Levine, S. C., & Huttenlocher, J. (1997).
thought: The role of measuring procedures in Early fraction calculation ability. Developmental
children’s understanding of quantitative invari- Psychology, 35, 164–174.
ance. Developmental Psychology, 25, 589–600. Mix, K. S., Moore, J. A., & Holcomb, E. (2011). One-to-
Miller, K. F., Kelly, M., & Zhou, X. (2005). Learning one play promotes numerical equivalence
mathematics in China and the United States: concepts. Journal of Cognition and Development,
Cross-cultural insights into the nature and course 12(4), 463–480.
of preschool mathematical development. In Mix, K. S., Smith, L. B., & Crespo, S. (2019). Lever-
J. I. D. Campbell (Ed.), Handbook of mathematical aging relational learning mechanisms to improve
cognition (pp. 163–178). New York, NY: Psych- place value instruction. In A. Norton &
ology Press. M. W. Alibali (Eds.), Constructing number: Merging
440 References

perspectives from psychology and mathematics framework for teaching mathematics in the lower
education (pp. 87–121). Springer. https://doi.org/ primary years. Paper presented at the Society for
10.1007/978-3-030-00491-0 Information Technology &#x0026; Teacher Educa-
Moeller, K., Fischer, U., Cress, U., & Nuerk, H.-C. tion International Conference 2013, New Orleans,
(2012). Diagnostics and intervention in develop- Louisiana, United States. Conference paper
mental dyscalculia: Current issues and novel per- retrieved from www.editlib.org/p/48603
spectives. In Z. Breznitz, O. Rubinsten, Morgenlander, M. (2005). Preschoolers’ understand-
V. J. Molfese, & D. L. Molfese (Eds.), Reading, writ- ing of mathematics presented on Sesame Street.
ing, mathematics and the developing brain: Lis- Paper presented at the American Educational
tening to many voices (Vol. 6, pp. 233–275). The Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Netherlands: Springer. Morrongiello, B. A., Timney, B., Humphrey, G. K.,
Mohd Syah, N. E., Hamzaid, N. A., Murphy, B. P., & Anderson, S., & Skory, C. (1995). Spatial know-
Lim, E. (2016). Development of computer play ledge in blind and sighted children. Journal of
pedagogy intervention for children with low con- Experimental Child Psychology, 59, 211–233.
ceptual understanding in basic mathematics Moseley, B. (2005). Pre-service early childhood edu-
operation using the dyscalculia feature approach. cators’ perceptions of math-mediated language.
Interactive Learning Environments, 24(7), Early Education & Development, 16(3), 385–396.
1477–1496. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2015.1023205 Moschkovich, J. (2013). Principles and guidelines for
Molfese, V. J., Brown, T. E., Adelson, J. L., Beswick, J., equitable mathematics teaching practices and
Jacobi-Vessels, J., Thomas, L., Ferguson, M., & materials for English language learners. Journal
Culver, B. (2012). Examining associations between of Urban Mathematics Education, 6(1), 45–57.
classroom environment and processes and early Moss, J., Hawes, Z., Naqvi, S., & Caswell, B. (2015).
mathematics performance from pre-kindergarten Adapting Japanese Lesson Study to enhance the
to kindergarten. Gifted Children, 5(2), article 2. teaching and learning of geometry and spatial
Retrieved from http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/gifted reasoning in early years classrooms: A case
children/vol5/iss2/2 study. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(3), 1–14.
Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). doi: 10.1111/mono.12280
Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualita- Moyer, P. S. (2000). Are we having fun yet? Using
tive approach to connect homes and classrooms. manipulatives to teach “real math”. Educational
Theory into Practice, 31, 132–141. Studies in Mathematics: An International Journal,
Monighan-Nourot, P., Scales, B., Van Hoorn, J., & 47(2), 175–197.
Almy, M. (1987). Looking at children’s play: Moyer, P. S., Niezgoda, D., & Stanley, J. (2005).
A bridge between theory and practice. New York, Young children’s use of virtual manipulatives and
NY: Teachers College. other forms of mathematical representations. In
Mononen, R., Aunio, P., Koponen, T., & Aro, M. (2014). W. Masalski & P. C. Elliott (Eds.), Technology-
A review of early numeracy interventions for chil- supported mathematics learning environments:
dren at risk in mathematics. International Journal 67th Yearbook (pp. 17–34). Reston, VA: National
of Early Childhood Special Education, 6(1), 25–54. Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Montie, J. E., Xiang, Z., & Schweinhart, L. J. (2006). Moyer-Packenham, P. S., Shumway, J. F., Bullock, E.,
Preschool experience in 10 countries: Cognitive Tucker, S. I., Anderson-Pence, K. L.,
and language performance at age 7. Early Child- Westenskow, A., … Jordan, K. (2015). Young chil-
hood Research Quarterly, 21, 313–331. dren’s learning performance and efficiency when
Mooij, T., & Driessen, G. (2008). Differential ability using virtual manipulative mathematics iPad
and attainment in language and arithmetic of apps. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and
Dutch primary school pupil? British Journal of Science Teaching, 34(1), 41–69.
Educational Psychology, 78(Pt 3), 491–506. doi: Muir, T. (2018). Using mathematics to forge connec-
10.1348/000709907X235981 tions between home and school. In V. Kinnear,
Moomaw, S. (2015). Assessing the difficulty level of M. Y. Lai, & T. Muir (Eds.), Forging connections in
math board games for young children. Journal of early mathematics teaching and learning (pp.
Research in Childhood Education, 29(4), 17. doi: 173–190). Gateway East, Singapore: Springer.
10.1080/02568543.2015.1073201 Mullet, E., & Miroux, R. (1996). Judgment of rect-
Moon, U. J., & Hofferth, S. (2018). Change in computer angular areas in children blind from birth. Cogni-
access and the academic achievement of immi- tive Development, 11, 123–139.
grant children. Teachers College Record, 120(4). Mulligan, J., English, L. D., Mitchelmore, M. C.,
Moradmand, N., Datta, A., & Oakley, G. (2013). My Welsby, S., & Crevensten, N. (2011). An evaluation of
maths story: An application of a computer-assisted the pattern and structure mathematics awareness
 References 441

program in the early school years. In J. Clark, methods of Japanese Grade 1 students. Cognition
B. Kissane, J. Mousley, T. Spencer, & S. Thornton and Instruction, 22, 185–218.
(Eds.), Proceedings of the AAMT-MERGA Confer- Murata, A. (2008). Mathematics teaching and learn-
ence 2011, The Australian Association of Mathemat- ing as a mediating process: The case of tape
ics Teachers Inc. & Mathematics Education diagrams. Mathematical Thinking and Learning,
Research Group of Australasia (pp. 548–556). Alice 10, 374–406.
Springs, Australia. Murata, A., & Fuson, K. C. (2006). Teaching as assist-
Mulligan, J., & Mitchelmore, M. (2018). Promoting ing individual constructive paths within an inter-
early mathematical structural development dependent class learning zone: Japanese first
through an integrated assessment and peda- graders learning to add using 10. Journal for
gogical program. In I. Elia, J. Mulligan, Research in Mathematics Education, 37(5),
A. Anderson, A. Baccaglini-Frank, & C. Benz 421–456. doi: 10.2307/30034861
(Eds.), Contemporary Research and Perspectives Murphey, D., Madill, R., & Guzman, L. (2017). Making
on Early Childhood Mathematics Education (pp. math count more for young Latinos. The Educa-
17–33). Cham: Springer International Publishing. tion Digest, 83(1), 8–14.
Mulligan, J., Mitchelmore, M., English, L. D., & Mussolin, C., Nys, J., Content, A., & Leybaert, J.
Crevensten, N. (2012). Evaluation of the “recon- (2014). Symbolic number abilities predict later
ceptualising early mathematics learning” project. approximate number system acuity in preschool
Paper presented at the AARE APERA Inter- children. PLoS ONE, 9(3), e91839. doi: 10.1371/
national Conference, Sydney. journal.pone.0091839
Mulligan, J., Prescott, A., Mitchelmore, M. C., & Mustafa, N. A., Omar, S. S. S., Shafie, N., &
Outhred, L. (2005). Taking a closer look at young Kamarudin, M. F. (2017). Understanding preschool
students’ images of area measurement. Austra- children's skill in subtraction using cooperative
lian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 10(2), 4–8. learning. Paper presented at the International
Mulligan, J., Verschaffel, L., Baccaglini-Frank, A., Scientific and Professional Conference, Opatija,
Coles, A., Gould, P., He, S., … Yang, D.-C. (2018). Croatia.
Whole number thinking, learning and develop- Myers, M., Wilson, P. H., Sztajn, P., & Edgington, C.
ment: Neuro-cognitive, cognitive and develop- (2015). From implicit to explicit: Articulating
mental approaches. In M. G. Bartolini Bussi & equitable learning trajectories based instruction.
X. H. Sun (Eds.), Building the Foundation: Whole Journal of Urban Mathematics Education, 8(2),
Numbers in the Primary Grades: The 23rd ICMI 11–22.
Study (pp. 137–167). Cham: Springer International Nanu, C. E., McMullen, J., Munck, P., & Hannula-
Publishing. Sormunen, M. M. (2018). Spontaneous focusing
Mulligan, J. T., English, L. D., Mitchelmore, M. C., on numerosity in preschool as a predictor of
Welsby, S. M., & Crevensten, N. (2011b). Develop- mathematical skills and knowledge in the fifth
ing the Pattern and Structure Assessment (PASA) grade. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
interview to inform early mathematics learning. 169, 42–58. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2017.12.011
Paper presented at the AAMT-MERGA Confer- Nasir, N. I. S., & Cobb, P. (2007). Improving access to
ence 2011, Alice Springs, Australia. mathematics: Diversity and equity in the class-
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Arora, A. room. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
(2012). TIMSS 2011 International Results in Math- Nastasi, B. K., & Clements, D. H. (1991). Research on
ematics. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS Inter- cooperative learning: Implications for practice.
national Study Center, Lynch School of School Psychology Review, 20, 110–131.
Education, Boston College. Nastasi, B. K., Clements, D. H., & Battista, M. T.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Gonzalez, E. J., (1990). Social-cognitive interactions, motivation,
Gregory, K. D., Garden, R. A., O’Connor, K. M., and cognitive growth in Logo programming and
Chrostowski, S. J., & Smith, T. A. (2000). TIMSS CAI problem-solving environments. Journal of
1999 international mathematics report. Boston: Educational Psychology, 82, 150–158.
The International Study Center, Boston College, National Academies of Sciences, E., and Medicine.
Lynch School of Education. (2017). Promoting the educational success of chil-
Munn, P. (1998). Symbolic function in pre-schoolers. dren and youth learning English: Promising
In C. Donlan (Ed.), The development of mathemat- futures. Washington, DC: The National Academies
ical skills (pp. 47–71). East Sussex, England: Press.
Psychology Press. National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foun-
Murata, A. (2004). Paths to learning ten-structured dations for success: The final report of the
understanding of teen sums: Addition solution National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington,
442 References

DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Plan- Nguyen, T., Watts, T. W., Duncan, G. J., Clements, D. H.,
ning, Evaluation and Policy Development. Sarama, J., Wolfe, C. B., & Spitler, M. E. (2016).
National Research Council. (2009). Mathematics Which preschool mathematics competencies are
learning in early childhood: Paths toward excel- most predictive of fifth grade achievement? Early
lence and equity. Washington, DC: National Acad- Childhood Research Quarterly, 36, 550–560. doi:
emy Press. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2016.02.003
Natriello, G., McDill, E. L., & Pallas, A. M. (1990). School- Nieuwoudt, H. D., & van Niekerk, R. (1997, March).
ing disadvantaged children: Racing against catas- The spatial competence of young children
trophe. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. through the development of solids. Paper pre-
Navarro, J. I., Aguilar, M., Marchena, E., Ruiz, G., sented at the American Educational Research
Menacho, I., & Van Luit, J. E. H. (2012). Longitu- Association, Chicago, IL.
dinal study of low and high achievers in early Niklas, F., & Schneider, W. (2017). Home learning
mathematics. British Journal of Educational environment and development of child compe-
Psychology, 82(1), 28–41. doi: 10.1111/j.2044- tencies from kindergarten until the end of elem-
8279.2011.02043.x entary school. Contemporary Educational
Navarro, M. G., Braham, E. J., & Libertus, M. E. Psychology, 49, 263–274. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.
(2018). Intergenerational associations of the 2017.03.006
approximate number system in toddlers and their Nishida, T. K., & Lillard, A. S. (2007a, April). From
parents. British Journal of Developmental Psych- flashcard to worksheet: Children’s inability to
ology, 36(4), 521–539. doi: 10.1111/bjdp.12234 transfer across different formats. Paper pre-
NCTM. (2000). Principles and standards for school sented at the Society for Research in Child Devel-
mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of opment, Boston, MA.
Teachers of Mathematics. Nishida, T. K., & Lillard, A. S. (2007b, April). Fun toy
NCTM. (2006). Curriculum focal points for prekinder- or learning tool?: Young children’s use of con-
garten through grade 8 mathematics: A quest for crete manipulatives to learn about simple math
coherence. National Council of Teachers of concepts. Paper presented at the Society for
Mathematics. Research in Child Development, Boston, MA.
Nes, F. T. v. (2009). Young children’s spatial structur- NMP. (2008). Foundations for success: The final
ing ability and emerging number sense. Doctoral report of the National Mathematics Advisory
dissertation, de Universtiteit Utrecht, Utrecht, Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Edu-
The Netherlands. cation, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy
Neuenschwander, R., Röthlisberger, M., Cimeli, P., & Development.
Roebers, C. M. (2012). How do different aspects of Nomi, T. (2010). The effects of within-class ability
self-regulation predict successful adaptation to grouping on academic achievement in early elem-
school? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, entary years. Journal of Research on Educational
113(3), 353–371. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2012.07.004 Effectiveness, 3, 56–92.
Neville, H., Andersson, A., Bagdade, O., Bell, T., Northcote, M. (2011). Step back and hand over the cam-
Currin, J., Fanning, J., & Yamada, Y. (2008). eras! Using digital cameras to facilitate mathemat-
Effects of music training on brain and cognitive ics learning with young children in K–2 classrooms.
development in under-privileged 3- to 5-year-old Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 16(3),
children: Preliminary results. In C. Asbury & 29–32.
B. Rich (Eds.), Learning, Arts, & the Brain (pp. NRC. (2004). On evaluating curricular effectiveness:
105–116). New York/Washington, DC: Dana Press. Judging the quality of K–12 mathematics evalu-
Newcombe, N. (2010). Picture this: Increasing math ations. Washington, DC: Mathematical Sciences
and science learning by improving spatial Education Board, Center for Education, Division
thinking. American Educator, 34(2), 29–35. of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education,
Newcombe, R. S., & Huttenlocher, J. (2000). Making National Academies Press.
space: The development of spatial representation NRC. (2009). Mathematics in early childhood: Learn-
and reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ing paths toward excellence and equity. Washing-
Newhouse, C. P., Cooper, M., & Cordery, Z. (2017). ton, DC: National Academy Press.
Programmable toys and free play in early child- Nührenbörger, M. (2001). Insights into children’s ruler
hood classrooms. Australian Educational Comput- concepts—Grade-2 students conceptions and
ing, 32(1), 14. knowledge of length measurement and paths of
Ng, S. N. S., & Rao, N. (2010). Chinese number words, development. In M. V. D. Heuvel-Panhuizen (Ed.),
culture, and mathematics learning. Review of Proceedings of the 25th Conference of the Inter-
Educational Research, 80(2), 180–206. national Group for the Psychology in Mathematics
 References 443

Education (Vol. 3, pp. 447–454). Utrecht, The fundamentally spatial? Cognition, 120(2), 225–235.
Netherlands: Freudenthal Institute. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.05.001
Nunes, T., Bryant, P., Evans, D., & Bell, D. (2010). The Núñez, R. E. (2011). No innate number line in the human
scheme of correspondence and its role in chil- brain. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 42(4),
dren’s mathematics. British Journal of Educa- 651–668. doi: 10.1177/0022022111406097
tional Psychology, 2(7), 83–99. doi: 10.1348/ Nurnberger-Haag, J. (2016). A cautionary tale: How
97818543370009x12583699332537 children’s books (mis)teach shapes. Early Educa-
Nunes, T., Bryant, P., Evans, D., Bell, D., & Barros, R. tion and Development, 28(4), 415–440. doi:
(2011). Teaching children how to include the inver- 10.1080/10409289.2016.1242993
sion principle in their reasoning about quantitative Nusir, S., Alsmadi, I., Al-Kabi, M., & Sharadgah, F.
relations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79 (2013). Studying the impact of using multimedia
(3), 371–388. doi: 10.1007/s10649-011-9314-5 interactive programs on children’s ability to learn
Nunes, T., Bryant, P., Evans, D., Bell, D., Gardner, S., basic math skills. E-Learning and Digital Media, 10
Gardner, A., & Carraher, J. (2007). The contribu- (3), 305–319.
tion of logical reasoning to the learning of math- Ok, M. W., & Kim, W. (2017). Use of iPads and iPods
ematics in primary school. British Journal of for academic performance and engagement of
Developmental Psychology, 25(1), 147–166. doi: prek-12 students with disabilities: A research
10.1348/026151006x153127 synthesis. Exceptionality, 25(1), 54–75.
Nunes, T., Bryant, P. E., Barros, R., & Sylva, K. (2012). O’Neill, D. K., Pearce, M. J., & Pick, J. L. (2004). Pre-
The relative importance of two different mathem- school children’s narratives and performance on
atical abilities to mathematical achievement. Brit- the Peabody Individualized Achievement Test
ish Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), Revised: Evidence of a relation between early
136–156. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02033.x narrative and later mathematical ability. First
Nunes, T., Bryant, P. E., Burman, D., Bell, D., Language, 24(2), 149–183.
Evans, D., & Hallett, D. (2009). Deaf children’s Oakes, J. (1990). Opportunities, achievement, and
informal knowledge of multiplicative reasoning. choice: Women and minority students in science
Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 14 and mathematics. In C. B. Cazden (Ed.), Review of
(2), 260–277. research in education (Vol. 16, pp. 153–222).
Nunes, T., Bryant, P. E., Evans, D., & Barros, R. (2015). Washington, DC: American Educational Research
Assessing quantitative reasoning in young children. Association.
Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 17(2–3), Obersteiner, A., Reiss, K., & Ufer, S. (2013). How
178–196. doi: 10.1080/10986065.2015.1016815 training on exact or approximate mental repre-
Nunes, T., Dorneles, RB. V., Lin, P.-J., & Rathgeb- sentations of number can enhance first-grade
Schnierer, E. (2016). Teaching and learning about students’ basic number processing and arithmetic
whole numbers in primary school. Springer. doi: skills. Learning and Instruction, 23(1), 125–135. doi:
10.1007/978-3-319-45113-8_1 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.08.004
Nunes, T., & Moreno, C. (1998). Is hearing impairment OECD. (2014). Strong performers and successful
a cause of difficulties in learning mathematics? In reformers in education - Lessons from PISA 2012
C. Donlan (Ed.), The development of mathematical for the United States. OECD Publishing. doi:
skills (Vol. 7, pp. 227–254). Hove, UK: Psychology 10.1787/9789264207585-en
Press. Olkun, S., Altun, A., Göçer Şahin, S., & Akkurt
Nunes, T., & Moreno, C. (2002). An intervention pro- Denizli, Z. (2015). Deficits in basic number compe-
gram for promoting deaf pupil’s achievement in tencies may cause low numeracy in primary
mathematics. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf school children. Ted EĞİtİm Ve Bİlİm, 40(177).
Education, 7(2), 120–133. doi: 10.15390/eb.2015.3287
Núñez, R., Cooperrider, K., Doan, D., & Wassmann, J. Olkun, S., & Denizli, Z. A. (2015). Using basic
(2012). Contours of time: Topographic construals number processing tasks in determining stu-
of past, present, and future in the Yupno valley of dents with mathematics disorder risk. Dusunen
P. N. Guinea. Cognition, 124(1), 25–35. doi: 10.1016/ Adam: The Journal of Psychiatry and Neuro-
j.cognition.2012.03.007 logical Sciences, 47–57. doi: 10.5350/dajpn
Núñez, R., Cooperrider, K., & Wassmann, J. (2012). 2015280105
Number concepts without number lines in an indi- Olson, J. K. (1988). Microcomputers make manipula-
genous group of Papua New Guinea. PLoS ONE, 7 tives meaningful. Budapest, Hungary: Inter-
(4), 1–8. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035662 national Congress of Mathematics Education.
Núñez, R., Doan, D., & Nikoulina, A. (2011). Squeezing, Örnkloo, H., & von Hofsten, C. (2007). Fitting
striking, and vocalizing: Is number representation objects into holes: On the development of spatial
444 References

cognition skills. Developmental Psychology, 43 Pakarinen, E., Kiuru, N., Lerkkanen, M.-K.,
(2), 404–416. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.43.2.404 Poikkeus, A.-M., Ahonen, T., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2010).
Oslington, G., Mulligan, J. T., & Van Bergen, P. (2018). Instructional support predicts children’s task
Young children’s reasoning through data explor- avoidance in kindergarten. Early Childhood
ation. In V. Kinnear, M. Y. Lai, & T. Muir (Eds.), Research Quarterly, 26(3), 376–386. doi: 10.1016/
Forging Connections in Early Mathematics Teach- j.ecresq.2010.11.003
ing and Learning (pp. 191–212). Singapore: Paliwal, V., & Baroody, A. J. (2020). Cardinality prin-
Springer Singapore. ciple understanding: The role of focusing on the
Ostad, S. A. (1998). Subtraction strategies in develop- subitizing ability. ZDM Mathematics Education.
mental perspective: A comparison of mathematic- doi: 10.1007/s11858-020-01150-0
ally normal and mathematically disabled children. Palmér, H. (2017). Programming in preschool: With
In A. Olivier & K. Newstead (Eds.), Proceedings of a focus on learning mathematics. International
the 22nd Conference for the International Group Research in Early Childhood Education, 8(1), 75–87.
for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. Pan, Y., & Gauvain, M. (2007). Parental involvement
3, pp. 311–318). Stellenbosch, South Africa: Univer- in children’s mathematics learning in American
sity of Stellenbosch. and Chinese families during two school transi-
Outhred, L. N., & Sardelich, S. (1997). Problem solving tions. Paper presented at the Society for
in kindergarten: The development of representa- Research in Child Development.
tions. In F. Biddulph & K. Carr (Eds.), People in Pan, Y., Gauvain, M., Liu, Z., & Cheng, L. (2006).
Mathematics Education. Proceedings of the 20th American and Chinese parental involvement in
Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education young children’s mathematics learning. Cognitive
Research Group of Australasia (Vol. 2, pp. Development, 21, 17–35.
376–383). Rotorua, New Zealand: Mathematics Pantoja, N., Rozek, C. S., Schaeffer, M. W.,
Education Research Group of Australasia. Berkowitz, T., Beilock, S. L., & Levine, S. C. (2019,
Outhwaite, L. A., Faulder, M., Gulliford, A., & March). Children’s math anxiety predicts future
Pitchford, N. J. (2019). Raising early achievement math achievement over and above cognitive
in math with interactive apps: A randomized con- math ability. Paper presented at the 2019 SRCD
trol trial. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111, Biennial Meeting, Baltimore, MD.
284–298. doi: 10.1037/edu0000286 Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers,
Outhwaite, L. A., Gulliford, A., & Pitchford, N. J. and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books.
(2017). Closing the gap: Efficacy of a tablet inter- Papic, M. M., Mulligan, J. T., & Mitchelmore, M. C.
vention to support the development of early (2011). Assessing the development of preschoolers’
mathematical skills in UK primary school children. mathematical patterning. Journal for Research in
Computers & Education, 108, 43–58. doi: 10.1016/j. Mathematics Education, 42(3), 237–269. doi:
compedu.2017.01.011 10.5951/jresematheduc.42.3.0237
Owens, K. (1992). Spatial thinking takes shape Paris, C. L., & Morris, S. K. (1985). The computer in
through primary-school experiences. In W. Geeslin the early childhood classroom: Peer helping and
& K. Graham (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th Con- peer teaching. Cleege Park, MD: MicroWorld for
ference of the International Group for the Psych- Young Children Conference.
ology in Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. Park, J., Bermudez, V., Roberts, R. C., &
202–209). Durham, NH: Program Committee of Brannon, E. M. (2016). Non-symbolic approximate
the 16th PME Conference. arithmetic training improves math performance
Özcan, Z. Ç., & Doğan, H. (2017). A longitudinal study in preschoolers. Journal of Experimental Child
of early math skills, reading comprehension and Psychology, 152, 278–293. doi: 10.1016/j.
mathematical problem solving. Pegem Eğitim Ve jecp.2016.07.011
Öğretim Dergisi, 8(1), 1–18. doi: 10.14527/ Park, S., Stone, S. I., & Holloway, S. D. (2017).
pegegog.2018.001 School-based parental involvement as a pre-
Pagani, L., & Messier, S. (2012). Links between motor dictor of achievement and school learning envir-
skills and indicators of school readiness at kinder- onment: An elementary school-level analysis.
garten entry in urban disadvantaged children. Children and Youth Services Review, 82(Supple-
Journal of Educational and Developmental Psych- ment C), 195–206. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.
ology, 2(1), 95. doi: 10.5539/jedp.v2n1p95 09.012
Pagliaro, C. M., & Kritzer, K. L. (2013). The math gap: Parker, T. H., & Baldridge, S. J. (2004). Elementary
A description of the mathematics performance of mathematics for teachers. Quebecor World, MI:
preschool-aged deaf/hard-of-hearing children. Sefton-Ash Publishing.
Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 18 Pasnak, R. (1987). Accelerated cognitive development
(2), 139–160. doi: 10.1093/deafed/ens070 of kindergartners. Psychology in the Schools,
 References 445

28(4), 358–363. doi: 10.1002/1520-6807(198710) children’s mathematical understanding. In

24:4<358::AID-PITS2310240410>3.0.CO;2-Q H. Forgasz, A. Barkatsas, A. Bishop, B. A. Clarke,
Pasnak, R. (2017). Empirical studies of patterning. S. Keast, W. T. Seah et al. (Eds.), Research in
Psychology, 8(13), 2276–2293. doi: 10.4236/ mathematics education in Australasia
psych.2017.813144 2004–2007 (pp. 17–40). Rotterdam, The Neth-
Pasnak, R., Kidd, J. K., Gadzichowski, K. M., erlands: Sense Publishers.
Gallington, D. A., Schmerold, K. L., & West, H. Phillips, D., & Meloy, M. (2012). High-quality
(2015). Abstracting sequences: Reasoning that is school-based pre-K can boost early learning for
a key to academic achievement. The Journal of children with special needs. Exceptional Children,
Genetic Psychology, 176(3), 171–193. doi: 10.1080/ 78(4), 471–490.
00221325.2015.1024198 Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams and imitation in child-
Pasnak, R., Kidd, J. K., Gadzichowski, M., hood. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
Gallington, D. A., McKnight, P., Boyer, C. E., & Piaget, J. (1971/1974). Understanding causality.
Carlson, A. (2012). An efficacy test of patterning New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
instruction for first grade. Fairfax, VA: George Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1967). The child’s concep-
Mason University. tion of space. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
Passolunghi, M. C., Vercelloni, B., & Schadee, H. Piasta, S. B., Pelatti, C. Y., & Miller, H. L. (2014). Math-
(2007). The precursors of mathematics learning: ematics and science learning opportunities in
Working memory, phonological ability and numer- preschool classrooms. Early Education and Devel-
ical competence. Cognitive Development, 22(2), opment, 25(4), 445–468.
165–184. doi: 10.1016/j.cogdev.2006.09.001 Peirce, N. (2013). Digital game-based learning for early
Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., Burchinal, M. R., childhood. Retrieved from Learnovate Centre web-
Clifford, R. M., Culkins, M. L., Howes, C., site: www.learnovatecentre.org/wp-content/
Kagan, S. L., & Yazejian, N. (2001). The relation of uploads/2013/05/Digital_Game-based_Learning_
preschool child-care quality to children’s cogni- for_Early_Childhood_Report_FINAL.pdf
tive and social developmental trajectories Platas, L. M. (2019). Practicing the mathematical
through second grade. Child Development, 72, practices DREME TE. Retrieved from https://
1534–1553. dreme.stanford.edu/people/linda-platas
Peltier, C., & Vannest, K. J. (2017). The effects of Pollio, H. R., & Whitacre, J. D. (1970). Some observa-
schema-based instruction on the mathematical tions on the use of natural numbers by preschool
problem solving of students with emotional and children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 30, 167–174.
behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 43(2), Portelance, D. J., Strawhacker, A. L., & Bers, M. U.
277–289. doi: 10.1177/0198742917704647 (2016). Constructing the ScratchJr programming
Perlmutter, J., Bloom, L., Rose, T., & Rogers, A. language in the early childhood classroom. Inter-
(1997). Who uses math? Primary children’s per- national Journal of Technology and Design Edu-
ceptions of the uses of mathematics. Journal of cation, 26(4), 489–504.
Research in Childhood Education, 12(1), 58–70. Porter, J. (1999). Learning to count: A difficult task?
Perry, B., & Dockett, S. (2002). Young children’s Down Syndrome Research and Practice, 6(2),
access to powerful mathematical ideas. In 85–94.
L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of International Portsmore, M., & Milto, E. (2018). Novel engineering
Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 81–111). in early elementary classrooms. In L. D. English &
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. T. Moore (Eds.), Early engineering learning (pp.
Perry, B., & Dockett, S. (2005). “I know that you 203–223). Gateway East, Singapore: Springer.
don’t have to work hard”: Mathematics learning Pound, L. (2017). Count on play: The importance of
in the first year of primary school. In H. L. Chick & play in making sense of mathematics. In
J. L. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Con- G. Goodliff, N. Canning, J. Parry & L. Miller (Eds.),
ference of the International Group for the Psych- Young Children’s Play and Creativity: Multiple
ology in Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. Voices (pp. 220–228). Abingdon, Oxon &
65–72). Melbourne, Australia: PME. New York, NY: Routledge.
Perry, R., & Lewis, C. C. (2017). Lesson study to scale Powell, S. R., & Fuchs, L. S. (2010). Contribution of
up research-based knowledge: A randomized, equal-sign instruction beyond word-problem tutor-
controlled trial of fractions learning. Journal for ing for third-grade students with mathematics
Research in Mathematics Education, 48(3), difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102
261–299. (2), 381–394.
Perry, B., Young-Loveridge, J. M., Dockett, S., & Powell, S. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2013). Reach-
Doig, B. (2008). The development of young ing the mountaintop: Addressing the common
446 References

core standards in mathematics for students with Ramey, C. T., & Ramey, S. L. (1998). Early interven-
mathematical disabilities. Learning Disabilities tion and early experience. American Psychologist,
Research & Practice, 28(1), 38–48. doi: 10.1111/ 53, 109–120.
ldrp.12001 Ramirez, G., Chang, H., Maloney, E. A., Levine, S. C., &
Powell, S. R., & Nurnberger-Haag, J. (2015). Every- Beilock, S. L. (2016). On the relationship between
body counts, but usually just to 10! A systematic math anxiety and math achievement in early elem-
analysis of number representations in children’s entary school: The role of problem solving
books. Early Education and Development, 26(3), strategies. Journal of Experimental Child Psych-
377–398. doi: 10.1080/10409289.2015.994466 ology, 141, 83–100. doi: doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2015.07.014
Pratt, C. (1948). I learn from children. New York, NY: Raphael, D., & Wahlstrom, M. (1989). The influence of
Simon and Schuster. instructional aids on mathematics achievement.
Prediger, S., Erath, K., & Opitz, E. M. (2019). The lan- Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
guage dimension of mathematical difficulties. In 20, 173–190.
A. Fritz, V. G. Haase & P. Räsänen (Eds.), Inter- Rathbun, A., & West, J. (2004). From kindergarten
national handbook of mathematical learning diffi- through third grade: Children’s beginning school
culties: From the laboratory to the classroom (pp. experiences. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
437–455). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Primavera, J., Wiederlight, P. P., & DiGiacomo, T. M. Rathé, S., Torbeyns, J., De Smedt, B., &
(2001, August). Technology access for Verschaffel, L. (2019). Spontaneous focusing on
low-income preschoolers: Bridging the digital Arabic number symbols and its association with
divide. Paper presented at the American Psycho- early mathematical competencies. Early Child-
logical Association, San Francisco, CA. hood Research Quarterly, 48, 111–121. doi: 10.1016/
Pruden, S. M., Levine, S. C., & Huttenlocher, J. (2011). j.ecresq.2019.01.011
Children’s spatial thinking: Does talk about the Rathé, S., Torbeyns, J., Hannula-Sormunen, M., De
spatial world matter? Developmental Science, 14 Smedt, B., & Verschaffel, L. (2016). Spontaneous
(6), 1417–1430. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01088.x focusing on numerosity: A review of recent
Purpura, D. J., Day, E., Napoli, A. R., & Hart, S. A. research. Mediterranean Journal for Research in
(2017). Identifying domain-general and Mathematics Education, 15, 1–25.
domain-specific predictors of low mathematics Raver, C. C., Jones, S. M., Li-Grining, C., Zhai, F.,
performance: A classification and regression tree Bub, K., & Pressler, E. (2011). CSRP’s impact on
analysis. Journal of Numerical Cognition, 3(2), low-income preschoolers preacademic skills: Self-
365–399. doi: 10.5964/jnc.v3i2.53 regulation as a mediating mechanism. Child
Purpura, D. J., Hume, L. E., Sims, D. M., & Development, 82(1), 362–378. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
Lonigan, C. J. (2011). Early literacy and early 8624.2010.01561.x
numeracy: The value of including early literacy Raver, C. C., Jones, S. M., Li-Grining, C., Zhai, F.,
skills in the prediction of numeracy development. Metzger, M. W., & Solomon, B. (2009). Targeting
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 110, children’s behavior problems in preschool class-
647–658. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2011.07.004 rooms: A cluster-randomized controlled trial.
Purpura, D. J., & Napoli, A. R. (2015). Early numeracy Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77
and literacy: Untangling the relation between spe- (2), 302–316. doi: 10.1037/a0015302
cific components. Mathematical Thinking and Razel, M., & Eylon, B.-S. (1986). Developing visual lan-
Learning, 17(2-3), 197–218. doi: 10.1080/10986065. guage skills: The Agam program. Journal of
2015.1016817 Visual Verbal Languaging, 6(1), 49–54.
Ralston, N. C., Benner, G. J., Tasai, S.-F., Razel, M., & Eylon, B.-S. (1990). Development of
Riccomini, P. C., & Nelson, J. R. (2014). Mathemat- visual cognition: Transfer effects of the Agam
ics instruction for students with emotional and program. Journal of Applied Developmental
behavioral disorders: A best-evidence synthesis. Psychology, 11, 459–485.
Preventing School Failure, 58(1), 1–16. Razel, M., & Eylon, B.-S. (1991, July). Developing
Ramani, G. B., Rowe, M. L., Eason, S. H., & Leech, K. A. mathematics readiness in young children with the
(2015). Math talk during informal learning activ- Agam program. Paper presented at the Fifteenth
ities in Head Start families. Cognitive Develop- Conference of the International Group for the
ment, 35, 15–33. doi: 10.1016/j.cogdev.2014.11.002 Psychology of Mathematics Education, Genoa,
Ramani, G. B., Siegler, R. S., & Hitti, A. (2012). Taking Italy.
it to the classroom: Number board games as Reardon, S. F. (2011). The widening academic
a small group learning activity. Journal of Educa- achievement gap between the rich and the poor:
tional Psychology, 104(3), 661–672. doi: 10.1037/ New evidence and possible explanations. In
a0028995.supp G. J. Duncan & R. Murnane (Eds.), Whither
 References 447

Opportunity? Rising Inequality, Schools, and Chil- Science, 24, 1301–1308. doi: 10.1177/0956797
dren’s Life Chances (pp. 91–116). New York, NY: 612466268
Russell Sage Foundation. Ritter, S., Anderson, J. R., Koedinger, K. R., &
Reeves, J. L., Gunter, G. A., & Lacey, C. (2017). Mobile Corbett, A. (2007). Cognitive Tutor: Applied
learning in pre-kindergarten: Using student feed- research in mathematics education. Psycho-
back to inform practice. Educational Technology nomics Bulletin & Review, 14(2), 249–255.
& Society, 20(1), 37–44. Rittle-Johnson, B., Fyfe, E. R., & Zippert, E. (2018). The
Reikerås, E. (2016). Central skills in toddlers’ and roles of patterning and spatial skills in early math-
pre-schoolers’ mathematical development, ematics development. Early Childhood Research
observed in play and everyday activities Nordic Quarterly. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.03.006
Studies in Mathematics Education, 21(4), 57–77. Robinson, G. E. (1990). Synthesis of research on
Reikerås, E., Løge, I. K., & Knivsberg, A.-M. (2012). effects of class size. Educational Leadership, 47
The mathematical competencies of toddlers (7), 80–90.
expressed in their play and daily life activities in Robinson, N. M., Abbot, R. D., Berninger, V. W., &
Norwegian kindergartens. International Journal Busse, J. (1996). The structure of abilities in
of Early Childhood, 44(1), 91–114. doi: 10.1007/ math-precocious young children: Gender similar-
s13158-011-0050-x ities and differences. Journal of Educational
Resnick, I., Newcombe, N. S., & Jordan, N. C. (2019). Psychology, 88(2), 341–352.
The relation between spatial reasoning and math- Rogers, A. (2012). Steps in developing a quality whole
ematical achievement in children with mathemat- number place value assessment for years 3–6:
ical learning difficulties. In A. Fritz, V. G. Haase & Unmasking the “experts.” Paper presented at the
P. Räsänen (Eds.), International handbook of Mathematics Education Research Group of Aus-
mathematical learning difficulties: From the tralasia, Singapore.
laboratory to the classroom (pp. 423–435). Cham, Romano, E., Babchishin, L., Pagani, L. S., & Kohen, D.
Switzerland: Springer. (2010). School readiness and later achievement:
Resnick, L. B., & Omanson, S. (1987). Learning to Replication and extension using a nationwide
understand arithmetic. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Canadian survey. Developmental Psychology, 46
Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 41–95). (5), 995–1007. doi: 10.1037/a0018880
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Rosengren, K. S., Gross, D., Abrams, A. F., &
Resnick, L. B., & Singer, J. A. (1993). Protoquantita- Perlmutter, M. (1985). An observational study of
tive origins of ratio reasoning. In T. P. Carpenter, preschool children’s computing activity. Austin,
E. H. Fennema, & T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Rational TX: “Perspectives on the Young Child and the
numbers: An integration of research (pp. Computer” conference, University of Texas at
107–130). Erlbaum. Austin.
Rhee, M. C., & Chavnagri, N., (Cartographer). (1991). Rosser, R. A., Ensing, S. S., Glider, P. J., & Lane, S.
Four-year-old children’s peer interactions when (1984). An information-processing analysis of chil-
playing with a computer. ERIC Document No. dren’s accuracy in predicting the appearance of
ED342466. Wayne State University rotated stimuli. Child Development, 55, 2204–2211.
Rich, S. E., Duhon, G. J., & Reynolds, J. (2017). Rosser, R. A., Horan, P. F., Mattson, S. L., &
Improving the generalization of computer-based Mazzeo, J. (1984). Comprehension of Euclidean
math fluency building through the use of suffi- space in young children: The early emergence of
cient stimulus exemplars. Journal of Behavioral understanding and its limits. Genetic Psychology
Education, 26(2), 123–136. Monographs, 110, 21–41.
Richardson, K. (2004). Making sense. In Roth, J., Carter, R., Ariet, M., Resnick, M. B., &
D. H. Clements, J. Sarama, & A.-M. DiBiase (Eds.), Crans, G. (2000, April). Comparing fourth-grade
Engaging young children in mathematics: Stand- math and reading achievement of children who
ards for early childhood mathematics education did and did not participate in Florida’s statewide
(pp. 321–324). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Prekindergarten Early Intervention Program.
Associates. Paper presented at the American Educational
Riel, M. (1985). The Computer Chronicles Newswire: Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
A functional learning environment for acquiring Rouse, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., & McLanahan, S. (2005).
literacy skills. Journal of Educational Computing Introducing the issue. The Future of Children, 15,
Research, 1, 317–337. 5–14.
Ritchie, S. J., & Bates, T. C. (2013). Enduring links from Rousselle, L., & Noël, M.-P. (2007). Basic numerical
childhood mathematics and reading achievement skills in children with mathematics learning disabil-
to adult socioeconomic status. Psychological ities: A comparison of symbolic vs. non-symbolic
448 References

number magnitude processing. Cognition, 102, mathematics. In E. Arias, J. Cristia & S. Cueto
361–395. (Eds.), Learning mathematics in the 21st Century:
Russell, K. A., & Kamii, C. (2012). Children’s judge- Adding technology to the equation (pp. 181–223).
ments of durations: A modified republication of Washington, DC: Inter-American Development
Piaget’s study. School Science and Mathematics, Bank.
112(8), 476–482. Sarama, J., Clements, D. H., Wolfe, C. B., &
Russell, S. J. (1991). Counting noses and scary things: Spitler, M. E. (2016). Professional development in
Children construct their ideas about data. In early mathematics: Effects of an intervention
D. Vere-Jones (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third based on learning trajectories on teachers’ prac-
International Conference on Teaching Statistics tices. Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education, 21
(pp. 158–164). Dunedin, New Zealand: Inter- (4), 29–55.
national Statistical Institute. Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2002a). Building
Sæbbe, P.-E., & Mosvold, R. (2016). Initiating Blocks for young children’s mathematical devel-
a conceptualization of the professional work of opment. Journal of Educational Computing
teaching mathematics in kindergarten in terms of Research, 27(1&2), 93–110.
discourse. Nordic Studies in Mathematics Educa- Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2002b). Learning and
tion, 21(4), 79–93. teaching with computers in early childhood edu-
Sakakibara, T. (2014). Mathematics learning and cation. In O. N. Saracho & B. Spodek (Eds.), Con-
teaching in Japanese preschool: Providing appro- temporary Perspectives on Science and
priate foundations for a elementary schooler’s Technology in Early Childhood Education (pp.
mathematics learning. International Journal of 171–219). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publish-
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 1(1), 16–26. ing, Inc.
Salminen, J., Koponen, T., Räsänen, P., & Aro, M. Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2003). Building Blocks
(2015). Preventive support for kindergarteners of early childhood mathematics. Teaching Chil-
most at-risk for mathematics difficulties: dren Mathematics, 9(8), 480–484.
Computer-assisted intervention. Mathematical Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2009). Early childhood
Thinking and Learning, 17(4), 273–295. doi: mathematics education research: Learning trajec-
10.1080/10986065.2015.1083837 tories for young children. New York, NY: Routledge.
Sandhofer, C. M., & Smith, L. B. (1999). Learning color Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2012). Mathematics
words involves learning a system of mappings. for the whole child. In S. Suggate & E. Reese
Developmental Psychology, 35, 668–679. (Eds.), Contemporary debates in childhood educa-
Sarama, J. (2002). Listening to teachers: Planning tion and development (pp. 71–80). New York, NY:
for professional development. Teaching Children Routledge.
Mathematics, 9, 36–39. Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2013). Lessons learned
Sarama, J. (2004). Technology in early childhood in the implementation of the TRIAD scale-up
mathematics: “Building Blocks” as an innovative model: Teaching early mathematics with trajec-
technology-based curriculum. In D. H. Clements, tories and technologies. In T. G. Halle, A. J. Metz,
J. Sarama, & A.-M. DiBiase (Eds.), Engaging young & I. Martinez-Beck (Eds.), Applying implementa-
children in mathematics: Standards for early tion science in early childhood programs and sys-
childhood mathematics education (pp. 361–375). tems (pp. 173–191). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2018). Promoting posi-
Sarama, J., Brenneman, K., Clements, D. H., tive transitions through coherent instruction,
Duke, N. K., & Hemmeter, M. L. (2017). Interdiscip- assessment, and professional development: The
linary teaching across multiple domains: The C4L TRIAD scale-up model. In A. J. Mashburn,
(Connect4Learning) Curriculum. In L. B. Bailey J. LoCasale-Crouch & K. Pears (Eds.), Kindergar-
(Ed.), Implementing the Common Core State ten transition and readiness: Promoting cognitive,
Standards across the early childhood curriculum social-emotional, and self-regulatory develop-
(pp. 1–53). New York, NY: Routledge. ment (pp. 327–348). Cham, Switzerland: Springer
Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2016). Physical and vir- International Publishing.
tual manipulatives: What is “concrete”? In Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2019). Technology in
P. S. Moyer-Packenham (Ed.), International per- early childhood education. In O. N. Saracho (Ed.),
spectives on teaching and learning mathematics Handbook of research on the education of young
with virtual manipulatives (Vol. 3, pp. 71–93). children (Vol. 4, pp. 183–198). New York, NY:
Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Routledge.
Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2020). Promoting Sarama, J., Clements, D. H., Barrett, J. E., Cullen, C. J.,
a good start: Technology in early childhood & Hudyma, A. (2019). Length measurement in the
 References 449

early years: Teaching and learning with learning Computers in Human Behavior, 55(A), 223–229.
trajectories. Submitted for publication. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.013
Sarama, J., Clements, D. H., Barrett, J. E., Van Schaeffer, M. W., Rozek, C. S., Berkowitz, T.,
Dine, D. W., & McDonel, J. S. (2011). Evaluation of Levine, S. C., & Beilock, S. L. (2018). Disassociat-
a learning trajectory for length in the early years. ing the relation between parents’ math anxiety
ZDM-The International Journal on Mathematics and children’s math achievement: Long-term
Education, 43, 667–680. doi: 10.1007/s11858-011- effects of a math app intervention. Journal of
0326-5 Experimental Psychology General, 147(12),
Sarama, J., Clements, D. H., Swaminathan, S., 1782–1790. doi: 10.1037/xge0000490
McMillen, S., & González Gómez, R. M. (2003). Schenke, K., Watts, T. W., Nguyen, T., Sarama, J., &
Development of mathematical concepts of Clements, D. H. (2017). Differential effects of the
two-dimensional space in grid environments: An classroom on African American and non-African
exploratory study. Cognition and Instruction, 21, American's mathematics achievement. Journal of
285–324. Educational Psychology, 109(6), 794–811.
Sarama, J., Clements, D. H., & Vukelic, E. B. (1996). Schery, T. K., & O’Connor, L. C. (1997). Language
The role of a computer manipulative in fostering intervention: Computer training for young chil-
specific psychological/mathematical processes. dren with special needs. British Journal of Educa-
In E. Jakubowski, D. Watkins, & H. Biske (Eds.), tional Technology, 28, 271–279.
Proceedings of the 18th Annual Meeting of the Schliemann, A. C. D., Carraher, D. W., &
North America Chapter of the International Group Brizuela, B. M. (2007). Bringing out the algebraic
for the Psychology of Mathematics Education character of arithmetic. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
(Vol. 2, pp. 567–572). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clear- Erlbaum Associates.
inghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environ- Schmerold, K. L., Bock, A., Peterson, M., Leaf, B.,
mental Education. Vennergrund, K., & Pasnak, R. (2017). The rela-
Sarama, J., Clements, D. H., Wolfe, C. B., & tions between patterning, executive function, and
Spitler, M. E. (2012). Longitudinal evaluation of a mathematics. Journal of Psychology: Interdiscip-
scale-up model for teaching mathematics with tra- linary and Applied, 151(2), 207–228. doi: 10.1080/
jectories and technologies. Journal of Research on 00223980.2016.1252708
Educational Effectiveness, 5(2), 105–135. Schmitt, S. A., Korucu, I., Napoli, A. R., Bryant, L. M.,
Sarama, J., & DiBiase, A.-M. (2004). The professional & Purpura, D. J. (2018). Using block play to
development challenge in preschool mathemat- enhance preschool children’s mathematics and
ics. In D. H. Clements, J. Sarama, & A.-M. DiBiase executive functioning: A randomized controlled
(Eds.), Engaging young children in mathematics: trial. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 44,
Standards for early childhood mathematics edu- 181–191. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.04.006
cation (pp. 415–446). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erl- Schoenfeld, A. H. (2008). Early algebra as mathem-
baum Associates. atical sense making. In J. J. Kaput,
Sarama, J., Lange, A., Clements, D. H., & Wolfe, C. B. D. W. Carraher, & M. L. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in
(2012). The impacts of an early mathematics cur- the early grades (pp. 479–510). Mahwah, NJ: Law-
riculum on emerging literacy and language. Early rence Erlbaum Associates.
Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(3), 489–502. Schumacher, R. F., & Fuchs, L. S. (2012). Does under-
doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.12.002 standing relational terminology mediate effects
Saribaş, Ş., & Arnas, Y. A. (2017). Which type of of intervention on compare word problems?
verbal problems do the teachers and education Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 111(4),
materials present to children in preschool 607–628. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2011.12.001
period? Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Schwartz, S. (2004). Explorations in graphing with
Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11 prekindergarten children. In B. Clarke (Ed.), Inter-
(1), 81–100. national perspectives on learning and teaching
Scalise, N. R., DePascale, M., McCown, C., & mathematics (pp. 83–97). Gothenburg, Sweden:
Ramani, G. B. (2019, March). “My child’s math abil- National Centre for Mathematics Education.
ity will never change”: Relations between paren- Schweinhart, L. J., & Weikart, D. P. (1988). Education
tal beliefs and preschoolers’ math skills. Paper for young children living in poverty: Child-initiated
presented at the 2019 SRCD Biennial Meeting, learning or teacher-d automatic human infordir-
Baltimore, MD. ected instruction? The Elementary School Journal,
Schacter, J., & Jo, B. (2016). Improving low-income 89, 212–225.
preschoolers mathematics achievement with Math Schweinhart, L. J., & Weikart, D. P. (1997). The High/
Shelf, a preschool tablet computer curriculum. Scope curriculum comparison study through age
450 References

23. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12, low-income children in early elementary school?
117–143. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 40, 123–137.
Scott, L. F., & Neufeld, H. (1976). Concrete instruction doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2017.03.004
in elementary school mathematics: Pictorial vs. Shahbari, J. A. (2017). Mathematical and pedagogical
manipulative. School Science and Mathematics, knowledge amongst first-and second-grade inser-
76, 68–72. vice and preservice mathematics teachers. Inter-
Secada, W. G. (1992). Race, ethnicity, social class, national Journal for Mathematics Teaching and
language, and achievement in mathematics. In Learning, 18(1), 41–65.
D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on math- Shamir, A., & Lifshitz, I. (2012). E-books for support-
ematics teaching and learning (pp. 623–660). ing the emergent literacy and emergent math of
New York, NY: Macmillan. children at risk for learning disabilities: Can meta-
Sedaghatjou, M., & Campbell, S. R. (2017). Exploring cognitive guidance make a difference? European
cardinality in the era of touchscreen-based Journal of Special Needs Education, 28(1), 33–48.
technology. International Journal of Mathemat- doi: 10.1080/08856257.2012.742746
ical Education in Science and Technology, 48(8), Shaw, K., Nelsen, E., & Shen, Y.-L. (2001, April). Pre-
1225–1239. school development and subsequent school
Şeker, P. T., & Alisinanoğlu, F. (2015). A survey study achievement among Spanish-speaking children
of the effects of preschool teachers’ beliefs and from low-income families. Paper presented at the
self-efficacy towards mathematics education and American Educational Research Association,
their demographic features on 48-60-month-old Seattle, WA.
preschool children’s mathematic skills. Creative Shaw, R., Grayson, A., & Lewis, V. (2005). Inhibition,
Education, 06(03), 405–414. doi: 10.4236/ ADHD, and computer games: The inhibitory per-
ce.2015.63040 formance of children with ADHD on computerized
Sella, F., Berteletti, I., Lucangeli, D., & Zorzi, M. tasks and games. Journal of Attention Disorders,
(2016). Spontaneous non-verbal counting in 8, 160–168.
toddlers. Development of Science, 19(2), 329–337. Shayer, M., & Adhami, M. (2010). Realizing the cogni-
doi: 10.1111/desc.12299 tive potential of children 5–7 with a mathematics
Seloraji, P., & Eu, L. K. (2017). Students’ performance focus: Post-test and longterm effects of a 2-year
in geometrical reflection using GeoGebra. Malay- intervention. British Journal of Educational
sian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 5 Psychology, 80(3), 363–379.
(1), 65–77. Sheehan, K. J., Pila, S., Lauricella, A. R., &
Senk, S. L., & Thompson, D. R. (2003). Standards- Wartella, E. A. (2019). Parent-child interaction
based school mathematics curricula. What are and children’s learning from a coding application.
they? What do students learn? Mahwah, NJ: Law- Computers & Education, 140. doi: 10.1016/j.
rence Erlbaum Associates. compedu.2019.103601
Seo, K.-H., & Ginsburg, H. P. (2004). What is develop- Shepard, L. (2005). Assessment. In L. Darling-
mentally appropriate in early childhood mathem- Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing
atics education? In D. H. Clements, J. Sarama, & teachers for a changing world (pp. 275–326). San
A.-M. DiBiase (Eds.), Engaging young children in Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
mathematics: Standards for early childhood Shepard, L., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2018). Classroom
mathematics education (pp. 91–104). Mahwah, NJ: assessment principles to support learning and
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. avoid the harms of testing. Educational Measure-
Shade, D. D. (1994). Computers and young children: ment: Issues and Practice, 37(1), 52–57.
Software types, social contexts, gender, age, and Sherman, J., & Bisanz, J. (2009). Equivalence in sym-
emotional responses. Journal of Computing in bolic and non-symbolic contexts: Benefits of solv-
Childhood Education, 5(2), 177–209. ing problems with manipulatives Journal of
Shade, D. D., Nida, R. E., Lipinski, J. M., & Educational Psychology, 101(1), 88–100.
Watson, J. A. (1986). Microcomputers and pre- Sherman, J., Bisanz, J., & Popescu, A. (2007, April).
schoolers: Working together in a classroom Tracking the path of change: Failure to success
setting. Computers in the Schools, 3, 53–61. on equivalence problems. Paper presented at the
Shah, H. K., Domitrovich, C. E., Morgan, N. R., Society for Research in Child Development,
Moore, J. E., Rhoades, B. L., Jacobson, L., & Boston, MA.
Greenberg, M. T. (2017). One or two years of par- Shiakalli, M. A., & Zacharos, K. (2014). The contribu-
ticipation: Is dosage of an enhanced publicly tion of external representations in pre-school
funded preschool program associated with the mathematical problem solving. International
academic and executive function skills of Journal of Early Years Education, 20(4), 315–331.
 References 451

Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1984). Controlled and different relationships with different mathemat-
automatic human information processing: II. Per- ical skills. Journal of Experimental Child Psych-
ceptual learning, automatic attending, and a gen- ology, 111(2), 139–155. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2011.08.011
eral theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127–190. Skoumpourdi, C. (2010). Kindergarten mathematics
Shonkoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. A. (Eds.). (2000). From with ‘Pepe the Rabbit’: How kindergartners use
neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early auxiliary means to solve problems. European
childhood development. Washington, DC: National Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 18
Academy Press. (3), 149–157.
Shrock, S. A., Matthias, M., Anastasoff, J., Vensel, C., Slater, A., Mattock, A., & Brown, E. (1990). Size con-
& Shaw, S. (1985). Examining the effects of the stancy at birth: Newborn infants’ responses to
microcomputer on a real world class: retinal and real size. Journal of Experimental
A naturalistic study. Anaheim, CA: Association for Child Psychology, 49, 314–322.
Educational Communications and Technology. Slovin, H. (2007, April). Revelations from counting:
Sicilian, S. P. (1988). Development of counting strat- A window to conceptual understanding. Paper
egies in congenitally blind children. Journal of presented at the Research Presession of the
Visual Impairment & Blindness, 82(8), 331–335. 85th Annual Meeting of the National Council of
doi: 10.1177/0145482X8808200811 Teachers of Mathematics, Atlanta, GA.
Siegler, R. S. (1993). Adaptive and non-adaptive char- Smith, L. B., Jones, S. S., Landau, B., Gershkoff-
acteristics of low income children’s strategy use. Stowe, L., & Samuelson, L. (2002). Object name
In L. A. Penner, G. M. Batsche, H. M. Knoff, & learning provides on-the-job training for
D. L. Nelson (Eds.), Contributions of psychology attention. Psychological Science, 13, 13–19.
to science and mathematics education (pp. Smith, C. R., Marchand-Martella, N. E., &
341–366). Washington, DC: American Psycho- Martella, R. C. (2011). Assessing the effects of the
logical Association. Rocket Math program with a primary elementary
Siegler, R. S. (1995). How does change occur: school student at risk for school failure: A case
A microgenetic study of number conservation. study. Education and Treatment of Children, 34,
Cognitive Psychology, 28, 255–273. doi: 10.1006/ 247–258.
cogp.1995.1006 Snodgrass, M. R., Israel, M., & Reese, G. C. (2016).
Siegler, R. S. (2017). Fractions: Where it all goes wrong. Instructional supports for students with disabil-
Scientfic American. www.scientificamerican.com/ ities in K-5 computing: Findings from a cross-case
article/fractions-where-it-all-goes-wrong/ analysis. Computers & Education, 100, 1–17. doi:
Siegler, R. S., & Booth, J. L. (2004). Development of 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.04.011
numerical estimation in young children. Child Sobayi, C. (2018). The role of parents and pre-primary
Development, 75, 428–444. education in promoting early numeracy develop-
Silander, M., Moorthy, S., Dominguez, X., Hupert, N., ment to young children in Dar es Salaam. Papers
Pasnik, S., & Llorente, C. (2016). Using digital media in Education and Development(35).
at home to promote young children's mathematics Solem, M., Huynh, N. T., & Boehm, R. (Eds.). (2015).
learning: Results of a randomized controlled trial. Learning progressions for maps, geospatial tech-
Retrieved from Society for Research on Educa- nology, and spatial thinking: A research hand-
tional Effectiveness. 2040 Sheridan Road, Evan- book. Washington, DC: National Center for
ston, IL 60208. website: https://search.proquest. Research in Geography Education.
com/docview/1871568227?accountid=14608 Sonnenschein, S., Baker, L., Moyer, A., & LeFevre, S.
Silverman, I. W., York, K., & Zuidema, N. (1984). Area- (2005, April). Parental beliefs about children’s
matching strategies used by young children. reading and math development and relations with
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 38, subsequent achievement. Paper presented at the
464–474. Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in
Silvern, S. B., Countermine, T. A., & Williamson, P. A. Child Development, Atlanta, GA.
(1988). Young children’s interaction with a micro- Sophian, C. (2002). Learning about what fits: Pre-
computer. Early Child Development and Care, 32, school children’s reasoning about effects of
23–35. object size. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Sim, Z. L., & Xu, F. (2017). Learning higher-order gener- Education, 33, 290–302.
alizations through free play: Evidence from 2- and Sophian, C. (2004). A prospective developmental
3-year-old children. Developmental Psychology, 53 perspective on early mathematics instruction. In
(4), 642–651. doi: 10.1037/dev0000278 D. H. Clements, J. Sarama, & A.-M. DiBiase (Eds.),
Simmons, F. R., Willis, C., & Adams, A.-M. (2012). Dif- Engaging young children in mathematics: Stand-
ferent components of working memory have ards for early childhood mathematics education
452 References

(pp. 253–266). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Spelke, E. S. (2008). Effects of music instruction on
Associates. developing cognitive systems at the foundations
Sophian, C. (2013). Vicissitudes of children’s math- of mathematics and science. In C. Asbury &
ematical knowledge: Implications of developmen- B. Rich (Eds.), Learning, Arts, & the Brain (pp.
tal research for early childhood mathematics 17–49). New York/Washington, DC: Dana Press.
education. Early Education & Development, 24(4), Starkey, P., Klein, A., Chang, I., Qi, D., Lijuan, P., &
436–442. doi: 10.1080/10409289.2013.773255 Yang, Z. (1999, April). Environmental supports for
Sophian, C., & Adams, N. (1987). Infants’ understand- young children’s mathematical development in
ing of numerical transformations. British Journal China and the United States. Paper presented at
of Educational Psychology, 5, 257–264. the Society for Research in Child Development,
Sorariutta, A., & Silvén, M. (2017). Maternal cognitive Albuquerque, NM.
guidance and early education and care as pre- Starr, A., Libertus, M. E., & Brannon, E. M. (2013).
cursors of mathematical development at pre- Infants show ratio-dependent number discrimin-
school age and in ninth grade. Infant and Child ation regardless of set size. Infancy, 18(6),
Development, 27(2). doi: 10.1002/icd.2069 927–941. doi: 10.1111/infa.12008
Sorariutta, A., & Silvén, M. (2018). Quality of both Steen, L. A. (1988). The science of patterns. Science,
parents’ cognitive guidance and quantity of early 240, 611–616.
childhood education: Influences on pre-mathem- Steffe, L. P. (1991). Operations that generate quantity.
atical development. British Journal of Educational Learning and Individual Differences, 3, 61–82.
Psychology, 88(2), 192–215. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12217 Steffe, L. P. (2004). PSSM from a constructivist per-
Soto-Calvo, E., Simmons, F. R., Willis, C., & Adams, A.- spective. In D. H. Clements, J. Sarama, & A.-
M. (2015, December). Identifying the cognitive M. DiBiase (Eds.), Engaging young children in
predictors of early counting and calculation skills: mathematics: Standards for early childhood
Evidence from a longitudinal study. Journal of mathematics education (pp. 221–251). Mahwah,
Experimental Child Psychology, 140, 16–37. doi: NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10.1016/j.jecp.2015.06.011 Steffe, L. P., & Cobb, P. (1988). Construction of arith-
Sowder, J. T. (1992a). Estimation and number sense. metical meanings and strategies. New York, NY:
In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on Springer-Verlag.
mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 371–389). Steffe, L. P., & Olive, J. (2002). Design and use of
New York, NY: Macmillan. computer tools for interactive mathematical
Sowder, J. T. (1992b). Making sense of numbers in activity (TIMA). Journal of Educational Computing
school mathematics. In G. Leinhardt, R. Putman, Research, 27(1&2), 55–76.
& R. A. Hattrup (Eds.), Analysis of arithmetic for Steffe, L. P., & Olive, J. (2010). Children's fractional
mathematics teaching (pp. 1–45). Mahwah, NJ: knowledge. Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 0519-8
Sowell, E. J. (1989). Effects of manipulative materials Steffe, L. P., Thompson, P. W., & Richards, J. (1982).
in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research Children’s counting in arithmetical problem solving.
in Mathematics Education, 20, 498–505. In T. P. Carpenter, J. M. Moser, & T. A. Romberg
Spaepen, E., Coppola, M., Spelke, E. S., Carey, S. E., & (Eds.), Addition and subtraction: A cognitive per-
Goldin-Meadow, S. (2011). Number without a lan- spective (pp. 83–97). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erl-
guage model. Proceedings of the National Academy baum Associates.
of Sciences, 108(8), 3163–3168. doi: 10.1073/ Steffe, L. P., & Wiegel, H. G. (1994). Cognitive play and
pnas.1015975108 mathematical learning in computer MicroWorlds.
Spaepen, E., Gunderson, E. A., Gibson, D., Goldin- Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 8(2),
Meadow, S., & Levine, S. C. (2018). Meaning 117–131.
before order: Cardinal principle knowledge pre- Steinke, D. (2013) Rhythm and number sense: How
dicts improvement in understanding the succes- music teaches math. Lafayette, CO: NumberWorks.
sor principle and exact ordering. Cognition, 180, Stenmark, J. K., Thompson, V., & Cossey, R. (1986).
59–81. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.012 Family math. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Hall of Sci-
The Spatial Reasoning Study Group. (2015). Spatial ence, University of California.
reasoning in the early years: Principles, asser- Stephan, M., & Clements, D. H. (2003). Linear, area,
tions, and speculations. New York, NY: Routledge. and time measurement in prekindergarten to
Spelke, E. S. (2003). What makes us smart? Core grade 2. In D. H. Clements (Ed.), Learning and
knowledge and natural language. In D. Genter & teaching measurement: 65th Yearbook (pp. 3–16).
S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind (pp. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of
277–311). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Mathematics.
 References 453

Stevenson, H. W., & Newman, R. S. (1986). Long-term Suydam, M. N. (1986). Manipulative materials and
prediction of achievement and attitudes in math- achievement. Arithmetic Teacher, 33(6), 10, 32.
ematics and reading. Child Development, 57, Swigger, K. M., & Swigger, B. K. (1984). Social pat-
646–659. terns and computer use among preschool
Stewart, R., Leeson, N., & Wright, R. J. (1997). Links children. AEDS Journal, 17, 35–41.
between early arithmetical knowledge and early Swinton, P. J., Buysse, V., Bryant, D., Clifford, D.,
space and measurement knowledge: An explora- Early, D., & Little, L. (2005). NCEDL Pre-
tory study. In F. Biddulph & K. Carr (Eds.), Pro- kindergarten study. Early Developments, 9(1).
ceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference of Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-
the Mathematics Education Research Group of Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2005). The effective
Australasia (Vol. 2, pp. 477–484). Hamilton, New provision of pre-school education [EPPE] project:
Zealand: MERGA. A longitudinal study funded by the DfEE (1997–-
Stigler, J. W., Fuson, K. C., Ham, M., & Kim, M. S. 2003). London, England: EPPE Project, Institute
(1986). An analysis of addition and subtraction of Education, University of London.
word problems in American and Soviet elemen- Szkudlarek, E., & Brannon, E. M. (2018). Approximate
tary mathematics textbooks. Cognition and arithmetic training improves informal math per-
Instruction, 3, 153–171. formance in low achieving preschoolers. Frontiers
Stiles, J., & Nass, R. (1991). Spatial grouping activity in Psychology, in press. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.
in young children with congenital right or left 2018.00606
hemisphere brain injury. Brain and Cognition, 15, Taylor, M. (2017). Computer programming with early
201–222. elementary students with and without intellectual
Stock, P., Desoete, A., & Roeyers, H. (2009). Mastery disabilities. (Doctoral Dissertation), University of
of the counting principles in toddlers: A crucial Central Florida. Retrieved from http://purl.fcla.
step in the development of budding arithmetic edu/fcla/etd/CFE0006807
abilities? Learning and Individual Differences, 19 Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to
(4), 419–422. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2009.03.002 life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social
Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. (2013). Gender differences in contexts. New York, NY: Cambridge University
kindergarteners' robotics and programming Press.
achievement. International Journal of Technology Thirumurthy, V. (2003). Children’s cognition of
& Design Education, 23(3), 691–702. doi: 10.1007/ geometry and spatial thinking—A cultural process.
s10798-012-9210-z Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Sullivan, A., Kazakoff, E. R., & Bers, M. U. (2013). The Buffalo, State University of New York.
wheels on the bot go round and round: Robotics Tierney, C., & Berle-Caman, M. (1997). Fair shares.
curriculum in pre-kindergarten. Journal of Infor- Dale Seymour.
mation Technology Education: Innovations in Thom, J. S., & McGarvey, L. M. (2015). The act and
Practice, 12, 203–219. artifact of drawing(s): Observing geometric think-
Sumpter, L., & Hedefalk, M. (2015). Preschool children’s ing with, in, and through children’s drawings.
collective mathematical reasoning during free out- ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(3), 465–481. doi:
door play. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 10.1007/s11858-015-0697-0
39, 1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.jmathb.2015.03.006 Thomas, B. (1982). An abstract of kindergarten
Sung, W., Ahn, J.-H., Kai, S. M., & Black, J. (2017). teachers’ elicitation and utilization of children’s
Effective planning strategy in robotics education: prior knowledge in the teaching of shape con-
An embodied approach. Paper presented at the cepts. Unpublished manuscript, School of Educa-
Society for Information Technology & Teacher tion, Health, Nursing, and Arts Professions,
Education International Conference 2017, Austin, New York University.
TX, United States. www.learntechlib.org/p/177387 Thomas, G., & Tagg, A. (2004). An evaluation of the
Sun Lee, J., & Ginsburg, H. P. (2009). Early childhood Early Numeracy Project 2003. Wellington, Austra-
teachers’ misconceptions about mathematics lia: Ministry of Education.
education for young children in the United Thommen, E., Avelar, S., Sapin, V. R. Z.,
States. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, Perrenoud, S., & Malatesta, D. (2010). Mapping
34(4), 37–45. the journey from home to school: A study on chil-
Susperreguy, M. I., Di Lonardo Burr, S., Xu, C., dren’s representation of space. International
Douglas, H., & LeFevre, J. A. (2020). Children’s Research in Geographical and Environmental Edu-
home numeracy environment predicts growth of cation, 19(3), 191–205.
their early mathematical skills in Kindergarten. Thompson, A. C. (2012). The effect of enhanced visu-
Child Development. doi: 10.1111/cdev.13353 alization instruction on first grade students’
454 References

scores on the North Carolina standard course kindergartners. Journal of Experimental Child
assessment. (Dissertation), Liberty University, Psychology, 124C, 97–111. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.
Lynchburg, VA. 2014.02.001
Thompson, P. W. (1992). Notations, conventions, and Toll, S. W. M., Van Viersen, S., Kroesbergen, E. H., &
constraints: Contributions to effective use of con- Van Luit, J. E. H. (2015). The development of
crete materials in elementary mathematics. Jour- (non-)symbolic comparison skills throughout kin-
nal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23, dergarten and their relations with basic mathem-
123–147. atical skills. Learning and Individual Differences,
Thompson, C. J., & Davis, S. B. (2014). Classroom 38, 10–17. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2014.12.006
observation data and instruction in primary Torbeyns, J., van den Noortgate, W., Ghesquière, P.,
mathematics education: Improving design and Verschaffel, L., Van de Rijt, B. A. M., & van
rigour. Mathematics Education Research Journal, Luit, J. E. H. (2002). Development of early numer-
26(2), 301–323. doi: 10.1007/s13394-013-0099-y acy in 5- to 7-year-old children: A comparison
Thompson, P. W., & Thompson, A. G. (1990). Salient between Flanders and the Netherlands. Educa-
aspects of experience with concrete manipula- tional Research and Evaluation. An International
tives. In F. Hitt (Ed.), Proceedings of the 14th Journal on Theory and Practice, 8, 249–275.
Annual Meeting of the International Group for the Touchette, E., Petit, D., Séguin, J. R., Boivin, M.,
Psychology of Mathematics (Vol. 3, pp. 337–343). Tremblay, R. E., & Montplaisir, J. Y. (2007). Asso-
Mexico City, Mexico: International Group for the ciations between sleep duration patterns and
Psychology of Mathematics Education. behavioral/cognitive functioning at school entry.
Thompson, R. J., Napoli, A. R., & Purpura, D. J. Sleep, 30, 1213–1219.
(2017). Age-related differences in the relation Tournaki, N. (2003). The differential effects of teach-
between the home numeracy environment and ing addition through strategy instruction versus
numeracy skills. Infant and Child Development, 26 drill and practice to students with and without
(5), 1–13. doi: 10.1002/icd.2019 learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabil-
Thomson, D., Casey, B. M., Lombardi, C. M., & ities, 36(5), 449–458.
Nguyen, H. N. (2018). Quality of fathers’ spatial Trawick-Smith, J., Oski, H., DePaolis, K., Krause, K., &
concept support during block building predicts Zebrowski, A. (2016). Naptime data meetings to
their daughters’ early math skills – But not their increase the math talk of early care and educa-
sons’. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. doi: tion providers. Journal of Early Childhood
10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.07.008 Teacher Education, 37(2), 157–174. doi: 10.1080/
Thomson, S., Rowe, K., Underwood, C., & Peck, R. 10901027.2016.1165762
(2005). Numeracy in the early years: Project Trawick-Smith, J., Swaminathan, S., & Liu, X. (2016).
Good start. Camberwellm Victoria, Australia: Aus- The relationship of teacher child play interactions
tralian Council for Educational Research. to mathematics learning in preschool. Early Child
Thorton, C. A., Langrall, C. W., & Jones, G. A. (1997). Development and Care, 186(5), 716–733. doi:
Mathematics instruction for elementary students 10.1080/03004430.2015.1054818
with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Dis- Tsamir, P., Tirosh, D., Levenson, E. S., Barkai, R., &
abilities, 30, 142–150. Tabach, M. (2017). Repeating patterns in kinder-
Titeca, D., Roeyers, H., Josephy, H., Ceulemans, A., & garten: Findings from children’s enactments of
Desoete, A. (2014). Preschool predictors of math- two activities. Educational Studies in Mathemat-
ematics in first grade children with autism spec- ics, 96(1), 83–99. doi: 10.1007/s10649-017-9762-7
trum disorder. Research in Developmental Tudge, J. R. H., & Doucet, F. (2004). Early mathemat-
Disabilities, 35(11), 2714–2727. doi: 10.1016/j. ical experiences: Observing young Black and
ridd.2014.07.012 White children’s everyday activities. Early Child-
Tirosh, D., Tsamir, P., Levenson, E. S., & Barkai, R. hood Research Quarterly, 19, 21–39.
(2020). Setting the table with toddlers: A playful Tuğluk, M. N., & Öcal, S. M. (2017). Examination of
context for engaging in one-to-one correspond- STEM education and its effect on economy:
ence. ZDM. doi: 10.1007/s11858-019-01126-9 Importance of early childhood education. In
Toll, S. W. M., Van der Ven, S., Kroesbergen, E., & Van I. Koleva & G. Duman (Eds.), Educational research
Luit, J. E. H. (2010). Executive functions as pre- and practice (pp. 362–370). Sofia, Bulgaria:
dictors of math learning disabilities. Journal of St. Kliment Ohridski University Press.
Learning Disabilities, 20(10), 1–12. doi: 10.1177/ Tucker, S. I., Lommatsch, C. W., Moyer-Packenham,
0022219410387302 P. S., Anderson-Pence, K. L., & Symanzik, J.
Toll, S. W. M., & Van Luit, J. E. H. (2014). Explaining (2017). Kindergarten children's interactions with
numeracy development in weak performing touchscreen mathematics virtual manipulatives:
 References 455

An innovative mixed methods analysis. Inter- Uttal, D. H., Meadow, N. G., Tipton, E., Hand, L. L.,
national Journal of Research in Education and Alden, A. R., Warren, C., & Newcombe, N. S.
Science, 3(2), 646–665. (2013). The malleability of spatial skills: A
Turkle, S. (1997). Seeing through computers: Educa- meta-analysis of training studies. Psychological
tion in a culture of simulation. The American Pro- Bulletin, 139(2), 352–402. doi: 10.1037/a0028446
spect, 31, 76–82. Uttal, D. H., Scudder, K. V., & DeLoache, J. S. (1997).
Turner, E. E., & Celedón-Pattichis, S. (2011). Problem Manipulatives as symbols: A new perspective on
solving and mathematical discourse among the use of concrete objects to teach mathemat-
Latino/a kindergarten students: An analysis of ics. Journal of Applied Developmental Psych-
opportunities to learn. Journal of Latinos and ology, 18, 37–54.
Education, 10(2), 146–169. Uyanik Aktulun, O., & Inal Kiziltepe, G. (2018). Using
Turner, E. E., Celedón-Pattichis, S., & Marshall, M. E. learning centers to improve the language and
(2008). Cultural and linguistic resources to pro- academic skills of preschool children. World Jour-
mote problem solving and mathematical dis- nal of Education, 8(6). doi: 10.5430/wje.v8n6p32
course among Hispanic kindergarten students. In Valiente, C., Eisenberg, N., Haugen, R., Spinrad, T. L.,
R. S. Kitchen & E. A. Silver (Eds.), Promoting high Hofer, C., Liew, J., & Kupfer, A. S. (2011). Chil-
participation and success in mathematics by His- dren’s effortful control and academic achieve-
panic students: Examining opportunities and ment: Mediation through social functioning. Early
probing promising practices (Vol. 1, pp. 19–42). Education & Development, 22(3), 411–433. doi:
Tempe, AZ: TODOS: Mathematics for ALL. 10.1080/10409289.2010.505259
Turner, R. C., & Ritter, G. W. (2004, April). Does the Vallortigara, G. (2012). Core knowledge of object,
impact of preschool childcare on cognition and number, and geometry: A comparative and
behavior persist throughout the elementary neural approach. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 29
years? Paper presented at the American Educa- (1–2), 213–236. doi: 10.1080/02643294.2012.
tional Research Association, San Diego, CA. 654772
Tymms, P., Jones, P., Albone, S., & Henderson, B. Vallortigara, G., Sovrano, V. A., & Chiandetti, C.
(2009). The first seven years at school. Educa- (2009). Doing Socrates [sic] experiment right:
tional Assessment and Evaluation Accountability, Controlled rearing studies of geometrical know-
21, 67–80. ledge in animals. Current Opinion in Neurobiol-
Tzur, R., & Lambert, M. A. (2011). Intermediate partici- ogy, 19(1), 20–26. doi: 10.1016/j.conb.2009.02.002
patory stages as zone of proximal development van Baar, A. L., de Jong, M., & Verhoeven, M. (2013).
correlate in constructing counting-on: A plausible Moderate preterm children born at 32–36 weeks
conceptual source for children’s transitory gestational age around 8 years of age: Differ-
“regress” to counting-all. Journal for Research in ences between children with and without identi-
Mathematics Education, 42, 418–450. fied developmental and school problems. In
Tzuriel, D., & Egozi, G. (2010). Gender differences in O. Erez (Ed.), Preterm Birth (pp. 175–189). Rijeka,
spatial ability of young children: The effects of Croatia: In Tech Europe.
training and processing strategies. Child Develop- Van Bommel, J., & Palmér, H. (2016). Young children
ment, 81(5), 1417–1430. exploring probability – With focus on their docu-
Ungar, S., Blades, M., & Spencer, C. (1997). Teaching mentations. Nordic Studies in Mathematics Edu-
visually impaired children to make distance judg- cation, 21(4), 95–114.
ments from a tactile map. Journal of Visual van der Ven, F., Segers, E., Takashima, A., &
Impairment and Blindness, 91, 163–174. Verhoeven, L. (2017). Effects of a tablet game
Urbina, A., & Polly, D. (2017). Examining elementary intervention on simple addition and subtraction
school teachers’ integration of technology and fluency in first graders. Computers in Human
enactment of TPACK in mathematics. The Inter- Behavior, 72, 200–207. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.
national Journal of Information and Learning 2017.02.031
Technology, 34(5), 439–451. doi: 10.1108/IJILT- Van de Rijt, B. A. M., & Van Luit, J. E. H. (1999). Mile-
06-2017-0054 stones in the development of infant numeracy.
Uttal, D. H., Marzolf, D. P., Pierroutsakos, S. L., Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 40, 65–71.
Smith, C. M., Troseth, G. L., Scudder, K. V., & Van de Rijt, B. A. M., Van Luit, J. E. H., &
DeLoache, J. S. (1997). Seeing through symbols: Pennings, A. H. (1999). The construction of the
The development of children’s understanding of Utrecht early mathematical competence scales.
symbolic relations. In O. N. Saracho & B. Spodek Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59,
(Eds.), Multiple perspectives on play in early child- 289–309.
hood education (pp. 59–79). Albany: State Univer- Van den Heuvel-panhuizen, M., Elia, I., & Robitzsch, A.
sity of New York Press. (2015). Kindergartners’ performance in two types
456 References

of imaginary perspective-taking. ZDM Mathematics Vasilyeva, M., Laski, E., Veraksa, A., Weber, L., &
Education, 47(3), 345–362. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12320 Bukhalenkova, D. (2018). Distinct pathways from
Van der Ven, S. H. G., Kroesbergen, E. H., Boom, J., & parental beliefs and practices to children’s
Leseman, P. P. M. (2012). The development of numeric skills. Journal of Cognition and Develop-
executive functions and early mathematics: ment, 19(4), 345–366. doi: 10.1080/15248372.
A dynamic relationship. British Journal of Educa- 2018.1483371
tional Psychology, 82(1), 100–119. doi: 10.1111/ Verdine, B. N., Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., &
j.2044-8279.2011.02035.x Newcombe, N. S. (2017). Links between spatial
Van Herwegen, J., & Donlan, C. (2018). Improving and mathematical skills across the preschool
preschoolers’ number foundations. London, Eng- years. Monographs of the Society for Research in
land: Kingston University. www.nuffieldfounda Child Development, 82(1, Serial No. 324). doi:
tion.org/sites/default/files/files/Van%20Herwe 10.1111/mono.12280
gen%2041669%20-%20Main%20report_Improv Verdine, B. N., Lucca, K. R., Golinkoff, R. M.,
ing%20Preschoolers%20Number%20Founda Newcombe, N. S., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2016). The
tions%20(Mar18).pdf shape of things: The origin of young children‟s
Van Luit, J. E. H., & Van der Molen, M. J. (2011). The knowledge of the names and properties of geo-
effectiveness of Korean number naming on metric forms. The Journal of Cognition and Devel-
insight into numbers in Dutch students with mild opment, 17(1), 142–161. doi: 10.1080/15248372.
intellectual disabilities. Research in Developmen- 2015.1016610
tal Disabilities, 32, 1941–1947. Vergnaud, G. (1978). The acquisition of arithmetical
van Oers, B. (1994). Semiotic activity of young chil- concepts. In E. Cohors-Fresenborg &
dren in play: The construction and use of sche- I. Wachsmuth (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd Con-
matic representations. European Early Childhood ference of the International Group for the Psych-
Education Research Journal, 2, 19–33. ology of Mathematics Education (pp. 344–355).
van Oers, B. (1996). Are you sure? Stimulating math- Osnabruck, Germany: International Group for the
ematical thinking during young children’s play. Psychology of Mathematics Education.
European Early Childhood Education Research Verschaffel, L., Baccaglini-Frank, A., Mulligan, J., van
Journal, 4, 71–87. den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., Xin, Y. P., &
van Oers, B. (2003). Learning resources in the con- Butterworth, B. (2018). Special needs in research
text of play. Promoting effective learning in early and instruction in whole number arithmetic. In
childhood. European Early Childhood Education M. G. Bartolini Bussi & X. H. Sun (Eds.), Building
Research Journal, 11, 7–25. the Foundation: Whole Numbers in the Primary
van Oers, B., & Poland, M. (2012). Promoting abstract Grades: The 23rd ICMI Study (pp. 375–397).
thinking in young children’s play. In B. van Oers Cham: Springer International Publishing.
(Ed.), Developmental Education for Young Children Verschaffel, L., Bojorquea, G., Torbeyns, J., & Van
(Vol. 7, pp. 121–136). The Netherlands: Springer. Hoof, J. (2019). Persistence of the Building
Vanbinst, K., Ghesquiere, P., & Smedt, B. D. (2012). Blocks’ impact on Ecuadorian children’s early
Numerical magnitude representations and indi- numerical abilities EARLI 2019, Aachen Univer-
vidual differences in children’s arithmetic strat- sity, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.
egy use. Mind, Brain, and Education, 6(3), 129–136. 2017.12.009
doi: 10.1111/j.1751-228X.2012.01148.x Verschaffel, L., Greer, B., & De Corte, E. (2007).
Vandermaas-Peeler, M., Boomgarden, E., Finn, L., & Whole number concepts and operations. In
Pittard, C. (2012). Parental support of numeracy F. K. Lester, Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of
during a cooking activity with four-year-olds. research on mathematics teaching and learning
International Journal of Early Years Education, (pp. 557–628). New York, NY: Information Age
20(1), 78–93. doi: 10.1080/09669760.2012. Publishing.
663237 Vogel, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Martin, A., & Klute, M. M.
Van Horn, M. L., Karlin, E. O., Ramey, S. L., (2013). Impacts of early Head Start participation
Aldridge, J., & Snyder, S. W. (2005). Effects of on child and parent outcomes at ages 2, 3, and 5.
developmentally appropriate practices on chil- Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
dren’s development: A review of research and Development, 78(1), 36–63. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-
discussion of methodological and analytic issues. 5834.2012.00702.x
Elementary School Journal, 105(4), 325–351. Votruba-Drzal, E., & Chase, L. (2004). Child care and
Varela, F. J. (1999). Ethical know-how: Action, low-income children’s development: Direct and
wisdom, and cognition. Stanford, CA: Stanford moderated effects. Child Development, 75,
University Press. 296–312.
 References 457

Vukovic, R. K. (2012). Mathematics difficulty with and kindergarten children persist through third
without reading difficulty: Findings and implica- grade? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
tions from a four-year longitudinal study. Excep- the American Educational Research Association,
tional Children, 78, 280–300. Montreal, Canada.
Vukovic, R. K., & Lesaux, N. K. (2013). The language Wang, F., Xie, H., Wang, Y., Hao, Y., & An, J. (2016).
of mathematics: Investigating the ways language Using touchscreen tablets to help young children
counts for children’s mathematical development. learn to tell time. Frontiers in Psychology, 7
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 115(2), (1800). doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01800
227–244. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2013.02.002 Wang, J. J., Odic, D., Halberda, J., & Feigenson, L.
Vukovic, R. K., Lesaux, N. K., & Siegel, L. S. (2010). (2016). Changing the precision of preschoolers’
The mathematics skills of children with reading approximate number system representations
difficulties. Learning and Individual Differences, changes their symbolic math performance. The
20(6), 639–643. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 147,
Vurpillot, E. (1976). The visual world of the child. 82–99. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2016.03.002
New York, NY: International Universities Press. Wang, M., Resnick, L. B., & Boozer, R. F. (1971). The
Vygotsky, L. S. (1934/1986). Thought and language. sequence of development of some early mathem-
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. atics behaviors. Child Development, 42, 1767–1778.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Internalization of higher psy- Warren, E., & Cooper, T. (2008). Generalising the pat-
chological functions. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, tern rule for visual growth patterns: Actions that
S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in soci- support 8 year olds’ thinking. Educational Studies
ety (pp. 52–57). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer- in Mathematics, 67, 171–185. doi: 10.1007/sl0649-
sity Press. 007-9092-2
Waber, D. P., de Moor, C., Forbes, P., Almli, C. R., Warren, E., Miller, J., & Cooper, T. J. (2012). Repeat-
Botteron, K., Leonard, G., Milovan, D. … ing patterns: Strategies to assist young students
Rumsey, J.. (2007). The NIH MRI study of normal to generalise the mathematical structure. Austra-
brain development: Performance of a population lasian Journal of Early Childhood, 37(3), 111–120.
based sample of healthy children aged 6 to 18 Warren, E., & Miller, J. (2014). Supporting English
years on a neuropsychological battery. Journal of second-language learners in disadvantaged con-
the International Neuropsychological Society, 13 texts: Learning approaches that promote success
(5), 729–746. in mathematics. International Journal of Early
Waddell, L. R. (2010). How do we learn? African Years Education. doi: 10.1080/09669760.2014.
American elementary students learning reform 969200
mathematics in urban classrooms. Journal of Watson, J. M., Callingham, R. A., & Kelly, B. A. (2007).
Urban Mathematics Education, 3(2), 116–154. Students’ appreciation of expectation and vari-
Wadlington, E., & Burns, J. M. (1993). Instructional ation as a foundation for statistical understand-
practices within preschool/kindergarten gifted ing. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 9,
programs. Journal for the Education of the 83–130.
Gifted, 17(1), 41–52. Watts, T. W., Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., Wolfe, C. B.,
Wakeley, A. (2005, April). Mathematical knowledge Spitler, M. E., & Bailey, D. H. (2017). Does early
of very low birth weight pre-kindergarten mathematics intervention change the processes
children. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting underlying children’s learning? Journal of
of the Society for Research in Child Development, Research on Educational Effectiveness, 10(1),
Atlanta, GA. 96–115. doi: 10.1080/19345747.2016.1204640
Walshaw, M., & Anthony, G. (2008). The teacher’s Watts, T., Duncan, G. J., Chen, M., Claessens, A., Davis-
role in classroom discourse: A review of recent Kean, P. E., Duckworth, K., Engel, M., Siegler, R. S.,
research into mathematics classrooms. Review of & Susperreguy, M. I. (2015). Self-concepts, school
Educational Research, 78, 516–551. placements, executive function, and fractions
Walston, J. T., & West, J. (2004). Full-day and half- knowledge as mediators of links between early
day kindergarten in the United States: Findings and later school achievement. Child Development,
from the “Early childhood longitudinal study, kin- 86(6), 1892–1907. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12416
dergarten class 1998–99” (NCES 2004–2078). Watts, T. W., Duncan, G. J., Clements, D. H., &
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Sarama, J. (2018). What is the long-run impact of
Institute of Education Sciences, National Center learning mathematics during preschool? Child
for Education Statistics. Development, 89(2), 539–555. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12713
Walston, J. T., West, J., & Rathbun, A. H. (2005). Do Watts, T. W., Duncan, G. J., Siegler, R. S., & Davis-
the greater academic gains made by full-day Kean, P. E. (2014). What's past is prologue:
458 References

Relations between early mathematics knowledge mathematics in kindergarten and primary school
and high school achievement. Educational (pp. 75–105). Doetinchem, The Netherlands: Grav-
Researcher. doi: 10.3102/0013189X14553660 iant Publishing Company.
Watts, T. W., Duncan, G. J., & Quan, H. (2018). Revisit- Williams, R. F. (2008). Guided conceptualization?
ing the marshmallow test: A conceptual replica- Mental spaces in instructional discourse. In
tion investigating links between early delay of T. Oakley & A. Hougaard (Eds.), Mental spaces in
gratification and later outcomes. Psychological discourse and interaction (pp. 209–234). Amster-
Science, 1–9. doi: 10.1177/0956797618761661 dam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publish-
Weiland, C., & Yoshikawa, H. (2012). Impacts of ing Company.
BPS K1 on children’s early numeracy, language, Wilson, A. J., Dehaene, S., Pinel, P., Revkin, S. K.,
literacy, executive functioning, and emotional Cohen, L., & Cohen, D. K. (2006). Principles
development. Paper presented at the School underlying the design of “The Number Race”,
Committee, Boston Public Schools, Boston, MA. an adaptive computer game for remediation
Weiss, I., Kramarski, B., & Talis, S. (2006). Effects of of dyscalculia. Behavioral and Brain Functions,
multimedia environments on kindergarten chil- 2, 19.
dren’s mathematical achievements and style of Wilson, A. J., Revkin, S. K., Cohen, D. K., Cohen, L., &
learning. Educational Media International, 43(1), Dehaene, S. (2006). An open trial assessment of
3–17. doi: 10.1080/09523980500490513 “The number race,” an adaptive computer game
Wellman, H. M., & Miller, K. F. (1986). Thinking about for remediation of dyscalculia. Behavioral and
nothing: Development of concepts of zero. British Brain Functions, 2, 20.
Journal of Developmental Psychology, 4, 31–42. Wing, R. E., & Beal, C. R. (2004). Young children's
Welsh, J. A., Nix, R. L., Blair, C., Bierman, K. L., & judgments about the relative size of shared por-
Nelson, K. E. (2010). The development of cogni- tions: The role of material type. Mathematical
tive skills and gains in academic school readiness Thinking and Learning, 6, 1–14.
for children from low-income families. Journal of Wolfgang, C. H., Stannard, L. L., & Jones, I. (2001).
Educational Psychology, 102(1), 43–53. Block play performance among preschoolers as
What Works Clearinghouse. (2013). Bright beginnings a presdictor of later school achievement in
WWC Intervention Report. Princeton, NJ: Author. mathematics. Journal of Research in Childhood
Wheatley, G. (1996). Quick draw: Developing spatial Education, 15, 173–180.
sense in mathematics. Tallahassee, FL: Mathem- Wong, V. C., Cook, T. D., Barnett, W. S., & Jung, K.
atics Learning. (2008). An effectiveness-based evaluation of five
Whitin, P., & Whitin, D. J. (2011, May). Mathematical state pre-kindergarten programs. Journal of
pattern hunters. Young Children, 66(3), 84–90. Policy Analysis and Management, 27(1), 122–154.
Wiegel, H. G. (1998). Kindergarten students’ organ- Wright, B. (1991). What number knowledge is possessed
izations of counting in joint counting tasks and by children beginning the kindergarten year of
the emergence of cooperation. Journal for school? Mathematics Education Research Journal,
Research in Mathematics Education, 29, 202–224. 3(1), 1–16.
Wilensky, U. (1991). Abstract mediations on the con- Wright, R. J., Stanger, G., Cowper, M., & Dyson, R.
crete and concrete implications for mathematics (1994). A study of the numerical development of
education. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Construc- 5-year-olds and 6-year-olds. Educational Studies
tionism (pp. 193–199). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. in Mathematics, 26, 25–44.
Wilkerson, T. L., Cooper, S., Gupta, D., Montgomery, M., Wright, R. J., Stanger, G., Cowper, M., & Dyson, R.
Mechell, S., Arterbury, K., Moore, S., Baker, B. R., & (1996). First-graders’ progress in an experimental
Sharp, P. T. (2014). An investigation of fraction mathematics recovery program. In J. Mulligan &
models in early elementary grades: A mixed- M. Mitchelmore (Eds.), Research in early number
methods approach. Journal of Research in Child- learning (pp. 55–72). Adelaide, Australia: AAMT.
hood Education, 29(1), 1–25. doi: 10.1080/0256 Wright, R. J., Stanger, G., Stafford, A. K., &
8543.2014.945020 Martland, J. (2006). Teaching number in the
Wilkinson, S. (2017). Mathematics development in classroom with 4–8 year olds. London, England:
Spanish-speaking English language learners. Paul Chapman Publications/Sage Publications.
(Doctoral Dissertation), University of Iowa. Wu, -H.-H. (2011). Understanding numbers in elemen-
Retrieved from http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/5878 tary school mathematics. Providence, RI: Ameri-
Wilkinson, L. A., Martino, A., & Camilli, G. (1994). Groups can Mathematical Society.
that work: Social factors in elementary students Wu, S. S., Barth, M., Amin, H., Malcarne, V., &
mathematics problem solving. In J. E. H. van Luit Menon, V. (2012). Math anxiety in second and
(Ed.), Research on learning and instruction of third graders and its relation to mathematics
 References 459

achievement. Frontiers in Psychology, 3(162), 1–11. Zaranis, N. (2017). Does the use of information
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00162 and communication technology through the
Wynn, K. (1992). Addition and subtraction by human use of Realistic Mathematics Education help
infants. Nature, 358, 749–750. kindergarten students to enhance their effect-
Xin, J. F. (1999). Computer-assisted cooperative iveness in addition and subtraction? Preschool &
learning in integrated classrooms for students Primary Education, 5(1), 46–62. doi: 10.12681/
with and without disabilities. Information Tech- ppej.9058
nology in Childhood Education Annual, 1(1), 61–78. Zaranis, N. (2018a). Comparing the effectiveness of
Yackel, E., & Wheatley, G. H. (1990). Promoting visual using ICT for teaching geometrical shapes in kin-
imagery in young pupils. Arithmetic Teacher, 37 dergarten and the first grade. International
(6), 52–58. Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching
Yin, H. S. (2003). Young children’s concept of shape: Technologies (IJWLTT), 13(1), 50–63. doi: 10.4018/
Van Hiele visualization level of geometric think- IJWLTT.2018010104
ing. The Mathematics Educator, 7(2), 71–85. Zaranis, N. (2018b). Comparing the effectiveness of
Yoshikawa, H., Weiland, C., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2016). using tablet computers for teaching addition and
When does preschool matter? The Future of Chil- subtraction Learning Strategies and Construc-
dren, 26(2), 21–35. tionism in Modern Education Settings (pp. 131–151):
Yost, N. J. M. (1998). Computers, kids, and crayons: IGI Global.
A comparative study of one kindergarten’s emer- Zaranis, N., & Synodi, E. (2017). A comparative study
gent literacy behaviors. Dissertation Abstracts on the effectiveness of the computer assisted
International, 59–08, 2847. method and the interactionist approach to
Young-Loveridge, J. M. (1989a). The number lan- teaching geometry shapes to young children.
guage used by preschool children and their Education and Information Technologies, 22(4),
mothers in the context of cooking. Australian 1377–1393.
Journal of Early Childhood, 21, 16–20. Zaretsky, E. (2017). The impact of using logic pat-
Young-Loveridge, J. M. (1989b). The development of terns on achievements in mathematics through
children’s number concepts: The first year of application-games. In J. Horne (Ed.), Philosophical
school. New Zealand Journal of Educational Stud- Perceptions on Logic and Order (pp. 73–95). IGI
ies, 24(1), 47–64. Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-2443-
Young-Loveridge, J. M. (2004). Effects on early 4.ch002
numeracy of a program using number books and Zelazo, P. D., Reznick, J. S., & Piñon, D. E. (1995).
games. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, Response control and the execution of verbal
82–98. rules. Developmental Psychology, 31, 508–517.
Young-Loveridge, J. M., & Bicknell, B. (2018). Making Zhang, X., & Lin, D. (2015). Pathways to arithmetic:
connections using multiplication and division con- The role of visual-spatial and language skills in
texts. In V. Kinnear, M. Y. Lai, & T. Muir (Eds.), For- written arithmetic, arithmetic word problems,
ging Connections in Early Mathematics Teaching and nonsymbolic arithmetic. Contemporary Edu-
and Learning (pp. 259–272). Singapore: Springer cational Psychology, 41, 188–197. doi: 10.1016/j.
Singapore. cedpsych.2015.01.005
Zacharos, K., & Kassara, G. (2012). The development Zur, O., & Gelman, R. (2004). Young children can add
of practices for measuring length in preschool and subtract by predicting and checking. Early
education. Skholê, 17, 97–103. Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 121–137.
INDEX

Locators in italics refers to figures and those in bold to tables.

2D shapes: area 262–264; basic shapes 202–204; 230–234; shapes 189–202, 211–212; spatial
children’s understanding of 204–208; thinking 171–177; structure 288–293; subitizing
development progressions 188; experience and 23–32, 27–31; volume 270–272
education 211–214; mathematics of 185–188, 187; addition: geometric measurement 254; learning
shape composition and decomposition 225–227; trajectories 141, 142–144, 145–152; mathematical
special needs 329 definitions and properties 89–90; mathematical
3D shapes: basic shapes 209; children’s processes and practices 308–309; multidigit
understanding of 208; experience and education 130–141; and patterns 285–287; problem
218; learning trajectories 221; mathematics of structures 90–92, 91; of zero 98; see also
209; shape composition and decomposition arithmetic
224, 224–225, 227–229; special needs 329; additive identity 98–99
volume 269 additivity 248, 262
affect 312, 319–321, 365
ability grouping 363 Agam program 229, 234, 281
abstract knowledge 168, 381–382 age, learning trajectories levels 7–8, 9; see also
abstract reasoning 304, 334 development progressions
abstract representations 313, 351 algebraic thinking: concrete knowledge 384;
access to education 353–354, 354; see also equity descriptions and mathematics 279–281;
accumulation of area 262 development progressions 281–283; experience
accumulation of distance 248 and education 283–287; learning trajectories
accuracy: arithmetic 95; counting 45, 47, 48; 287–288, 288–293; mathematical processes and
inverse operations 141; shape identification practices 307; patterns 281–282, 285–286
204–208 algorithms: counting as 40; mental procedures
achievement see math achievement before 134–138; mistake making 134; multidigit
achievement gap 2, 321–322 addition and subtraction 130–132; the standard
activities: algebraic thinking 286–287, 288–293; algorithm 132–133, 138–139, 140
angles and turn measurement 275–276; area American Sign Language (ASL) 329
263, 265–268; arithmetic 105–106, 107–111, analogical comparison 313
145–152; counting 49–50; data 295–297, angle measures 201–202
298–302; 288–293; length 254–259; angles 219, 272–275, 275–276
mathematical processes and practices 304–305, anxiety 320
308; parental influence 343; patterns 283, Approximate Number System (ANS): comparing 72;
288–293; shape composition and decomposition learning difficulties 331; number and subitizing
 Index 461

18–19, 20, 27; parents’ education 340; predictors cardinality principle: counting 6, 7, 39–40, 40, 47,
of success 317; quantity 21–22 48–49; language 22; subitizing 20, 23
aptitude, vs. effort 312, 319–321; see also math cerebral palsy 328
achievement chants 44, 54
area 260–264, 265–268; development progression; child development see development progressions
265–268; relationships between length, area and child-centered teaching 368, 374–376, 375
volume 272 children at risk 125, 344–347, 353; see also equity
argumentation 304 children with disabilities (CWD) see disabilities;
arithmetic: addition and subtraction problem special needs
structures 90–92, 91; composing numbers Chinese culture: counting 38–39; cultural
114–126; counting strategies 92–106, 107–111; expectations 341
development progressions 92–106, 107–111, circles 204, 205, 272
145–157; early years 88–89; experience and class size 377
education 94–106, 116–126, 128–130, 132–141, classification 293–297, 307, 309–310
158–159; goals 97–98, 142–144; grouping and classroom arrangement 397–398
place value 126–130; learning trajectories 112, clock reading 277
112–113, 141–144, 142–144, 145–157, 159–160; coding 343, 392
mathematical definitions and properties 89–90; cognition, importance of math 2
mathematical processes and practices 308–309; cognitive deficits 330; see also special needs
multidigit addition and subtraction 130–141; cognitive flexibility 314
multiplication, division, and fractions 144–160; cognitive processes 313, 316, 318; see also executive
special needs 125, 331, 350, 351 function
asset-based approaches 322, 330 cognitive science 313, 313, 318
assignments 365 coins 277
associative law of addition 90 collaborative learning 366–368
associativity 119–120 Common Core State Standards (CCSSM): area 264;
attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) arithmetic 97–98, 142–144; comparing 75;
327–328, 390 counting 53–54; data 298; estimating 75, 76;
attention shifting 314 geometry and spatial thinking 178, 234; learning
attitudes 365 trajectories 9; length 253–254; mathematical
processes and practices 304–305; multiplication
beauty in mathematics 234 and division 153; number and subitizing 33;
Beebot 393 ordering 75; patterns 279; spatial thinking 178
beliefs 319–321 commutativity/communtative law of addition 90,
‘big’ as concept 250 98, 119–120
“big ideas of math” 3 comparing: arithmetic 104; development
blindness 328 progressions 68–69; experience and education
block building skills 175 72–73; geometric measurement 249, 250; goals
board games: counting 48, 51, 56; number line 76; learning trajectories 75–76, 76–87; shapes
(path) estimation 74; subitizing 28 211–212
Break-Apart-to-Make-Ten (BAMT) strategy 121–123, compensation strategies 135
126–127 composing numbers: development progressions
Bright Beginnings 354 114–116; experience and education 116–119;
Building Blocks Project: computers 397; curriculum interventions 125; learning trajectories 141,
355–356; launch and purpose 10–11, 11; shapes 213, 142–143, 145–152; teaching strategies
215, 223, 224, 227–229, 234 119–126, 126
462 Index

composition of shapes see shape composition and dice arrangements 21, 32

decomposition direct instruction: class size 377; vs. invention of
computation algorithm 130–131 own strategies 99; learning difficulties 350–351;
Computer Aided Instruction (CAI) 387, 388–400 pedagogical comparison 374, 375–376;
computer-based manipulatives 393–397 shapes 216
computers: angles and turn measurement 273–275; direction 169
data 297, 297; instructional practices 388–400; disabilities 328–332, 393; see also special needs
and play 397 discovery-oriented teachers 359, 375
conceptual subitizing 19 discrete units 248
concrete knowledge 381–385 distributed practice 313
concrete representations 378–386 diverse learning needs 326; see also special needs
conflict resolution 321 division: development progressions 144–160;
congruence 210, 219 experience and education 158–159; goals 153;
connectionist teachers 359 learning trajectories 153–158, 154–157, 159–160
conservation of area 262–264, 263 domino arrangements 21, 32
conservation of length 247, 249 doubles 120
conservation of number 36, 37, 65, 73 Down Syndrome 327–328
constructive play 175 dramatic play 371, 372
continuous units 248 drills 390
conventional instruction 330
cooking 343 Early Childhood Education: equity 344–354; family
coordinates 165, 170–171 influence 339–344; math curriculum 338–339;
counting: cardinality principle 6, 7, 39–40, 40, 47, research-based curricula and approaches
48–49; changing views of 36–38; classification 354–357
294; comparing 67, 72; development of 38–44; Early Learning Outcomes Framework (ELOF) 33
development progressions 34–44, 54–65; early years: arithmetic 88–89; importance of math
experience and education 44–52; goals 53; 1–2, 15–16; learning disabilities 348–353; learning
learning trajectories 5, 6, 8, 52–66, 54–65; trajectories 3–7; predictors of success 317–319;
special needs 331; strategies 41–42; strategies for subitizing 18
arithmetic 92–106, 107–111, 112–113 education for all 353–354; see also equity
“counting on” 96–98, 103, 105 effort, vs. aptitude 312, 319–321
Creative Curriculum 354 effortful control 315–316
creativity 9–10 embedded geometric figures 242, 243–244
cultural expectations 341; see also sociocultural emotion 319–321; see also affect
factors engineering projects 175
curricula 338–339, 354–357 English Language Learners 322–325, 329
equal partitioning 144–153, 248, 261
data 279; analysis, classification, and probability equal sign 285–286
293–297; experience and education 295–297; equal-length units 251
goals 298; learning trajectories 297, 298–302; equations 285–286
patterns 282 equity: achievement gap 2, 321–322; aptitude vs.
decomposition of shapes see shape composition and effort 312, 319–321; children at risk 344–347, 353;
decomposition Early Childhood Education 344–354; education
decomposition strategies 135 for all 353–354; English Language Learners
developmentally appropriate practice (DAP) 373 322–325; gender 335–337, 347–348; gifted and
diagrams: arithmetic 102, 140–141; mathematical talented 332–334; learning difficulties and
processes and practices 309 disabilities 325–332, 348–353; learning
 Index 463

trajectories 354; minority status 322–325; gender: differences between boys and girls 335–337;
poverty 322–325; success factors 312, 316–319; equity 335–337, 347–348; parental influence
technology 389–390 340–341, 342–343
equivalence 68–69 geometric measurement: angles and turn
errors see mistake making measurement 272–275, 275–276; area 260–264,
estimating: development progressions 68–69, 265–268; development of length measurement
70–72; experience and education 74–75; goals 76; concepts 249; experience and education
learning trajectories 75–76, 76–87 250–253, 262–264, 269, 273–275; importance,
ethnic minorities 322–325, 341, 345 challenges, and potentials of measurement
exceptional students 332–334 learning 246–247; learning trajectories 253–254,
executive function 313–316, 374–375; development 254–259, 264, 265–268, 269, 270–272; length
progressions 315–316 246–254, 254–259; mathematical definition and
expectations: as concept 294; on children 341, concepts 247–248; relationships between length,
343, 364 area and volume 272; time, weight, and money
exploration in learning 375 276–277; units 248, 251–253, 261–262;
exploratory environments 391–392 volume 269
external-based spatial systems 162–163 geometric motions 219
extrinsic motivation 321 geometric reasoning 216–217
geometry: equipartitioning 152; special needs
facts, memorization of 115–118 328–329, 352; teaching 215–218; see also shapes
‘fade out’ 356 and shape composition and decomposition
family, influence on child’s math development gestures 173–174
339–344, 368 gifted and talented 332–334
feedback 313 grading 365
feelings 319–321 group differences (equity) 321–337
finger patterns: arithmetic 101, 102; counting 47, 54, group size 359–360
55, 64, 92; games 20, 24, 26 grouping (ability) 363
fives frames 33, 120, 121 grouping (arithmetic) 126–130
fluency 115–116, 123–125 “Guess My Rule” 217–218
“forest and trees” structure 113 guessing 70; see also estimating
formative assessment 360, 362–363 guided play 37203
“Four in a Row” game 137–138
fractions: development progressions 144–160; Head Start 33, 345, 354
experience and education 158–159; learning hearing difficulties 328, 329
trajectories 154–157, 158, 159–160 hexagons 223
free play classrooms 373; see also play in hierarchic interactionalism 326
learning hierarchical classification 36, 37
Frequently Asked Questions: development home environment 339–344, 368; see also equity
progressions 7–8; learning trajectories 7–9
functional thinking 282 identity 354
imagery: diagrams 102, 140–141, 309; spatial thinking
games: arithmetic 135–138; board games 28, 48, 51, 165–177; spatial visualization 165; types of 166
56, 74; counting 48, 50–51, 56; estimating 74; income gap 2
grouping and place value 129–130; parental incrementation 89–90; see also arithmetic
influence 343; play in learning 361, 368–373; individual differences (equity) 321–337
technology-based learning 391–392; see also infancy: mathematical reasoning 306; shapes 208;
activities subitizing 18
464 Index

infinity 42–43 learning difficulties 325–332, 348–353; see also

inhibitory control 314 special needs
instructional activities; see activities learning opportunity gap 321–322
instructional practices: approaches to 374–376; learning processes 312–319
class size and teachers’ aides 377; collaborative learning trajectories 3; algebraic thinking 287–288,
learning/peer tutoring 366–368; formative 288–293; angles and turn measurement 275,
assessment 362–363; group size and structure 275–276; area 264, 265–268; arithmetic 105,
359–360; high expectations 364; importance of 107–111, 112, 112–113, 141–144, 159–160; “Building
approach 358–359, 402–404; integrated Blocks” Project 10–11, 11; comparing 75–76, 76–87;
approach 401–402; intentional, planned counting 5, 6, 8, 52–66, 54–65; curricula 356;
instruction 360–361; manipulatives and data 297, 298–302; development progressions
“concrete” representations 378–386; math talk 4–5, 5; equity 354; estimating 75–76, 76–87;
363–364; play 368–373; positive math attitudes Frequently Asked Questions 7–9; goals 3, 9–10;
and affect 365; practice, or repeated instructional practices 361–362; learning and
experiencing 377–378; projects 376; teachable teaching tools 11–12, 12–16; length 253–254,
moments 360, 361–362; teaching beliefs 358–359; 254–259; ordering 75–76, 76–87; patterns
technology 387–401; time “on task” 376; using 287–288, 288–293; shapes 220–221, 221; spatial
learning trajectories 361–362 thinking 176–177, 178–184; structure 287–288,
integrated-concrete knowledge 382–383 288–293; subitizing 27–31, 33–35; teaching
integrated teaching approach 401–402 practices 3, 5–7; volume 269, 270–272
intentional instruction 360–361 LEGO robots 392–393
interest in math 2 length 246–254, 254–259; relationships between
interleaving 313 length, area and volume 272; see also geometric
intersensory redundancy 21–22, 72 measurement
interventions: children at risk 125; special needs limited English proficiency (LEP) 322–325, 329
330–332, 348–353 logic 303; see also mathematical processes and
intrinsic motivation 321 practices
intuitive navigation 162–163 logical operations 307–310
invention of own strategies 99 long-term memory 316
inverse operations 141
inversion 99 magnitude discrimination 317
manipulatives: arithmetic 101–102; computer-based
Japanese culture 368–369 393–397; concrete representations 378–386;
jump strategy 135–136 counting 95; development progressions 386; play
in learning 370–371; shapes 206; spatial thinking
kindergarten maths education 338–339 173, 174–175; units of length 253; when to stop
using 386
language: arithmetic 100–101; children at risk map navigation 164–165, 167–170; see also mental
346–347; comparing 72–73; counting 38, 50–51; maps
English not as first language 322–325; geometric material play 370–371; see also manipulatives
measurement 250; learning disabilities 326–327; math achievement: achievement gap 2, 321–322;
object counting 45; parental influence 341; place aptitude vs. effort 312, 319–321; equity 321–337,
value 128; shape composition and decomposition 354; gender 335–337; importance for young
224; shapes 173–174, 211–212, 215, 219; spatial children 1–2, 15–16; learning processes 312–313;
thinking 163–164, 172, 173 learning trajectories 7–8, 356; predictors of
language learning disabilities 326–327 316–319; predictors of success 316–319; recent
large-scale environments 163 trends 1; teacher effectiveness 359
 Index 465

math anxiety 320 learning trajectories 20–22; and measurement

math books see textbooks 248; special needs 350
math concepts and skills 2 number line (path) estimation 71, 74, 81–86
math curriculum 338–339, 354–357 number lines 67–68, 68
math play 372 number sentences 285–287
math talk 363–364 numeral identification 317
mathematical difficulties (MD) 325–332, 348–353 numerals 50–52, 103
mathematical processes and practices 303–305, numerosities 71–72, 74–75
310–311; development progressions 306–307;
logical operations 307–310; reasoning and object counting: experience and education 45–52;
problem solving 303, 305–309 young children 36
mathematical proficiency 11, 139–141, 303–304 one-to-one correspondence: comparing 76–77;
mathematics learning disability (MLD) 325–332, counting 37, 40, 40; patterns 282
348–353 one-to-one errors 48
measurement see geometric measurement opportunity gap 321–322
memory 314–315, 316 ordering: development progressions 68–70;
mental maps 162–163, 164–165 experience and education 73; goals 76; learning
mental number line 71, 81–86 trajectories 75–76, 76–87; mathematics of 67–68
mental rotation 165–166, 335–336 ordinal numbers 67–68, 70, 73
metacognitive strategies 10, 93–94, 399; see also origin (ratio scale) 248
executive function OWL (Opening the World of Learning) curriculum
minority status 322–325, 341, 345 354–355
mistake making: algorithms 134; cognitive science
313; counting 45, 48–49; multidigit addition and parallelism 219
subtraction 131 parental influence 339–344, 368
models 168–169, 304, 383–384 part-whole relationships 98, 104, 114–115, 125, 126
money 276–277 path integration 162–163
multidigit addition and subtraction: development Pattern and Structure Mathematical Awareness
progressions 130–132; experience and education Program (PASMAP) 284, 352
132–141; learning trajectories 141, 142–144, pattern recognition 32–33, 33
145–152 patterns: descriptions and mathematics 279–281;
multilingualism 323 development progressions 281–283; experience
multiplication: development progressions 144–160; and education 283–287; learning trajectories
experience and education 158–159; goals 153; 287–288, 288–293; mathematical processes and
grouping 127; learning trajectories 153–158, practices 307, 309; special needs 352–353;
154–157, 159–160 subitizing 19, 32
music 210 pedagogical issues: basic strategies 358–359;
musical patterns 283 collaborative learning/peer tutoring 366–368;
formative assessment 362–363; goals 369–369;
“N + 1” rule 120 group size and structure 359–360; high
National Math Advisory Panel (NMAP) 3, 362 expectations 364; intentional, planned instruction
National Research Council (NRC) 276–277, 303–304 360–361; math talk 363–364; play 368–373;
National Science Foundation (NSF) 10 positive math attitudes and affect 365; projects
nature vs. nurture 312 376; teachable moments 361–362; teaching
navigation 164–165, 167–170 beliefs 358–359; time “on task” 376; using
number: as concept 18; and counting 50–51; learning trajectories 361–362
curricula 355; development progressions 18–19; peer tutoring 366–368
466 Index

perceptual subitizing 19 rectangles 207, 207

performance see math achievement regrouping 138–139
perimeter 260, 260 relational reasoning 305–306
perpendicularity 219 repeated experiencing 377–378, 389–391
perspective 169 repeated reasoning 305
physical movement 168, 169 representations: arithmetic 100; cognitive science
Piaget, Jean 36, 188, 310, 355 313; grouping and place value 129–130;
pictorial images 166 instructional practices 378–381; patterns 282;
pictorial representations 166, 167 pictorial and schematic 166, 167; shape
place value: Common Core State Standards 54, 75; composition and decomposition 224; spatial
comparing 85, 86; counting 38, 64; development visualization 165
progressions 126–128; experience and education research-based curricula and approaches
128–130; subitizing 31 354–357
planned instruction 360–361, 374 response learning 162
play in learning: computers 388, 391–392, 393, 397; rhythmic patterns 283
guided play 372–373; importance of 368–373; risk see children at risk
manipulatives 384–385; math play 372; shapes robotics 392
216; teachable moments 360, 361; teaching styles rote counting 38, 44–45; see also verbal counting
374–375; types of 370–371; see also activities; rote memorization 115–116, 117–118
games
positive attitudes 365 scaffolding 51, 313, 376, 391
poverty 322–325 schema-based approaches 104
power 354 schematic: images 166; representations 167
practice 377–378, 389–391 school quality 345
predictors of success 316–319 school-home collaboration 342, 343–344
preschool math 339, 345, 354 science of patterns 280–281
pretend play 370 self-based spatial systems 162–163
primary grade maths education 338–339 self-produced movement 163
probability 295–297, 298–302 self-regulation 313–316, 374–375
problem solving: arithmetic 103–105, 150–151; sensorimotor play 370
Common Core State Standards 304–305; sensory-concrete knowledge 52, 168, 380, 383
integrated approach 401–402; mathematical sequencing 36–37, 37, 309; see also patterns
processes and practices 305–309; technology seriation 307, 309–310
392–393 shape composition and decomposition 223; 2D
productive disposition 9–10 shapes 225–227, 229–242; 3D shapes 224,
programming 343, 392 224–225, 227–229; development progressions
projects 376 224–227, 230–234, 235–242, 243–244;
embedded geometric figures 242, 243–244;
quantity: comparing 68–69, 72–73; as concept 18; experience and education 227–229; goals 229;
development progressions 18–19; judging sets learning trajectories 229, 230–234, 234–242,
21–22; learning trajectories 20–22 235–242, 243–244
shapes: basic 2D shapes 202–204; basic 3D shapes
ratio scale 248 209; as concept 185; definitions 186, 187, 209;
reading learning disabilities (RLD) 326–327, 348 development progressions 188, 189–202,
reasoning 9–10, 303, 305–309; see also 204–210; exemplars and distractors 204;
mathematical processes and practices experience and education 210–220; goals 221;
reasoning strategies 119 language and gestures 173–174; learning
 Index 467

trajectories 220–221, 221; mathematics of 2D and education 283–287; learning trajectories

shapes 185–186, 187, 202–204; mental rotation 287–288, 288–293; mathematical processes and
166; special needs 329–330, 349 practices 305; special needs 352–353
sharing strategies 153, 158 structured activities 321
size as concept 250 subitizing: activities 24–32; arithmetic strategies 119;
size of number 90–91 as concept 18, 20; development progressions
skills focus 401–402 18–19; experience and education 21–23;
skip counting 63–64, 90, 153, 159 foundations of 23–24; learning trajectories 20–22;
‘small’ as concept 250 object counting 45–46, 47; special needs 32–33,
small-group activities 359–360 331; types of 19–20
Snapshots: comparing 79; number and subitizing subtraction: geometric measurement 254; learning
24–25, 25, 28, 29, 31, 34; shapes 198; spatial trajectories 141, 142–144, 145–152; mathematical
thinking 173 definitions and properties 90; mathematical
sociocultural factors: family 340–344; poverty processes and practices 308–309; multidigit
322–325; predictors of success 317 130–141; problem structures 90–92, 91; see also
software 400 arithmetic
songs, counting 44, 54 success factors 316–319
spatial arrangement of objects 21, 24, 26, 32 symbolic play 370, 372
spatial location 162–163 symbolic representation 327
spatial orientation 161–165 symbolic thought 163
spatial patterns 19, 280 symmetry: shapes 188, 210, 219; spatial thinking 172,
spatial structuring 165 176, 176
spatial thinking: as concept 161; construction of
geometric ideas 188; development progressions “Tabletop Jr.” 296
179–184; early years 160; gender 335–336; goals tactile kinesthetic tasks 174
178; learning trajectories 176–177, 178–184; shape teachable moments 360, 361–362
composition and decomposition 224; spatial teachers’ aides 377
orientation 161–165; special needs 328–329, 352; teaching: aptitude 312; arithmetic 95–106;
visualization and imagery 165–177; see also composing numbers 116–126; counting 44–50;
shapes early years math 2–3; Frequently Asked Questions
special needs: development progressions 328–329; 8–9; gifted and talented 333, 334; grouping and
interventions 330–332, 348–353; learning place value 128–130; importance of approach
difficulties 325–332, 348–353; subitizing 32–33; 358–359, 402–404; learning processes 312–319;
technology use 393, 399–400 learning trajectories 3, 5–7; learning trajectories
splitting 144–153 tools 11–12, 12–16; math talk 363–364; multidigit
squares 205, 205–206 addition and subtraction 132–141; multiplication,
the standard algorithm 132–133, 138–139, 140 division, and fractions 144–160, 158–159; ordering,
standard-length units 251 estimating and comparing 72–75; shapes 210–220;
stereotype threat 322 spatial thinking 167; special needs 351; subitizing
strategies: arithmetic 92–106, 112–113, 115–125, 21–23; success factors 318; see also instructional
135–138; counting 41–42, 52; fluency 124–125; practices
learning trajectories 9–10; mathematical “teaching responsibility” 365
processes and practices 304–305; rote technology: angles and turn measurement 273–275;
memorization 115–116, 117–118; special needs appropriateness 387–388; Computer Aided
350–351 Instruction 387, 388–400; data 297, 297;
structure: descriptions and mathematics 279–281; game-based learning 391–392; special needs
development progressions 281–283; experience 393, 399–400; television 400–401
468 Index

technology-assisted instruction (TAI) 388–391 unit iteration 248, 261–262

television 400–401 units of area 261–262
temporal patterns 19–20 units of length 248, 251–253
tens frames 33, 120, 121 U.S. cultural expectations 341
textbooks: arithmetic 95, 106; counting 47; family
344; subitizing 23, 31–32 variation as concept 294
thinking 312; see also mathematical processes and verbal counting 5, 38–39, 44–45, 52, 54–55
practices vertical directionality 164
think-pair-share 24, 217 visual representations 165; see also imagery; shapes
three-dimension shapes; see #D shapes visualization, spatial thinking 165–177
time 276–277 volume 269, 270–272; development progressions
“time on task” 376 270–272; relationships between length, area and
transformations, shapes 210 volume 272
transitivity 247
transmission teachers 359 weight 276–277
triangles 206, 207, 213 worked examples 313
turn measurement 272–275, 275–276 working memory 314–315, 318
Turtle Math 274, 275
two-dimension shapes; see 2D shapes zero: addition of 98; as concept 42–43