Project NUMTEST: Assessing basic number competence without language

(1)

88.90% 86.03% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%

Percentage of maximum performance on all tasks

Study 1 (p>.05) Verbal Video 76.96% 77.70% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%

Percentage of maximum performance on all tasks

Study 2 (p>.05)

Verbal Video

P

roject

N

umtest

_{Assessing basic number competence without language}

m

ax

G

reiseN

| c

aroliNe

H

orNuNG

| r

omaiN

m

artiN

| c

HristiNe

s

cHiltz

s

tudy

1 81 children

54% female

mean age: 6 y 7 m

65% germanophonic

35% francophonic

c

oGNitive

s

cieNce

aNd

a

ssessmeNt

i

Nstitute

i

NtroductioN

Some estimated 5-7% of children (Butterworth et

al., 2011) suffer from developmental dyscalculia (DD).

Universally valid

diagnostic

instruments are still lacking,

as all current DD test batteries are based on

language

instructions

. Consequently, their measurements are

tightly linked to the specific language context of test

administration.

This poses two major

issues

:

Test results are partially

dependent on

language skills

Test results cannot be easily

compared

across countries

m

etHods

Verbal instruction

Video instruction

c

ommoN

Procedure

iN

eacH

task

Comparison

Seriation

Counting

& correspondance

Three

Instruction

Items

Three

Practice

items

Test

without feedback

or

One repetition of

all

practice items

in case of mistake

with visual feedback

c

oNtrol

measures

We also administered a series of pen & paper control tasks: - Symbolic arithmetic

- number comparison

- Oral & written counting up to 20

The two groups did not significantly differ on any of those measures.

t

ask

P

erformaNce

Here we show averaged performance over all tasks in each study.

No significant differences in performance were observed between partici-pants of the Video and Verbal Instruction groups. These firesults suggest that it is possible to replace explicit text instructions with implicit video instruc-tions without negatively affecting task performance.

r

esults

H

ow

maNy

cHildreN

Had

to

rePeat

tHe

Practice

sessioN

?

We observed group differences in the percentage of children that needed to repeat the practice session. Less participants repeating the practice items could be translated into faster understanding of the task. Globally, less participants repeated the practice session when they received video instructions, suggesting a more immediate understanding of the task at hand. Nevertheless, this difference is

not always signifificant and is sometimes even inverted: In the comparison task for example, less participants repeated the practice items when they received an explicit verbal instruction. In conclusion our results suggest that explicit verbal instructions can be replaced by animated /video instructions without negatively affecting task performance while often leading to a faster understanding of the task without relying on linguistic skills.

v

isit

our

team

!

r

efereNces

The fifiresults fififiof the following

pilot studies

are

part of a research project that aims to develop

a

screener

for basic number competence that

minimizes language

use by using hands-on

video instructions and animated questions

.

Butterworth, B., Varma, S., & Laurillard, D. (2011). Dyscalculia: From brain to education. Science, 332(6033), 1049-1053.

Hornung, C., Schiltz, C., Brunner, M., & Martin, R. (2014). Predicting first-grade mathematics achievement: The contributions of domain-general cognitive abilities, nonver-bal number sense, and early number competence. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(APR). Frontiers Media SA.

Kaufman, L., & Nuerk, H.-C. (2005). Numerical development: current issues and future perspectives. Psychology Science, 47(1), 142–170.

Kaufmann, L., & Von Aster, M. (2012). Diagnostik und intervention bei rechenstörung. Deutsches Arzteblatt International, 109(45), 767–778. https://doi.org/10.3238/arzte-bl.2012.0767

Saalbach, H., Eckstein, D., Andri, N., Hobi, R., & Grabner, R. H. (2013). When language of instruction and language of application differ: Cognitive costs of bilingual mathemat-ics learning. Learning and Instruction, 26, 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.01.002

s

tudy

2 127 children

48% female

mean age: 7 y 2 m

39% germanophonic

61% francophonic

d

esiGN

: t

wo

G

rouPs

vs

t

asks

e

acH

task

coNtaiNed

,

wHeN

Possible

,

symbolic

&

NoN

-

symbolic

questioNs

aNd

aNswer

formats

.

Nonsymbolic

addition

/

subtraction

counting

Crossmodal (A/V)

&

addition

&

subtraction

“Pigs in the barn”

Dropping coins

s

tudy

2 s

tudy

1 Symbolic

arithmetic

91.30% 18.00% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percentage of participants repeating the practice session

Seriation (p<.001) Verbal Video 17.39% 44.00% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Comparison (p<.05) Verbal Video 41.30% 34.00% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Counting & Correspondance(p>.05)

Verbal Video 32.86% 19.72% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Pigs in the barn: Subtraction (p>.05)

Verbal Video 24.29% 28.17% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Symbolic arithmetic (p>.05) Verbal Video 57.14% 35.21% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Dropping coins(p<.05) Verbal Video 32.86% 15.49% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Pigs in the barn: Addition (p<.05)