1. First-Line Screener for Dyscalculia Update on trials Autumn 2006

2. Background

3. Cognitive Model Conceptual –understanding of number, place value Comparative –relative size Verbal Symbolic Visual-Spatial

4. Operational Conceptual –conception of correct operation to achieve required outcome reverse a process Inferential –given an operational definition make comparative inferences about an outcome, without realising the outcome Infer an operational relationship

5. Abstract Symbolic Spatial-Temporal –Understanding Visual-Spatial diagrams Time Graphical –Reading and Interpreting Graphs Tables

6. number conceptual operational number comparative conceptual inferential verbal visual-spatial graphical symbolic abstract symbolic graphs tables Spatial- Temporal Direction Time Cognitive Model for Dyscalculia

7. Phase 1 Developing the Screening Tool Development of items Development of the model Available in both paper and electronic versions

8. Phase 2: Initial Trials Involved 19 participants Organised into three groups Dyscalculic Dyslexic Control Showed no difference between paper and electronic versions Showed good discrimination

9. Phase 3: Further Trials Involved 30 participants Organised into three equal groups DyscalculicDyslexicControl Showed good discrimination

10. Graph: percentage scores on the subtest percent O dyscalculic O dyslexic O control

11. Phase 4: Further Trials 137 students Large groups/small groups/individuals 16 out of 137 identified at risk –8% prevalence Geary (2004) 5 - 8% Desoete et al (2004) 3 - 8% Butterworth (1999) 4 - 6% Not post-16

12. Phase 5: Autumn 2006

13. Aims of the Trials Two distinct aims 1.to collect data on the general population 2.to collect data about individuals already identified as dyscalculic by EP/Assessor.

14. Large-Scale Trials Paper-based trials Whole classes of students (FE and HE) Paper-based and electronic-based versions shown to be identical in nature This data establishes the required percentiles for the population

15. Small-Scale Trials Dyscalculic students Extended to mathematical difficulties However other students involved (neurodiverse) Learning support tutors completed a sheet detailing the SpLD identified Small-Scale conducted one-to-one Electronic-based

16. Results

17. Large-Scale Trials 356 students in H.E. (80 in FE) Percentiles calculated –8th percentile corresponded to a score of 84% –2nd percentile to a score of 70% on the screener low and very low thresholds, at risk of dyscalculia very low still gives a score unlikely to further reduce confidence –history of very low mathematical self-esteem

18. Small-Scale Trials Involved 89 students –46 in H.E. –43 in F.E. H.E. and F.E. data treated separately

19. SpLDHEFETotal Dyscalculia only 13417 Dyscalculia, dyspraxia and ADHD 011 Dyscalculia and dyslexia 325 Dyscalculia, dyslexia, dyspraxia 011 Dyscalculia and dyspraxia 112 Dyslexia only 9110 Dyslexia and dyspraxia 101

20. SpLDHEFETotal MD only 52025 MD and dyslexia 8715 MD, dyslexia and dysgraphia 011 MD, dyslexia and dyspraxia 033 MD, dyspraxia 213 MD, dyspraxia and Aspergers 011 Dyspraxia only 101 No known SpLD 303 Total 464389

21. SpLDHEBelow threshold Above threshold Dyscalculia 17143 Dyslexia Dyspraxia 12111 MD only 55 MD and Dyslexia 835 MD and Dyspraxia 22 HE

22. SpLDFEBelow threshold Above threshold Dyscalculia99 Dyslexia11 MD20191 MD and dyslexia 1183 MD and other 22 FE

23. SpLD No. students Below threshold Above threshold Dyscalculia Dyspraxia 44 Dyslexia/Dyspraxia11 Dyspraxia only11 MD/Dyspraxia743 Total13 Dyspraxia

24. Profiles

25. Profiler Conceptual Operational Conceptual Graphical Tabular Symbolic Abstraction Comparative Visual-Spatial Spatial Directional Total Score Comparative Symbolic Comparative Verbal Operational Relational Spatial Temporal Time Taken: 25 Minutes Threshold

26. A typical dyscalculia profile?

27. 2 Dyscalculic Profiles Symbolic number comparison Inferential operations Graph Time

28. Thank you to the 23 institutions of HE and FE