An official website of the United States government
Children’s early understanding of mathematics provides a foundation for later success in school. Identifying ways to enhance mathematical instruction is crucial to understanding the ideal ways to promote academic success. Previous work has identified mathematical language (i.e., the words and concepts related to early mathematical development such as more, same, or similar) as a key mechanism that can be targeted to improve children’s development of early numeracy skills (e.g., counting, cardinality, and addition). Current recommendations suggest a combination of numeracy instruction and quantitative language instruction to promote numeracy skills. However, there is limited direct support of this recommendation. The goal of the proposed study is to compare the unique and combined effects of each type of instruction on children’s numeracy skills in the context of picture book reading. We randomly assigned 234 children (ages 3–5) to one of four conditions where they worked with trained project staff who read picture books targeting: (a) quantitative language only (e.g., more or less), (b) numeracy only (e.g., cardinality, addition), (c) combined [quantitative language + numeracy], or (d) nonnumerical (active control) picture books. Results revealed no significant effects of the quantitative language only or numeracy only conditions, but mixed effects of the combined condition. These findings indicate that more work is needed on how mathematical language and numeracy instruction should best be delivered to preschool children.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on January 6, 2026
Early numeracy and mathematics development: A longitudinal meta-analysis on the predictive nature of early numeracy.
In this meta-analysis of 54 longitudinal studies with over 58,000 students in kindergarten through 12th grade, we examined the predictive nature of early numeracy measured at or before the first year of formal schooling in relation to later mathematics. Results showed that early numeracy significantly predicted mathematics measured after 6 months or later, r = .49, 95% confidence interval [0.47, 0.52]. After controlling for all moderators in a model, results indicated that (a) different early numeracy including numbering, relations, and arithmetic operations did not differ much in their predictions of different later mathematics; (b) early numeracy as a whole was more predictive of later advanced mathematics skills (word problems) than of later foundational mathematics skills (calculations and fact fluency); (c) early numeracy’s prediction of later mathematics was stronger with longer prediction intervals; and (d) the earlier early numeracy was assessed, the stronger its prediction of later mathematics. Together, these findings suggest that early numeracy may be a unitary construct. Early numeracy does not merely serve as a steppingstone with temporary effects on foundational mathematics; instead, it likely triggers a snowballing effect, cumulatively influencing mathematics development over time.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2405797
- PAR ID:
- 10582488
- Publisher / Repository:
- APA journal
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Journal of Educational Psychology
- ISSN:
- 0022-0663
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
null (Ed.)Background. Numeracy skills are important for medical decision making as lower numeracy is associated with misinterpreting statistical health risks. Math anxiety, characterized by negative emotions about numerical tasks, and lower subjective numeracy (i.e., self-assessments of numerical competence) are also associated with poor risk comprehension. Objective. To explore independent and mediated associations of math anxiety, numerical ability, and subjective numeracy with risk comprehension and to ascertain whether their associations are specific to the health domain. Methods. Objective numeracy was measured with a 14-item test. Math anxiety and subjective numeracy were assessed with self-report scales. Risk comprehension was measured with a 12-item test. In experiment 1, risk comprehension items were limited to scenarios in the health domain. In experiment 2, participants were randomly assigned to receive numerically equivalent risk comprehension items in either a health or nonhealth domain. Results. Linear regression analyses revealed that individuals with higher objective numeracy were more likely to respond correctly to the risk comprehension items, as were individuals with higher subjective numeracy. Higher math anxiety was associated with a lower likelihood of correct responding when controlling for objective numeracy but not when controlling for subjective numeracy. Mediation analyses indicated that math anxiety may undermine risk comprehension in 3 ways, including through 1) objective numeracy, 2) subjective numeracy, and 3) objective and subjective numeracy in serial, with subjective numeracy mediating the association between objective numeracy and risk comprehension. Findings did not differ by domain. Conclusions. Math anxiety, objective numeracy, and subjective numeracy are associated with risk comprehension through unique pathways. Education initiatives for improving health risk comprehension may be most effective if jointly aimed at tackling numerical ability as well as negative emotions and self-evaluations related to numeracy.more » « less
-
Park and Brannon (2013, https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613482944) found that practicing non-symbolic approximate arithmetic increased performance on an objective numeracy task, specifically symbolic arithmetic. Manipulating objective numeracy would be useful for many researchers, particularly those who wish to investigate causal effects of objective numeracy on performance. Objective numeracy has been linked to performance in multiple areas, such as judgment-and-decision-making (JDM) competence, but most existing studies are correlational. Here, we expanded upon Park and Brannon’s method to experimentally manipulate objective numeracy and we investigated whether numeracy’s link with JDM performance was causal. Experimental participants drawn from a diverse internet sample trained on approximate-arithmetic tasks whereas active control participants trained on a spatial working-memory task. Numeracy training followed a 2 × 2 design: Experimental participants quickly estimated the sum of OR difference between presented numeric stimuli, using symbolic numbers (i.e., Arabic numbers) OR non-symbolic numeric stimuli (i.e., dot arrays). We partially replicated Park and Brannon’s findings: The numeracy training improved objective-numeracy performance more than control training, but this improvement was evidenced by performance on the Objective Numeracy Scale, not the symbolic arithmetic task. Subsequently, we found that experimental participants also perceived risks more consistently than active control participants, and this risk-consistency benefit was mediated by objective numeracy. These results provide the first known experimental evidence of a causal link between objective numeracy and the consistency of risk judgments.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)People often laugh about being “no good at math.” Unrecognized, however, is that about one-third of American adults are likely too innumerate to operate effectively in financial and health environments. Two numeric competencies conceivably matter—objective numeracy (ability to “run the numbers” correctly; like literacy but with numbers) and numeric self-efficacy (confidence that provides engagement and persistence in numeric tasks). We reasoned, however, that attaining objective numeracy’s benefits should depend on numeric confidence. Specifically, among the more objectively numerate, having more numeric confidence (vs. less) should lead to better outcomes because they persist in numeric tasks and have the skills to support numeric success. Among the less objectively numerate, however, having more (vs. less) numeric confidence should hurt outcomes, as they also persist, but make unrecognized mistakes. Two studies were designed to test the generalizability of this hypothesized interaction. We report secondary analysis of financial outcomes in a diverse US dataset and primary analysis of disease activity among systemic lupus erythematosus patients. In both domains, best outcomes appeared to require numeric calculation skills and the persistence of numeric confidence. “Mismatched” individuals (high ability/low confidence or low ability/high confidence) experienced the worst outcomes. For example, among the most numerate patients, only 7% of the more numerically confident had predicted disease activity indicative of needing further treatment compared with 31% of high-numeracy/low-confidence patients and 44% of low-numeracy/high-confidence patients. Our work underscores that having 1 of these competencies (objective numeracy or numeric self-efficacy) does not guarantee superior outcomes.more » « less
-
Abstract Numeracy—the ability to understand and use numeric information—is linked to good decision-making. Several problems exist with current numeracy measures, however. Depending on the participant sample, some existing measures are too easy or too hard; also, established measures often contain items well-known to participants. The current article aimed to develop new numeric understanding measures (NUMs) including a 1-item (1-NUM), 4-item (4-NUM), and 4-item adaptive measure (A-NUM). In a calibration study, 2 participant samples (n = 226 and 264 from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk [MTurk]) each responded to half of 84 novel numeracy items. We calibrated items using 2-parameter logistic item response theory (IRT) models. Based on item parameters, we developed the 3 new numeracy measures. In a subsequent validation study, 600 MTurk participants completed the new numeracy measures, the adaptive Berlin Numeracy Test, and the Weller Rasch-Based Numeracy Test, in randomized order. To establish predictive and convergent validities, participants also completed judgment and decision tasks, Raven’s progressive matrices, a vocabulary test, and demographics. Confirmatory factor analyses suggested that the 1-NUM, 4-NUM, and A-NUM load onto the same factor as existing measures. The NUM scales also showed similar association patterns to subjective numeracy and cognitive ability measures as established measures. Finally, they effectively predicted classic numeracy effects. In fact, based on power analyses, the A-NUM and 4-NUM appeared to confer more power to detect effects than existing measures. Thus, using IRT, we developed 3 brief numeracy measures, using novel items and without sacrificing construct scope. The measures can be downloaded as Qualtrics files (https://osf.io/pcegz/).more » « less
