Does Language Influence Mathematical Abilities

In Number Sense?

Judith E. Beauford, Ph.D.Suzanne Magargee Meche, M.Ed.

University of the Incarnate WordSan Antonio, Texas

Purpose

This is an investigation of the benefits of the use of explicit number names in an extended intervention with 4 and 5 year old English and Spanish speaking children.

(Partially funded by the University of the Incarnate Word School of Graduate Studies and Faculty Development Research Awards)

Francesca de Morales, one of our colleagues from Bolivia and Dr. Beauford are watching a child model two-digit numbers using straws. Such assessments are made twice a year in SA, once a year at the other research sites.

BACKGROUND• Evidence has been building that the language structure for

naming numbers may have some impact on student performance. Miura (2001) and Fuson et al. (2001) have compared the mathematics performance of children from Mandarin and European languages with consistently better number sense shown by children from Asian countries.

• (Brain research)

• Intervention studies have resulted in increased abilities in

number sense in children in the first grade (Alsawaie, 2004; Cotter, 2000; Hankes, Soldier, & Davis, 1998).

Explicit Number Names• Modeled after Mandarin number name structure• Use only 10 words to name numbers from 1 to 99• 26 is read “two-ten six” or “dos-diez seis”

• English speaking children learn 26 new words or word parts to count to 100, Spanish speakers have 28.• Place value is a separate topic of • study for many years in the curriculum.• Most children from both language heritages score at or below average in international testing.

Intervention• If the use of explicit number names really does help in

development of number sense and place value, the differences should hold true for any language, any curriculum, any culture. With no other changes to the curriculum, explicit number names were used to count, tell time, name dates, measure, and with any other use of number in both languages in the prekindergarten and kindergarten classes.

• Assuming that the effect of explicit number names would be most pronounced in children with the least exposure to the traditional naming system, we chose to work with 4 and 5 years old in their early formal experiences with learning about numbers.

ASSESSMENT• At the end of the year, the children were assessed individually

in their ability of count, read, model, and identify place value in two-digit numbers.

• Teachers are surveyed about their perceptions of the benefits and outcomes of the project, teaching and evaluation, importance of modeling numbers, and interactions among children, parents, and administrators.

• As children move into elementary school, their achievement test scores in number sense and calculation are compared with children who have not received the intervention.

Longitudinal Results• The project began in 2003 in a small private school in San

Antonio, Texas, USA and continued through 2009.• Statistical analysis of the Stanford Achievement Test

administered in the spring of 2009 showed significant differences between those children who had learned to count using explicit numbers names in Pre-Kindergarten and those who had not.

• Differences were significant with children through fifth grade who had experienced explicit number names as 4 year olds.

Longitudinal Results

Years using explicit number names

0n=35

1n=11

2n=43

Variable M SD M SD M SD F(2,86) η²

Ttl Percentile Rank 52.8 25. 9 45.4 26.7 64.9 18.0 3.79 .10

Problem Solving Percentile

55.7 23.7 51.3 24.2 67.9 18.6 3.52 .10

Computation Percentile 48.4 28.2 37.1 26.5 59.2 20.3 3.58 .10

Descriptive Statistics and ANOVA Results by Percentile Rank

Longitudinal ResultsDescriptive Statistics and ANOVA Results by Topic

Years using explicit number names

0 1 2Variable M SD M SD M SD F(2,86) η²Number Sense

.70 .18 .63 .19 .80 .13 6.63 .13

Data, StatisticsProbability

.69 .25 .74 .21 .84 .21 3.99 .08

Geometry .67 .18 .78 .13 .74 .14 3.31 .07

ComputationIn Context

.71 .25 .62 .22 .80 .15 4.45 .09

F(2,45)Computationw/Decimals

.72 .20 .56 .19 .81 .21 4.28 .16

p<.05 for all