Improving number abilities in low achieving preschoolers: Symbolic versus non-symbolic training programs.
Five weeks of number games lifts low-achieving preschoolers, but newer work says symbolic lessons close the first-grade gap better.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Van Herwegen et al. (2018) tested two five-week math programs for 4- and young learners who scored low on number tasks. One group played DIGIT games that taught number symbols like '3' and '4.' The other group played PLUS games that matched dot pictures to show bigger and smaller sets.
Kids were pulled out in pairs for 15-minute sessions, four days a week. Before, right after, and six months later, the team checked early math skills like counting and comparing amounts.
What they found
Both groups improved the same amount right after training. The gains stuck around six months later, even without more practice.
Low-achieving preschoolers caught up to average classmates, no matter which game they played.
How this fits with other research
Riva et al. (2021) ran a near-copy study three years later. They also compared symbolic versus non-symbolic training, but their kids were labeled 'at-risk' and they tracked progress to first grade. Symbolic training pulled those children up to typical first-grade math; non-symbolic did not. The newer study flips Jo's 'both work' result and says 'symbolic wins.'
Why the switch? Valentina's kids were slightly younger, started lower, and got tighter, scripted lessons. The extra dose and clearer targets may let symbolic training shine.
Park et al. (2020) reviewed 22 studies on keeping math skills in learners with ID. Prompting plus pictures or objects showed the best track record for maintenance, backing Jo's use of quick checks six months out.
Why it matters
If you teach preschoolers who lag in math, start a short number game now—either dots or digits helps. Track them again in six months; the boost is likely to hold. When kids are truly at-risk and you want grade-level payoff, lean toward symbolic games like DIGIT and follow Valentina's tighter script. Add picture prompts during maintenance probes to line up with best practice.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick a quick symbolic number game like DIGIT and run 15-minute pairs four times this week.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: Although previous correlational studies have shown that both symbolic and non-symbolic abilities relate to mathematical abilities, correlational studies cannot show the cause and effect of these abilities for mathematical success. AIMS: The current study examined the effect of a non-symbolic training program, called PLUS and a symbolic training program, called DIGIT, to provide further insight into the causal nature of domain specific factors that contribute to mathematical abilities. METHODS: and Procedures: Forty-nine preschool children who had low mathematical abilities were recruited and randomly allocated to the DIGIT and PLUS training programs. Performance on a number of mathematical tasks was compared to 20 preschoolers with no mathematical difficulties. OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: Performance in both training programs improved on the Test of Early Mathematical Abilities as well as on a non-symbolic Approximate Number Sense task, counting tasks, and digit recognition tasks, immediately after five weeks of training and this improvement remained six months later. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: This study provides further evidence that symbolic and non-symbolic abilities bi-directionally impact on each other and that ordinality knowledge is an important factor of mathematical development.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2018 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2018.03.011