Symbolic versus non-symbolic training for improving early numeracy in preschoolers at risk of developing difficulties in mathematics.
Teaching preschoolers to read and compare written numbers pulls at-risk kids up to grade level by first grade.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Valentina and her team worked with the preschoolers who were falling behind in math.
Half the kids got 15-minute symbolic lessons each day for six weeks. They learned to name and compare written numbers like 3 and 7.
The other half practiced non-symbolic tasks. They picked which group of dots had “more” without using digits.
After the training, the researchers tracked the children all the way to first grade.
What they found
Only the symbolic group caught up. By first grade they scored at the class average on every early-math test.
The non-symbolic group stayed behind; their dot-practice did not transfer to real numbers.
Symbolic training also boosted counting, place value, and story problems.
How this fits with other research
Van Herwegen et al. (2018) saw both kinds of training help low-achieving preschoolers after five weeks. The new study shows the edge disappears when you wait longer and look at real school skills.
Park et al. (2020) reviewed math studies for kids with ID and found prompting keeps skills alive. Valentina’s kids kept gains too, but the key was teaching symbols, not just maintenance tricks.
Conyers et al. (2004) showed preschoolers can learn in short classroom sessions. Valentina proves the same window works for academic content, not just behavior.
Why it matters
If a four-year-old counts three blocks but can’t read “3,” start with written numbers right away. Skip the dot decks. Five to ten quick trials of naming and comparing digits each day can close the gap before kindergarten.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Replace dot-card warm-ups with a rapid flip-book of digits 1-10: have the child name each number and point to the bigger one.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: Children's understanding of symbolic (e.g., Arabic digits) and non-symbolic (e.g., sets of dots) magnitudes plays a key role in their mathematics achievement, but only a few studies directly compared the effects of symbolic and non-symbolic interventions on mathematical abilities. AIMS: This longitudinal study compared the impact of symbolic and non-symbolic trainings in a group of preschoolers at risk of developing difficulties in mathematics (RM), analyzing their post-intervention performance both in early math skills (last preschool year) and in mathematics achievement in 1st grade. METHODS: Eighty-nine RM children and 66 typically developing controls were selected from among 604 preschoolers. RM children were assigned to three intervention conditions: no intervention, symbolic or non-symbolic intervention. RESULTS: Results showed specific effects on tasks related to the training (e.g., effects of symbolic training on symbolic tasks) and some effects of generalization (e.g., effects of symbolic training on non-symbolic tasks). In 1st grade, children attending the symbolic intervention showed a mathematics achievement profile similar to that of typically developing peers. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest the importance of training the symbolic processing of numbers at preschool age, allowing at risk children to catch up with their peers before entering formal schooling.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2021 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2021.103893