Testing for dyscalculia?

[Jentrovert]

Switching gears a bit from my last posts, this one is primarily about my son, 6 years old. He's been diagnosed with dyslexia and dysgraphia. Having gotten on the right track with those, I've now turned my attention to his math, which I've been concerned about for a while, though not to the same extent as reading. I recently got a couple of the Ronit Bird books. It looks like exactly what he needs and he checks many of the dyscalculia boxes mentioned in the intro chapters. So I think I'm on the right track with what to do. (I said this is primarily about him; I think it's also quite possible with dd as well. She doesn't have the same level of difficulty he does, but math has been the same slow-moving train that reading has been. She also doesn't check as many boxes on the list of usual issues in the Bird books, but enough that I'll be using a lot from the books with her too.)

My question is, should I pursue an eval/dx for this? I understand that there is some debate about whether dyscalculia is a thing by itself or part of the same brain differences as dyslexia. Which one is the case with him/them - I don't know and it doesn't really matter as far as what I do about it, right? I felt very sure I needed/wanted to have a dx re the dyslexia, and dd's autism and adhd, both for my knowledge and to start the paper trail for the future. I've not read much about possible accomodations for dyscalculia (or as much about dyscalculia in general) so I'm not sure if I ought to pursue an evaluation so as to have it documented or if it really doesn't matter. What are the possibilities for the future that would be affected by a diagnosis now?

[Rosie_0801]

I don't know the answers to your questions, but wanted to suggest you look up CSMP maths. My daughter wouldn't have learned maths at all without it. It might make a useful spine for your lad.

[PeterPan]

@Storygirl is always the one who knows the criteria. I find them mystifying, because I get different answers from every psych with ds. In the ps they just look for discrepancy and call it SLD math. There are I think some subsets they can look into too, much like saying SLD Reading is wider than dyslexia and can include reading comprehension, etc. In the same way, dyscalculia (number sense) is only a sliver of what they can look at under SLD Math.

Would it matter NOW? No, I wouldn't pay money for that unless it gets you something. But will it matter EVENTUALLY? Sure. 

Whatever is going on will become more glaringly obvious over the long haul, and the diagnosis will have to be fresh for accommodation purposes. Meanwhile, teach him like there is whatever you think there is. If you think you see number sense issues, address them. If he has issues with word problems, address them. If he has issues with generalization, address them.

[Jentrovert]

1 hour ago, Rosie_0801 said:

I don't know the answers to your questions, but wanted to suggest you look up CSMP maths. My daughter wouldn't have learned maths at all without it. It might make a useful spine for your lad.

 

Thank you, I'll look it up!

[geodob]

If your son has Dyscalculia?  Then it will be necessary to have formal recognition.  So that he can make the transition from 'mental math'.  To using a calculator.
Though their is a basic test for Dyscalculia, which you could conduct yourself.
Firstly, you could test yourself.
It simply uses, 4 small objects.  Perhaps coins for example, or marbles?
It involves placing a random number of these small objects, in front of you.   From 1 to 4 of them.
Which someone else would do, without you looking.
When they have placed them, you then look at them and state how many their are?
Do this with different variations, of 1 to 4.

But the important thing, is to observe how you define how many objects their are?
Which you probably do instantly!  You wouldn't need to count them,  1,2,3 etc.
You would immediately recognise groups of 1, or 2, or 3, or 4.
It is this ability to automatically recognise these different sized groups, from 1 to 4.  That is termed as 'Sense of Number'.
Babies are born with this ability, to recognise the difference between groups of 1 to 4.  (Without knowing the names of each group.)

Though with Dyscalculia, people don't have this ability to recognise these different sized groups.  They can't concieve of them.
Their is only 1, and more than 1. The concept of numbers is meaningless.
So that it is pointless trying to get them to learn 'Mental Math'.

But they can become proficient in Math, if they are allowed to learn to do it with a Calculator.
So perhaps you could try that Test using some small objects, with your son?
Observing whether he can instantly recognise these different sized groups?
Or if he has to count the objects?

[ktgrok]

wow - I always have to double check myself when looking at groups of objects as my ability to recognize how many is not quite automatic. Wow. 

I also can't remember sequences of numbers, etc. 

Edited December 9, 2019 by Ktgrok

[PeterPan]

1 hour ago, Ktgrok said:

wow - I always have to double check myself when looking at groups of objects as my ability to recognize how many is not quite automatic. Wow. 

I also can't remember sequences of numbers, etc. 

Funny how things connect... And yes, difficulties with sense of quantity is a fundamental component. It's how I knew my ds had trouble, because he had this supposedly gifted IQ and couldn't look at a field of 5 objects and tell me how many there were. At newly 6. 

The sequence of numbers can just be your working memory, digit spans, mom brain... 

[Terabith]

I’m not an expert, but I have spent a lot of time around five and six year olds.  I have only known a handful who could identify a field of five objects without training.  Now, with practice with dominos or in a line/ having a middle?  Yeah.  For most of them it doesn’t take a lot of practice.  But I don’t think it’s typical.  Most could do it for three or four objects.  But five is just enough that they needed some instruction and practice.  

[ktgrok]

28 minutes ago, Terabith said:

I’m not an expert, but I have spent a lot of time around five and six year olds.  I have only known a handful who could identify a field of five objects without training.  Now, with practice with dominos or in a line/ having a middle?  Yeah.  For most of them it doesn’t take a lot of practice.  But I don’t think it’s typical.  Most could do it for three or four objects.  But five is just enough that they needed some instruction and practice.  

I know you are talking about 5 yr olds, but this still makes me feel better. I can usually identify 4 quickly (although still may need to match up two and two to do it), 5 is where I have to count. 

40 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

Funny how things connect... And yes, difficulties with sense of quantity is a fundamental component. It's how I knew my ds had trouble, because he had this supposedly gifted IQ and couldn't look at a field of 5 objects and tell me how many there were. At newly 6. 

The sequence of numbers can just be your working memory, digit spans, mom brain... 

Yeah...I supposedly have a genius IQ and I would have to count them to be sure, lol. This may explain why I was working well ahead in every subject but math in elementary school. All my friends from gifted were actually given more advanced work and I wasn't - not because I couldn't understand but because I was much much slower. Very little became automatic so it was always a slog. Algebra was better in a lot of ways because I could remember letters more easily than numbers 🙂 

[Terabith]

Honestly, I haven’t spent a lot of time with adults, but I wouldn’t be surprised to find that most people can’t instantly identify five in an unfamiliar context.  Dice and stuff, yeah.  But that’s an arrangement where they’ve had practice.  I’m not sure that prior to teaching Right Start I could do it instantly.  Not sure I couldn’t.  But I don’t think that lack of ability is indicative of disability.  

[*****]

I like that you have gotten some of the Ronit Bird books.  Her use of number patterns are so useful and so easy to see. I have used games with students and these are very helpful as well.  

I had never heard of CSMP maths.  I found the Gr. 1 manual pdf online and looked through that a bit.  I like the sequencing of the concepts and the fact that they are actually teaching the concepts, not merely leaving it to chance that kids would know this before going on to adding. Nice lesson on teaching right and left!  I haven't seen manuals teach that! But I do like the instant recognition of dots from Ronit Bird.  I don't know why more curriculum's don't use this, it is easier to see.  But together, they could be a good match.

Having worked with first graders through 8th grade students, I feel you might want to wait before getting tested.  If your child has not been introduced to and practiced numeration and place value skills, this may be what your child needs to help with progression. There are so many skills at this age that students have not been exposed to. Keep an eye on your child and in a year of so, if he continues to show signs, yes, get him tested.  Although as you said, dyscalculia isn't discussed much.  But if you need an IEP, he may qualify under math and get services.

You might want to check out Mortensen Math methods as well.  see Anna's Math Page or Crewton Ramone's House of Math. I like the use of the blocks to help learn number combinations for addition/subtraction and beyond.  I am using that with a few first graders right now and am pleased with their number facts so far, just through manipulating and playing with the blocks as well as their understanding of numbers to 100 and building them!

[popmom]

Didn't read all the replies. Our experience was that there was a big discrepancy between IQ (WISC-V) and Woodcock Johnson test of academic achievement scores. A HUGE discrepancy.

[geodob]

The human brain, can only immediately recognise a group of up to 4 objects.
With 5 objects, it needs to divide them into groups and then add them together: 2+3 or 1 +4.
The brain is actually a Base 5 System.  Which recognises 5 as a single unit.  It carries at 5, rather than 10.

For children and adults who don't have this immediate physiacal recognition of 1 to 4?
They actually have no concept of numbers and the quantity that they represent.
 

[*****]

17 hours ago, geodob said:

The brain is actually a Base 5 System.  Which recognises 5 as a single unit.  It carries at 5, rather than 10.

 

 

   But is this why some Common Core Math programs use the 2 x 5 grid to show a 10 when adding?  It seems to be the new math thing, but my mind doesn't see it easily. 

However, I see a 10 block and can see a 10 and 5 more instantly as 15.   CC often uses the red and yellow disks to fill in the grid...5 and 1 is 6...but it feels to me like they tried reinventing the wheel (again) and it is a disservice to children. I have to count to make sure there are the amounts given.  Our number is a base 10 system, so what is wrong with the Math-U-See type blocks, etc. which shows tens/units...?  Anyway, I have always wondered, so I thought I would ask if anyone can shed any light on this new way...This new system frustrates me! (I do intervention for children.)

However, I see the 5 dice easily as a 5, that is why I like Ronit Bird's games...because of the dice dot patterns.  These make better sense to use for addition than the above.

[Terabith]

It’s pretty easy to train most people, even four and five year olds, to identify a group of five on sight, regardless of arrangement.  It’s particularly easy if they’re in a line; you teach that five has a middle.  And teaching five as 2 and 3 or 4 and 1 takes very little time for most people.  Ten frames and the Right Start abacus make good use of that skill.  I’m just saying that I wouldn’t be alarmed by a five year old not being able to identify the quantity five by sight, without counting, without any training.  (A further complication is most early childhood programs try to teach counting as a way of teaching one to one correspondence.  And that’s useful, but most kids then think that’s what they have to do for all quantities, even if they recognize them.)

[Jentrovert]

I'm sorry it took me so long to get back to this; I didn't get notifications of the replies and hadn't been back to the board.

The subitizing (lack of) is one of the things I've seen with him. He's been through Right Start A, and part of B (and MEP reception and part of 1), along with other games and activities. We've used the abacus, 10 frame (both one long 10 frame with shading at 5, and the ones with two groups of 5), c-rods, and other manipulatives. He CAN subitize, but only with review and prompting each time. It's not automatic and on his own he will always choose to count. (It also took a very long time for him to "get" one-to-one correspondence and he still occasionally miscounts even small quantities.) In daily life, he seems to attempt to subitize naturally, but is often wrong and needs to count. None of the mental math strategies in Right Start have seemed to click and he does a lot of guessing at even small day-to-day calculations.

Eta: He'll be 7 next spring. 

 

Edited December 12, 2019 by Jentrovert

[Jentrovert]

On 12/11/2019 at 9:17 AM, Terabith said:

It’s pretty easy to train most people, even four and five year olds, to identify a group of five on sight, regardless of arrangement.  It’s particularly easy if they’re in a line; you teach that five has a middle.  And teaching five as 2 and 3 or 4 and 1 takes very little time for most people.  Ten frames and the Right Start abacus make good use of that skill.  I’m just saying that I wouldn’t be alarmed by a five year old not being able to identify the quantity five by sight, without counting, without any training.  (A further complication is most early childhood programs try to teach counting as a way of teaching one to one correspondence.  And that’s useful, but most kids then think that’s what they have to do for all quantities, even if they recognize them.)

 

Yes.

Edited December 12, 2019 by Jentrovert

[Jentrovert]

I think I mentioned that math has been slow going with my daughter too. The difference is that with her it's clear when she does finally "get" things. She uses mental math tricks in everyday life. (There are still areas she's slower and doesn't completely grasp, but if I let it settle and circle back around, she gets more of it each time.)  

I'm ok with it taking a while, I'm just not seeing consistent progress with him. However, they are very different . . . 

I just started using some of the Ronit Bird activities this week. Maybe as we work through those something will become more clear. The other suggestions on this thread are on my list to research this weekend.

[PeterPan]

1 hour ago, Jentrovert said:

I just started using some of the Ronit Bird activities this week.

Did you start with her Dots ebook or something else? RB stuff is deceptively simple. Sounds like he should be starting with Dots.

[Jentrovert]

1 hour ago, PeterPan said:

Did you start with her Dots ebook or something else? RB stuff is deceptively simple. Sounds like he should be starting with Dots.

 

It's the dots, but from The Dyscalculia Toolkit. Unless I overlooked it elsewhere, the ebooks seemed to only be available for apple, and I don't have any apple devices.

[PeterPan]

3 minutes ago, Jentrovert said:

 

It's the dots, but from The Dyscalculia Toolkit. Unless I overlooked it elsewhere, the ebooks seemed to only be available for apple, and I don't have any apple devices.

Yeah, it's frustrating. With Dots she took the content and organized it in a really tight instructional progression. When you're using the Toolkit book, it seems so random. You get the sense that you're building better with Dots. Also there are videos embedded, etc. But you've got the content, sure.

[Jentrovert]

2 hours ago, PeterPan said:

Yeah, it's frustrating. With Dots she took the content and organized it in a really tight instructional progression. When you're using the Toolkit book, it seems so random. You get the sense that you're building better with Dots. Also there are videos embedded, etc. But you've got the content, sure.

 

It's aggravating for sure. I plan to jot down a loose sequence this weekend so I won't have to do it on the fly. And I've printed out the resources and watched videos on the publisher's site.

So, we're at gymnastics now. On the way here, he asked how long the drive is. I replied 22 minutes. About 3 seconds later, he says, "Ok, so that's 44 minutes there and back." Another 3 seconds, then, "And then it's 5 minutes more to granny's so that will be 49 minutes."

🙉🤷‍♀️🤪

It's crossed my mind that maybe the whole thing is related to attention? I do think it's very possible that he's adhd inattentive, just haven't prioritized that yet . . . but there have been plenty of times when he's been really trying to calculate something much smaller (where he's paying attention and invested) and unable to do it. I don't know.

He is definitely more big picture than dd, in all areas. He actually seems to do better when the numbers are bigger, and immediately generalizes (if 6 + 3 is 9, then 600 + 300 is 900 and 6000 + 3000 is 9000, etc.) where she does not (this is dd recently dx'd ASD1). 

 

[PeterPan]

3 hours ago, Jentrovert said:

if 6 + 3 is 9, then 600 + 300 is 900 and 6000 + 3000 is 9000,

My ds *still* struggles with that. Hadn't thought of it as a generalization issue because I was thinking in terms of the math SLD. I agree they probably intertwine.

No matter what, it's NOT necessary to say that math SLD cannot be math smart. I had a psych that warned me sternly about that, saying to think of ds as math gifted with a math disability and not to forget that as I teach him.