Visual working memory and number sense: Testing the double deficit hypothesis in mathematics

40Citations
Citations of this article
134Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Your institution provides access to this article.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Evidence exists that there are two main underlying cognitive factors in mathematical difficulties: working memory and number sense. It is suggested that real math difficulties appear when both working memory and number sense are weak, here referred to as the double deficit (DD) hypothesis. AIMS: The aim of this study was to test the DD hypothesis within a longitudinal time span of 2 years. SAMPLE: A total of 670 children participated. The mean age was 4.96 years at the start of the study and 7.02 years at the end of the study. METHODS: At the end of the first year of kindergarten, both visual-spatial working memory and number sense were measured by two different tasks. At the end of first grade, mathematical performance was measured with two tasks, one for math facts and one for math problems. RESULTS: Multiple regressions revealed that both visual working memory and symbolic number sense are predictors of mathematical performance in first grade. Symbolic number sense appears to be the strongest predictor for both math areas (math facts and math problems). Non-symbolic number sense only predicts performance in math problems. Multivariate analyses of variance showed that a combination of visual working memory and number sense deficits (NSDs) leads to the lowest performance on mathematics. CONCLUSIONS: Our DD hypothesis was confirmed. Both visual working memory and symbolic number sense in kindergarten are related to mathematical performance 2 years later, and a combination of visual working memory and NSDs leads to low performance in mathematical performance.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Toll, S. W. M., Kroesbergen, E. H., & Van Luit, J. E. H. (2016). Visual working memory and number sense: Testing the double deficit hypothesis in mathematics. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(3), 429–445. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12116

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free