1707-Article Text-6956-2-10-20220316

International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education
January 2022, Volume 14, Issue 3, 243-267
Screening for Characteristics of

Dyscalculia: Identifying Unconventional
Fraction Understandings
Katherine E. Lewisa,*, Grace M. Thompsonb, Sarah A. Tovc
Received : 29 October 2021 Abstract

Revised : 19 December 2021
Accepted : 28 january 2022 Researchers intending to identify the unique characteristics
DOI : 10.26822/iejee.2022.242 of dyscalculia rely upon the problematic and imprecise
proxy of low mathematics achievement. Although detailed
Corresponding Author: Katherine E. Lewis, University of
a,*
Washington, College of Education, Seattle, USA. case studies of adults with dyscalculia have offered
E-mail: kelewis2@uw.edu insight into its characteristics, we do not yet know if these
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3900-954X characteristics are unique to dyscalculia and could be used
b
Grace M. Thompson, University of Washington, College of to screen younger students for these understandings. To
Education, Seattle WA, USA. address this, we designed a group-administered written
E-mail: gracethompson2.71@gmail.com assessment based on the unconventional understandings
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6392-1080
found in adults with dyscalculia to investigate whether
c
Sarah A. Tov, University of Washington, College of these understandings are atypical. In study 1, we assessed
Education, Seattle WA, USA. 390 grade 6-8 students to investigate the prevalence of
E-mail: saarvey@uw.edu
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4503-4493 these understandings. In study 2, we assessed 80 grade 6-8
students and recruited three students who demonstrated
Author Note: Related work was presented at the 2012 high levels of unconventional understandings. We collected
annual meeting for the Psychology of Mathematics
Education North America and at the 2015 Council for additional assessment data and determined that all three
Learning Disabilities annual meeting. This research students met stringent clinical dyscalculia criteria. These
was supported in part by a grant from the University of studies provide a proof-of-concept for designing dyscalculia
Washington. We would like to thank Chun Wang and
John Chandler for their assistance with the analysis and screeners based on the characteristics identified in adults
Jordan Taitingfong, Gina Tesoriero, and Carlyn Mueller for with dyscalculia.
their feedback on this paper.
Keywords:
Math, Learning Disability, Rational Numbers, Assessment
Introduction
D yscalculia is a cognitive difference in numerical

processing that results in persistent and significant
problems learning even the most basic mathematics
(Butterworth, 2005; Mussolin et al., 2010). It is estimated
that approximately 6-8% of school-aged children have
dyscalculia, also referred to as mathematics learning
disability1 (Gross-Tsur et al., 1996; Shalev, 2007). Unfortunately,
research on dyscalculia has been hindered because of
the lack of a validated and reliable assessment to identify
students with dyscalculia (e.g., Geary, 2004; Mazzocco,
Copyright ©
2007; Price & Ansari, 2013). Researchers currently identify
www.iejee.com
ISSN: 1307-9298 students with this disability by administering a standardized
achievement test and selecting a cutoff threshold, below
© 2022 Published by KURA Education & Publish- which students are considered to have dyscalculia2 . There
ing. This is an open access article under the CC is great variability in the assessments used and the cutoffs
BY- NC- ND license. (https://creativecommons. selected (Lewis & Fisher., 2016; Price & Ansari, 2013) suggesting
org/licenses/by/4.0/) that researchers may not be studying one common
243
phenomenon. Of greater concern is the use of low 2013). As researchers attempt to identify and define
achievement as a proxy for dyscalculia because the core characteristics of this disability (Butterworth,
of the myriad reasons that students may perform 2005), they are doing so with the imprecise criterion
at a “low” level on a test. The current identification of low mathematics achievement. Reliance upon
approach used by researchers cannot differentiate the problematic proxy of low achievement leads to
low achievement due to dyscalculia from low “findings that are difficult to interpret, replicate, and
achievement due to social, affective, environmental, generalize” (Lyon, 1995, p. 7). We argue that accurate
or instructional factors. Indeed, the use of low identification of students with dyscalculia is the
achievement to identify students with dyscalculia central challenge in this field.
has resulted in the over-representation of students of
color, non-native english speakers, and students from To make progress in understanding the unique
low SES backgrounds in the dyscalculic group (Hanich characteristics of dyscalculia and improve
et al., 2001, e.g., Compton et al., 2012). The findings identification methods, researchers must take a
of studies relying upon this kind of identification radically different approach. Rather than starting
approach may reflect characteristics of low with large samples of students identified with the
mathematics achievement rather than dyscalculia imprecise proxy of low achievement, it may be more
per se. This fundamentally limits the validity of these advantageous to start with small samples of extreme
findings and the field’s efforts to delineate the unique cases, as has been productive in defining other
characteristics of this disability. disabilities. By “extreme cases,” we mean instances
in which an individual’s physiology or behavior is
Although students with dyscalculia often do have not aligned with structural or societal expectations
low mathematics achievement, researchers need and thus it appears to warrant categorization and
a more precise way of identifying students with this classification3. Detailed study of extreme cases has
disability. The Diagnostic Statistical Manual, Fifth been essential to identify the defining characteristics
Edition (American Psychiatric Association, 2013; of other disability categories, including attention deficit
DSM-5) requires that environmental, economic, and hyperactive disorder (Lange et al., 2010), autism (Wolff,
instructional factors are ruled out before a dyscalculia 2004; Verhoeff, 2013) and dyslexia (Duane, 1979). For
diagnosis. Furthermore, the DSM-5 recommends a each of these disabilities, early clinical identification
stricter low achievement criterion – the 7th percentile of extreme cases led to defining characteristics of the
rather than the more commonly used 25th percentile disability that were used to identify and further refine
(see Lewis & Fisher, 2016 for a review). Unfortunately, the definition (e.g., Verhoeff, 2013). For dyscalculia,
research on dyscalculia has not moved to adopt these extreme cases could be adults with a long history of
more stringent criteria. This may be partially due to significant and pervasive issues with math (e.g., Mejias
the fact that to allow for statistical comparisons, et al., 2012), who continue to struggle with arithmetic
researchers must ensure that a sufficient number of despite sufficient educational opportunities. Detailed
students meet the study’s dyscalculia criteria (e.g., analyses of these kinds of extreme cases can allow
Geary et al., 2000). This may also be due to the fact researchers to identify characteristic patterns of
that differentiating cognitive and non-cognitive understandings evident in individuals with dyscalculia.
causes of low achievement is time consuming, Longitudinal studies have suggested that the
methodologically challenging, and often requires difficulties experienced by students with dyscalculia
longitudinal data collection (e.g., Mazzocco & Myers, persist over years (e.g., Lewis, 2014; 2017; Mazzocco et
2003). al., 2013), suggesting what is learned from adults with
dyscalculia could inform investigations with younger
To address the need for a dyscalculia screener that students.
does not rely upon low achievement, Butterworth
(2003) developed a Dyscalculia Screener. This In this paper we draw upon characteristics identified
screener measures the student’s speed and accuracy in adults with dyscalculia in Lewis's (2014) case study
on simple arithmetic and rapid quantity comparisons work and design a pencil-and-paper assessment
thought to be associated with number sense to investigate whether it is possible to identify these
(Dehaene, 2011). Unfortunately, researchers have understandings in younger students on a group
found that this assessment misidentifies students administered written assessment. We designed the
(both false positives and false negatives) based on written assessment based upon the Lewis (2014) case
longitudinal data (Gifford & Rockliffe, 2012; Messenger study for several reasons. First, this is one of the few
et al., 2007) and therefore it has not been used in detailed analyses of extreme cases of dyscalculia –
research on dyscalculia. focusing on basic fraction understanding for two adult
students. Second, this study used a multidimensional
Because the characteristics of dyscalculia are not identification approach (see Fletcher et al., 2007)
yet understood, it remains unclear what measures a which involved ruling out social and environmental
dyscalculia assessment should contain (Price & Ansari, causes for the students’ low mathematics
244
Screening for Characteristics of Dyscalculia: Identifying Unconventional Fraction Understandings / Lewis, Thompson & Tov
achievement, in addition to establishing that these who has developed differently. This theoretical
students did not benefit from 1-on-1 tutoring instruction framing suggests that students with dyscalculia may
that was effective for younger typically achieving use and understand standard mediational tools and
students. Third, common patterns of understandings signs in ways that are qualitatively different from and
were identified between the two students with inconsistent with canonical mathematical usage.
dyscalculia, which were found to provide a productive Therefore, analytically it is critical to attend to the
explanatory frame for unexplained patterns of unconventional ways that students understand and
errors found in longitudinal studies of students with use standard mathematical representations.
dyscalculia (Lewis, 2016; Mazzocco, et al. 2013). Fourth,
these patterns of understandings were evident even Unconventional Understandings Identified in Fractions
in a student with dyscalculia who learned how to
compensate effectively (Lewis & Lynn, 2018). Due to the Lewis (2014) identified unconventional fraction
persistence of these patterns of understanding and understandings in two extreme cases of dyscalculia
the commonality across students with dyscalculia, in – two adult students (ages 18 and 19). Both students
this study we sought to evaluate how common these entered their schooling with considerable privilege,
patterns were in students in general. The idea being both students were White, upper-middle class, and
that if these understandings were common in students native English speakers. They attended well-resourced
with dyscalculia, but not typically achieving students, schools and both students had access to additional
then these understandings could be used to selectively support and tutoring outside of school. Despite
screen students for more extensive assessment these supports, both students had low mathematics
and evaluation. The goal is to begin to disrupt the achievement and a long history of difficulties with
tautological relationship of low achievement and mathematics which could not be explained by
dyscalculia in the field, by identifying behavioral affective or environmental factors. These students
characteristics of the disability itself. also did not benefit from a series of tutoring sessions
that were effective for younger typically achieving
In this section we begin by presenting our sociocultural students (see Lewis, 2014 for details). A detailed analysis
theoretical framing of dyscalculia, drawing upon of video data from the tutoring sessions on fractions
Vygotsky’s (1929/1993) conception of disability as identified a small set of reoccurring and persistent
qualitative human variation. We then describe the understandings that the students relied upon, which
patterns of understanding identified in Lewis (2014), were ultimately detrimental to their learning. These
and consider these patterns in light of our theoretical understandings involved using mathematical
framing. representations in unconventional ways. Both
students had similar unconventional understandings
Difference Not Deficit which resulted in a similar pattern of errors. These
unconventional understandings involved how students
Vygotsky’s theory of disability is focused on represented and understood the fraction ½ (halving
understanding qualitative differences and is situated understanding) and how they interpreted fraction
within his general theory of human development. representations in terms of the fractional complement
Vygotsky (1981) argued that all human development (fractional complement understanding).
progresses along two lines: the biological and
sociocultural. For typically developing individuals, Unconventional halving understanding
these two lines of development intersect. The
individual’s biological development intersects with The unconventional halving understanding involved
the sociocultural line of development through social representing the fraction ½ by halving a shape, in
interactions which are mediated by tools (e.g., which the partition line itself was understood as the
pencil) and signs (e.g., language). For individuals representation of ½ rather than 1 of the 2 parts (see
with disabilities, the sociocultural tools and signs Figure 1). For example, when students were asked to
that have developed over the course of human draw a picture of ½ they would draw a shape and
history may be incompatible with the individual’s partition it into two parts. When asked what part
biological development (Vygotsky, 1929/1993). For of their drawing represented ½, they would point to
example, spoken language is not accessible to a the partition line itself, often accompanying their
Deaf child and therefore does not serve the same explanation with a chopping gesture. Characteristic
mediational role to support the child’s development of of this kind of understanding is a focus on the
language as it would for a hearing child. In the case equality or balance between the two parts. For these
of students with dyscalculia, standard mathematical students ½ was understood as an action, splitting,
mediational tools (e.g., numerals, representations) rather than a fractional quantity (e.g., 1 part out of 2).
may be incompatible with how these students Although students’ experiences splitting, partitioning,
process numerical information. Vygotsky (1929/1993) and sharing have been shown to be a productive
argued that this divergence of the sociocultural and resource upon which students can build (e.g., Empson,
biological lines of development does not result in an 1999; Steffe, 2010; Wilkins & Norton, 2011) the halving
individual that is less developed, but an individual understanding was detrimental for both students in
245
that it led to errors and limited the utility of various would draw a shape, partition it into 4 equal parts,
fraction representations (e.g., area models). Both and shade 3 of those parts. However, when asked
students understood the fraction ½ as a process, what their own drawing represented, they would say
rather than an object (Sfard, 1991), meaning that ½, the “one-fourth” explaining that three parts were taken
most intuitive and best understood fraction (Hunting & away, and one part was left. This suggested that these
Davis, 1991) was not understood as a quantity. students did not have a stable way of representing a
fractional quantity and the quantity itself transformed
Figure 1 through the act of representing it. Characteristic of
Illustration contrasting the conventional understanding of this understanding was conceptualizing the shaded
one-half with the unconventional halving understanding fractional quantity as “taken away” or “gone” and
found in students with dyscalculia (Lewis, 2014). Adapted from
referring to the unshaded fractional complement as
Difference Not Deficit: Reconceptualizing Mathematical
Learning Disabilities, copyright 2014, by the National Council an amount “left.” More telling was that instructional
of Teachers of Mathematics. All rights reserved attempts to correct this apparent “mistake” were not
successful, even though the students knew that they
made these errors, they could not stop themselves
from thinking of the shaded as “gone” and the
unshaded as “left” (Lewis, 2017).
Figure 2
Illustration contrasting the conventional understanding of
area models with the unconventional fractional complement
understanding found in students with dyscalculia (Lewis, 2014).
Adapted from Difference Not Deficit: Reconceptualizing
Mathematical Learning Disabilities, copyright 2014, by the
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. All rights
reserved
Unconventional fractional complement

understanding.
The unconventional fractional complement
understanding involved interpreting fraction
representations in terms of the fractional
complement. For example, interpreting an area model
representation of ¾ as ¼ (unshaded/total) or 1/3
(unshaded/shaded), where the unshaded region was
understood to be focal (see Figure 2)4. Although on the
surface this might seem to be an issue of convention – Issues of access
attending to the white rather than shaded parts – for
these students it reflected a disconnection between These unconventional understandings (halving and
how students constructed and interpreted fractions. fractional complement) were evident across a range
For example, when asked to draw the fraction ¾, they
246
of different problem types and representations.

These understandings appeared when students 1. Can unconventional fraction understandings
(halving and fractional complement) be
were working with number lines, concrete fraction
identified on a group administered written
representations, and drawn pictures (e.g., area assessment?
models). These unconventional understandings
2. What is the prevalence of these kinds of
led to errors and resisted all standard instructional understandings?
efforts to address them. These understandings were
3. Are unconventional understanding scores
also not evident in typically achieving students who correlated with mathematics achievement
participated in the tutoring sessions. These halving scores?
and fractional complement understandings involved
an issue of access, where standard mediational tools In the second study, we used this assessment to
(e.g., fraction notation, area models) were not serving selectively recruit students to participate in an
the purposes they were intended to support. Rather individual interview and assessment to determine
than understanding representations of fractions to whether students who demonstrated these
show quantity, they understood these representations unconventional understandings met rigorous DSM-5
to show action (e.g., “taking”). Their understandings dyscalculia criteria. Study 2 addressed the following
were, therefore, incommensurate with conventional research questions:
mathematics use. Perhaps because the students
understood fractional quantities as processes rather 1. Do students with high unconventionality
scores on the Screener demonstrate the same
than objects, they had difficulty using these fractional unconventional understandings during a clinical
quantities in other processes (e.g., adding ½ and 1/3 or interview?
finding an equivalent fraction for ¾) (Sfard, 1991). Not
2. Do these students with high unconventionality
only did the unconventional understandings persist scores meet rigorous DSM-5 dyscalculia criteria?
through the weekly tutoring sessions, but follow up
studies suggested that these understandings persisted These studies together establish that building off the
across multiple years (Lewis, 2017). unconventional understandings identified in detailed
analyses of extreme cases provides alternative
The Current Studies avenues to selectively screen for characteristics of
dyscalculia.
To evaluate the prevalence of these kinds of
understandings and the utility of using these Study 1
characteristics to screen students, we designed a 13-
item group administered paper-and-pencil assessment. In Study 1 we sought to evaluate whether it was
We refer to this assessment as a “Screener” because possible to use the group administered Screener to
we are specifically interested in screening students for identify the characteristic understandings found in
halving and fractional complement unconventional students with dyscalculia. This paper-and-pencil
understandings. The screener questions were based assessment (see Appendix A) was administered to
on questions from Lewis (2014) in which students 390 students in grades 6-8 (i.e., middle school students,
demonstrated these unconventional understandings. approximate age 11-14). Middle school (grades 6-8) was
Students were asked to draw, interpret, compare and selected as the target age because these students
operate with a variety of fractional quantities. For would have had adequate exposure to fractions,
a complete list of questions with scoring guide see given that fractions instruction generally begins in
Appendix A. The screener questions were deliberately grade 3 in the United States (e.g., Common Core
designed to elicit evidence of halving or fractional State Standards for Mathematics; National Governors
complement understandings, therefore, we did not Association Center for Best Practices & Council of
specify the manner in which students should interpret Chief State School Officers, 2010). We also collected
fraction representations. Students were given one state mandated achievement test mathematics
unconventional understanding point for every scores to evaluate whether unconventionality scores
problem in which their answer reflected a halving or were inversely correlated with achievement.
fractional complement understanding. A higher score
on the screener meant the student demonstrated Methods
higher levels of unconventional understandings.
Data Collection
We evaluated the promise of this kind of screener
with two studies. In the first study we evaluated how Mathematics teachers (n = 6) at a California middle
common these patterns of understanding were in a school administered the Screener to all students
large sample (n = 390) of middle school students (i.e., during math class (n = 390). The teachers also provided
grades 6-8; ages 11-14). Study 1 addressed the following each student’s state mandated achievement test
research questions: mathematics score from the prior academic year. In
247
California, at the time, the mandated achievement test To evaluate the validity of this screener we conducted
was the STAR test (Standardized Testing and Reporting an item factor analysis. The parallel analysis showed
program; http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sr/). In order that there is more than one factor measured by the
to collect these data and preserve student anonymity test. The exploratory factor analysis further confirmed
(a stipulation of our human subjects approval), that a two-factor model outperformed a one factor
when students completed the Screener, the teacher model for these data. We determined the two
removed the cover page (with the student’s name) factors were, as hypothesized: halving and fractional
and wrote the student’s STAR test score on the now complement. Items 3 and 4 were removed from the
anonymized assessment. The research team received confirmatory factor analysis because they were not
anonymized written responses on the Screener along associated with either fractional complement or
with the student’s STAR test score. One out of six of the halving. The confirmatory factor analysis showed that
teachers did not provide STAR test scores for her 50 Items 1, 2, 5, and 12 loaded on factor 1 (halving), with
students. questions 1 and 2 (“draw ½” and “draw another way
to show ½”) loading strongly on factor 1 (halving). The
Analysis confirmatory factor analysis indicated that items 6, 7,
8, 9, 10, 11, 13 all strongly loaded onto factor 2 (fractional
Our research team scored the screeners for complement). The results of the confirmatory factor
correctness and evidence of unconventional analysis are presented in Table 1, standardized factor
understandings. We assigned one unconventional loadings are between -1 and 1, with larger absolute
understanding point for each answer which was values indicating a stronger association between the
consistent with an unconventional halving or item and the factor. Because this screener is measuring
fractional complement understanding (see examples two factors, Cronbach’s alpha was understandably
Appendix A). For example, (see Figure 3) the student low (0.61), but the correlation between the two factors
interpreted an area model of 3/5 and 3/4 as 2/3 and was moderately high (0.31).
1/3 (unshaded parts/shaded parts), respectively. The
student was given one unconventional point for this Table 1
problem because the student’s response (which Standardized Loadings for 2-Factor Confirmatory
treated the unshaded pieces as focal) aligned with a Model of Unconventional Fraction Understandings (n
fractional complement understanding. = 390)
Item Question Description Factor 1 – Factor 2 –
Figure 3 Number Halving Fractional
Student work "(B) is bigger because it is 2/3 instead of Complement
1/3." This answer would receive one unconventional 1 Draw ½ 0.98
understanding point for fractional complement
2 Draw ½ 0.99
because 3/4 and 3/5 were interpreted in terms of the
5 Interpret ½ 0.35
fractional complements, 1 unshaded part for ¾ and 2
unshaded parts for 3/5, respectively (i.e., 1/3 and 2/3; 6 Compare 1/6 and 1/8 0.82
unshaded/shaded) 7 Compare 2/8 and 5/8 0.74

8 Interpret area model of 4/5 0.79
9 Interpret area model of 0.76
8/10
10 Compare ¾ and 3/5 area 0.86
models
11 Compare 4/5 and 3/5 area 0.90
models
12 ½+1/4 = 0.60
13 Interpret eight 1/10 0.53
Results
Reliability and Validity Measures The results for Study 1 are presented in three parts.
First, to evaluate whether it was possible to identify
All assessments were scored by at least two different unconventional understandings on a written
scorers (see Appendix A for scoring criteria) Reliability assessment, we present some exemplar written
for scoring was high: 97.9%. All discrepancies were responses which illustrate unconventionality, either a
resolved during our research meetings by reviewing fractional complement or a halving understanding.
the students’ answers and our scoring criteria and Second, we present an overview of the students’
reaching a consensus decision. scores on the Screener to report the prevalence of
248
these understandings. Finally, we evaluate whether shading when asked to solve the problem ½ + ¼=. In
unconventionality scores on the screener were this particular example (see Figure 4c), the student
associated with students’ standardized mathematics represented both ½ and ¼ with no shading. It is
achievement test performance. unclear what the student’s intermediate drawings
were intended to represent, but their final answer (an
Exemplar Unconventional Understandings unshaded halved shape) was interpreted as ½ in their
final answer and therefore was coded as consistent
To illustrate prototypical unconventional with a halving understanding.
understandings, we present several examples from
students’ responses and discuss how these reflect Unconventional Fractional Complement
a potential halving or fractional complement Understanding
unconventional understanding.
The fractional complement understanding occurred
Unconventional Halving Understanding more often in cases in which the problem involved
interpretation of a fraction. For example, student
Students’ answers were coded as consistent with answers indicative of a fractional complement
a halving understanding (Lewis, 2014) if they drew understanding included judging eight one-tenth
or interpreted the fraction ½ as a halved shape (see pieces to be 2/10 (pieces missing/total pieces; see
Figure 4). For example, a “halving understanding” Figure 5a) or 1/8 (one empty space/pieces shown;
was reflected in Figure 4a because the student drew see Figure 5b). Similarly, answers in which the student
a shape and partitioned it in two but did not shade interpreted an area model in terms of the unshaded
or label either piece. Similarly, instances in which pieces (e.g., interpreting 4/5 as 1/5 (unshaded/total)
students selected an unshaded halved circle as a and 8/10 as 2/10 (unshaded/total)) were also coded as
valid representation of ½ were considered consistent indicative of a fractional complement understanding
with a halving understanding (see Figure 4b). Finally, (see Figure 5c).
some students represented the fraction ½ without
Figure 4
Exemplar written responses coded as consistent with a halving understanding
Figure 5
Example answers coded as consistent with a fractional complement understanding
249
Fractional complement understanding was also Student Performance on the Screener

evident in errors involving comparison of fractions. For
example, a student incorrectly judged that 2/8 was To analyze the students’ scores on the Screener,
larger than 5/8 explaining, “2/8 is more because if we considered the total unconventionality score
you shad in 2 parts you woud get more triangles” (see obtained by each student. Only 6% of students had
Figure 6). In this example, the student presumably sees an unconventionality score of four or more points
more “triangles” in the drawing of 2/8 because there (indicating answers aligned with an unconventional
are 6 unshaded parts versus the 3 unshaded parts in understanding on more than 30% of problems; see
the drawing of 5/8. Figure 8). The majority of students (59%) demonstrated
no unconventional understandings. Another 22% of
Figure 6 all students received only 1 unconventional point,
Student answer and explanation that 2/8 is more than and more than 63% of these students received an
5/8 unconventionality point for circling the unshaded
circle partitioned in 2 as one possible representation
of ½ along with other valid representations. Therefore,
as expected, most students demonstrated no
unconventional understanding on the Screener.
Figure 8
Percentage of students who scored in each
unconventional point range on the Screener (n = 390)
Similarly, when students made errors on comparing

an area model of 4/5 and 3/5, their answers often
reflected a fractional complement understanding.
For example, one student interpreted the area model
of 4/5 as 1/5 and the area model of 3/5 as 2/5 (see
Figure 7). In both cases the student attended to the
unshaded parts as the focal fractional quantity and
therefore incorrectly determined that the latter was
larger.
Figure 7
Student answer and explanation that an area model
for 3/5 is larger than 4/5
Achievement Test Scores
We collected student achievement scores to

investigate whether unconventionality was simply
a characteristic of low mathematics achievement
(and consequently simply replicating achievement
measures). We evaluated whether the students’
unconventionality scores were correlated with
their standardized achievement test scores. For this
Although both halving and fractional complement are analysis we omitted 89 students for whom we did not
distinct understandings on this Screener we totaled the receive STAR achievement mathematics test scores.
number of answers which were consistent with either One teacher did not provide this information to the
a halving or a fractional complement understanding research team (n = 50), and there were missing data
to produce one total score of unconventionality. for specific students in other classes. This missing
A student receiving a higher unconventionality data could be due to a variety of reasons, student’s
score would have more answers which indicated a absence during STAR testing, transferring to the district
fractional complement or halving understanding. or class, or an error of omission on the teacher’s part.
250
When viewing the scores as a scatterplot (see Figure understandings over time and whether those students
9), it is evident that the students with the highest would also meet standard dyscalculia identification
unconventionality scores were not necessarily the criteria. To investigate these questions, we conducted
lowest achieving students, and some of the lowest Study 2.
achieving students had no unconventionality points.
This suggests that this kind of approach – identifying Study 2
characteristic patterns of reasoning – may be
a promising approach to begin differentiating In Study 2 we wanted to determine if the
dyscalculia from low mathematics achievement due unconventional answers given on the Screener
to other factors. persisted and whether these students met rigorous
DSM-5 dyscalculia criteria. We administered the
Figure 9 Screener to 80 middle school students and recruited
Scatterplot of achievement test scores and those students with high unconventionality scores to
unconventionality points on the Screener, identical participate in an additional individualized assessment.
values are jittered The criteria for “high unconventionality” was set at four
or more unconventional points, because this indicates
reliance upon unconventional understandings across
a significant number of problems (i.e., more than 30%
of problems). Although it may have been interesting
to assess students with two or more unconventional
points to determine if they have an unconventional
understanding of standard pedagogical
representations, we focused on students with the
highest levels of unconventionality (4 or more points)
due to time constraints. We conducted individual
problem solving clinical interviews to evaluate
whether these students did rely upon unconventional
understandings. We conducted an individualized
standardized achievement test (Woodcock Johnson
IV; Schrank et al., 2014) and background interview
to determine whether these students with high
unconventionality scores met standard DSM-5
dyscalculia criteria.
Methods
Summary and Conclusion
Data Collection
Study 1 found that the unconventional understandings
documented in students with dyscalculia were All middle school students (grades 6-8) enrolled at
evident on the group administered written Screener. a private school for students with language-based
This study suggests that these unconventional learning disabilities were assessed using the Screener
understandings, previously only documented with (n = 80). The student’s enrollment at this school ensured
time intensive qualitative analysis of video data, that these students had intelligence scores in the
are possible to identify in a group administered normal range and therefore eliminated the possibility
screener. Furthermore, the percentage of students of intellectual disability. We anticipated that a higher
with higher unconventionality scores (i.e., 4+ points) percentage of students recruited from this school
was approximately equivalent to the estimates for would have high unconventionality scores given
prevalence of dyscalculia (Shalev, 2007). Data from the documented comorbidity between dyscalculia
state mandated assessments suggested that high and dyslexia (e.g., Knopik et al., 1997; Wilson et al.,
unconventionality scores were not only occurring 2015). However, Lyon, Shaywitz and Shaywitz (2003)
in the lowest achieving students; furthermore, not argue that although there is well known comorbidity,
all low achieving students demonstrated these the cognitive characteristics associated with each
unconventionalities. This suggests that this screener is of these disabilities are sufficiently distinct (e.g.,
measuring something different than low mathematics phonemic awareness vs. number processing) and do
achievement. Due to the anonymized nature of the not present a problem in studying one independent
data we were not able to follow up with individual from the other. In addition, the reading demands of
students who had high unconventionality scores. It the screener were minimal, and therefore, the impact
remained an open question whether students who of the student’s difficulties with reading were not
demonstrated high levels of unconventionality on considered to be problematic for this study.
the assessment would continue to exhibit these
251
Each mathematics teacher at the school administered Both the background interview and problem solving
the Screener to their students (n = 80). The cover page interview were video recorded and were conducted
and first page of the assessment were numbered with by the first and second authors.
a test ID. When students completed the assessment,
the teacher removed the cover page (with the Standardized measure. To determine if the students
student’s name), and retained the cover sheet for met the low mathematics achievement clinical
subsequent recruitment efforts. The research team criteria established in the DSM-5, all three students
scored these assessments anonymously. To recruit were assessed using the mathematics subtests of the
students for the main study, the teachers were given Woodcock Johnson IV Test of Achievement (Schrank
a list of test IDs associated with students who had et al., 2014). The subtests included, Applied Problems,
unconventionality scores of at least 4 points. Teachers Calculation, and Math Facts Fluency.
used the cover sheets to distribute consent materials
to students who qualified. Consents were directly Analysis
returned to the research team through the U.S. Postal
Service. Parents and students who did not want to Screener
participate were asked to simply discard their forms to
preserve their anonymity. Seven students met the high As in Study 1, the written screener assessments were
unconventionality threshold and we received consent scored by at least two different scorers (see Appendix
forms for three of these students. A for scoring criteria). Reliability for scoring was high,
97.6%. All discrepancies were resolved during our
Several kinds of data were collected for the three research meetings by reviewing the students’ answers
students who participated in the individual assessment and reaching a consensus decision.
including: (a) background interview, in which the
students reported on their resources and their prior Case study analysis
experiences learning and doing mathematics, (b)
a clinical interview problem solving session in which For the three students who qualified for and
the student solved the questions from the Screener, consented to participate in the individual assessment,
and (c) an individually administered standardized we transcribed the video recordings and scanned all
achievement test. Due to scheduling constraints these written artifacts.
individual sessions were conducted eight months after
the original assessment data. Background interview
Background interview For the background interview, the first and second
authors reviewed the students’ answers and identified
The students were interviewed and asked to provide any potential confounding factors which could explain
a self-report of their academic background, the the student’s mathematics difficulties. We looked for
kinds of difficulties they experienced in mathematics, self-reports of insufficient educational opportunity,
their level of effort, available resources (e.g., tutoring, insufficient resources, poor prior teaching, or difficulty
teacher help), and home language (see Appendix B). with attention or behavioral control.
The goal of the background interview was to assess
the student’s level of perceived effort and educational Problem solving interview
resources as well as to establish rapport. Note that we
did not collect data on the socioeconomic status of For the problem solving interview, the first and second
the student and their families, but these students were authors coded these videos using the coding scheme
all paying tuition to attend a private school, suggesting from the Screener. We allowed student’s explanations
the families had sufficient financial resources. to disambiguate answers when needed, similar to the
way we used written explanations on the Screener.
Problem solving interview Reliability for this coding was 85.2%. All discrepancies
were resolved by reviewing the video and reaching
In the problem solving clinical interview, the students consensus on how the question should be scored.
were asked each of the questions from the Screener.
For each of the student’s answers, the interviewer Results
asked the student to explain their solution and/or
process. Because it had been over eight months The results are presented in two parts. First, we present
between the administration of the Screener and the each case by illustrating the students’ unconventional
interview, we were not concerned about practice answers from the screener and how these same
effects. patterns of reasoning were evident during the
interview. Then we evaluate whether these three
students met the standard DSM-5 dyscalculia criteria.
252
Case Study Students with High Unconventionality On the interview both these unconventional
Scores understandings resurfaced but with different
frequency. A halving understanding occurred more
Out of the 80 students assessed, only 7 students (9%) had frequently, and fractional complement understanding
an unconventionality score of four or above. These 7 occurred less frequently. When Ryan was asked
students were recruited to participate in the interviews to draw the fraction 1/2, he drew several different
and standardized assessment. Three students, “Ryan,” representations including a pizza, a pie, and a
“Lily,” and “Maddie” (all pseudonyms) returned pedestrian “don’t walk” sign (see Figure 10). In each
consent forms. All three students who consented of these cases, he omitted shading. When asked to
to participate in the main study demonstrated the identify the part of his picture that was one-half he
same unconventional understandings during the indicated that one-half was the partition line.
interview that they did on the screener (see Table 2).
Ryan and Lily demonstrated halving and fractional Figure 10
complement understandings on both the screener Ryan’s drawings of 1/2 (pedestrian “don’t walk” sign,
and interview. Maddie demonstrated a fractional pizza, and pie)
complement understanding, and did so on both the
screener and interview. For each case study student,
we present answers given on both the screener and
the interview which highlight the persistence of these
unconventional understandings.
Table 2
Unconventional understanding points on the screener
and interview
Assessment Fractional Halving Total Uncon-
Comple- Points ventional
ment Points Understand-
ing Points
Screener 3 1 4
Ryan Interviewer: Can you explain to me how your pictures
Interview 1 3 4 show one-half?
Screener 3 1 4
Lily Ryan: Um, because they have a line right down the
Interview 6 1 7 middle [points to line in the center of the pie, see
Screener 4 0 4 Figure 10], and this side's equal [points to right side of
Maddie pie], and this side's equal [points to left side of pie]. Like
Interview 5 0 5 1, 2 [writes ½] or... [starts pointing to the pizza slices in
his drawing] I don't know how many pieces of pizza
that is, but, yeah.
Ryan
Interviewer: So where is the one-half in this picture?
[points to pizza]
On the screener Ryan demonstrated both an
unconventional halving and fractional complement Ryan: [points along center dividing line; see Figure 11]
Right there.
understanding. In Ryan’s answers on the screener, a
halving understanding was evident on one problem, Figure 11
in his selection of the non-shaded halved circle as a Ryan’s drawing of 1/2 of a pizza with a dotted line
valid representation of ½. Ryan also demonstrated indicating where he gestured to identify where one-
a fractional complement understanding in his half was in his drawing
comparison of fractions on the screener. When
asked to compare fractions, he incorrectly judged
1/8 to be greater than 1/6 and 2/8 to be greater than
5/8 drawing accurate areas models for each. He
also incorrectly judged an area model for 3/5 to be
greater than 3/4, and an area model of 3/5 to be
greater than 4/5. In each instance, his explanations
identified “more space” in the fraction he judged to
be larger, which was consistently the fraction with
more unshaded parts. This suggests that, particularly
on comparison problems, Ryan was relying upon a
fractional complement understanding.
253
In Ryan’s explanations he focused on the equality of unshaded pieces as focal (see Figure 13). In addition,
the two halves and the partition line itself. Although many of her area model comparison problems
Ryan’s drawing of the pizza pieces and his attempt were also aligned with attending to the fractional
to count them up, suggests that he might have complement (e.g., larger fraction determined by
been attending to one-half of his circle (or pizza), largest unshaded area; Figure 14), but these were not
when specifically asked where the one-half was coded as such because she did not provide a written
in his picture, he identified the partition line itself explanation for her judgments.
and not the pieces on one side of the pizza as the
representation of 1/2. Ryan’s unshaded and halved Figure 13
representations along with his explanations focusing Lily’s screener responses that were coded as
on the partition line itself was taken as evidence of his consistent with a fractional complement understanding,
halving understanding. because she focused on the unshaded (fractional
complement) pieces in her interpretation of the fraction
In contrast to Ryan’s halving understanding, a fractional
complement understanding occurred only once
during his interview. On an interpretation problem,
Ryan determined that the eight 1/10 pieces (see
Figure 12) was equal to 1/8. This reflected a fractional
complement understanding because he attended to
the missing part (perceived as 1 missing part) and the
number of pieces displayed (i.e., 8). This was coded
as a fractional complement understanding because
it involves naming the fraction in terms of the missing
amount.
Figure 12 Lily’s interpretation of the area models 4/5 and 8/10

Interpretation problem which presents eight 1/10 during the interview was similar to her answers on the
pieces and asks student to interpret the amount shown screener. During Lily’s interview, she again identified
4/5 as 1/4 (unshaded/shaded) and identified 8/10 as
2/8 (unshaded/shaded), focusing on the pieces she
referred to as “left.”
Figure 14
Lily’s answers that were potentially due to a
fractional complement understand (judging fractions
based on unshaded parts) but were not coded as
unconventional, because she did not provide an
explanation for her answer
Although the halving and fractional complement

understandings were evident on different problems
and had different frequencies on the screener and
in the interview, in both instances, Ryan’s answers
and explanations indicated his reliance upon these
understandings found in students with dyscalculia.
Lily
Lily demonstrated both a halving and fractional

complement understanding on the screener and
interview. Like Ryan, Lily selected the unshaded
halved circle as a valid representation of ½, and did
so both on the screener and interview. Therefore,
there was consistency in her halving understanding.
Lily also demonstrated consistency in her fractional
complement understanding. On the screener Lily
interpreted 4/5 and 8/10 as 1/4 (unshaded/shaded)
and 8/2 (shaded/unshaded), clearly attending to the
254
Figure 15 Lily: [points to drawing of 3/5] There's... it's two-thirds,

Tutor drawn representation of 4/5 (digitally recreated), and then this one is [pointing to drawing of 3/4], one-
third. So this one's more [points to drawing of 3/5],
which was repartitioned to produce 8/10 there's 2 that got left out kind of.
Lily’s judgment that 3/5 was larger than 3/4 was based
on her attention to the unshaded pieces, which she
again referred to as “left out.” Lily consistently relied
upon a fractional complement understanding. Given
the consistency of Lily’s answers on both the screener
and the interview, the fractional complement
(a) (b) understanding provides a plausible explanation for
Lily’s errors on the area model comparison problems
Interviewer: [draws 4/5; see Figure 15a] Okay, so this on the screener (see Figure 14).
is a picture of –
Figure 16
Lily: One-fourth.
Printed question asking student to compare ¾ and 3/5
Interviewer: So this is a picture of one-fourth? represented with area models
Lily: Yeah.
Interviewer: Okay. So then another student came
along and did this to her picture. [draws horizontal
line; see Figure 15b] Can you tell me what fraction
that is?
Lily: [pointing to unshaded sections] Is she crossing
out this? Oh.
Interviewer: So she...
Lily: Two-eighths.
Interviewer: Two-eighths?
Figure 17
Lily: Yeah. Maddie’s written responses on the screener for the
Interviewer: Okay. Can you tell me how you got that comparison problem of 2/8 and 5/8, in which she
answer? determined 2/8 was larger
Lily: Well, [points to picture], if you divide it in half, this
makes 8, because 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, [gestures over 8
shaded pieces, each in turn] and then there's 2 left
over [points to 2 unshaded pieces].

Lily interpreted the fraction in terms of the unshaded
pieces and referred to those pieces as “left.” Lily’s
tendency to interpret fractions by attending to
the fractional complement (unshaded parts) also
emerged as she compared area models of 3/4 and
3/5. As she had done on the screener, she judged the
drawing of 3/5 to be larger. When asked to explain her
answer, she interpreted each fraction in terms of the
number of unshaded parts and shaded parts; 3/5 was
interpreted as 2/3 and 3/4 was interpreted as 1/3. Maddie
Unlike Ryan and Lily, there were no instances of

Interviewer: In looking at these two pictures, can you
Maddie demonstrating a halving understanding on
tell me which one is larger, or are they equal?
either the screener or the interview. She did however
Lily: [touches drawing of 3/5 firmly with finger, 5 times; demonstrate a fractional complement understanding
see Figure 16] This one.
on both. When asked to determine which quantity
Interviewer: Do you want to circle it? was more, she struggled particularly when the
Lily: Naw, that's okay. Just that one [points to drawing denominators of the fractions were the same. For
of 3/5]. example, she judged 2/8 to be larger than 5/8. Her
Interviewer: Can you tell me – you're pointing to this solution helps illustrate how a fractional complement
one – understanding was evident in this problem and how
Lily: Yeah. it was problematic (see Figure 17). Maddie drew
canonical representations for both 2/8 and 5/8, using
Interviewer: – it's larger? Can you tell me how you
know that? shading to represent the fractional quantity. However,
255
she then judged 2/8 to be larger because there Figure 19

were “more pieces not shaded in.” This highlights Maddie’s written work interpreting eight 1/10 pieces
the disconnection between her canonical use of in terms of the number of pieces missing (2) over the
shading in her construction of the area models and number of pieces shown (8)
her unconventional focus on the unshaded parts in
interpreting her own drawings. The quantities she
compared were not the quantities she herself drew,
but the fractional complements.
Maddie again attended to the unshaded pieces

when asked to compare area models of 4/5 and
3/5 (see Figure 18), incorrectly judging that 3/5 was
larger because there were more parts not colored in.
For both same denominator comparison problems,
she incorrectly believed the smaller amount was
larger, and in each case, she justified her answer by
identifying that there was more that was not shaded.
In addition to these comparison problems, Maddie’s

fractional complement understanding was also
evident when she interpreted the eight 1/10 pieces as
2/8 (pieces missing/pieces shown; see Figure 19).
Although it was not as evident during the interview, Figure 20

Maddie continued to rely on a fractional complement Tutor drawn representation of 4/5 (digitally recreated),
understanding. When asked to interpret a drawn area which was then repartitioned to create 8/10
model of 4/5 (see Figure 20a), she, like Lily, interpreted
it first in terms of the unshaded amount (1/4;
unshaded/shaded). When asked to justify her answer
of 1/4, she justified it by noting the number of boxes
colored in, but did not change her answer. When the
interviewer repartitioned this area model to produce
8/10 (see Figure 20b), she again initially focused on
the two unshaded pieces. Unlike her previous answer, (a) (b)
she eventually corrected this error. Throughout
her explanations she vacillated between different
Interviewer: Okay, one student I was working with
interpretations of the representation. First providing a drew a picture like this. [draws rectangle with 5
fractional complement answer (1/4) and justifying her sections, colors in 4; see Figure 20a] What would you
answer with the shaded region, and then correcting say that's a picture of?
her final interpretation (8/10) and justifying it based on Maddie: I think that would be one-fourth.
the fractional complement.
Interviewer: How do you know?
Maddie: Because um, 4 – 4, I mean, um, 4 out of 5
Figure 18
boxes were colored in.
Maddie’s written responses on the screener on a
comparison problem of 4/5 and 3/5 in which she was Interviewer: Okay, 4 out of 5 boxes were colored in. So
then another student came along and cut it in half
asked to circle the larger amount. She explains that like that. [draws line down the middle; see Figure 20b]
3/5 is larger because "there are two lines that are not
Maddie: Um, that would be...
colered in."
Interviewer: What would you say that is now?
Maddie: It would be 8 out of 2 – or, 2 out of 8. No, 4 out
of 8. Wait. 8 out of 10. 8 out of 10.
Interviewer: 8 out of 10? How do you know?
Maddie: Because um, now that the squares are cut
up, [touches picture], there are 8 that are colored and
2 that are left.
In her interpretation of 8/10, Maddie corrected her

initial fractional complement answers (8/2 shaded/
unshaded and 2/8 unshaded/shaded) and correctly
256
determined that the repartitioned fraction was a consistent with those documented in adults with
representation of 8/10. However, she still attended to dyscalculia (Lewis, 2014). Although there were often
the fractional complement (2 pieces) and referred to differences in the specific problems in which the
them as “left.” – one of the defining characteristics of understandings emerged, there was consistency in
the fractional complement understanding. the nature of the understandings themselves. Maddie
relied on a fractional complement understanding,
Maddie’s focus on the unshaded space as the and did so on both the screener and interview. Ryan
fractional quantity was also evident when asked to and Lily demonstrated both a fractional complement
justify why she (correctly) did not select the unequally and halving understanding. In Lily’s case there was
partitioned area model as a valid representation of ½ consistency in the problems and specific reasoning
(see Figure 21). When asked why she did not select it, on the screener and interview, whereas in Ryan’s case
she interpreted the white (unshaded) part as the focal the same understanding persisted but with different
fractional quantity, and judged that the area model frequencies and on different problems. We judge the
was more than ½. screener to be a useful tool to identify students with
these characteristic unconventional understandings
Interviewer: Can you explain why you didn't choose given their high unconventionality scores on both the
this one? screener and interview. We then evaluated whether
Maddie: Because the white has more of – the white these three students met the standard criteria for
is covering more of the square. dyscalculia classification established by the DSM-5.
Interviewer: So is this going to be less than one-half or
more than one-half? Dyscalculia Classification
Maddie: Um... [pause] I think it would be... [pause] I
think it would be more. Um, because the white has The DSM-5 requires that students with dyscalculia
more. have persistent difficulties in mathematics that are
evident during formal schooling and result in below
Figure 21 average achievement. The DSM-5 recommends
Printed image that Maddie determined was more operationalizing “below average” as 1.5 standard
than 1/2 deviations below the population mean on a norm
referenced achievement test, which corresponds
to the 7th percentile. Additionally, the student’s low
achievement must not be due to lack of educational
opportunity, poor instruction, lack of fluency in
instructional language, developmental delay, or a
sensory, motor, or neurological disorder.
In order to evaluate whether these students also met

the DSM-5 criteria for dyscalculia classification we
considered students’ composite and subtest scores
on the Woodcock-Johnson Test of Achievement IV
(WJ-IV) and self-reports of their educational history
and opportunity. The WJ-IV scores for each student
are presented in Table 3. Lily and Ryan clearly met
In her justification, Maddie understood this the “below average achievement” criterion, as all
representation to be more than ½, suggesting that of their subtests and composite scores were below
she was attending to the white space as the focal the 7th percentile. Maddie’s percentile scores were
fractional quantity. more variable. Maddie met the below average
achievement criterion on only one subtest – Math Facts
As in Ryan’s case, there was some variation on the Fluency – and in one composite score (Mathematics
specific problems, which elicited her fractional Calculation Skills). Math Facts Fluency is the only timed
complement understanding. On the screener it was math assessment within the WJ-IV, and researchers
primarily on comparison problems, and in the interview, have argued for the importance of timed assessments
it was primarily during interpretation problems. These of mathematics performance to accurately identify
data suggest that Maddie relied upon a fractional students with dyscalculia (e.g., Berch, 2005; Mazzocco,
complement understanding to make sense of various 2009). Indeed, when completing the untimed sections,
fraction representations in various contexts. Maddie’s progress through the questions was laborious
and time intensive. This suggests that she may have
Summary developed ways of compensating for her difficulties
(see Lewis & Lynn, 2018 for a discussion), but that her
All three students demonstrated unconventional difficulties were more evident under time constraints.
understandings during the interview that were Because Maddie’s score on a timed assessment fell
257
below the 7th percentile, we argue that she meets Discussion

the dyscalculia criteria based on this more sensitive
measure. These two studies together provide a proof-of-
concept for a novel approach to addressing the
Table 3 intractable identification issues facing dyscalculia
researchers. Through these studies we provided a
Percentile scores on the Woodcock Johnson IV Test of
model for leveraging case study work in powerful
Achievement for the case study students.
ways to go beyond the individual cases and consider
the prevalence of these patterns of understanding
Ryan Lily Maddie more broadly. By using detailed qualitative studies
Mathematics Composite 1 0.2 24 of extreme cases to design group administered
Broad Mathematics <0.1 <0.1 8
written assessments, it may be possible to make
considerable progress towards delineating the
Math Calculation Skills <0.1 <0.1 7 unique characteristics of this disability. This kind of
Applied Problems 7 2 29 approach is novel in that it attempts to define and
Calculation 1 0.1 25 identify dyscalculia by the unique characteristics (i.e.,
unconventional understandings) rather than defining
Math Facts Fluency <0.1 0.2 2
dyscalculia as performance deficits.
In addition to the below average achievement Study 1 demonstrated that the unconventional
criterion, the students’ self-reports indicate that understandings documented in Lewis (2014) were
these difficulties were evident in early school years, atypical. Only 6% of middle school students had high
and the difficulties were not attributable to a global unconventionality scores. The percentage of students
developmental delay, hearing, vision, neurological, or
with high unconventionality scores was approximately
motor disorder. All students were White native English
equal to the estimated prevalence of dyscalculia
speakers (see Table 4) and therefore entered the
school context with considerable privilege. Based on in the general population (Shalev, 2007). The fact
the individual self-reports all students had sufficient that (a) not all low achieving students demonstrated
familial and educational resources (e.g., homework unconventionalities, and (b) that the students with
club, individual teacher/parent help), decreasing the the highest levels of unconventionality were not
likelihood that environmental or social circumstances necessarily the lowest achieving students, suggests
were the origin of their difficulties in mathematics. that the Screener identified qualitative differences in
These students were attending a private school for understanding, rather than simply low achievement.
students with language-based learning disabilities,
and although it is possible that their difficulties with Study 2 helped establish the validity of the Screener
language impacted their ability to learn mathematics, for identifying unconventional understandings. The
none of the students identified reading difficulties as
students with high unconventionality scores on the
an issue for them in mathematics.
Screener in study 2, did rely upon and demonstrate
Table 4 unconventional understandings in their interviews.
Demographic information for case study students. Furthermore, additional assessments found that all
three of these students met rigorous dyscalculia
Ryan Lily Maddie
criteria established by the DSM-5. These studies
Gender Male Female Female
together provide evidence that it may be possible to
Race White White White build off characteristic understandings documented in
Age (years-months) 13-11 13-2 13-9 adults with dyscalculia to develop novel approaches
Grade 8 8 8
for identification. Unlike standard approaches
which struggle to differentiate dyscalculia from low
achievement, these studies suggest that it may be
Conclusion possible to identify the characteristics of dyscalculia
on a group-administered assessment.
All three students who demonstrated high levels
of unconventionality on the Screener continued
Evaluation of the Screener
to demonstrate these same unconventional
understandings on the interview. This suggests that
The validity of this Screening assessment was also
these understandings do persist over time and
continue to lead to specific kinds of answers. All three evaluated through item factor analysis, which
students also met the qualifications for the DSM- confirmed that this assessment measured two factors:
5 dyscalculia criteria. This suggests that it may be halving and fractional complement. Although there
possible to screen for characteristics of dyscalculia was variability in how strongly particular items loaded
with a group administered screener. onto the associated factor, we find analytic utility in all
items. For example, although items 3 and 4 (draw 3/5;
draw 1 5/8) did not load onto fractional complement,
258
these questions did provide essential information imprecise proxy are often studying low mathematics
for how the student understood the shading when achievement – often due to inequitable educational
drawing area models. If a student used shading to opportunities – in the name of dyscalculia. The
represent the numerator (i.e., fractional quantity) in unintended consequences of this widespread use of
their drawings, but used the unshaded parts to interpret this insufficient operational definition has resulted in
the fractional quantity, it suggests an unconventional myriad studies arguing that students with dyscalculia
understanding of the shading. It is precisely because simply lag behind their peers (e.g., Gonzalez & Espinel,
of the disconnection between how students draw 2002; Keeler & Swanson, 2001; Mabbott & Bisanz, 2008).
and interpret area models that these items would Because low achievement is used as the sole criteria
not load strongly onto fractional complement, but for dyscalculia classification, studies have argued that
nevertheless provide important information about students with dyscalculia are simply delayed in their
the students’ understanding. Similarly, although item mathematical development, rather than qualitatively
5 (interpret ½) did not load as strongly onto factor 1 different (Geary & Hoard, 2005). The developmental
(halving) we believe that this item provides important lag theory suggests the same teaching methods
insight. For example, it was only on this item on the should be effective and these students simply require
Screener that Ryan’s tendency to understand ½ as additional time and exposure to standard instruction.
halving was evident. The interview demonstrated that Because this research is largely based on studies which
Ryan did rely upon a halving understanding when he have not employed a sufficient exclusionary definition
drew non-shaded halves and identified the partition to determine that the low achievement is due to a
line itself as a representation of ½. Therefore, although disability rather than social or environmental factors
some items did not load strongly onto the two factors, (Lewis & Fisher, 2016), we take issue with this theory and
we believe they provide important insight into the its resulting implications for instruction.
students’ understanding.
In our studies we contribute to the growing body
Future Research of work that suggests that qualitative differences
in performance may be a productive approach to
We acknowledge that this Screener only includes differentiate students with dyscalculia from students
a small subset of ways in which students with with low achievement due to other factors (e.g.,
dyscalculia may understand mathematics in different Desoete & Roeyers, 2005; Mazzocco et al., 2008; 2013;
ways. It is possible that additional research into how Mazzocco & Devlin 2008). This suggests that a “more
these students represent these fraction quantities of the same” instructional approach will not work for
on the number line (Schneider & Siegler, 2010) or these learners, because they have difficulties that
compare fraction magnitudes (Meert et al., 2009) are qualitatively different than their peers. We argue
would yield insight into their understanding of fraction that the unconventional understandings identified in
quantity. The field needs to invest in more detailed the Screener and Interview impact a student’s ability
studies of extreme cases to specifically identify the to access standard instruction and these students
characteristics of this disability across a range of may require different kinds of instruction that takes
mathematics topics. This suggests a dramatic shift these issues of access into account (Lewis, 2017). At
from a focus on identifying performance deficits in the heart of both unconventional understandings is a
speed and accuracy, to a focus on identifying what tendency to understand representations of quantities
students with dyscalculia are doing and how these as representations of action (e.g., taking or halving).
understandings may be unconventional. Until then, Students who rely upon these kinds of qualitatively
leveraging these characteristics may enable the different unconventional understandings require
development of alternative identification approaches. alternative forms of instruction that acknowledge and
For example, if dyscalculia impacts students’ learning build upon these students’ unique resources (Lewis,
across all mathematics topics (e.g., Lewis & Lynn, 2018) 2017).
it may be possible to selectively recruit students with
unconventional fraction understandings and then If used in practice, this Screener should just be used
explore how these students make sense of other as a first step in a holistic evaluation of the student.
topics, like algebra. All students may experience unconventional
understandings when first learning how to use
Implications for Research and Practice and translate between different mathematical
representations (symbols, language, and pictorial;
The issue of accurate dyscalculia identification Viseu et al., 2021), so this Screener may not be effective
has far reaching consequences for research and with younger students first learning about fractions.
practice. Current use of the low achievement For students with adequate opportunity to learn about
criteria has resulted in heterogeneous groups of fractions, persistent evidence of unconventional
students erroneously labeled as dyscalculic. Studies understandings may signify an issue of access.
of dyscalculia that rely on this problematic and For students with suspected dyscalculia, multiple
259
assessments including observation, interview, and necessary to support their understanding of fractions
other nonstandard assessment are recommended as quantities. Although research has demonstrated
to determine if the difficulties are due to dyscalculia this kind of re-mediation with one of the adult students
or other factors (Mundia, 2017). These kinds of from the first case study (Lewis, 2017), more research is
nonstandardized assessments help educators identify needed to determine if similar approaches would be
unconventional understandings, issues of access, effective for younger students.
and suggest how to design alternative accessible
instruction for that student (e.g., Lewis, 2017). One final limitation, is that due to the nature of the
anonymous data collection for Study 1, we relied upon
Limitations the teachers recording of test scores on the written
assessments. These are the only data that were not
There are several limitations of the current study. double coded, and therefore, inadvertent errors could
First, this assessment was limited to exploring have been made. Because this was an ancillary point
basic representation and interpretation of fraction and not the main objective of the study, this potential
quantities, which represent a narrow slice of fraction for error in the data was not seen to be critical.
concepts and skills. Although some researchers might
argue that the narrow topic domain is problematic Conclusion
because mathematics is componential in nature
(Dowker, 2015), we argue that these unconventional These studies established a proof-of-concept
fraction understandings are indicative of underlying for designing a group administered screener by
number processing issues, representing quantities as leveraging the qualitative differences identified
actions, rather than objects (Sfard, 1991). We do not in students with dyscalculia. This provides a
claim that the Screener captures the myriad ways in novel approach to address the long-standing
which dyscalculia may manifest, however, students methodological issues facing the field with regards
who have been identified using this screener have to identification and classification of students
had similar unconventional understandings when with dyscalculia. We believe that conceptualizing
working with integers (Lewis et al., 2020) and algebra dyscalculia in terms of developmental difference
(Lewis et al., 2022), suggesting the utility of identifying rather than deficit has the potential to greatly
these kinds of unconventional understandings even impact both research and practice for students with
in a narrow topic domain. We do not propose the dyscalculia. The screener identified students who
Screener to be a test for dyscalculia, instead these understood standard tools for representing fractions
studies are intended to illustrate the potential utility (drawings, symbols) in ways that were unconventional
of a general approach to drawing upon evidence of and would render these standard mediational tools
unconventional understandings identified in detailed inaccessible. This suggests that instruction which
analyses of extreme cases to design more sensitive relies on these standard representations would be
screening tools. inaccessible and that alternative more accessible
instruction may need to be designed. Students who
A second limitation of this study is that in study 2 the score high on this screener are worthy of further
dyscalculia criteria were assessed only for students assessment to evaluate how to support their fractions
who were attending a school for students with learning and to determine if they have other issues of
language-based learning disabilities. It is possible access across other topic domains.
that the students’ language-based learning disability
did impact their understanding of mathematics. 1
The terms “dyscalculia” and “mathematics learning
There is specific academic language associated disability” are used interchangeably in the field
with fractions (e.g., numerator, denominator; Bossé et (Mazzocco, 2007). We use the former because this
al., 2019), and it is possible this created an additional term is more commonly used internationally. We
barrier for students. We cannot fully address issues differentiate dyscalculia – which involves a difference
of comorbidity that this participant population raises. in how the student processes numerical information
However, in other preliminary work, there is some – from students with mathematics learning difficulties
evidence that the Screener works to identify college- who may have low achievement in mathematics due
aged students with dyscalculia with no other learning to a variety of social or environmental causes.
disabilities (Lewis et al., 2020). Future work should
consider whether this kind of screener has utility for 2
Response-to-intervention approaches, which are
identifying students without other learning disabilities sometimes used in schools to identify students who
in a general population of students. qualify for special education services, are not often
used in research on dyscalculia because they lack
Third, although we documented unconventional specificity and methodological rigor. A small number
understandings in the case study students, it is an of studies (2%, based on a systematic literature review;
open question what kind of instruction would be Lewis & Fisher, 2016) have used growth curve analysis
260
to identify students who not only are low achieving, Butterworth, B. (2003). Dyscalculia screener:
but also have slow growth, however this kind of Highlighting children with specific learning
Response-to-Intervention approach is not commonly difficulties in mathematics. London: NFER
used in the field. Nelson.
3
It is worth noting that this pathologizing of human Butterworth, B. (2005). The development of arithmetical
variation can be thought of as problematic, and this abilities. Journal of Child Psychology and
delineation of humans into “normal” and “abnormal” Psychiatry, 46(1), 3–18. doi:10.1111/j.1469-
has its origins in the eugenics movement (e.g., Davis, 7610.2004.00374.x
2006). The point here is not to take a position on whether
the category of dyscalculia is morally, ethically, Compton, D. L., Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Lambert, W., &
practically, or politically appropriate, but to identify Hamlett, C. (2012). The Cognitive and academic
that when disability categories have been defined, it profiles of reading and mathematics learning
has often started with the close and careful clinical disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(1),
appraisal of individuals considered to be exceptional. 79–95. doi:10.1177/0022219410393012
In this study our goal is not to further pathologize
human variation, but to better understand how Davis, L. R. (2006). Constructing normalcy the bell
cognitive differences may result in inaccessibility in curve, the novel, and the invention of the
mathematics. By improving identification approaches disabled body in the nineteenth century. In L.
we hope to (a) enable students with this disability to R. Davis (Ed.), The Disability Studies Reader (pp.
advocate and obtain access to accommodations to 3–16). New York, NY: Routledge.
address the inaccessible mathematics context and
(b) avoid inappropriately labeling students with low Dehaene, S. (2011). The number sense: How the
mathematics achievement as disabled. mind creates mathematics. New York: Oxford
University Press.
4
Although the fractional complement for 3/4 is 1/4,
we also classified instances where the student Desoete, A., & Roeyers, H. (2005). Cognitive skills in
interpreted the fraction as unshaded/shaded (e.g., mathematical problem solving in Grade 3.
1/3), because their answer suggested that the student British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(1),
was attending to the fractional complement (the one 119–138. doi:10.1348/000709904X22287
unshaded part) as the focal quantity.
Dowker, A. (2015). Individual differences in arithmetical
References abilities: The componential nature of arithmetic.
In R. Kadosh, & A. Dowker (Eds.). Oxford
Handbook of Numerical Cognition. Oxford
Armstrong, B. E., & Larson, C. N. (1995). Students’ use of University Press.
part-whole and direct comparison strategies
for comparing partitioned rectangles. Journal Duane, D. D. (1979). Toward a definition of dyslexia: A
for Research in Mathematics Education, 26, summary of views. Bulletin of the Orton Society,
2–19. doi:10.2307/749225 29, 56–64. doi:10.1007/BF02653733
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic Empson, S. B. (1999). Equal sharing and shared meaning:
and statistical manual of mental disorders The development of fraction concepts in a first-
(5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric grade classroom. Cognition and Instruction,
Publishing. 17(3), 283–342.
Berch, D. B. (2005). Making sense of number sense: Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A.
implications for children with mathematical (2007). Learning disabilities: From identification
disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(4), to intervention. New York: Guilford Press.
333–345. doi:10.1177/00222194050380040901
Geary, D. C. (2004). Mathematics and learning
Bossé, M. J., Bayaga, A., Fountain, C., Lynch-Davis, K., disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(1),
Preston, R., & Adu-Gyamfi, K. (2019). Fraction 4–15. doi:10.1177/00222194040370010201
learners: Assessing understanding through
language acquisition. International Electronic Geary, D. C., Hamson, C. O., & Hoard, M. K. (2000).
Journal of Elementary Education, 11(2), 113–124. Numerical and arithmetical cognition: A
Retrieved from https://www.iejee.com/index. longitudinal study of process and concept
php/IEJEE/article/view/649 deficits in children with learning disability.
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 77(3),
236–263. doi:10.1006/jecp.2000.2561
261
Geary, D. C., & Hoard, M. K. (2005). Learning disabilities Lewis, K. E. (2016). Beyond error patterns: A sociocultural
in arithmetic and mathematics: Theoretical view of fraction comparison error patterns
and empirical perspectives. In J. I. D. Campbell in students with mathematical learning
(Ed.), Handbook of mathematical cognition. disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly 39(4),
(pp. 253–267). New York, NY US: Psychology 199-212. doi:10.1177/0731948716658063
Press.
Lewis, K. E. (2017). Designing a bridging discourse: Re-
Gifford, S., & Rockliffe, F. (2012). Mathematics difficulties: mediation of a mathematical learning disability.
Does one approach fit all? Research in Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26(2). 320-365.
Mathematics Education, 14(1), 1–15. doi:10.1080/ doi: 10.1080/10508406.2016.1256810
14794802.2012.657436
Lewis, K. E. & Fisher, M. B. (2016). Taking stock of 40
Gonzalez, J. E. J., & Espinel, A. I. G. (2002). Strategy years of research on mathematical learning
choice in solving arithmetic word problems: disability: Methodological issues and future
Are there differences between students with directions. Journal for Research in Mathematics
learning disabilities, G-V poor performance, Education, 47(4), 338-371. doi:10.5951/
and typical achievement students? Learning jresematheduc.47.4.0338
Disability Quarterly, 25(2), 113–122.
Lewis, K. E. & Lynn, D. L. (2018). Access through
Gross-Tsur, V., Manor, O., & Shalev, R. S. (1996). compensation: Emancipatory view of a
Developmental dyscalculia: Prevalence mathematics learning disability. Cognition &
and demographic features. Developmental Instruction.
Medicine & Child Neurology, 38(1), 25–33.
doi:10.1111/j.1469-8749.1996.tb15029.x Lewis, K. E., Sweeney, G., Thompson, G. M., & Adler, R.
(2020). Integer number sense and notation: A
Hanich, L. B., Jordan, N. C., Kaplan, D., & Dick, J. case study of a student with a mathematics
(2001). Performance across different areas learning disability. Journal of Mathematical
of mathematical cognition in children with Behavior. doi: 10.1016/j.jmathb.2020.100797
learning difficulties. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 93(3), 615–626. doi:10.1037/0022- Lewis, K. E., Sweeney, G., Thompson, G. M., Adler, R. M.,
0663.93.3.615 & Alhamad, K. (2022). Dyscalculia in Algebra: A
Case Study. Manuscript accepted with minor
Hunting, R. P., & Davis, G. E. (1991). Dimensions of young revisions.
children’s knowledge of the fraction of one
half. In Early Fraction Learning. New York, NY: Lyon, G. R. (1995). Toward a definition of dyslexia. Annals
Springer Verlag. of Dyslexia, 45, 3–27. doi:10.1007/BF02648210
Keeler, M. L., & Swanson, H. L. (2001). Does strategy Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2003). A
knowledge influence working memory in definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 1–14.
children with mathematical disabilities?
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(5), 418–434. Mabbott, D. J., & Bisanz, J. (2008). Computational skills,
doi:10.1177/002221940103400504 working memory, and conceptual knowledge
in older children with mathematics learning
Knopik, V. S., Alarcón, M., & DeFries, J. C. (1997). disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(1),
Comorbidity of mathematics and reading 15–28. doi:10.1177/0022219407311003
deficits: Evidence for a genetic etiology.
Behavior Genetics, 27(5), 447–453. Mazzocco, M. M. M. (2007). Defining and differentiating
mathematical learning disabilities and
Lange, K. W., Reichl, S., Lange, K. M., Tucha, L., & difficulties. In D. B. Berch & M. M. M. Mazzocco
Tucha, O. (2010). The history of attention deficit (Eds.), Why is math so hard for some children?
hyperactivity disorder. ADHD Attention Deficit The nature and origins of mathematical
and Hyperactivity Disorders, 2(4), 241–255. learning difficulties and disabilities. (pp. 29–47).
doi:10.1007/s12402-010-0045-8 Baltimore, MD, US: Paul H Brookes Publishing.
Lewis, K. E. (2014). Difference not deficit: Mazzocco, M. M. M. (2009). Mathematical learning

Reconceptualizing mathematical learning disability in girls with Turner syndrome: A
disabilities. Journal for Research in Mathematics challenge to defining MLD and its subtypes.
Education, 45(3), pp. 351-396. Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews,
15(1), 35–44. doi:10.1002/ddrr.50
262
Mazzocco, M. M. M., & Devlin, K. T. (2008). Parts and National Governors Association Center for Best
“holes”: Gaps in rational number sense among Practices & Council of Chief State School
children with vs. without mathematical learning Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards
disabilities. Developmental Science, 11(5), 681– for Mathematics. Washington, DC: Author.
691. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00717.x Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/
assets/CCSSI_Math%20Standards.pdf
Mazzocco, M. M. M., Devlin, K. T., & McKenney, S. J. (2008).
Is it a fact? Timed arithmetic performance of Ni, Y. (2001). Semantic domains of rational numbers
children with mathematical learning disabilities and the acquisition of fraction equivalence.
(MLD) varies as a function of how MLD is defined. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26(3),
Developmental Neuropsychology, 33(3), 318– 400–417. doi:10.1006/ceps.2000.1072
344. doi:10.1080/87565640801982403
Price, G. R., & Ansari, D. (2013). Dyscalculia: Characteristics,
Mazzocco, M. M. M., & Myers, G. F. (2003). Complexities causes, and treatments. Numeracy: Advancing
in identifying and defining mathematics Education in Quantitative Literacy, 6(1), 1–16.
learning disability in the primary school-age doi:10.5038/1936-4660.6.1.2
years. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 218–253. doi:10.1007/
s11881-003-0011-7 Schneider, M., & Siegler, R. S. (2010). Representations
of the magnitudes of fractions. Journal of
Mazzocco, M. M. M., Myers, G. F., Lewis, K. E., Hanich, Experimental Psychology: Human Perception
L. B., & Murphy, M. M. (2013). Limited knowledge and Performance, 36(5), 1227-1238. doi:10.1037/
of fraction representations differentiates middle a0018170
school students with mathematics learning
disability (dyscalculia) versus low mathematics Schrank, F. A., Mather, N., & McGrew, K. S. (2014).
achievement. Journal of Experimental Child Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Achievement.
Psychology, 115(2), 371–387. doi:10.1016/j. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.
jecp.2013.01.005
Sfard, A. (1991). On the dual nature of mathematical
Meert, G., Grégoire, J., & Noël, M.-P. (2009). Rational conceptions: reflections on processes and
numbers: Componential versus holistic objects as different sides of the same coin.
representation of fractions in a magnitude Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22, 1–36.
comparison task. The Quarterly Journal of doi:10.1007/BF00s302715
Experimental Psychology, 62(8), 1598–1616.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210802511162 Shalev, R. S. (2007). Prevalence of developmental
dyscalculia. In D. B. Berch & M. M. M. Mazzocco
Mejias, S., Grégoire, J., & Noël, M.-P. (2012). Numerical (Eds.), Why is math so hard for some children?
estimation in adults with and without The nature and origins of mathematical
developmental dyscalculia. Learning and learning difficulties and disabilities (pp. 49–60).
Individual Differences, 22(1), 164–170. https://doi. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.09.013
Steffe, L. P. (2010). The partitioning and fraction
Messenger, C., Emerson, J., & Bird, R. (2007). Dyscalculia schemes. In L. P. Steffe & J. Olive (Eds.), Children’s
in Harrow. Mathematics Teaching Incorporating Fractional Knowledge (pp. 315-340). New York,
Micromath, (204), 37–39. NY: Springer
Mundia, L. (2017). The assessment of math learning Verhoeff, B. (2013). Autism in flux: A history of the concept
difficulties in a primary grade-4 child with high from Leo Kanner to DSM-5. History of Psychiatry,
support needs: Mixed methods approach. 24(4), 442–458. doi:10.1177/0957154X13500584
International Electronic Journal of Elementary
Education, 4(2), 347–366. Retrieved from https:// Viseu, F., Pires, A. L., Menezes, L., & Costa, A. M. (2021).
www.iejee.com/index.php/IEJEE/article/ Semiotic representations in the learning of
view/203 rational numbers by 2nd grade Portuguese
students. International Electronic Journal of
Mussolin, C., Mejias, S., & Noël, M.-P. (2010). Symbolic Elementary Education, 13(5), 611–624. Retrieved
and nonsymbolic number comparison from https://www.iejee.com/index.php/IEJEE/
in children with and without dyscalculia. article/view/1453
Cognition, 115(1), 10–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cognition.2009.10.006
263
Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental

functions. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The Concept
of Activity in Soviet Psychology (pp. 144–188).
Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, Inc.,.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1929/1993). Introduction: Fundamentals

problems of defectology. In R. W. Rieber &
A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L.
S. Vygotsky, Volume 2: The fundamentals of
defectology. London, NY: Plenum Press.
Wilkins, J. L. M., & Norton, A. (2011). The splitting loope.

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
42(4), 386–416.
Wilson, A. J., Andrewes, S. G., Struthers, H., Rowe, V. M.,

Bogdanovic, R., & Waldie, K. E. (2015). Dyscalculia
and dyslexia in adults: Cognitive bases of
comorbidity. Learning & Individual Differences,
37, 118–132. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2014.11.017
Wolff, S. (2004). The history of autism. European

Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 13(4), 201–208.
doi:10.1007/s00787-004-0363-5
264
Appendix A
Questions and scoring criteria for the Screener
# Question Correctness Unconventional Points Not Unconventional
1 1 point for a canonical 1 unconventional point A drawing of a shape
Draw a picture of
drawing or representa- for a drawing of a shape partitioned into two
tion of ½ (i.e., area mod- partitioned into two with one of the parts
el, number line, decimal, parts but without shad- labeled “½”
percent, or semicircle) ing or labeling of either
part.
2 (same as above) (same as above) (same as above)
Draw another way to show
3 1 point for a canonical 1 unconventional point Partitioning issues,

Draw a picture of
representation of 3/5 for an area model or because students have
(e.g., area model, num- discrete set drawing of difficulty accurately
ber line, or discrete set). 2/5 (i.e., 3 out of 5 parts partitioning into fifths.
unshaded).
4 1 point for a canonical 1 unconventional point A drawing where the
Draw a picture of
representation of 1 5/8 for a representation wholes are different
(e.g., area model, num- where the whole is not sizes.
ber line, or discrete set). shaded or labeled.
5 Circle all the pictures that you think 1 point for each correctly 1 unconventional point
show ? (correct answers circled be- circled canonical rep- for circling the halved
low) resentation of 1/2 (see circle with no shading.
circled answers)
-1 point for each incor-

rect answer.
(adapted from Ni, 2001)

6 1 point for correct answer 1 unconventional point A written answer that
Which is more or ? (you can draw
(1/6) (explanations are for incorrect answer (1/8) states that 1/8 is bigger
pictures to help you)
used to disambiguate with an explanation than 1/6 because 8 is
student answer, not and/or drawing that bigger than 6.
Explain your answer: required) focuses on the unshaded
amount (e.g., more left in
the 1/8 drawing).
7 1 point for correct answer 1 unconventional point Answer of 2/8 with no

Which is more or ?
(5/8) (explanations are for an incorrect answer explanation or draw-
used to disambiguate (2/8) with an explanation ing.
Explain your answer: student answer, not and/or drawing that
required) focuses on the fractional
complement (e.g., 6/8
unshaded, 3/8 unshad-
ed).
265
8 1 point for correct answer 1 unconventional point Answers where student

(4/5). for answers where the has miscounted the
numerator is the number number of pieces, (e.g.,
of parts not shaded (e.g., 5/6)
1/5 or 1/4).
9 1 point for correct answer 1 unconventional point Answers where student

(8/10 or 4/5). for answers where the has miscounted the
numerator is the number number of pieces, (e.g.,
of parts not shaded (e.g., 10/12).
2/10, 2/8, 1/5 or 1/4).
10 1 point for correct answer 1 unconventional point An incorrect answer

(A) (explanations are for selecting B with an (B or C) with either no
used to disambiguate explanation focusing explanation or an ex-
student answer, not on the number “left” or planation that suggests
required) unshaded amount. miscounting, (e.g., “C
because 3/5=3/5”)
(adapted from Armstrong & Larson, 1995)

11 1 point for correct answer 1 unconventional point An incorrect answer
(A) (explanations are for selecting B with an (B or C) with either no
used to disambiguate explanation focusing explanation or an ex-
student answer, not on the number “left” or planation that suggests
required) unshaded amount. miscounting, (e.g., “C
because 3/5=3/5”)
(adapted from Armstrong & Larson, 1995)

12 1 point for correct answer 1 unconventional point An incorrect answer of
Solve the problem using
(3/4). Student not re- for (a) answers that 1/6 or 2/6 are not con-
pictures.
quired to draw pictures. include a drawing of ½ sidered unconventional
without shading or (b) by themselves.
an answer of 2/4 (un-
shaded/shaded) with
canonical area models
of ½ and ¼.
13 What fraction does this picture show? 1 point for correct answer 1 unconventional point An incorrect answer in
(e.g., 8/10 or 4/5). for an answers that which the student has
determine the numera- miscounted (e.g., 7/10
tor based on the missing or 9/10).
pieces (e.g., 2/10, 2/8, 1/5,
1/10, 1/8).
Global coding: Any time the student interpreted a representation of as the fractional complement (e.g., interpreting 2/3 as 1/3) the stu-
dent got an unconventional point for that problem.
266
Appendix B
Background Interview Questions
Academic Background:
- What is your favorite subject in school?
- What do you like about it?
- What is your least favorite subject?
- What don’t you like about it?
- What do you think about math? What do you like about it? What don’t you like about it?
Nature of the student’s difficulty:

- What are you working on in math right now?
- Can you give me an example?
- What about learning and/or doing math was hard for you? Can you give an example?
- What about learning and/or doing math was easy for you? Can you give an example?
Effort:
- Do you get a lot of homework in math?
- When do you do your homework?
- Do you tend to do all your homework and turn it in?
Resources Questions:
- If you get stuck on a problem, what do you do?
- Who do you ask for help, if you need it?
Language Fluency:
- What language do you tend to speak at home?
267

1707-Article Text-6956-2-10-20220316

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1707-Article Text-6956-2-10-20220316

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1707-Article Text-6956-2-10-20220316

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education

January 2022, Volume 14, Issue 3, 243-267

Screening for Characteristics of

Received : 29 October 2021 Abstract

D yscalculia is a cognitive difference in numerical

Unconventional fractional complement

of different problem types and representations.

unshaded/shaded) 7 Compare 2/8 and 5/8 0.74

Fractional complement understanding was also Student Performance on the Screener

Similarly, when students made errors on comparing

Achievement Test Scores

We collected student achievement scores to

Figure 12 Lily’s interpretation of the area models 4/5 and 8/10

Although the halving and fractional complement

Lily demonstrated both a halving and fractional

Figure 15 Lily: [points to drawing of 3/5] There's... it's two-thirds,

Unlike Ryan and Lily, there were no instances of

she then judged 2/8 to be larger because there Figure 19

Maddie again attended to the unshaded pieces

In addition to these comparison problems, Maddie’s

Although it was not as evident during the interview, Figure 20

In her interpretation of 8/10, Maddie corrected her

In order to evaluate whether these students also met

below the 7th percentile, we argue that she meets Discussion

Lewis, K. E. (2014). Difference not deficit: Mazzocco, M. M. M. (2009). Mathematical learning

Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental

Vygotsky, L. S. (1929/1993). Introduction: Fundamentals

Wilkins, J. L. M., & Norton, A. (2011). The splitting loope.

Wilson, A. J., Andrewes, S. G., Struthers, H., Rowe, V. M.,

Wolff, S. (2004). The history of autism. European

3 1 point for a canonical 1 unconventional point Partitioning issues,

-1 point for each incor-

(adapted from Ni, 2001)

7 1 point for correct answer 1 unconventional point Answer of 2/8 with no

8 1 point for correct answer 1 unconventional point Answers where student

9 1 point for correct answer 1 unconventional point Answers where student

10 1 point for correct answer 1 unconventional point An incorrect answer

(adapted from Armstrong & Larson, 1995)

(adapted from Armstrong & Larson, 1995)

Nature of the student’s difficulty:

You might also like