Early Childhood Mathematics Skill Development in The Home Environment PDF

BelindaBlevins-Knabe
AnnM.BerghoutAustin
Editors
Early Childhood
Mathematics Skill
Development
in the Home
Environment
Early Childhood Mathematics Skill
Development in the Home Environment
Belinda Blevins-Knabe Ann M. Berghout Austin
Editors
Early Childhood
Mathematics Skill
Development
in the Home Environment
Editors
Belinda Blevins-Knabe Ann M. Berghout Austin
Department of Psychology Department of Family, Consumer,
University of Arkansas at Little Rock and Human Development
Little Rock, AR, USA Utah State University
Logan, UT, USA
ISBN 978-3-319-43972-3 ISBN 978-3-319-43974-7 (eBook)

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-43974-7
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016954310
Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microlms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specic statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors
or omissions that may have been made.
Printed on acid-free paper
This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
We dedicate this book to Robert G. Cooper, Jr.,
Dianne (Dee) Draper, and to the memory
of Sam Clark.
Three mentors who made a difference.
Contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................................. 1
Belinda Blevins-Knabe and Ann M. Berghout Austin
2 Early Mathematical Development: How the Home
Environment Matters ............................................................................. 7
Belinda Blevins-Knabe
3 Home Life and the Development of Competence in Mathematics:
Implications of Research with the HOME Inventory .......................... 29
Robert H. Bradley and Robert F. Corwyn
4 Early Mathematics Skill Development, Low Performance,
and Parental Support in the Finnish Context ...................................... 51
Pirjo Aunio, Anna Tapola, Riikka Mononen, and Markku Niemivirta
5 Towards a Theoretical Framework on Individual Differences
in Numerical Abilities: Role of Home Numeracy Experiences ........... 71
Tijs Kleemans, Eliane Segers, and Ludo Verhoeven
6 The Home Numeracy Environment: What Do Cross-Cultural
Comparisons Tell Us About How to Scaffold Young Childrens
Mathematical Skills? .............................................................................. 87
Ozlem Cankaya and Jo-Anne LeFevre
7 Number Line Skills and Home Numeracy Activities
for Preschoolers in Center-Based and Family-Based Child Care ...... 105
Jacob A. Esplin, Brionne G. Neilson, Ann M. Berghout Austin,
Belinda Blevins-Knabe, Shawnee M. Hendershot, and Lori A. Loesch
8 Optimizing the Home Numeracy Environments
of 3- to 6-Year-Old Children in the USA and Canada ......................... 127
Sheri-Lynn Skwarchuk, Maureen Vandermaas-Peeler,
and Jo-Anne LeFevre
vii
viii Contents
9 Mathematics and Language in the Home Environment...................... 147

Joanne Lee and Donna Kotsopoulos
10 Are Games a Viable Home Numeracy Practice?.................................. 165
Adam K. Dub and Andy Keenan
11 Conclusions and Future Directions ....................................................... 185
Index ................................................................................................................. 191

Contributors
Pirjo Aunio, Ph.D. Faculty of Behavioural Sciences, University of Helsinki,

Helsinki, Finland
Ann M. Berghout Austin, Ph.D. Department of Family, Consumer, and Human
Development and Center for Women and Gender, Utah State University, Logan,
UT, USA
Belinda Blevins-Knabe, Ph.D. Department of Psychology, University of Arkansas
at Little Rock, Little Rock, AR, USA
Robert H. Bradley, Ph.D. Family and Human Dynamics Research Institute,
Arizona State University, Tucson, AZ, USA
Ozlem Cankaya, Ph.D. Alberta Centre for Child, Family, and Community
Research, Edmonton, AB, Canada
Robert F. Corwyn, Ph.D. Department of Psychology, University of Arkansas at
Little Rock, Little Rock, AR, USA
Adam K. Dub, Ph.D. Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology,
McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
Jacob A. Esplin, B.S. Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA
Shawnee M. Hendershot, M.S. Pittsburg University, Pittsburg, KS, USA
Andy Keenan, Ph.D. Faculty of Information, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON,
Canada
Tijs Kleemans, Ph.D. Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University,
Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Donna Kotsopoulos, Ph.D. Faculty of Education, Department of Mathematics,
Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, ON, Canada
ix
x Contributors
Joanne Lee, Ph.D. Department of Psychology, Wilfrid Laurier University,

Waterloo, ON, Canada
Jo-Anne LeFevre, Ph.D. Institute of Cognitive Science and Department of
Psychology, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada
Lori A. Loesch, B.A. Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA
Riikka Mononen, Ph.D. Department of Special Needs Education, University of
Oslo, Oslo, Norway
Brionne G. Neilson, M.Ed. Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA
Markku Niemivirta, Ph.D. Faculty of Behavioural Sciences, University of
Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
Eliane Segers, Ph.D. Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University,
Sheri-Lynn Skwarchuk, Ph.D. Faculty of Education, University of Winnipeg,
Winnipeg, MB, Canada
Anna Tapola, Ph.D. Faculty of Behavioural Sciences, University of Helsinki,
Helsinki, Finland
Maureen Vandermaas-Peeler, Ph.D. Department of Psychology, Center for
Research on Global Engagement, Elon University, Elon, NC, USA
Ludo Verhoeven, Ph.D. Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University,
About the Editors
Belinda Blevins-Knabe, Ph.D. is Professor of Psychology at the University of

Arkansas at Little Rock. She received her Ph.D. in Developmental Psychology from
the University of Texas at Austin in 1981. Her research interests include young
childrens mathematical development and the inuence of the home numeracy envi-
ronment on the development of early mathematics skills and concepts. She is also
interested in faculty development for teaching and learning and the development of
leadership skills in women.
Ann M. Berghout Austin, Ph.D. is Professor of Family, Consumer, and Human

Development and Director of the Center for Women and Gender at Utah State
University. She received her Ph.D. in Child Development from Iowa State University
in 1981. Her research interests include childrens development of early mathematics
concepts in out-of-home care, child care quality, and child development and moth-
ering in developing countries. She is also interested in the development of leader-
ship skills in girls and women.
xi
Chapter 1
Introduction
Can parents improve their young childrens performance in mathematics? This

question is at the heart of research on the home numeracy environment. Baroody
and Tiilikainen (2003) argue that the social environment brings meaning to the
mathematics that young children learn prior to school entry, and as architects of a
young childs social world, parents play a large role in organizing and structuring
the home environment. Even for young children in out-of-home care, parents remain
the primary architects of a childs experiences, both through their selection of the
childcare environment and through the experiences the child encounters at home.
Thus in most, if not all, ways parents manage how children are introduced to the
social conventions of mathematics and the contextualization of learning in the
social environment.
Recent research, conducted in many countries, has demonstrated connections
between the home numeracy environment and young childrens mathematical skills.
The eld has made remarkable progress in the past few years and the contributors to
this volume analyze existing theories and emerging trends, as well as offer practical
implications that are grounded in research. Conventional wisdom to date has pos-
ited that mathematics is everywhere. Some contributors to this volume argue that
while this is the case, children need guided instruction by parents and teachers to
promote awareness and appreciation of mathematics and to make sense of the
concepts they are learning.
B. Blevins-Knabe, Ph.D. (*)

Department of Psychology, University of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR, USA
e-mail: blblevins@ualr.edu
A.M.B. Austin, Ph.D.
Department of Family, Consumer, and Human Development and Center for Women and
Gender, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA
e-mail: ann.austin@usu.edu
Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 1

B. Blevins-Knabe, A.M.B. Austin (eds.), Early Childhood Mathematics Skill
Development in the Home Environment, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-43974-7_1
2 B. Blevins-Knabe and A.M.B. Austin
Chapters in this book address the multiple ways the home environment may
inuence the mathematical development of young children, emphasizing from
diverse perspectives application and key issues for future research. Our primary
focus is on early childhood, dened as the preschool years. However, because the
focus of the book is developmental in nature, several chapters address what happens
before and after the preschool period. During early childhood, the home environ-
ment, or in some cases out-of-home care, provides the context for the types of learn-
ing that prepare children for school mathematics. Many young children experience
out-of-home childcare on a daily basis, and some children may need the enrichment
of out-of-home care to facilitate mathematical development. For their providers/
teachers, these chapters are also useful.
Four guiding questions form the foundation of this book.
1. What do we currently know about how the home numeracy environment maps
to childrens mathematical development?
Although all of the chapters address this question, the chapters by Blevins-
Knabe (Chap. 2); Kleemans, Segars, and Verhoeven (Chap. 5) and Esplin,
Neilson, Austin, Blevins-Knabe, Hendershot, and Loesch (Chap. 7) address it
most directly. Blevins-Knabe presents an overview of research on home numer-
acy beginning with early foundational research, up to the present time. From its
inception, the focus of the home numeracy research has been on parents and their
role in providing a learning environment in the home. Based on a review of the
current models of the relationships between the home numeracy environment
and childrens mathematical development Blevins-Knabe suggests that future
models incorporate a more systemic and holistic approach that captures the
interactive relationship between parents and their children.
Kleemans et al. address the contributions of the home environment to numer-
acy skills by investigating the special case of children with atypical language
development. This case offers a unique way to test whether the home environ-
ment inuences childrens mathematical development over and above cognitive
and linguistic factors. Comparing atypical and typical language development
presents a unique opportunity to examine the relationship between cognitive and
linguistic skills and home numeracy activities. Kleemans et al. present a theo-
retical model that integrates both cognitive and linguistic factors as well as vari-
ables that characterize the home environment. Their results suggest that both
home numeracy activities and linguistic factors may serve as compensatory
mechanisms for children with atypical language development.
Esplin et al. address the interconnected predictors of home numeracy, child
receptive language, phonological awareness, executive functioning, and general
mathematics skills on childrens number line development. Their sample
included children attending center childcare or family childcare which allowed
them to address the understudied issue of care type juxtaposed with number line
prociency. They posit that SES or limitations in care type might explain differ-
ences in number line scores between the two care settings.
The three chapters cover both typical and atypical development with similar
conclusions. While cognitive and linguistic factors inuence young childrens
1 Introduction 3
mathematical development, other identied inuences include the type and

amount of support provided in the home environment and, in a less clear cut-way
SES, as in the case of Esplin et al.
2. What are the developmental continuities and discontinuities that make a differ-
ence in the t between the home environment and mathematical development?
The chapter by Aunio, Tapola, Mononen, and Niemivirta (Chap. 4) and that
by Bradley and Corwyn (Chap. 3) employ a longitudinal perspective and provide
insights to this question. Aunio et al. present a model of early mathematical
development, whereby counting skills, mathematical relations, basic arithmetic
skills, and number sense are the key predictors of later mathematical perfor-
mance. They report the results of a longitudinal study in Finland that began in
kindergarten and continued through rst grade, one of the few that has examined
the relationship between childrens interest in mathematics at home, their perfor-
mance, and parents values about the importance of mathematics. Their results
provide new ways to understand why helping children learn math skills early can
facilitate later performance in school mathematics.
Bradley and Corwyn investigate the role of the home environment, at differ-
ent points in development, through the lens of the Home Observation for
Measurement of the Environment (HOME) inventory. Examining data from
three different time periods starting with 15 months and ending at rst grade,
they report that different aspects of the home environment matter at different
points in development. Few other studies examine the inuence of the home
environment on childrens mathematical performance from infancy through rst
grade, a time period that includes acquisition of many basic mathematical skills
as well as the transition to formal schooling. Their results, as well as the chapters
by Kleemans et al. (Chap. 5) and Esplin et al. (Chap. 7), point to the need to
include linguistic skills when considering the inuence of the home environment
on mathematical skills.
The Aunio et al. and Bradley and Corwyn chapters (Chaps. 4 and 3) again
reinforce the issue raised by Esplin et al. that socioeconomic, socioemotional,
and cognitive characteristics of children and parents inuence childrens math-
ematical development. Some of the characteristics of parents may remain stable,
even as the characteristics of children change. In terms of the physical environ-
ment it is likely that materials and support provided for children in the home
environment need to change as the child develops; the Aunio et al. and Bradley
and Corwyn chapters (Chaps. 4 and 3) challenge us to speculate on these changes
and the correlates of such changes.
3. How can parents promote progress through assessment, purposive arrangement
of the environment, and guided participation in the acquisition of early mathe-
matics concepts?
Two chapters address this issue in detail. Lee and Kotsopoulos (Chap. 9)
directly address how parents can scaffold young childrens learning about math-
ematics. They build the case for the inuence of parental input on childrens use
of number words. In addition, they argue persuasively that play is a context that
affords many opportunities for math talk, which in itself scaffolds childrens
learning about mathematics. Finally, they offer multiple research-based sugges-
tions, as to what constitutes an effective learning activity for children.
Electronic games are frequently touted as an effective tool to help children learn
mathematics in a fun and engaging way. Dub and Keenan (Chap. 10) agree that
both engagement and fun are reasons that players continue to play games. However,
they argue, current literature has not yet established that games, electronic or oth-
erwise, are more effective than other experiences for learning about mathematics.
Dub and Keenan outline research issues that need to be addressed before we can
support or disqualify games as an effective home numeracy tool. In addition, their
outline of what future research is necessary provides a useful model for examining
the inuence of other types of activities on childrens mathematics learning. The
contrast between the points made about the literature on games, especially elec-
tronic ones, by Dub and Keenan and those of Lee and Kotsopoulos about play,
illustrates the magnitude of the challenge facing game developers as they try to
design games that could effectively replace or even complement human
interaction.
Most of the remaining chapters offer suggestions as to how parents and other
caregivers can support young childrens learning about mathematics. Many of
the suggestions are also directly applicable to early childcare providers and
could be implemented in childcare settings. Future research will have to address
the ways in which parents can be educated so they can provide these activities.
Research will also have to focus on how to ensure that parents engage in them.
4. How does context inuence childrens mathematical development and performance?
The chapters in this book present research from several cultural contexts. In
order to help a diverse body of readers, several of the authors included detailed
information about the context for development and learning in their countries.
Aunio et al. (Chap. 4) describe Finland; Kleemans et al. (Chap. 5) the Netherlands;
Skwarchuk, Vandermaas-Peeler, LeFevre (Chap. 8) the United States and
Canada; and Esplin et al. (Chap. 7) one state within the United States.
The cross-cultural comparisons within the Canadian culture provided by Cankaya
and LeFevre put in relief the range in which mathematical development takes place.
Based on their review of cross-culture research on childrens mathematical perfor-
mance they argue that the effect of the home environment may be stronger than
previously suspected. They also address methodological difculties that face future
researchers when attempting to isolate the critical inuences on childrens perfor-
mance, when so many factors vary between groups.
1 Introduction 5
Conclusions
These chapters are both theoretical and applied in nature with many suggestions for
parents, care providers, and those who work with parents and other care providers.
Moreover, theoretical and research-based frameworks are presented to guide the
development of curricula. Finally, some tentative, preliminary, conclusions emerge
from the research covered in these chapters. Childrens mathematical development
follows similar pathways, regardless of context including caregiving context. What
may differ is the rate of development and the points at which children stop along the
way. The home environment matters and can inuence childrens self-generation
of future goals (Baroody and Tiilikainen (2003). Parents play a key role in structur-
ing the home environment, one of the rst environments in which children learn
mathematics. What is not yet clear is the degree to which value is added to chil-
drens mathematical development when parents, in addition to providing an early
environment that facilitates and engages children in all forms of learning, also
include mathematically relevant and meaningful activities. However, those chapters
suggest that there may be substantial value that is added and also point the way
forward for the types of theories and data needed to support this conclusion. What
is also not clear is how much value is diminished when home environments differ
by SES or by other critical factors of opportunity or stimulation.
Reference
Baroody, A., & Tiilikainen, S. (2003). Two perspectives on addition development. In A. Baroody
& A. Dowker (Eds.), The development of arithmetic concepts and skills: Constructing adaptive
expertise (pp. 75125). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Chapter 2
Early Mathematical Development:
How the Home Environment Matters
Belinda Blevins-Knabe
While the origins of some of early mathematical skills may be innate, experience
plays a signicant role in how childrens mathematical skills develop (Geary,
Berch, & Koepke, 2015). Researchers have examined the role of experience in the
development of early mathematical skills using multiple methods such as training
studies (e.g., Gelman, 1982; Siegler, 1995), intervention studies (e.g., Clements,
Sarama, Wolfe, & Spitler, 2013), and comparisons of different groups based on
language background (e.g., Miura & Okamoto, 2003), culture (e.g., Saxe, Dawson,
Fall, & Howard, 1996), and socioeconomic status (e.g., Ginsburg & Russell, 1981).
Only more recently has the home numeracy environment and the experiences it
provides received concentrated attention. This attention is consistent with the
emphasis on the social environment that sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978)
places on the role of adults in training children on the use of cultural tools as well
as the growing body of evidence that indicates both that mathematical development
begins well before children enter formal schooling and that early mathematical
skills lay the foundation for mathematics achievement in school (Watts, Duncan,
Siegler, & Davis-Kean, 2014).
This chapter will review the literature on home numeracy and identify the
underlying theoretical assumptions that have guided the research. Parents are a
major inuence on the home numeracy environment and much of the research has
focused on parental attributes such as behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs, as causal
indicators. It will be argued that we need new ways to conceptualize both the role
of parents and the interactive and constantly changing relationship between parents
and their children.

Department of Psychology, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, AR, USA

8 B. Blevins-Knabe
Brief History of Home Numeracy Research
Before reviewing the history it is necessary to address one of the consistent incon-
sistencies in the home numeracy literature and that is the manner in which the term
mathematics is employed. In many studies the focus is on childrens number
skills rather than the full range of mathematical skills. While it is the case that num-
ber skills are a subset of mathematical skills often authors use both terms, some-
times interchangeably. For example, it is common to measure only childrens
number skills, yet discuss childrens mathematical performance. Because of the dif-
culty inherent in sorting through this inconsistent use, this chapter will continue
the practice of using mathematics to refer to both. However, as the eld evolves,
it will be necessary to be more consistent in communicating whether only childrens
numerical skills are involved or the broader range of mathematical skills when
examining the effects of the home environment.
Three streams of research have guided the study of the effects of the home
numeracy environment. Each of these three streams of research contributes support
for the conclusion that childrens early environments inuence their cognitive
development. The rst examined the inuence of parents on childrens cognitive
development and academic achievement (e.g., Alexander & Entwisle, 1988; Eccles
et al., 1993; Goodnow & Collins, 1990). The second, and related research stream,
examined the effects of the home environment on childrens cognitive development
as measured by the Home Observation for Measurement in the Environment
(HOME) inventory (Bradley, 2010; Caldwell & Bradley, 1984). The third examined
how the home literacy environment inuenced the development of literacy (e.g.,
Snchal & LeFevre, 2002).
Early studies on the effects of the home environment on childrens number
skills described the home numeracy environment and established a connection
with childrens performance. Both Durkin, Shire, Riem, Crowther, and Rutter
(1986) and Young-Loveridge (1989) employed very small samples and provided a
description of the home numeracy environment. Durkin et al. (1986) examined
mothers and infants (936 months) use of number words. They noted that, as
expected, mothers more frequently used number words than their infants did.
However, because in some cases input from the mothers presented conicting
information, it is unclear how much inuence their efforts had on number word use
in infants. The researchers stressed that it is only by studying the interaction
between mother and child that the value of the interaction can be understood and
its impact on numeracy established. Employing a slightly different age group,
Young-Loveridge (1989) linked home numeracy activities to preschool childrens
performance. Through a case study approach she found that the variety of number
activities occurring in home environments correlated with childrens performance
on number tasks.
Saxe, Guberman, and Gearhart (1987) focused on the inuence of the social
aspects of the home environment on numeracy. They included a larger sample
and interviewed working and middle-class mothers about expectations for their
2 Early Mathematical Development: How the Home Environment Matters 9
childrens numerical success and about daily activities involving numbers. In addi-
tion, they observed mothers teaching their children about counting while playing a
game. Mothers from the middle class reported engaging in more complex numeri-
cal activities and had higher educational aspirations for their children than mothers
from the working class. Children from the middle class had a higher level of
numerical performance.
As more home numeracy research was conducted an ensuing common thread in
research was the connection between parentchild activities and childrens perfor-
mance on number tasks. Anderson (1997) observed parents and preschool children
interacting with a set of play materials and found that counting was the most fre-
quent activity. The types of activities she observed were a function of both the play
materials and the approaches taken by the parents. Huntsinger, Jose, Liaw, and
Ching (1997) addressed the effects of the social environment from a cross-cultural
perspective. They examined the inuence of parents beliefs, attitudes, expectations
and reported teaching behaviors on childrens numerical performance for children
from three ethnic backgrounds: Chinese-American, Euro-American, and Taiwan-
Chinese. Differences in childrens performance were predicted by differences in
parents child-specic attitudes and parents reported teaching style. The more
direct teaching techniques and more positive attitudes about mathematics reported
by the Chinese-American and Taiwan-Chinese parents were signicant predictors
of childrens mathematics performance.
Blevins-Knabe and Musun-Miller (1996) sought to identify specic activities in
the home environment that supported childrens number development. Parents
reports of the frequency of mathematical activities that occurred in the home were
correlated with a global measure of childrens numerical understanding. In addition,
childrens performance on some of the individual number tasks was correlated with
parents reports of the frequency of that activity in the home. In some cases the cor-
relations were positive, including items that involved the use of small number words
and the mention of number facts, and in some the correlations were negative, includ-
ing items that involved parents teaching basic concepts.
The early work on the home numeracy environment provided evidence that the
home environment was indeed correlated with childrens performance. Two unan-
swered questions were as follows: are there core features of the home environment
that inuence all types of cognitive development, including mathematical develop-
ment?, and are there features of the home environment that have a unique relation-
ships to mathematical development?
The results of the early studies were also consistent with the emphasis that the
research on childrens cognitive development places on the role of parents.
Parents have a major inuence in shaping both the physical and social environ-
ment for young children. However, while childrens characteristics were often
included in the early numeracy research rarely were children themselves included
as active contributors and shapers of their own development and social
environment.
10 B. Blevins-Knabe
More Recent Rationales for Studying the Home Numeracy

Environment
A review of studies conducted on the effects of home numeracy from 2000 until the
present shows that while their rationales are consistent with the goals of earlier
research, their focus has broadened in scope, and can be condensed to four major
themes. First, because strong mathematical skills are necessary for the economic
success of both individuals and nations we need to understand what inuences their
development (Melhuish et al., 2008; Skwarchuk & LeFevre, 2015; Tudge & Doucet,
2004). Second, children in the United States are behind children of other nations in
their math skills therefore we need to understand the inuences on mathematical
development (Pan, Gauvain, Liu, & Cheng, 2006). Researchers from the United
States are most motivated by this one (e.g., Huntsinger, Jose, Larson, Krieg, &
Shaligram, 2000) Third, early numeracy skills predict later academic performance
in school (Duncan et al., 2007) so we need to understand the inuence of the home
environment (e.g., DeFlorio & Beliakoff, 2015; Huntsinger, Jose, & Luo, 2016;
Kleemans, Peeters, Segers, & Verhoeven, 2012; LeFevre et al., 2009; Manolitsis,
Georgiou, & Tziraki, 2013; Melhuish et al., 2008). This argument is based on
assumptions that early numeracy skills predict later skills, that early experiences
matter, and that for young children the home environment is the primary environ-
ment that inuences the development of early mathematical skills. A variant of this
argument is that since the home environment in the preschool years has been linked
to childrens literacy skills it is reasonable to predict that the home environment will
inuence early numeracy skills (LeFevre et al., 2009; LeFevre, Polyzoi, Skwarchuk,
Fast, & Sowinski, 2010; Lukie, Skwarchuk, LeFevre, & Sowinski, 2014; Niklas &
Schneider, 2013). The fourth rationale for research on home numeracy is the prem-
ise that the quality of the home environment may account for the variation in the
mathematical performance of preschool children (Anders et al., 2012; Benigno &
Ellis, 2004; Cannon & Ginsburg, 2008; Dilworth-Bart, 2012). Some, such as
Ramani, Rowe, Eason, and Leech (2015) and Missall, Hojnoski, Caskie, and
Repasky (2015), noted that children from low-income families enter school with
lower levels of math skills and suggested that variations in the home numeracy
environment may be a factor.
What We Have Learned About the Home Numeracy

Environment
Researchers have employed a variety of methods when measuring the home envi-
ronment. A common method is to use parental reports of the frequency of number
activities occurring in the home, both with and without the parent (Blevins-Knabe,
Austin, Musun, Eddy, & Jones, 2000; Blevins-Knabe & Musun-Miller, 1996;
DeFlorio & Beliakoff, 2015; Kleemans et al., 2012; LeFevre et al., 2009, 2010;
Melhuish et al., 2008; Missall et al., 2015; Pan et al., 2006; Ramani et al., 2015;
Skwarchuk, 2009; Skwarchuk & LeFevre, 2015; Skwarchuk, Sowinski, &
LeFevre, 2014). However, in most of these studies the relationship between home
activities and childrens number skills is inconsistent. Some researchers have
reported no correlations at all (Blevins-Knabe et al., 2000; Missall et al., 2015),
others no correlations with indirect home numeracy activities such as playing
games involving numbers or cooking (LeFevre et al., 2010), and still others found
signicant effects when numeracy activities were included in regression analyses
(DeFlorio & Beliakoff, 2015).
In these studies activities which are reported to occur daily or almost daily
include naming shapes (Missall et al., 2015), counting objects in a group (Missall
et al., 2015; Skwarchuk, 2009), counting out a certain number of objects from a
group (Missall et al., 2015), teaching the child to count (Blevins-Knabe & Musun-
Miller, 1996; LeFevre, Clarke, & Stringer, 2002; Manolitsis et al., 2013), using spa-
tial words to describe location (Missall et al., 2015), using the words 1, 2, or 3
(Blevins-Knabe & Musun-Miller, 1996), and praising ones child for using numbers
(Blevins-Knabe & Musun-Miller, 1996). The majority of these activities involved
counting, which is one of the better known and easy to observe number activities in
the early years.
There is no dened benchmark for how frequently home numeracy activities
need to occur to have an effect on the development of childrens mathematical skills.
In addition, it is still unclear whether the frequency of math-related activities in the
home is a useful indicator of the relationships between home numeracy and young
childrens mathematical development. However, before addressing these questions,
research that employed different methodologies to examine number activities in the
home numeracy environment will be reviewed in order to determine whether the
patterns of results are similar.
Anders et al. (2012) created a measure of the home learning environment with two
scales, one for literacy and one for numeracy. Both scales included relevant items
from the HOME (Caldwell & Bradley, 1984) and a rating of numeracy or literacy-
relevant parentchild interactions during a reading task. Their sample included
German children who were studied longitudinally from 3 to about 5 years.
Childrens mathematics performance was measured using a standardized measure of
arithmetic that included identication of shapes. Anders et al. (2012) report that lit-
eracy activities were more frequent than numeracy activities and that the home lit-
eracy environment activities predicted childrens numeracy skills better than did the
home numeracy environment activities. In a second study using the HOME Dilworth-
Bart (2012) found that SES mediated the effects of executive function on the math
performance of 4- and 5-year-olds, but the HOME was not a signicant mediator.
Unfortunately, because the items from the HOME provide a different scale than mea-
sures of frequency of numeracy activities used in other studies it is not possible to
directly compare these results to those of others; however, the Anders et al. results are
consistent with the ndings that home numeracy activities are relatively infrequent.
Another methodology for examining the frequency of numeracy behaviors in the
home is to observe parents (usually mothers) interacting with their children in
12 B. Blevins-Knabe
games or other activities provided by the researchers. Vandermass-Peeler and her

colleagues have conducted several observational studies of preschool children in the
United States and their mothers playing with toys or games, and reading
(Vandermaas-Peeler, Ferretti, & Loving, 2012; Vandermaas-Peeler, Nelson, &
Bumpass, 2007; Vandermaas-Peeler, Nelson, Bumpass, & Sassine, 2009;
Vandermaas-Peeler & Pittard, 2014). The context in which the activity occurs,
socioeconomic status of the parents, and instructions to the parents all correlated
with the frequency of numeracy behaviors. Parents were more likely to initiate
numeracy interactions during play than during reading (Vandermaas-Peeler et al.,
2009), and when given suggestions about numeracy activities (Vandermaas-Peeler,
Ferretti, et al., 2012). Although both low- and high-SES mothers were similar in
how often they initiated interactions about the uses of numbers in daily life (e.g.,
cooking, value of money, etc.), high-SES mothers were more likely to initiate math-
ematical interactions (e.g., counting, asking how many, etc.) than low-SES mothers
(Vandermaas-Peeler et al., 2009).
Further support for the conclusion that context inuences parental behaviors
comes from Benigno and Ellis (2004) who examined the effect of the presence of an
older sibling. They observed middle-class parents in the United States playing a
board game with their preschool child with and without the presence of an older
sibling. When an older sibling was present fewer numeracy activities occurred. In
the absence of the sibling, preschool children counted more and the parent provided
more instruction and modeling.
These studies show that in structured observational contexts numeracy interac-
tions occur between parents and young children. Yet the studies do not directly
address the issue of how often these interactions occur. For example, Ramani et al.
(2015) addressed the frequency of numeracy interactions by recording the math talk
between caregivers and their children from low-SES backgrounds in the United
States. Caregivers played with toys selected to facilitate talking about math. The
amount of math talk that occurred was low even with the toys as prompts. The rela-
tively low frequency of math talk reported by Ramani et al. (2015) and the inuence
of context reported by Vandermaas-Peeler and colleagues (Vandermaas-Peeler,
2008; Vandermaas-Peeler, Boomgarden, Finn, & Pittard, 2012; Vandermaas-Peeler,
Ferretti, et al., 2012) and Benigno and Ellis (2004, 2008) indicate that scaffolding
childrens mathematical development may not be a priority when the parent is the
childs social partner. Parents may be more likely to provide support for math in
situations with fewer competing demands, or in situations in which there are not
competing academic activities such as reading.
While structured observational studies show what parents can do, for example,
provide direct instruction about math and engage in talking about numbers, the
question that is unanswered is what they dowhat actually happens in the everyday
environment. Instead of relying on parental reports, the most direct way to assess
frequency of home numeracy activities in the home is to observe parents and chil-
dren at home. Tudge and Doucet (2004) and Tudge, Li, and Stanley (2008) argue
that studies that are laboratory based or done using structured observations lack
information about what happens in everyday life. They criticize parental reports
because parents may not know everything that happens in a childs life or may think
some activities are unimportant. Tudge and Doucet observed middle and working
class white and black children in the United States over the course of a week and
found wide variation in the number of mathematics activities between children. For
the most part, children engaged in few activities for either literacy or mathematics
that involved either direct instruction or requests for information. However, children
engaged in more literacy play than math play.
Agreement about a common standard for gauging a meaningful frequency level
of activities does not exist. Furthermore, the question of what is the optimal fre-
quency for home numeracy activities is still unresolved. However, some insights
into how to think about what is critical about home numeracy activities, whether it
is frequency or some other variable, comes from Hunts (1961) concept of a match
between the environment and childrens level of development. Wachs (2005) pres-
ents a more recent formulation of this match called the personenvironment t. A
good t between the childs level of development and what the environment offers
optimizes development. A mismatch can impede progress. In order to understand an
optimal match it is necessary to understand the environmental context as well as the
characteristics of the individual. The conceptual models that guide research on
home numeracy provide some insight about the contextual (environmental) features
of the home environment that inuence childrens mathematical development.
Before introducing these conceptual models, differing central assumptions of
Piagets and Vygotskys theories concerning the role of the social environment and
childrens role in development will be outlined. Piagets theory, in particular, focuses
on the development of the individual and provides guidance as to the childs role in
development. Vygotskys theory switches the emphasis to the external environment
as a trigger for developmental change. The different emphases of these theories can
help highlight key issues that are useful in evaluating the conceptual models.
Differing Foci of Piaget and Vygotsky
Both Piagets and Vygotskys theories have been central to research about the role of
experience in childrens mathematical development. Despite the misconception that
Piaget downplayed the role of the social environment, his position was that children
learn from all of their experiences, material and social (Tudge et al., 2008).
Furthermore, while parents and others can inuence childrens development, direct
teaching is not necessary or required. Piagets emphasis was on how new knowledge
is generated rather than on how knowledge is transmitted (Chapman, 1988). In con-
trast, Vygotsky put more emphasis on the transmission of information from social
agents while acknowledging the contribution the child makes to the interaction
(Tudge et al., 2008).
Tudge et al. (2008) argue that this difference in focus between the theories may
appear to be more meaningful than it is. Even when children initiate learning
mathematics on their own they use materials provided by culture and interact with
14 B. Blevins-Knabe
members of the culture. However, Loureno (2012) claims this difference in

emphasis is fundamental and inuences how we think about development.
Specically, he argues that for Piaget learning occurs due to the actions of the child
so the source of development is within the child. In contrast, for Vygotsky learning
comes from external agents and development is triggered by outside factors. We
will need to explicitly address the sources of developmental change and the inter-
action between the child and social agents to achieve a deeper understanding of the
effects of the home numeracy environment.
Conceptual Models of Home Numeracy
Focusing on external sources of change, Huntsinger et al. (1997, 2000) based much
of their home numeracy research on Eccles expectancy-value model (Eccles et al.,
1993; Simpkins, Fredricks, & Eccles, 2012). Eccles model draws from socializa-
tion theories (e.g., Goodnow & Collins, 1990; Maccoby, 1998), sociological
research on the effects of family resources (e.g., Alexander & Entwisle, 1988),
social cognitive theories (Bandura, 1997), and sociocultural theories (Rogoff,
1990). The Eccles model highlights how parents attitudes, expectations, beliefs,
behaviors, and demographic characteristics inuence child developmental out-
comes. Huntsinger et al. (1997, 2000) found parents attitudes and behaviors pre-
dicted childrens mathematical performance, which is consistent with the predictions
of the expectancy-value model.
Recently, Skwarchuk et al. (2014) proposed a model of home numeracy based on
the home literacy model of Snchal and LeFevre (2002) that includes both parental
attitudes and behaviors. Parental attitudes are predicted to have an indirect effect on
childrens numeracy performance through parents behaviors, which have a direct
effect. Home numeracy activities provided by parents t one of two categories,
either formal or informal. The goal of formal numeracy activities is to teach chil-
dren about mathematics. In contrast, the goal of informal numeracy activities is not
specic to mathematics, and any learning about mathematics that occurs is a by-
product of other activities. Playing games is an example of an informal activity.
Neither model puts a primary focus on the child in the way that Piaget does as a
constantly changing active seeker of knowledge, who is both an active contributor
to the home environment as well as a participant in the opportunities it affords. Both
Huntsinger et al.s (1997, 2000) work based on the expectancy-value model and
Skwarchuk et al.s (2014) home numeracy model place emphasis on the role of the
parent as the primary determinant of the home numeracy environment. In many
ways, the expectancy value and the home numeracy models are complementary.
The expectancy-value model provides a more general view of the proximal and
distal inuences on childrens cognitive outcomes and the home numeracy model
provides a more focused and in-depth view of the proximal inuences on childrens
numeracy outcomes. The emphasis that both models place on the inuence of par-
ents on childrens mathematical development is consistent with the emphasis of
Vygotskys theory on the inuence of the external social world.
However, maintaining the central role parents play in the process, but reconcep-
tualizing its impact on the home numeracy environment may bring issues of interac-
tion and the childs contributions to development to the forefront. This
reconceptualization can also integrate Piagets emphasis on the child into our under-
standing of the home numeracy.
The Role of Parents
A consistent theme in the previously outlined rationales for research on the effects
of the home numeracy environment is the wide variation in childrens skills upon
entry into formal schooling. In order to advance our understanding of this wide
range in skills, we need to understand the interaction between characteristics of the
child and the physical and social environment provided in the home by the parents.
Although we often think of parents as teaching young children about math, Tudge
et al. (2008) suggest that the critical role of the parent in the home numeracy envi-
ronment might be a supportive, scaffolding, inquisitive role rather than a direct
teaching mode. Some insights into the types of parental inuence come from work
conducted with the HOME.
The HOME instrument was designed to measure the quality of the home environ-
ment by identifying the stimulation and support parents provide. Bradley and
Caldwell (1995) conceptualized the job of the parent as maximizing and regulating
childrens opportunities for learning. Bradley and Corwyn (2004, 2006) extended
these concepts into what they called the central tasks of parenting. Four of the
tasks, stimulation, support, structure, and social integration, are relevant to the role
that parents play in young childrens mathematical development. While the tasks are
interconnected, they do serve different functions. Stimulation involves parents pro-
viding contingent responses and providing children with new information that attracts
their attention. Support involves providing social and emotional support and as well
as motivation for learning. Structure involves making sure the learning environment
is a good t for the child. Parents can accomplish this by regulating learning activities
so that they match the childs developmental level. Social integration addresses the
childs connection to the culture and society and is the concept closest to that of
guided participation (Rogoff, 1990), which originates from sociocultural theory.
These four tasks may serve to conceptualize and delineate the underlying char-
acteristics of parental inuences on childrens mathematical development. A chal-
lenge parents and other adults face when trying to support and facilitate childrens
mathematical development is that much of the mathematical information in our
world is implicit rather than explicit. Even though children are surrounded by
relevant information they may need help accessing it. Ginsburg, Lee, and Boyd
(2008) use mathematize to describe the process of connecting experience with
mathematical principles. Children may benet from having parents who mathema-
tize. Effective support and mathematizing are likely be guided by the goals of the
aforementioned tasks of parenting identied by Bradley and Corwyn (2004, 2006):
stimulation, support, structure, and social integration. The following sections will
16 B. Blevins-Knabe
address how each of the four tasks of parenting can be applied to home numeracy
research. Using them as an organizing construct can facilitate a more holistic and
systemic view of the interactions between the physical and social characteristics of
the home environment as provided by parents and young childrens mathematical
development.
Stimulation
The parenting task of stimulation includes parental teaching that either directly or
indirectly inuences childrens learning. Both direct and indirect teaching can high-
light mathematical information that is present in the environment and make it more
visible to children. LeFevre et al. (2009) made a distinction between direct and indi-
rect home numeracy experiences based on the intentionality of parents teaching.
Direct numeracy experiences involve intentional teaching about math. Indirect home
numeracy experiences include informal activities that may provide opportunities for
learning about math, but learning about math is not the primary objective. There is
evidence that direct teaching is predictive of childrens learning. Several studies have
examined the direct teaching role that parents play (Blevins-Knabe & Musun-Miller,
1996; LeFevre et al., 2009; Manolitsis et al., 2013) and reported positive correlations
between parents teaching behaviors and childrens numeracy performance.
Less structured indirect numeracy experiences also inuence childrens math
performance. Niklas and Schneider (2013) measured the home numeracy environ-
ment through parental reports of how often they engaged in dice, counting, or cal-
culation games with their kindergarten children. These indirect home numeracy
activities predicted math performance both at the end of kindergarten and at the end
of rst grade. This was the case even though the measure of math performance con-
tained more advanced items at rst grade.
Comparisons of the effects of indirect and direct teaching provide conicting
results. Huntsinger et al. (1997) in a cross-cultural study asked about direct and
indirect teaching practices. They found that Chinese-American parents engaged in
more direct teaching of numeracy of pre-k and kindergarten children than either
Taiwan-Chinese or Euro-American parents. Children who received more direct
teaching from parents performed better on a test of early number skills. Huntsinger
et al. (2000) also found that Chinese-American parents engaged in more formal
teaching of math and their children performed higher on the measures of mathemat-
ical performance.
In contrast, LeFevre et al. (2009) measured the effects of both direct and indirect
teaching for kindergarten, rst, and second grade children and found positive cor-
relations for indirect teaching and math performance and negative correlations for
direct teaching experiences. Indirect teaching experiences included playing games
that involved math and were correlated with math uency and knowledge. Engaging
in activities with number books provided an opportunity for direct teaching by
parents and was negatively correlated with math uency. However, in a later study,
LeFevre et al. (2010) found direct teaching by parents of Canadian and Greek
kindergarten children predicted numeracy performance. Further evidence of the
potential inuence of direct teaching is provided by Pan et al. (2006). They inter-
viewed American and Chinese mothers of 5- and 7-year-old children and found
that Chinese mothers reported more direct teaching activities involving number
knowledge. Their children also performed better on the measures of mathematical
performance.
Reecting on these results reveals underlying motivations and goals that might
explain some of the apparently contradictory results. It is possible that parents
engage in direct or indirect teaching for different reasons, which might explain dif-
ferences in childrens performance. For example, Huntsinger et al. (2000) found that
Chinese American parents direct teaching practices predicted their childrens math
performance over a 4-year period starting in preschool. These parents intentionally
taught their children about mathematics from an early age. Other parents may engage
in direct teaching practices reactively when they notice their children are having dif-
culty. Some parents might purposefully choose to teach through games and physi-
cal materials and select those that have educational value. Bradley and Corwyn
(2004) identify parental investment of resources as the underlying construct that
inuences parents actions with respect to their children. The concept of parental
investment applied to the home numeracy research suggests that parents willingness
and ability to spend their resources helping children learn math is a critical variable.
This commitment may be as important as whether the activity is direct or indirect.
Structure
Another way that parents invest in their childrens learning is by providing struc-
ture. As dened by Bradley and Corwyn (2004, 2006), structure involves ensuring
that the learning environment is a good t for the child. How effectively structure
inuences learning is determined by the degree of t between what the child needs
and the home environment. Several home numeracy studies address the level of sup-
port that parents provide. Skwarchuk (2009) focused on the level of complexity of
the home number activities parents reported. For both 4- and 5-year-olds more fre-
quent exposure to lower level number activities was negatively correlated with
numeracy performance while exposure to higher level number activities was corre-
lated with higher numeracy performance. Blevins-Knabe and Musun-Miller (1996),
LeFevre et al. (2009), and Skwarchuk (2009) also found negative correlations with
some number activities provided by parents. Pan et al. (2006) found that 5- and
7-year-old Chinese children performed more poorly on a task requiring proportional
reasoning when their mothers instructed them on calculation. Huntsinger et al.
(2016) reported a negative correlation between childrens mathematics performance
and informal home numeracy activities (activities that do not focus on teaching
mathematics) in a sample of 4- and 5-year-olds. The post hoc explanation most
frequently offered by all was that parents match their input to what their children
18 B. Blevins-Knabe
need, which is consistent with the ndings of Saxe et al. (1987), Benigno and Ellis
(2004), and Vandermaas-Peeler, Boomgarden, et al. (2012). In the cases of the nega-
tive correlations children who are performing more poorly may need more instruc-
tion. The literature suggests that parents are relatively skillful at providing an
appropriate level of structure. However, we need further research to test the post hoc
hypotheses, and to address whether the type of math task inuences the level of
structure parents provide, and whether there are cumulative developmental changes
that can be connected to the level of structure provided.
Support
The parenting task of support as described by Bradley and Corwyn (2004, 2006)
focuses on the socioemotional support parents provide to children. Parents build
childrens self-worth and connections to others by responding to childrens emo-
tional needs. They also aid children in developing emotional regulation. Early in a
childs life parents socioemotional support inuences attachment and a childs
developing sense of self but as children develop there are additional outcomes.
Bradley and Corwyn (2004) identify the core outcome of socioemotional support
as motivating children to engage in behaviors that are adaptive for their success
both in the home environment and beyond. Among these adaptive behaviors one
could include mathematical skills that are necessary for success in todays world.
An example of the inuence of socioemotional support on math performance is
provided by Azmitia, Cooper, and Brown (2009) who conducted a longitudinal
study of young Latino adolescents and the socioemotional support provided by
parents. Parents support, which included educational guidance and emotional sup-
port, was a better predictor of math grades than the support of siblings, friends, or
teachers. Another example comes from Bradley, Caldwell, Rock, Hamrick, and
Harris (1988) who found the score on the total school subscale in an elementary
school version of the HOME correlated with both the childrens math achievement
and the emotional climate subscale.
Socioemotional support and its inuence need more attention in the literature on
home numeracy. Parents beliefs can inuence childrens belief systems and motiva-
tion to engage in mathematics. This can occur through parental interactions as well
as communications about their own attitudes and beliefs about math. Eccles et al.
(1993) distinguished between more proximal inuences on both childrens
performance and beliefs and more distal ones. Distal inuences included parents
general beliefs about development, beliefs about children in general, parents teach-
ing strategies based on these beliefs, as well as general demographic characteristics.
Examples of more proximal inuences are parents beliefs about their own children
including predictions about their childrens performance, explanations for their
childrens performance, specic behaviors such as teaching strategies tailored to
their own children, and the provision of learning materials. Both proximal and distal
beliefs can inuence the type of socioemotional support parents provide children.
Studies of home numeracy have addressed both proximal and distal attitudes and
beliefs and some have included measures that address the value parents place on
math. One frequently reported result pertains to a distal belief about the relative
importance of literacy and numeracy. Parents report that reading is more important
for young children to learn than math. Musun-Miller and Blevins-Knabe (1998)
asked parents of 4- and 5-year-old children about the relative importance of acquir-
ing general knowledge, reading, social skills, and math. Parents said that all were
more important than math. Skwarchuk (2009) and Cannon and Ginsburg (2008),
using low- and middle-income samples, also report that parents said reading was
more important than math.
Other parental distal beliefs that have been examined are their attitudes and
beliefs about how children learn. LeFevre et al. (2009) asked parents of kindergar-
ten children about their general expectations for success on number tasks that could
be considered benchmarks. There was no connection between these expectations
and childrens performance. Missall et al. (2015) asked parents of White and
Hispanic preschool children in the United States about a combination of proximal
and distal beliefs and reported a correlation between parents beliefs about math and
home activities, but no correlation with childrens actual performance. Conversely,
DeFlorio and Beliakoff (2015) found that the beliefs of parents of 3- and 4-year-
olds from low- and middle-SES backgrounds about the mathematical skills of the
typical child did predict childrens mathematical performance. Parents from middle-
class backgrounds had higher expectations and held more accurate beliefs regarding
the math skills of the typical child than did parents from lower class backgrounds.
In contrast to distal beliefs, proximal beliefs are more often related to childrens
performance. Skwarchuk (2009) found that Canadian 4- to 5-year-olds, whose par-
ents who rated their own personal experiences in math positively, performed better
on a numeracy assessment. Both Kleemans et al. (2012) and Segers, Kleemans, and
Verhoeven (2015) asked parents for specic information about their child and found
that parents expectations for childrens numeracy performance and the frequency
of numeracy activities predicted the numeracy skills of kindergarten children. In
longitudinal research Huntsinger et al. (1997, 2000) included Chinese American
and Euro-American preschool and kindergarten children and found that parents
expectations about their childs success in math predicted their childs performance
both initially and 5 years later.
However, other work has provided contradictory results. LeFevre et al. (2002)
asked parents of preschool children about their expectations for their own children
on number tasks that could be considered benchmarks. While parents expectations
were correlated with their reported teaching activities there was no correlation with
their childrens performance. A similar result was reported by Skwarchuk et al.
(2014) who found that parents who had higher expectations for their childrens
numeracy performance used more advanced math activities but that there was only
an indirect effect on childrens symbolic number knowledge. Cross-cultural work by
LeFevre et al. (2010) indicated that context has a role to play in the inuence of par-
ents beliefs and attitudes on childrens performance. They found parents attitudes
about math and their expectations for their childrens learning directly predicted the
20 B. Blevins-Knabe
numeracy performance of Canadian kindergarten children. However, there was an

indirect effect for Greek children since the effects of parents attitudes were mediated
by activities in the home numeracy environment.
Despite this mixed pattern of results, connections between parent attitudes, home
numeracy activities, and childrens performance appear to occur more frequently
than not, and that these connections occur in diverse samples. Accounting for paren-
tal attitudes and beliefs increases our understanding of the contribution the home
numeracy environment makes to childrens mathematical development, moving
beyond a limited focus on the types and frequencies of math activities. Using the
parenting task of socioemotional support as a conceptual lens suggests a need for
more research that includes measures of the emotional climate in the home numer-
acy environment. The research reviewed earlier demonstrates the relevance of
including parents emotions about math and their optimism and level of expectation
for childrens learning in the models of home numeracy.
Social Integration
Social integration addresses how parents connect their children to society through
the use of social capital. Mathematics is a powerful cultural tool and parents have
the task of helping their children succeed by helping them learn how to use it.
According to Bradley and Corwyn (2006) when parents engage their children in
academic activities it supports the connections children make with school and with
their teachers. Research from several different countries demonstrates that the level
of childrens number skills when they enter school predicts later success not only in
mathematics but also other academic subjects (Aunio, Aubrey, Godfrey, Pan, & Liu,
2008; Aunio & Niemivirta, 2010; Duncan et al., 2007; Krajewski & Schneider,
2009; National Mathematics Advisory Panel, 2008). This means what happens in
the early years in the home environment is especially relevant.
Several studies (e.g., Huntsinger et al., 1997, 2000; Lefevre et al., 2002; LeFevre
et al., 2010; Pan et al., 2006) demonstrated that parents from various cultures dene
differently their involvement in teaching their children mathematics. For example,
Chinese and Chinese-American parents emphasized teaching their children math
more than Euro-American parents (Huntsinger et al., 2000; Pan et al., 2006). Greek
parents engaged in numeracy activities less frequently than Canadian parents (LeFevre
et al., 2010). Within the Canadian culture, French-speaking parents reported fewer
number teaching activities than English-speaking parents. In each case the researchers
pointed to differences in the value that the respective cultures placed on children
learning math, which then corresponded to the variations in frequency and emphasis.
Research comparing different income groups can also highlight both the similar
and dissimilar ways parents approach the task of social integration. Observations
of parents from low- and middle-income groups (e.g., Ramani et al., 2015; Saxe
et al., 1987; Vandermaas-Peeler & Pittard, 2014) indicate that parents in both
groups adjust their teaching to the needs or interests of the child. However, some
studies report differences in teaching strategies or the frequency of parentchild

interactions about math among in different income groups (Benigno & Ellis, 2008;
Saxe et al., 1987; Vandermaas-Peeler et al., 2009) others do not (Missall et al.,
2015; Tudge & Doucet, 2004).
When parents belong to a group (cultural, socioeconomic, etc.) that places value
on math, membership in this social network may help dene their goals for their
children. Often language differences are the primary way that cultural differences
have been studied but other aspects of the culture may be as important (Cankaya,
LeFevre, & Dunbar, 2014; LeFevre et al., 2002). DeFlorio and Beliakoff (2015)
compared the home numeracy environments of children from low- and middle-
income backgrounds and found few differences in the frequency of reported numer-
acy activities but more differences in parental expectations. Parents from middle-SES
backgrounds had higher expectations. They also appear to provide a more support-
ive numeracy environment than parents from low-income backgrounds (Starkey &
Klein, 2008). And yet, Ramani et al. (2015) found wide variation in home numeracy
activities and math language in the homes of preschool children from low-income
backgrounds. An interview study by Cannon and Ginsburg (2008) illustrates the
interconnected, contradictory, and complex nature of how parents see the role of
math in their childrens environment. They interviewed White and Latina mothers
of preschool children from low-, middle-, and high-income backgrounds about the
role of math in their childs home environment and found relatively few differences
connected to background. Mothers reported that they thought that math should be
learned during a childs daily activities and reported engaging in some of these
activities, but they had no goals for their childs math learning and thought math was
less important for their children to learn than other skills.
Studies such as these indicate that we need to continue to include comparisons
both within and across different cultural and income groups if we are to fully under-
stand how parents approach the task of social integration with respect to mathemat-
ics. Including childrens mathematical development as a variable is also important
in order to identify patterns in the t between parents behaviors and attitudes and
childrens level of development and to identify changes that take place in parents
behaviors and attitudes as children develop.
Future Challenges
One of the thorny issues facing those who study the effects of the home numeracy
environment is making comparisons across studies given the diverse methods used
to measure the home numeracy environment. This variation could explain the
inconsistency in results. While some researchers have reported correlations between
measures of the frequency of home numeracy activities and childrens performance
(e.g., Kleemans et al., 2012; Pan et al., 2006; Skwarchuk, 2009; Skwarchuk et al.,
2014) others have not (Blevins-Knabe et al., 2000; DeFlorio & Beliakoff, 2015;
LeFevre et al., 2009; Missall et al., 2015). Tudge and Doucet (2004) argue that
22 B. Blevins-Knabe
many studies lack information about what happens in everyday life and that parental
reports are limited. Parents may not know all that happens in the home or think
some activities are unimportant. LeFevre et al. (2009) and Manolitsis et al. (2013)
indicate that social desirability might inuence parents reports. Skwarchuk et al.
(2014) have reported some promising work on a parental report measure.
Much work remains before there is a common measure of home numeracy.
Bradley (2000), after years of developing measures of the home environment, out-
lines the difculties of measuring the home environment. He argues that when we are
searching for cause indicators (Bollen & Bauldry, 2011), it can be difcult to nd
and include all of those that are relevant. In the case of home numeracy, cause indica-
tors are those that inuence the mathematical development of children. Omission of
relevant cause indicators means that we may paint an inaccurate picture of the theo-
ries that inuence home numeracy environment. Bradley (2000) suggests continuing
to experiment by adding new indicators in order to counteract the effect of possible
omissions. We need to keep experimenting with indicators that have different levels
of focus in order to achieve the deepest understanding of the home environment.
The home numeracy area is in a relatively strong position with respect to future
work on these issues. Skwarchuk et al. (2014) used previous work in the home lit-
eracy area as a guide to identifying home numeracy indicators. Active research is
occurring in many countries with children from a variety of backgrounds. Multiple
measures of both the home numeracy environment and childrens performance are
used across studies. This very diversity in measures can undermine comparisons
across studies and yet it facilitates the identication of a broad range of relevant
indicators. There is a strong possibility that measures of the home environment that
are not specic to mathematics will be as inuential, if not more so, than measures
that are more specic. When the eld reaches the point that results are more consis-
tent and robust we will know the set of indicators is strong.
Concomitantly, more longitudinal research is needed to address questions regard-
ing ndings such as the negative correlations between the frequency of home
numeracy activities and childrens mathematical performance (Blevins-Knabe &
Musun-Miller, 1996; LeFevre et al., 2009; Skwarchuk, 2009). The post hoc expla-
nation that parents provide more help to children who are having trouble is only one
of several possible explanations. Alternatively, a low frequency of home numeracy
activities could mean that the activities are not a match for the childs developmen-
tal level. Higher frequency levels could indicate a developmental match and a time
of maximum learning. During this time children may nd some of the activities that
are a developmental match more challenging than others and perform more errati-
cally as they master them. When the parent is factored into the interaction, low fre-
quency levels of home numeracy activities could mean that the parent is not engaged
in the activity due to lack of interest, or knowledge, on the part of either the parent
or child. Understanding these issues could serve as the basis for understanding indi-
vidual differences and how large a role the home numeracy environment plays in the
mathematical development of young children. While there are some longitudinal
studies (e.g., Anders et al., 2012; Skwarchuk et al., 2014) more are needed to track
changes in the different types of mathematical skills that develop in the early years
with the corresponding changes in the types and frequencies of home numeracy
activities. The effects of the home environment are likely to be cumulative (Bradley
& Corwyn, 2004) and longitudinal studies can test this prediction.
Conclusions
Hannula-Sormunen, Lehtinen, and Rsnen (2015) have identied spontaneous

focusing on numerosity as an early indicator of later success in mathematical per-
formance in school. We do not yet know why some children are more likely to focus
on numerosity than others. It is reasonable to predict that the home numeracy envi-
ronment has a role to play. As research on the home numeracy environment contin-
ues, more indicators will be included in models addressing the effects of the home
numeracy environment which may allow us to address questions such as the one
earlier. There are multiple ways that parents regulate childrens home numeracy
environments. Parents provide access to stimulating materials, engage children in
math activities, and tailor their instruction to the developmental level of their chil-
dren (e.g., Benigno & Ellis, 2004; Lukie et al., 2014; Vandermaas-Peeler,
Boomgarden, et al., 2012). If they are skillful, parents provide an environment that
ts with the childs needs. Bradley and Corwyn (2004) provide a conceptual frame-
work that facilitates hypothesizing about the role of parents and redirects the focus
from parent characteristics (demographic, attitudes, beliefs) to the goals that direct
their behaviors. If this new focus can be harnessed to meta-level theorizing about
the home numeracy environment, we may be able to identify and measure indicators
that inuence how children seek and learn the math in their environments. We may
also then be able to answer questions such as whether there are core features of the
home environment that inuence all types of cognitive development, including
mathematical development, and, whether there are features of the home environ-
ment that have a unique relationships to mathematical development.
In sum, embracing a systems-oriented approach, as suggested by Bradley and
Corwyn (2004), will allow researchers to adopt a more holistic view of the relation-
ship between the home environment and childrens mathematical development.
This broader view allows researchers to expand their model to include multiple
variables (i.e., physical materials, socioemotional support, stimulation) and dis-
cover more about the paths between them.
References
Alexander, K. L., & Entwisle, D. R. (1988). Achievement in the rst 2 years of school: Patterns and
processes. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 53(2), 157.
doi:10.2307/1166081.
Anders, Y., Rossbach, H. -G., Weinert, S., Ebert, S., Kuger, S., Lehrl, S., & von Maurice, J. (2012).
Home and preschool learning environments and their relations to the development of early
24 B. Blevins-Knabe
numeracy skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(2), 231244. doi:10.1016/j.

ecresq.2011.08.003.
Anderson, A. (1997). Families and mathematics: A study of parentchild interactions. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 28(4), 484511. doi:10.2307/749684.
Aunio, P., Aubrey, C., Godfrey, R., Pan, Y., & Liu, Y. (2008). Childrens early numeracy in
England, Finland and Peoples Republic of China. International Journal of Early Years
Education, 16(3), 203221. doi:10.1080/09669760802343881.
Aunio, P., & Niemivirta, M. (2010). Predicting childrens mathematical performance in grade one
by early numeracy. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(5), 427435. doi:10.1016/j.
lindif.2010.06.003.
Azmitia, M., Cooper, C. R., & Brown, J. R. (2009). Support and guidance from families, friends,
and teachers in Latino early adolescents math pathways. The Journal of Early Adolescence,
29(1), 142169. doi:10.1177/0272431608324476.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Benigno, J. P., & Ellis, S. (2004). Two is greater than three: Effects of older siblings on parental
support of preschoolers counting in middle-income families. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 19(1), 420. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2004.01.006.
Benigno, J. P., & Ellis, S. (2008). Do parents count? The socialization of childrens numeracy. In
O. Saracho & B. Spodak (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on mathematics in early childhood
education (pp. 291308). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Blevins-Knabe, B., Austin, A. B., Musun, L., Eddy, A., & Jones, R. M. (2000). Family home care
providers and parents beliefs and practices concerning mathematics with young children.
Early Child Development and Care, 165, 4158. doi:10.1080/0300443001650104.
Blevins-Knabe, B., & Musun-Miller, L. (1996). Number use at home by children and their parents
and its relationship to early mathematical performance. Early Development & Parenting, 5(1),
3545. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0917(199603)5:1<35::AID-EDP113>3.0.CO;2-0.
Bollen, K. A., & Bauldry, S. (2011). Three Cs in measurement models: Causal indicators, compos-
ite indicators, and covariates. Psychological Methods, 16(3), 265284. doi:10.1037/a0024448.
Bradley, R. H. (2000). Deceived by omission: The difculty of matching measurement and theory
when assessing the home environment. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 10(3), 307314.
doi:10.1207/SJRA1003_4.
Bradley, R. H. (2010). The HOME environment. In M. H. Bornstein & M. H. Bornstein (Eds.),
Handbook of cultural developmental science (pp. 505530). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Bradley, R. H., & Caldwell, B. M. (1995). Caregiving and the regulation of child growth and devel-
opment: Describing proximal aspects of caregiving systems. Developmental Review, 15(1),
3885. doi:10.1006/drev.1995.1002.
Bradley, R. H., Caldwell, B. M., Rock, S. L., Hamrick, H. M., & Harris, P. (1988). Home observa-
tion for measurement of the environment: Development of a home inventory for use with fami-
lies having children 6 to 10 years old. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13(1), 5871.
doi:10.1016/0361-476X(88)90006-9.
Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2004). Family process investments that matter for child well-
being. In A. Kalil & T. DeLeire (Eds.), Family investments in children: Resources and behav-
iors that promote success (pp. 132). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2006). The family environment. In L. Balter, C. S. Tamis-
LeMonda, L. Balter, & C. S. Tamis-LeMonda (Eds.), Child psychology: A handbook of con-
temporary issues (2nd ed., pp. 493520). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Caldwell, B., & Bradley, R. (1984). Home observation for measurement of the environment
(HOME). Little Rock, AR: University of Arkansas at Little Rock.
Cankaya, O., LeFevre, J., & Dunbar, K. (2014). The role of number naming systems and numeracy
experiences in childrens rote counting: Evidence from Turkish and Canadian children.
Learning and Individual Differences, 32, 238245. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2014.03.016.
Cannon, J., & Ginsburg, H. P. (2008). Doing the math: Maternal beliefs about early mathemat-
ics versus language learning. Early Education and Development, 19(2), 238260.
doi:10.1080/10409280801963913.
Chapman, M. (1988). Constructive evolution. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., Wolfe, C. B., & Spitler, M. E. (2013). Longitudinal evaluation of a
scale-up model for teaching mathematics with trajectories and technologies: Persistence of
effects in the third year. American Educational Research Journal, 50(4), 812850.
doi:10.3102/0002831212469270.
DeFlorio, L., & Beliakoff, A. (2015). Socioeconomic status and preschoolers mathematical
knowledge: The contribution of home activities and parent beliefs. Early Education and
Development, 26(3), 319341. doi:10.1080/10409289.2015.968239.
Dilworth-Bart, J. E. (2012). Does executive function mediate SES and home quality associations
with academic readiness? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(3), 416425. http://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.02.002.
Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C., Klebanov, P., Japel,
C. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43, 14281466.
doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1428.
Durkin, K., Shire, B., Riem, R., Crowther, R. D., & Rutter, D. R. (1986). The social and linguistic
context of early number word use. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 4(3), 269
288. doi:10.1111/j.2044-835X.1986.tb01018.x.
Eccles, J. S., Arberton, A., Buchanan, C. M., Janis, J., Flanagan, C., Harold, R., Reuman, D.
(1993). School and family effects on the ontogeny of childrens interests, self-perceptions, and
activity choices. In J. E. Jacobs, & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation,
1992: Developmental perspectives on motivation (pp. 145208). Lincoln, NE: University of
Nebraska Press.
Geary, D. C., Berch, D. B., & Koepke, K. M. (2015). Evolutionary origins and early development
of number processing. San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.
Gelman, R. (1982). Accessing one-to-one correspondence: Still another paper about conservation.
British Journal of Psychology, 73(2), 209220. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1982.tb01803.x.
Ginsburg, H. P., Lee, J. S., & Boyd, J. S. (2008). Mathematics education for young children: What
it is and how to promote it. Social Policy Report: Society for Research in Child Development,
22(1), 322.
Ginsburg, H. P., & Russell, R. L. (1981). Social class and racial inuences on early mathematical
thinking. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 46(6), 69.
doi:10.2307/1165946.
Goodnow, J. J., & Collins, W. A. (1990). Development according to parents: The nature, sources,
and consequences of parents ideas. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hannula-Sormunen, M. M., Lehtinen, E., & Rsnen, P. (2015). Preschool childrens spontaneous
focusing on numerosity, subitizing, and counting skills as predictors of their mathematical
performance seven years later at school. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 17(2-3),
155177. doi:10.1080/10986065.2015.1016814.
Hunt, J. M. V. (1961). Intelligence and experience. New York, NY: Ronald.
Huntsinger, C. S., Jose, P. E., Larson, S. L., Balsink Krieg, D., & Shaligram, C. (2000). Mathematics,
vocabulary, and reading development in Chinese American and European American children
over the primary school years. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 745760.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.4.745.
Huntsinger, C. S., Jose, P. E., Liaw, F., & Ching, W. (1997). Cultural differences in early
mathematics learning: A comparison of Euro-American, Chinese-American, and Taiwan-
Chinese families. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 21(2), 371388.
doi:10.1080/016502597384929.
Huntsinger, C., Jose, P., & Luo, Z. (2016). Parental facilitation of early mathematics and reading
skills and knowledge through encouragement of home-based activities. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 37, 115. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2016.02.005.
Kleemans, T., Peeters, M., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2012). Child and home predictors of early
numeracy skills in kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(3), 471477.
doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.12.004.
26 B. Blevins-Knabe
Krajewski, K., & Schneider, W. (2009). Exploring the impact of phonological awareness, visual-
spatial working memory, and preschool quantity-number competencies on mathematics
achievement in elementary school: Findings from a 3-year longitudinal study. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 103(4), 516531. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2009.03.009.
LeFevre, J.-A., Clarke, T., & Stringer, A. P. (2002). Inuences of language and parental involve-
ment on the development of counting skills: Comparisons of French- and English-speaking
Canadian children. Early Child Development and Care, 172(3), 283300. http://doi.
org/10.1080/03004430212127.
LeFevre, J.-A., Polyzoi, E., Skwarchuk, S.-L., Fast, L., & Sowinski, C. (2010). Do home numeracy
and literacy practices of Greek and Canadian parents predict the numeracy skills of
kindergarten children? International Journal of Early Years Education, 18(1), 5570.
doi:10.1080/09669761003693926.
LeFevre, J.-A., Skwarchuk, S.-L., Smith-Chant, B. L., Fast, L., Kamawar, D., & Bisanz, J. (2009).
Home numeracy experiences and childrens math performance in the early school years.
Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement,
41(2), 5566. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0014532.
Loureno, O. (2012). Piaget and Vygotsky: Many resemblances, and a crucial difference. New
Ideas in Psychology, 30(3), 281295. doi:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2011.12.006.
Lukie, I. K., Skwarchuk, S.-L., LeFevre, J.-A., & Sowinski, C. (2014). The role of child interests
and collaborative parentchild interactions in fostering numeracy and literacy development in
Canadian homes. Early Childhood Education Journal, 42(4), 251259. doi:10.1007/
s10643-013-0604-7.
Maccoby, E. E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming together. Cambridge, MA:
Belknap.
Manolitsis, G., Georgiou, G. K., & Tziraki, N. (2013). Examining the effects of home literacy and
numeracy environment on early reading and math acquisition. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 28(4), 692703. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2013.05.004.
Melhuish, E. C., Phan, M. B., Sylva, K., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2008).
Effects of the home learning environment and preschool center experience upon literacy and
numeracy development in early primary school. Journal of Social Issues, 64(1), 95114.
Missall, K., Hojnoski, R. L., Caskie, G. L., & Repasky, P. (2015). Home numeracy environments
of preschoolers: Examining relations among mathematical activities, parent mathematical
beliefs, and early mathematical skills. Early Education and Development, 26(3), 356376. doi
:10.1080/10409289.2015.968243.
Miura, I. T., & Okamoto, Y. (2003). Language supports for mathematics understanding and
performance. In A. J. Baroody & A. Dowker (Eds.), The development of arithmetic
concepts and skills: Constructing adaptive expertise. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Musun-Miller, L., & Blevins-Knabe, B. (1998). Adults beliefs about children and mathematics:
How important is it and how do children learn about it? Early Development & Parenting, 7(4),
191202. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0917(199812)7:4<191::AID-EDP181>3.0.CO;2-I.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Niklas, F., & Schneider, W. (2013). Casting the die before the die is cast: The importance of the
home numeracy environment for preschool children. European Journal of Psychology of
Education, 29(3), 327345. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-013-0201-6.
Pan, Y., Gauvain, M., Liu, Z., & Cheng, L. (2006). American and Chinese parental involvement in
young childrens mathematics learning. Cognitive Development, 21(1), 1735. doi:10.1016/j.
cogdev.2005.08.001.
Ramani, G. B., Rowe, M. L., Eason, S. H., & Leech, K. a. (2015). Math talk during informal learn-
ing activities in Head Start families. Cognitive Development, 35, 1533. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cogdev.2014.11.002.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Saxe, G. B., Dawson, V., Fall, R., & Howard, S. (1996). Culture and childrens mathematical think-
ing. In R. J. Sternberg, T. Ben-Zeev, R. J. Sternberg, & T. Ben-Zeev (Eds.), The nature of
mathematical thinking (pp. 119144). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Saxe, G. B., Guberman, S. R., & Gearhart, M. (1987). Social processes in early number develop-
ment. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 52(2), 162.
doi:10.2307/1166071.
Segers, E., Kleemans, T., & Verhoeven, L. (2015). Role of parent literacy and numeracy expecta-
tions and activities in predicting early numeracy skills. Mathematical Thinking and Learning,
17(2-3), 219236. doi:10.1080/10986065.2015.1016819.
Snchal, M., & LeFevre, J. A. (2002). Parental involvement in the development of childrens
reading skill: A ve-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 73, 445461.
Siegler, R. S. (1995). How does change occur: A microgenetic study of number conservation.
Cognitive Psychology, 28(3), 225273. doi:10.1006/cogp.1995.1006.
Simpkins, S. D., Fredricks, J. A., & Eccles, J. S. (2012). Charting the Eccles expectancy-value
model from mothers beliefs in childhood to youths activities in adolescence. Developmental
Psychology, 48(4), 10191032. doi:10.1037/a0027468.
Skwarchuk, S.-L. (2009). How do parents support preschoolers numeracy learning experiences at
home? Early Childhood Education Journal, 37(3), 189197. http://doi.org/10.1007/
s10643-009-0340-1.
Skwarchuk, S.-L., & LeFevre, J.-A. (2015). The role of the home environment in childrens early
numeracy development: A Canadian perspective. In B. Perry, A. MacDonald, & A. Gervasoni
(Eds.), Mathematics and transition to school: International perspectives (pp. 103117).
Singapore: Springer.
Skwarchuk, S.-L., Sowinski, C., & LeFevre, J.-A. (2014). Formal and informal home learning
activities in relation to childrens early numeracy and literacy skills: The development of a
home numeracy model. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 121, 6384. doi:10.1016/j.
jecp.2013.11.006.
Starkey, P., & Klein, A. (2008). Sociocultural inuences in young childrens mathematical knowl-
edge. In O. Saracho & B. Spodak (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on mathematics in early
childhood education (pp. 253276). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Tudge, J. H., & Doucet, F. (2004). Early mathematical experiences: Observing young Black and
White childrens everyday activities. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19(1), 2139.
doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2004.01.007.
Tudge, J., Li, L., & Stanley, T. K. (2008). The impact of method on assessing young childrens
everyday mathematical experiences. In O. Saracho & B. Spodak (Eds.), Contemporary per-
spectives on mathematics in early childhood education (pp. 187214). Charlotte, NC:
Information Age Publishing.
Vandermaas-Peeler, M. (2008). Parental guidance of numeracy development in early childhood. In
O. Saracho & B. Spodak (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on mathematics in early childhood
education (pp. 277290). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Vandermaas-Peeler, M., Boomgarden, E., Finn, L., & Pittard, C. (2012). Parental support of
numeracy during a cooking activity with four-year-olds. International Journal of Early Years
Education, 20(1), 7893. doi:10.1080/09669760.2012.663237.
Vandermaas-Peeler, M., Ferretti, L., & Loving, S. (2012). Playing the ladybug game: Parent guid-
ance of young childrens numeracy activities. Early Child Development and Care, 182(10),
12891307. doi:10.1080/03004430.2011.609617.
Vandermaas-Peeler, M., Nelson, J., Bumpass, C., & Sassine, B. (2009). Numeracy-related
exchanges in joint storybook reading and play. International Journal of Early Years Education,
17(1), 6784. doi:10.1080/09669760802699910.
Vandermaas-Peeler, M., Nelson, J., & Bumpass, C. (2007). Quarters are what you put into the
bubble gum machine. Numeracy interactions during parentchild play. Early Childhood
Research and Practice 9(1). Retrieved from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v9n1/vandermaas.html.
28 B. Blevins-Knabe
Vandermaas-Peeler, M., & Pittard, C. (2014). Inuences of social context on parent guidance and
low-income preschoolers independent and guided math performance. Early Child Development
and Care, 184(4), 500521. doi:10.1080/03004430.2013.799155.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wachs, T. (2005). Person-environment t and individual development. In D. Teti (Ed.),
Handbook of research methods in developmental science (pp. 443466). Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
Watts, T. W., Duncan, G. J., Siegler, R. S., & Davis-Kean, P. E. (2014). Whats past is prologue:
Relations between early mathematics knowledge and high school achievement. Educational
Researcher, 43(7), 352360. doi:10.3102/0013189X14553660.
Young-Loveridge, J. M. (1989). The relationship between childrens home experience and their
mathematical skills on entry to school. Early Child Development and Care, 43, 4359.
doi:10.1080/0300443890430105.
Chapter 3
Home Life and the Development
of Competence in Mathematics: Implications
of Research with the HOME Inventory
Robert H. Bradley and Robert F. Corwyn
Recent treatises on the development of mathematics skills make clear that perfor-
mance in math is connected to a variety of cognitive and language skills (Bjorklund,
Hubert, & Reubens, 2004; Szucs, Devine, Soltesz, Nobes, & Gaabriel, 2014). Such
connections are not surprising given that mathematical competence itself entails a
number of constituent components, components which interplay in increasingly
complex ways as children develop (Siegler & Lortie-Forgues, 2014). There is also
broad support for the idea that competence development (mathematics simply being
one domain) is connected to motivational tendencies and social skills, both of which
reect the quality of ones social relationships and the types of interactions one has
with others (Cuhna, Heckman, & Schennach, 2010; National Scientic Council on
the Developing Child, 2004). For example, some studies show that parents can
motivate children to work hard by praising them for their effort (Dweck, 2007).
When parents praise children for trying hard, as opposed to praising children for
inherent characteristics (such as being smart), children come to believe that their
abilities are malleable, and they are more likely to persist in their efforts to accom-
plish tasks (Gunderson et al., 2013; Mueller & Dweck, 1998).
As Holland (1992) noted a quarter century ago, humans are complex adaptive
systems that exhibit aggregate behavior that is not simply derived from the actions
of the parts (p. 19). Accordingly, it is likely that a diverse array of environmental
conditions are implicated in the development of mathematical skills, conditions that
extend far beyond those that are generally included in measures of the home numer-
acy environment. The primary purpose of this chapter is to review research on
R.H. Bradley, Ph.D. (*)

Family and Human Dynamics Research Institute, Arizona State University, Tucson, AZ, USA
e-mail: robert.bradley@asu.edu
R.F. Corwyn, Ph.D.
e-mail: rbynn@ualr.edu

30 R.H. Bradley and R.F. Corwyn
relations between the Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment

(HOME) Inventory (Caldwell & Bradley, 2003) and childrens performance in math
during early childhood. HOME attempts to capture a diverse set of actions, objects,
events, and conditions that research shows are related to many aspects of child well-
being (Bradley, 2012). The chapter will not focus exclusively on the HOME, but
will also include research that use other broad measures of the stimulation afforded
to children by parents and other caregivers. In an attempt to ll some gaps in the
literature on math outcomes in early childhood, we end the chapter with results
from three models that we were able to test using the National Institute on Child
Health and Human DevelopmentStudy of Early Child Care and Youth
Development (NICHD-SECCYD).
HOME Inventory: Description
The HOME Inventory attempts to document the extent to which a childs environ-
ment contains experiences that promote the childs well-being and does not contain
experiences that are inimical to well-being (e.g., parental warmth and responsive-
ness, the avoidance of restriction and harsh punishment, household order, appropri-
ate discipline practices, family routines, appropriate rules and regulations, access to
toys and materials for learning and recreation, access to enriching in-home and
out-of-home experiences, provision of instruction, social stimulation and communi-
cation, connection to family and friendship networks, provision for safety). The
focus is on the child as a recipient of inputs from objects, events, arrangements, and
transactions occurring in connection with life at home. The work of Bloom (1964)
and Hunt (1961) provided a conceptual framework for constructing the original ver-
sions of the instrument in 1965. However, the principles used to guide selection of
indicators to be included in the Inventory map closely on ecologicaldevelopmental
theories such as those articulated by Bronfenbrenner (1995), Ford and Lerner
(1992), and Wachs (2000). Accordingly, the measure is not limited to documenting
just those circumstances and events that occur within the four walls of a childs resi-
dence but also includes the childs use of social networks and community resources
outside the residence as they pertain to family life. This more capacious view of the
home environment is consistent with the position of social anthropologists who
contend that the social boundaries of household units often extend beyond the phys-
ical boundaries of their dwellings (Altman, 1977; Lawrence & Low, 1990).
There are four primary versions of HOME: (a) the InfantToddler version
designed for children ages birth to 3, (b) the Early Childhood version designed for
children ages 36, (c) the Middle Childhood version designed for children ages
610, and (d) the Early Adolescence version designed for children ages 1015. The
items included in each version of HOME were guided by the research and theory
available at the time the particular version was crafted, with a focus on age appro-
priateness (i.e., the role of parenting for infants consists of providing almost every-
thing directly to or for a child; but as children grow older parenting increasingly
3 Home Life and the Development of Competence in Mathematics: Implications 31
involves the roles of arranger, broker, and mentor for experiences). Although HOME
provides rather broad coverage of the things that might matter in terms of family
promotion of well-being, it does not cover all domains of parenting/family life with
equal depth (e.g., there is relatively scant coverage of most matters pertaining to
safety and routines and even less about food provision). For purposes of this chap-
ter, the focus will be on the InfantToddler and Early Childhood versions of
HOME. The InfantToddler HOME is composed of 45 items clustered into six
domains: (a) parental responsivity, (b) acceptance of child, (c) organization of the
environment, (d) learning materials, (e) parental involvement, and (e) variety of
experience. The Early Childhood HOME is composed of 55 items clustered into
eight domains: (a) learning materials, (b) language stimulation, (c) physical envi-
ronment, (d) parental responsivity, (e) learning stimulation, (f) modeling of social
maturity, (g) variety in experience, and (h) acceptance of child. The Middle
Childhood HOME is composed of 59 items clustered into eight domains: (a) paren-
tal responsivity, (b) physical environment, (c) learning materials, (d) active stimula-
tion, (e) encouraging maturity, (f) emotional climate, (g) parental involvement, and
(h) family participation.
The HOME is administered as a semistructured interview and observation done
at the target childs home place when both the child and the primary caregiver are
present and awake (Caldwell & Bradley, 2003). Other members of the family may
also be present but their presence is not required. A minimum of 45 min is needed
for the visit in order to allow sufcient time to make the required observations, but
no more than 90 min are allowed. The home visit is designed to take place when
there are no extraordinary constraints on parent or child behavior (in effect to allow
for natural behavior to the greatest extent possible). The Manual recommends that
exchanges between data gatherer and family be low key, nonjudgmental, and non-
threatening (i.e., conversational) so as to facilitate candid communication and natu-
ral behavior. Each item is scored in binary (yesno) fashion, with yes the desirable
response in each case. Summary scores for component scales are derived by simply
adding the number of yes scores for items in that scale. Likewise, the Total score
is simply the total number of yes scores for all items.
Competence Development: What Goes Around Comes Around
There is at least some evidence that humans are born with a kind of natural number
sense that enables them to represent numbers in a nonverbal manner from very early
in life, an ability that sets the stage for acquiring later mathematical competencies
(Cordes & Brannon, 2008; Jordan, Kaplan, Ramineini, & Locuniak, 2009; Siegler
& Lortie-Forgues, 2014). Just how far individuals go in developing particular math-
ematical competencies and how fast they get there depends on their experiences
with people and objects through time: what communications they have with others;
what activities they engage in; how experiences involving mathematical ideas con-
nect to ideas about self, motivational tendencies, and other areas of competence
(Wigeld & Eccles, 2001). In effect, development in the area of mathematics is

dynamic, multifaceted, and intrinsically interconnected with other areas of compe-
tence and other aspects of human functioning. Cuhna et al. (2010) describe the
process of skill formation as a self-productivity function. The process includes three
broad components: (1) investments (i.e., various forms of experience), (2) cognitive
skills (i.e., various cognitive processes and domains of achievement), and (3) non-
cognitive skills (i.e., motivational tendencies, self-regulatory competencies, behav-
ioral adjustment). They postulate dynamic interplay within and between three areas
through time. Importantly, they view various forms of investment as acting in com-
plementary ways to promote (or hinder) skill formation. When Cuhna and Heckman
(2008) analyzed data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, a major
component of their investment package were items from the short form of
HOME. Scores in Reading and Math from the Peabody Individual Achievement
Test were their measures of cognitive skills; and component scores from the
Behavior Problems Index (antisocial, hyperactive, peer problems, headstrong) were
used to capture noncognitive skills. Cuhna and Heckman found interrelations
among the various types of parental investments (including HOME items) and the
various components of cognitive and noncognitive skills. They also found that par-
ent investments contributed to both cognitive and noncognitive skills, and they
found that noncognitive skills contributed to cognitive skills (both reading and
math). The strength of relations varied with child age.
As research by Cuhna and Heckman attests, skill development in any domain is an
ongoing process that is interconnected with skill development in other domains.
Moreover, it typically entails investments of multiple types by self and others.
Verication of this argument can be found in several studies. In their study involving
532 children in Germany, Anders and colleagues (2012) reported that the home
numeracy environment signicantly predicted numeracy skills at age three but the
home literacy environment was a stronger predictor. In their study of 89 kindergartners
in the Netherlands, Kleemans and colleagues (2012) found that early literacy skills
and grammatical ability predicted early numeracy skills but home numeracy activities
were an even stronger predictor. LeFevre et al. (2010) found that quantitative knowl-
edge, linguistic skills, and spatial attention represent three independent precursors of
early numeracy skills in a sample of 182 Canadian children ages 4.57.5 years of age
(LeFevre et al., 2010). In another study, LeFevre et al. (2009) reported that informal
home numeracy activities (e.g., cooking, shopping, board and card games) in kinder-
garten had a signicant impact on numeracy skills in the rst and second grade, after
accounting for the inuence of vocabulary, spatial span, and home literacy activities.
Over time, children develop multiple strategies to deal with activities that entail
solving math problems. Gradually, these different encounters lead children to select
among many strategies for solving the particular math problems that confront them,
and they often choose different strategies to deal with different problemsit is a
dynamic, synergistic process that involves making adaptive choices (Siegler, 2000).
In a simple, probabilistic sense, having a diverse variety of experiences increases
the likelihood a child will have the repertoire of choices needed to solve increasingly
complex problems that have some quantitative properties (Bjorklund et al., 2004).
That said, not all experiences are equal when it comes to affording children a
chance to increase numerical understanding. A child confronted by a stack of Legos
may struggle to gure out how to construct a wall or a bridge. The same child might
come to understand block selection and block positioning more quickly if a knowl-
edgeable adult or peer assists in the process. According to Vygotsky (1978), optimal
learning occurs when adults (or peers) offer good tting structures, thoughtful sug-
gestions, and tailored responses to a childs efforts in a given situation (in effect, they
are operating in the childs zone of proximal development). The more objects avail-
able to a child, the more activities a child experiences, the more time adults spend
assisting a child, the more often a child is likely to be in a zone of proximal develop-
ment. More particularly, the greater the diversity of a childs experiences and the
more often the experiences occur in a setting that includes supportive adults, the
more likely a child will learn strategies that can be applied to future math problems
and math problems that have greater complexity (Bjorklund et al., 2004). Dieterich,
Assel, Swank, Smith, and Landry (2006) found that maternal verbal scaffolding (the
careful alignment of maternal speech to child language and behavior) during routine
daily activities with their 3- and 4-year-olds led to higher decoding skills at age 8 and
better reading comprehension at age 10. Given the often-observed connection
between language and math competence during early and middle childhood, there is
a likely analog for parental scaffolding of math competence. Indeed, Bjorklund and
colleagues observed similar types of connections between parental efforts to assist
children during board games and childrens use of problem-solving strategies during
the gamesalbeit, their study did not look at childrens scores on math achievement
tests later on. Moreover, Kleemans, Peeters, Segers, and Verhoevan (2012) found a
relation between grammatical ability and early numeracy skills, which they inter-
preted as indicating that both were constrained by a universal grammar and utilized
the same principle of recursion. That is, linguistic ideas or quantitative ideas (other
types of ideas and models as well) embedded within the same or similar structures
are repeated so that they gradually lead to higher order, more complex ideas or con-
structions. In the study by Kleemans and colleagues, grammatical ability, early lit-
eracy skills, and early numeracy skills were also related to working memory.
There is no theory pertaining to numerical understanding that suggests it is a
simple derivative of a certain set of formal experiences with numbers (Siegler &
Ramani, 2008). Rather, research suggests that numerical understanding is a complex
derivative of a diverse set of experiences, many of which do not have quantitative
reasoning as their primary focus. Many of these experiences lead to simultaneous
development in other areas of competence and connect to broader motivational dis-
positions (Kleemans et al., 2012). Rogoff (1990) posited that through time children
engage in an apprenticeship of thinking as a consequence of their experiences with
adults and more competent peers. In effect, they learn broad approaches to problem
solving (i.e., making adaptive choices), ones that can lead to productive choices in
areas quite distinct from those they have previously experienced. Helping or watch-
ing mom fold, sort, stack, and arrange socks and underwear in a dresser drawer
could well lead to numerical understanding that applies to a quite different
circumstance even if mom makes little comment about the what things look like or
why she places things where she does. Skwarchuk, Sowinski, and LeFevre (2014)
referred to such experiences as informal home learning activities. Slowly, particular
types of numerical knowledge consolidate, as do intuitions about how numbers and
numeric operations might function in various real-world situations. That is not to say
that objects, events, and encounters that have math as an inherent component (what
is sometimes called the numeracy learning environment) are not useful in promoting
math competence (Siegler & Lortie-Forgues, 2014), only that experiences that are
not primarily concerned with math are as well. Some of the latter are only indirectly
connected to math competence through their impact on other skills and proclivities
that seem to support development of mathematical reasoning. The HOME captures
some of the former and some of the latter experiences. In the sections that follow, we
review what is known about its relation to achievement in math and its relation to
other skills and proclivities that are associated with numerical understanding.
Relations with Achievement in Math
Because HOME was designed with the goal that it could document experiences that
inuenced childrens development, we have frequently examined relations between
HOME scores and measures of childrens competence, including performance on
measures of math prociency. Bradley and Caldwell (1984a, 1984b) found that
24-month HOME scores predicted rst-grade math achievement test scores. Four of
the six domains from the InfantToddler HOME were signicant predictors; the
other two were marginal. Scores on the Early Childhood version of HOME were also
strong predictors of math achievement in the primary grades (Bradley, Caldwell,
Rock, & Harris, 1986). Signicant associations were observed for ve of the eight
HOME domains. Interestingly, one of the domains that did not predict math achieve-
ment was Stimulation of Academic Behavior. To some degree this set of ndings
corresponds to ndings by others showing that developing competence in math is
less a function of spending time in math lessons than it is a function of involve-
ment in a broader set of activities that support thinking and interest in learning
(DeFlorio & Beliakoff, 2015; LeFevre et al., 2009). On the other hand, the lack of
association between Stimulation of Academic Behavior and child performance on
math achievement tests may reect that there were only ve indicators included in
Stimulation of Academic Behavior and those cover a very diverse array of formal
activities (e.g., teaching children to recognize words, number concepts, spatial rela-
tions, colors). Skwarkchuk and colleagues (2014) suggest that one may observe rela-
tions between parental efforts to teach particular concepts (quantitative or linguistic)
and child measures of math and reading competence only when there is a reasonably
tight connection between the things taught and the things measured. Interestingly, in
their study of Greek kindergartners, Mansolitsis, Georgiou, and Tzirakik (2013)
found that parents teaching of literacy skills was as strongly correlated with math
competence as was parents teaching of math skills; but in that study both the literacy
and the numeracy environment were assessed using a few items that varied
considerably in content. As it happens there was a strong correlation between the

teaching of literacy skills and the teaching of math skills, suggesting that most par-
ents adopt an overall teaching strategy that includes focus on multiple types of skills
and that fosters multiple areas of competence. A somewhat similar pattern emerged
when the Middle Childhood HOME was administered during the primary grades.
Six of the eight domains captured by MC-HOME were signicantly correlated with
math achievement (Bradley, Caldwell, Rock, Hamrick, & Harris, 1988). Across the
three studies (using three different age-based versions of HOME), having access to
toys and learning materials, the active involvement of family members with children
in learning opportunities, and exposing children to a variety of out-of-home enrich-
ment were connected to math achievement. Socioemotional support from parents
was also connected with math achievement, but not as consistently.
Other researchers have also used HOME to examine relations between childrens
experiences at home and their achievement in mathematics. Siegel (1984) found that
5 of 8 item clusters from the Early Childhood HOME (especially Modeling of Social
Maturity and Variety of Stimulation) were correlated with the Quantitative subscale
from the McCarthy Scales of Childrens Abilities at age 5. Dilworth-Bart (2012)
found that when families had higher scores on the Early Childhood HOME, their
children scored higher on the Applied Problems section of the WoodcockJohnson
Test of Achievement. Crosnoe and colleagues (2010) used data from the NICHD
Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development, including the Early Childhood
HOME, to more fully characterize how family socioeconomic status is implicated in
childrens achievement. They constructed a home stimulation factor composed of
items from the Learning Materials, Academic Stimulation, and Variety domains.
This composite was strongly associated with childrens performance in math in rst
grade. Downer and Pianta (2006) also used the NICHD SECCYD data to examine
rst-grade achievement. Specically, they created a composite of InfantToddler and
Early Childhood HOME scores based on data at 6, 15, 36, and 54 months. This com-
posite predicted rst-grade achievement. However, when they used 54-month child
scores on achievement and social skills as controls, those fully mediated the relation
with rst-grade achievement. Among the more elaborate studies of relations between
HOME scores and math competence was a study conducted by Gottfried and
Gottfried (1984). They used the InfantToddler HOME when children were
15 months old and the Early Childhood HOME when children were 39 months old.
Children were given the McCarthy Scales of Children Abilities and the Test of Early
Language Development (TELD) when they were 42 months old. Scores on the
Variety items from the InfantToddler HOME were signicantly correlated with the
Quantitative score from the McCarthy Scales as were scores from 7 of 8 domains
from the Early Childhood HOME. Interestingly, scores on both the InfantToddler
and the Early Childhood HOME were also correlated with the verbal, perceptual, and
memory scales from the McCarthy and scores on the TELD. Dearing et al. (2012)
used items from three domains of the Middle Childhood HOME (Learning Materials,
Enrichment, and Family Companionship) when they studied rst graders. This com-
posite was related to childrens performance in math via childrens involvement in
math activities (some joint with parents and some independent); more specically,
involvement in math activities partially mediated the relation. Jimerson, Egeland,

and Teo (1999) approached the study of math achievement differently. In their study
HOME scores during rst grade were associated with upward deections of math
trajectories from rst to sixth grade among high-risk children.
During the mid-1980s short forms of the HOME were constructed so that they
could be implemented as part of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. The
short form of HOME was also included as part of the Panel Study of Income
Dynamics, the New Immigrant Study, and the Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood
Study. The items are broadly clustered into two domains (stimulation, socioemo-
tional support). Dubow and Ippolito (1994) found that the total HOME short-form
score was related to scores on the Peabody Individual Assessment Test Math section
during the elementary grades of school. Likewise, Crane (1996) found that scores
on the two composites were related to PIAT math for children during the primary
grades. Bradley and colleagues (2001) found that sets of items labeled stimulation
and parental responsiveness were related to PIAT math through age 13 (see also
Goosby & Cheadle, 2009). Yeung and Conley (2008) used data from the Panel
Study of Income Dynamics in an effort to clarify how low family wealth contributed
to poor academic performance in elementary school students. They found that items
that captured stimulation at home and parental warmth from the HOME short form
mediated relations between family SES and child performance in Broad Math from
the WoodcockJohnson Achievement Test.
The consistent nding that high scores on HOME, particularly scores on
domains that encompass access to learning materials, engaging in enriching activi-
ties, and providing a variety of stimulation are associated with greater math com-
petence nds analogs in studies that use other measures of parenting and the home
learning environment. For example, Stylianides and Stylianides (2011) found when
parents displayed high levels of involvement with preschoolers (read to them, told
them stories, built things with them, played games with them, played sports with
them, taught them about nature) children scored higher in math during kindergar-
ten. In a very large study conducted in England, Melhuish and colleagues (2008)
found that childrens engagement in certain types of activities at home (playing
with friends, visiting relatives, going shopping, watching TV, eating meals with
family, having a regular bedtime routine) was not related to math achievement at
age 5; whereas engagement in other types of activities at home was (reading with
parents, playing with numbers, painting and drawing, being taught letters, being
taught numbers, engagement in songs and rhymes). These ndings stand a bit in
contrast to ndings by Begum (2007). Specically, Begum found that spending
time with parents in activities such as reading, singing, doing art, playing sports,
building things was less consequential than having resources such as books and
computers and taking advantage of community resources such as libraries, con-
certs, and museums. Espinosa and colleagues (2006) also found that having books
and computers available contributed to math achievement. Interestingly, watching
media (even Sesame Street) was a negative factor, perhaps because watching TV
does not consistently entail authentic engagement in learning and actually distracts
children from such authentic engagement (Huston, Wright, Marquis, & Green,
1999). Although the ndings from these studies are not fully consistent, they point
to having access to learning materials and engagement in activities that both afford
relatively straightforward opportunities to learn concepts and encourage interest in
learning as being important.
Other researchers have used reasonably broad-based measures of the home
learning environment as a means of trying to determine how experiences at home
are implicated in the development of math skills. For example, Anders et al. (2012)
used items from HOME and the Family Rating Scale to construct two 10-items
indices (home literacy environment, home numeracy environment) in a study of
early numeracy skills in Germany. Both indices independently predicted numeracy
skills (albeit the two measures were correlated 0.62). Baker (2015) used a 10-item
home learning environment measure developed for the Early Childhood Longitudinal
Study and found it predicted math achievement scores for kindergartners.
In sum, there is a long history of research showing relations between scores on
the HOME Inventory (and like measures) and math skills. The studies include very
diverse populations from multiple countries. Critically, these studies show that there
are relations between diverse aspects of childrens early home experience and their
later performance in math. The studies also show that these relations are connected
to the development of other cognitive and noncognitive skills and that the relations
begin to emerge within the rst 3 years of life. Critically, the ndings tend to show
that the direct teaching of math skills is not all that matters. Activities focused on the
development of language skills and general approaches to problem solving also
seem to matter, as does exposure to a diverse array of objects and potentially enrich-
ing settings outside of the home itself.
Relations with Competence in Other Domains
There are broad arguments about competence development (Cuhna & Heckman,
2008) and somewhat narrower arguments regarding development of numeracy skills
(Siegler, 2000) that point to the interconnection between numeracy skills and other
cognitive skills. Passolunghi and Lanfranchi (2012) made the point that there are
both domain-specic and domain-general precursors of math achievement. In their
study they found evidence of connections between numerical competence and a
number of different language and cognitive processing skills during kindergarten
and rst grade (e.g., vocabulary, cognitive processing speed, working memory).
Others have found connections between mathematical processing skills and cogni-
tive skills such as working memory, spatial ability, executive functioning, and verbal
knowledge (Purpura, Hume, Sims, & Lonigan, 2011; Szucs et al., 2014). Thus, there
is good reason to believe that when experiences in the home environment support the
development of language, memory, and meta-cognitive processes, there will often be
spillover into numerical reasoning as well. To this point, Dilworth-Bart (2012) found
that verbal ability mediated the relation between Early Childhood HOME scores and
math achievement. HOME was also positively related to executive functioning but
EF did not serve as a mediator. In the remainder of this section, we provide a review
of research on HOMEs relation to other cognitive skills in young children.
Language and Verbal Skills. Over the past 40 years there have been numerous studies
of relations between HOME scores and measures of childrens language and reading
skills. Elardo, Bradley, and Caldwell (1977) found signicant relations between
scores on the InfantToddler HOME and childrens scores on the Illinois Test of
Psycholinguistic Abilities at age three. Others have also found signicant relations
between HOME scores and language competence during the rst 3 years of life (Bee
et al., 1982; Bono, Dinehart, Dobbins, & Claussen, 2008; Chapin & Altenhofen, 2010;
Molfese, Holcomb, & Helwig, 1994; NICHD Early Childcare Research Network,
2002; Oxford & Spieker, 2006; Stein et al., 2008; Wu, Bradley, & Chiang, 2011).
Similar relations were obtained for children throughout early and middle childhood
(Bradley & Caldwell, 1984a, 1984b; Duhan & Punia, 1998; Fuligni, Han, & Brooks-
Gunn, 2004; Jackson & Roberts, 2001; Lewis et al., 2011; Molfese, DiLalla, &
Lovelace, 1996; Paxon & Schady, 2007; Pinto, Pessanha, & Aguiar, 2013; Siegel,
1979; Son & Morrison, 2010; Terrisse, Roberts, Palacio-Quintin, & MacDonald,
1998). In overview, research done on a wide diversity of families in the US and
throughout the world shows a consistent link between HOME scores (particularly
scores in areas that deal with access to learning materials, involvement in out-of-home
enriching activities, and direct efforts by parents to foster competence) and childrens
performance on language measures and measures of reading achievement.
Cognitive Processes in Infants. There have been a number of studies showing relations
between HOME scores and childrens performance on the Bayley Scale of Mental
Development during the rst 2 years of life (Andrade et al., 2005; Bradley et al., 1989;
Bradley & Caldwell, 1984a, 1984b; Brooks-Gunn, Han, & Waldfogel, 2002; Laude,
1999; Liaw & Brooks-Gunn, 1993; Lugo-Gil & Tamis-LeMonda, 2008; Messinger
et al., 2004; Peairson, Austin, de Aquino, & de Burr, 2008; Sloan, Stewart, & Dunne,
2010; Weisglas-Kruperus, Baerts, Smrkovsky, & Sauer, 1993), including studies that
employed genetically sensitive designs (DeFries, Plomin, Vandenberg, & Kuse,
1981). Such ndings are revealing about how childrens experiences at home are
implicated in the development of math skills; specically, scores on the Bayley in the
rst 2 years of life tend to show moderate correlations with math achievement during
the early grades of school (Bradley & Caldwell, 1984a, 1984b; Tucker-Drob, 2012).
Cognitive Processes During Early and Middle Childhood. The pattern of connec-
tions between scores on HOME and cognitive skills observed during infancy
appears to continue into later childhood (Bellinger, Leviton, & Sloman, 1990; Coon,
Fulker, DeFries, & Plomin, 1990; Lozoff, Jimenez, Hagen, Mollen, & Wolf, 2000;
Molfese et al., 1996). Bennett, Bendersky, and Lewis (2008) observed a signicant
relation between scores on the Early Childhood HOME and both quantitative rea-
soning and short-term memory at age four. In their elaborate investigation of gesta-
tional exposure to cocaine, Hurt and colleagues (2009) administered a lengthy
battery of neurocognitive tests (cognitive control, working memory, reward pro-
cessing, language, memory, spatial cognition, visual cognition) to children at age
eight. As part of their longitudinal investigation, families were administered the
Early Childhood version of HOME when children were 4 years old and the Middle
Childhood version of HOME when children were 8 years old. They created two
home environment composites based on HOME items from the two assessment
points (environmental stimulation and parental nurturance) as well as an overall
neurocognitive composite. In a model that included controls for child characteris-
tics at birth, maternal characteristics at the childs birth and concurrent when chil-
dren were age 8, in utero cocaine exposure of the child, and foster care placement,
the environmental stimulation composite from HOME signicantly predicted neu-
rocognitive functioning. Important in this regard is the overlap between the neuro-
cognitive processes examined in this study and the neurocognitive processes found
related to mathematical processing in the study by Szucs et al. (2014). In a related
investigation of the sample used by Hurt and colleagues, Farah and colleagues
(2008) found that the parental nurturance composite was associated with memory
function whereas the environmental stimulation composite was associated with lan-
guage function. In the Port Pirie (Australia) study, children were followed prospec-
tively from birth to age 13. Analyses showed that fathers occupational status,
maternal IQ, and the home environment were each independently predictive of chil-
drens cognitive development (Tong, Baghurst, Vimpani, & McMichael, 2007).
Burden and colleagues (Burden, Jacobson, & Jacobson, 2005; Burden, Jacobson,
Sokol, & Jacobson, 2005) found that the total score from the Middle Childhood
HOME was related to processing speed and memory in 7- and 8-year-olds. Sarsour
et al. (2011) found that Middle Childhood HOME scores were signicantly related
to inhibitory control, working memory, and cognitive exibility. The strongest rela-
tions were with the Enrichment items, but signicant relations were also observed
for Learning Materials and Opportunities, Family Companionship, and other item
groupings as well. Interestingly, Parental Responsivity was quite strongly corre-
lated with performance on the inhibitory control measure. Richardson, Ryan,
Willford, Day, and Goldschmidt (2002) observed a correlation between the HOME
short form and memory functioning in 10-year-olds. In another study done in mid-
dle childhood, Kurtz, Borkowski, and Deshmukh (1988) found a signicant relation
between the HOME total score and metamemory for children in India.
Relations with Learning Motivation
According to the theory of skill formation promulgated by Cuhna and Heckman

(2008), there is dynamic interplay between cognitive and noncognitive skills through-
out childhood with higher levels of skill in one area at one point in life lead to higher
levels of skill in the other area at a later point. Noncognitive skills as conceptualized
by Cuhna and Heckman roughly equate to emotional or motivational tendencies as
typically used by educators and behavioral scientists. Importantly, for the purposes of
this chapter, both types of skills are amenable to environmental inuence. Studies by
Cuhna and colleagues (Cuhna et al., 2010; Cuhna & Heckman, 2008) using data from
the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth and Coneus, Laucht, and Reub (2010)
using data from the Mannheim Study of Children at Risk show that childrens home
environments (both studies used the HOME) inuence both cognitive and
noncognitive skills (essentially persistence and activity) from birth to middle child-
hood, with the levels of inuence on cognitive skills decreasing after early child-
hood. Smith (1993) also found signicant relations between HOME total score and
persistence in 18-month-olds; and Wang, Hwang, Liao, Chen, and Hsieh (2011)
found relations between HOME and persistence in 2- and 3-year-olds from Taiwan.
Perhaps the most directly relevant study of how experiences in the home envi-
ronment relate to childrens interest in math was the Fullerton Longitudinal Study
(Gottfried, Fleming, & Gottfried, 1998). As part of that study the Middle Childhood
HOME was administered when children were age 8. In the same study, measures of
academic intrinsic motivation (both verbal and math) were administered at ages 9,
10, and 13. HOME, in combination with two other measures of the family environ-
ment, at age 8 predicted both general verbal motivation and math motivation at all
three assessment points. Prior analysis of data using the same sample showed that
academic intrinsic motivation was strongly related to academic achievement
(Gottfried, Fleming, & Gottfried, 1994). In effect, it appears that the kinds of stimu-
lation and support parents provide to children generally helps encourage interest in
math and ultimately increases prociency in math. That said, it is important to keep
in mind that parentchild interaction is a two-way street. As Lukie, Skwarchuk,
LeFevre, and Sowinski (2014) found, parents are more likely to provide children
experiences that stimulate learning if the children show interest in such activities.
Three Models from NICHD_SECCYD
Using the NICHD-SECCTYD data, we investigated the inuence of vocabulary

attainment, HOME Enrichment, and HOME Learning Materials at 15 months on
the Bracken numbers scale at 36 months. Only HOME Enrichment had a direct
effect on Bracken scores; but all three predictors had an indirect effect through the
Bayley Scale at 24 months (Fig. 3.1).
The second model focused on the period from 36 to 54 months. Specically we
investigated the inuence of Reynell Verbal Comprehension, HOME Learning
Materials, and HOME Academic Stimulation at 36 months on the Woodcock
Johnson Applied Problems scale at 54 months. Items included in the Academic
Stimulation component capture parental efforts to teach key school readiness skills
(e.g., numbers, shapes, colors, letters, spatial ideas). Verbal Comprehension showed
a strong direct effect as well as an indirect effect through sustained attention at
54 months. HOME Learning Materials had a moderate direct inuence on Applied
Problems but no indirect effect. Again, HOME Academic Stimulation was not
related to Applied Problems (Fig. 3.2).
Our third model was similar to the second model; however, the outcome (WJ
Applied Problems) was in the rst grade and the earliest predictors were at 54 months.
We found similar results with Reynell Verbal Comprehension having a stronger
direct inuence as well as indirect effects through literacy and math thinking in
kindergarten. Again, HOME Learning Materials and not HOME Academic
Fig. 3.1 Relations between home environment at 15 months and math skills at 36 months
Fig. 3.2 Relations between home environment at 36 months and math skills at 54 months
Fig. 3.3 Relations between home environment at 54 months and math skills in rst grade
Stimulation had an inuence on Applied Problems in the rst grade. This time, how-
ever, HOME Learning Materials had indirect inuences through literacy and math
thinking in kindergarten (Fig. 3.3).
What conclusions can one draw from these three sets of ndings? First, they sug-
gest that the inuence of some aspects of home life on math skills may depend on
when children are exposed to them. For example, having a diverse array of toys and
learning materials in infancy may be less critical than having a diverse array of
materials in early childhood (i.e., after children are more autonomous). Second, the
ndings suggest (as have prior ndings) that some of the connections between expe-
riences at home and math skills are connected to language skills. Third, the ndings
suggest that parental efforts to encourage learning of simple preacademic knowl-
edge (e.g., colors, shapes, size, word recognition) may not be all that instrumental
in promoting math skills long term. It is important to state, however, that the
Academic Stimulation items from HOME do not attempt to distinguish between
rather minimal efforts to foster such concepts and more intensive efforts to do so.
The latter may well have some inuence on math skills. Finally, the ndings suggest
(as theory stipulates) that there are multiple pathways of inuencepathways that
need further attention by scholars.
Epilogue
There is limited information on how preschool children spend their time on a daily
basis. What there is suggests that in most homes very little time is spent in math
lessons or even play activities where math concepts are a clear focus of the activity
(Tudge & Doucet, 2004). Indeed, studies consistently nd that literacy skills are
taught more often in the homes of young children than numeracy skills (Anders
et al., 2012; Blevins-Knabe, Austin, Musun-Miller, Eddy, & Jones, 2000; Cannon &
Ginsburg, 2008; LeFevre et al., 2009; Musun-Miller & Blevins-Knabe, 1998; Tudge
& Doucet, 2004). That said, the broader literature indicates that what children expe-
rience as part of their home life matters in all areas of achievement, including math
(Bradley & Corwyn, 2002). Research on the HOME Inventory (and other measures
of home experiences) reviewed in this chapter suggest that access to learning mate-
rials at home, childrens involvement in enriching experiences with parents, and
parental efforts to directly stimulate and encourage children have an impact on math
achievement and on the development of various competencies and proclivities that
are related to math achievement from infancy onward. These studies on the broader
affordances of the home environment are consistent with studies of center-based
childcare/preschool (where there is formal attention to inculcating academic con-
cepts and to providing materials and enriching experiences for children). Specically,
studies of center-based child care show long-term impacts on math achievement for
children from low-SES families (i.e., families less likely to provide the kinds of
experiences captured by HOME) (Laurin et al., 2015).
These broad relations granted, much remains undocumented as regards how
much of what types of experience at what points in a childs life are needed for
children to show high levels of performance in math. The studies reviewed do not
make clear what constitutes the optimal learning environment for math for children
of different ages, much less what it should consist of 20 or 100 years from now. The
studies reviewed examined relations between environmental factors and individual
differences in math achievement within the range of numerical competence mani-
fest by most children today. What the studies do not show is what it takes to reach
truly high levels of prociency in math, an issue that is important given that most
students do not reach high levels of prociency (DeSilver, 2015). We have entered
an era of big data where workers and citizens generally need the ability to analyze
and make use of data for many purposes. It is critical that future research provides
more precise clues as to what it takes from families and professional educators to
help children attain enough prociency in math to do well in a highly technologi-
cal world where data are ubiquitous.
References
Altman, R. (1977). Privacy regulation: Culturally universal or culturally specic? Journal of

Social Issues, 33, 6684. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1977.tb01883.x.
Anders, Y., Rossbach, H.-G., Weinert, S., Kuger, S., Lehrl, S., & von Maurice, J. (2012). Home and
preschool learning environments and their relations to the development of early numeracy
skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27, 231244. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.08.003.
Andrade, S. A., Santos, D. N., Bastos, A. C., Pedromonico, M. R. M., de Almeida-Filho, N., &
Barreto, M. L. (2005). Family environment and childs cognitive development: An epidemio-
logical approach. Revista de Sade Pblica, 39, 606611.
Baker, C. E. (2015). Does parent involvement and neighborhood quality matter for African
American boys kindergarten achievement? Early Education and Development, 26, 342355.
doi:10.1080/10409289.2015.968238.
Bee, H. L., Barnard, K. E., Eyres, S. J., Gray, C. A., Hammond, M. A., Spietz, A. L., Snyder, C.
(1982). Prediction of IQ and language skill from perinatal status, child performance, family
characteristics, and mother-infant interaction. Child Development, 53, 11341156.
Begum, N. N. (2007). Effect of parent involvement on math and reading achievement of young
children: Evidence from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. Dissertation. Indiana
University of Pennsylvania
Bellinger, D., Leviton, A., & Sloman, J. (1990). Antecedents and correlates of improved cognitive
performance in children exposed in utero to low levels of lead. Environmental Health
Perspective, 89, 511.
Bennett, D. S., Bendersky, M., & Lewis, M. (2008). Childrens cognitive ability from 4 to 9 years
old as a function of prenatal cocaine exposure, environmental risk, and maternal verbal intel-
ligence. Developmental Psychology, 44, 919928.
Bjorklund, D. F., Hubert, M. J., & Reubens, A. C. (2004). Young childrens arithmetic strategies in
social context: How parents contribute to childrens strategy development while playing games.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28, 347357. doi:10.1080/01650250444000027.
Blevins-Knabe, B., Austin, A. B., Musun-Miller, L., Eddy, A., & Jones, R. M. (2000). Family
home care providers and parents beliefs and practices concerning mathematics with young
children. Early Child Development and Care, 165, 4158. doi:10.1080/0300443001650104.
Bloom, B. S. (1964). Stability and change in human characteristics. New York, NY: Wiley.
Bono, K. E., Dinehart, L. H. B., Dobbins, D. R., & Claussen, A. H. (2008). Effects of the proximal
home environment on language and behavioral outcomes in children prenatally exposed to
cocaine. Early Child Development and Care, 178, 551568.
Bradley, R. H. (2012). The HOME inventory. In L. C. Mayes & M. Lewis (Eds.), A developmental
environment measurement handbook (pp. 568589). New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2002). SES and child development. Annual Review of Psychology,
53, 371399.
Bradley, R. H., & Caldwell, B. M. (1984a). 174 Children: A study of the relationship between
home environment and cognitive development during the rst 5 years. In A. W. Gottfried (Ed.),
Home environment and early cognitive development: Longitudinal research (pp. 556).
Orlando, FL: Academic.
Bradley, R. H., & Caldwell, B. M. (1984b). The relation of infants home environments to
achievement test performance in rst grade: A follow-up study. Child Development, 55,
803809.
Bradley, R. H., Caldwell, B. M., Rock, S. L., Hamrick, H. M., & Harris, P. (1988). Home observa-
tion for measurement of the environment: Development of a home inventory for use with fami-
lies having children 6 to 10 years old. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13, 5871.
Bradley, R. H., Caldwell, B. M., Rock, S. L., Ramey, C. T., Barnard, K. E., Gray, C., Johnson,
D. L. (1989). Home environment and cognitive development in the rst 3 years of life: A col-
laborative study involving six sites and three ethnic groups in North America. Developmental
Psychology, 25(2), 217235.
Bradley, R. H., Caldwell, B. M., Rock, S. L., & Harris, P. T. (1986). Early home environment and
the development of competence: Findings from the Little Rock longitudinal study. Childrens
Environments Quarterly, 3, 1022.
Bradley, R. H., Corwyn, R. F., Burchinal, M., McAdoo, H. P., & Coll, C. G. (2001). The home
environments of children in the United States Part II: Relations with behavioral development
through age 13. Child Development, 72, 18681886.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1995). The bioecological model from a life course perspective: Reections
from a participant observer. In P. Moen, G. H. Elder, & K. Luscher (Eds.), Examining lives in
context (pp. 619647). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Brooks-Gunn, J., Han, W., & Waldfogel, J. (2002). Maternal employment and child cognitive out-
comes in the rst three years of life: The NICHD Study of Early Child Care. Child Development,
73(4), 10521072.
Burden, M. J., Jacobson, S. W., Sokol, R. J., & Jacobson, J. L. (2005). Effects of prenatal alcohol
exposure on attention and working memory at 7.5 years of age. Alcoholism, Clinical and
Experimental Research, 29, 443452. doi:10.1097/01.ALC.0000156125.50577.EC.
Burden, M. J., Jacobson, S. W., & Jacobson, J. L. (2005). Relation of prenatal alcohol exposure to
cognitive processing speed and efciency in childhood. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental
Research, 29, 14731483. doi:10.1097/01.alc.0000175036.34076.a0.
Caldwell, B. M., & Bradley, R. H. (2003). Home observation for measurement of the environment:
Administration manual. Tempe, AZ: Family & Human Dynamics Research Institute.
Cannon, J., & Ginsburg, H. P. (2008). Doing Math: Maternal beliefs about early mathematics
versus language learning. Early Education and Development, 19, 238260.
doi:10.1080/10409280801963913.
Chapin, L. A., & Altenhofen, S. (2010). Neurocognitive perspectives in language outcomes of
Early Head Start: Language and cognitive stimulation and maternal depression. Infant Mental
Health Journal, 31, 486498. doi:10.1002/imhj.20268.
Coneus, K., Laucht, M., & Reub, K. (2010). The role of parental investments for cognitive and
noncognitive skill formation: Evidence for the first 11 year of life. ZEW Discussion Papers, No.
10-028. Retrieved from http://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/32784/1/625719212.pdf.
Coon, H., Fulker, D. W., DeFries, J. C., & Plomin, R. (1990). Home environment and cognitive
ability of 7-year-old children in the Colorado Adoption Project: Genetic and environment eti-
ologies. Developmental Psychology, 26, 459468.
Cordes, S., & Brannon, E. M. (2008). Quantitative competencies in infancy. Developmental
Science, 11, 803808. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00770.x.
Crane, J. (1996). Effects of home environment, SES, and maternal test scores on mathematics
achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 89, 305314.
Crosnoe, R., Leventhal, T., Wirth, R. J., Pierce, K. M., Pianta, R. C., & NICHD Early Child Care
Research Network. (2010). Family socioeconomic status and consistent environmental stimu-
lation in early childhood. Child Development, 81, 972987.
Cuhna, F., & Heckman, J. J. (2008). Formulating, identifying and estimating the technology of
cognitive and non-cognitive skill. Journal of Human Resources, 43, 738784.
Cuhna, F., Heckman, J. J., & Schennach, S. M. (2010). Estimating the technology of cognitive and
non-cognitive skill formation. Econometrica, 78, 883931. doi:10.3982/ECTA6551.
Dearing, E., Casey, B., Ganley, C., Tillinger, M., Laski, E., & Montecillo, C. (2012). Young girls
arithmetic and spatial skills: The distal and proximal roles of family socioeconomics and home
learning experiences. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27, 458470. doi:10.1016/j.
ecresq.2012.01.002.
Development, 26, 319341. doi:10.1080/10409289.2015.968239.
DeFries, J. C., Plomin, R., Vandenberg, S. G., & Kuse, A. R. (1981). Parent-offspring resemblance
for cognitive abilities in the Colorado Adoption Project: Biological, adoptive, and control par-
ents and one-year old children. Intelligence, 5, 245277.
DeSilver, D. (2015, February). U.S. students improving Slowly In math and science, but still
lagging internationally. Pew Research Center, FACT-TANK. Retrieved from http://www.
pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/02/02/u-s-students-improving-slowly-in-math-and-science-
but-still-lagging-internationally/.
Dieterich, S., Assel, M. A., Swank, P., Smith, K. E., & Landry, S. (2006). The impact of early
maternal verbal scaffolding and child language abilities on later decoding and reading compre-
hension skills. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 481494.
Dilworth-Bart, J. E. (2012). Does executive function mediate SES and home quality associations
with academic readiness? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27, 416425. doi:10.1016/j.
ecresq.2012.02.002.
Downer, J., & Pianta, R. (2006). Academic and cognitive functioning in rst grade: Associations
with earlier home and child care predictors and with concurrent home and classroom experi-
ences. School Psychology Review, 35, 1130.
Dubow, E. F., & Ippolito, M. F. (1994). Effects of poverty and quality of the home environment on
changes in the academic and behavioral adjustment of elementary school-age children. Journal
of Clinical Child Psychology, 23, 401412.
Duhan, K., & Punia, S. (1998). Home environment as predictor of language development. Psycho-
Lingua, 28(1), 4548.
Dweck, C. (2007). Is math a gift? Beliefs that put females at risk. In S. Ceci & W. Williams (Eds.),
Why arent more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Elardo, R., Bradley, R. H., & Caldwell, B. M. (1977). A longitudinal study of the relation of
infants home environments to language development at age three. Child Development, 48,
595603.
Espinosa, L. M., Laffey, J., Whittaker, T., & Sheng, Y. (2006). Technology in the home and
achievement of young children: Findings form the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. Early
Education and Development, 17, 421441. doi:10.1207/s15566935eed1703_5.
Farah, M. J., Betancourt, L., Shera, D. M., Savage, J. H., Giannetta, J. M., Brodskky, N. L.,
Hurt, H. (2008). Environmental stimulation, parental nurturance and cognitive development in
humans. Developmental Science, 11, 793801. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7987.2008.00688.x.
Ford, D. H., & Lerner, R. M. (1992). Developmental systems theory, an integrative approach.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Fuligni, A. S., Han, W. J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2004). The Infant-Toddler HOME in the 2nd and
3rd Years of Life. Parenting: Science and Practice, 4, 139159.
Goosby, B. J., & Cheadle, J. E. (2009). Birth weight, math and reading achievement growth:
A multilevel between-sibling between-families approach. Social Forces, 87, 12911320.
Gottfried, A. E., Fleming, J. S., & Gottfried, A. W. (1994). Role of parental motivational practices
in childrens academic intrinsic motivation and achievement. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 86, 104113.
Gottfried, A. E., Fleming, J. S., & Gottfried, A. W. (1998). Role of the cognitively stimulating
home environment in childrens academic intrinsic motivation: A longitudinal study. Child
Development, 69, 14481460.
Gottfried, A. W., & Gottfried, A. E. (1984). Home environment and cognitive development in
young children of middle-socioeconomic status families. In A. W. Gottfried (Ed.), Home envi-
ronment and early cognitive development: Longitudinal research (pp. 57116). Orlando, FL:
Academic.
Gunderson, E. A., Gripshover, S. J., Romero, C., Dweck, C., Goldin-Meadow, S., & Levine, S.
(2013). Parent praise to 1- to 3-year olds predicts childrens motivational frameworks 5 years
later. Child Development, 84, 15261541. doi:10.1111/cdev.12064.
Holland, J. H. (1992). Complex adaptive systems. Daedalus, 121, 1730.
Hunt. J. M. (1961). Intelligence and experience. New York: Ronald.
Hurt, H., Betancourt, L. M., Malmud, E. K., Shera, D. M., Giannetta, J. M., Brodsky, N. L., &
Farah, M. J. (2009). Children with and without gestational cocaine exposure: A neurocognitive
systems analysis. Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 31, 334341.
Huston, A. C., Wright, J. C., Marquis, J., & Green, S. B. (1999). How young children spend their
time: Television and other activities. Developmental Psychology, 35, 912925.
Jackson, S. C., & Roberts, J. E. (2001). Complex syntax production of African American pre-
schoolers. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 44, 10831096.
Jimerson, S., Egeland, B., & Teo, A. (1999). A longitudinal study of achievement trajectories:
Factors associated with change. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 116126.
Jordan, N. C., Kaplan, D., Ramineini, C., & Locuniak, M. N. (2009). Early math matters:
Kindergarten number competence and later mathematics outcomes. Developmental Psychology,
45, 850867. doi:10.1037/a0014939.
Kleemans, J., Peeters, M., Segers, E., & Verhoevan, L. (2012). Child and home predictors of early
numeracy skills in kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27, 471477.
doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.12.004.
Kurtz, B. E., Borkowski, J. G., & Deshmukh, K. (1988). Metamemory and learning in Maharashtrian
children: Inuences from home and school. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 149(3), 363376.
Laude, M. (1999). Assessment of nutritional status, cognitive development, and mother-child
interaction in Central American refugee children. Pan American Journal of Public Health, 6,
164171.
Laurin, J., Geoffroy, M.-C., Boivin, M., Japel, C., Tremblay, R., & Cote, S. (2015). Child care
services reduce socioeconomic inequalities in academic performance up to adolescence.
Pediatrics, 136, 1112.
Lawrence, D. L., & Low, S. M. (1990). The built environment in spatial form. Annual Review of
Anthropology, 19, 453505.
LeFevre, J., Skwarchuk, S., Smith-Chant, B. L., Fast, L., Kamawar, D., & Bisanz, J. (2009). Home
numeracy experiences and childrens math performance in the early school years. Canadian
Journal of Behavioural Science, 41, 5566.
LeFevre, J-A., Skwarchuk, S-L., Smith-Chant, B., Fast, L., Bisanz, J., Kamawar, D., & Penner-
Wilger, M. (2010). Pathways to mathematics: Longitudinal predictors of performance. Child
Lewis, B. A., Minnes, S., Short, E. J., Weishampel, P., Satayathum, S., Min, M. O., & Singer, L. T.
(2011). The effects of prenatal cocaine on language development at 10 years of age.
Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 33, 1724.
Liaw, F. R., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1993). Patterns of low-birth-weight childrens cognitive develop-
ment. Developmental Psychology, 29, 10241035.
Lozoff, B., Jimenez, E., Hagen, J., Mollen, E., & Wolf, A. W. (2000). Poorer behavioral and devel-
opmental outcome more than 10 years after treatment for iron deciency in infancy. Pediatrics,
105, e51.
Lugo-Gil, J., & Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. (2008). Family resources and parenting quality: Links to
childrens cognitive development across the rst 3 years. Child Development, 79, 10651085.
Lukie, I., Skwarchuk, S.-L., LeFevre, J., & Sowinski, C. (2014). The role of child interests and col-
laborative parent-child interactions in fostering numeracy and literacy development in Canadian
homes. Early Childhood Education Journal, 42, 251259. doi:10.1007/s10643-013-0604-7.
Mansolitsis, G., Georgiou, G., & Tzirakik, N. (2013). Examining the effects of home literacy and
Quarterly, 28, 692703.
Melhuish, E., & Phan, M. (2008). Effects of home learning environment and preschool center
experience on literacy and numeracy development in early primary school. Journal of Social
Issues, 64, 95114.
Messinger, D. S., Bauer, C. R., Das, A., Seifer, R., Lester, B. M., Lagasse, L. L., Poole, K.
(2004). The maternal lifestyle study: Cognitive, motor, and behavioral outcomes of cocaine-
exposed and opiate-exposed infants through three years of age. Pediatrics, 113, 16771685.
Molfese, V. J., DiLalla, L. F., & Lovelace, L. (1996). Perinatal, home environment, and infant
measures as successful predictors of preschool cognitive and verbal abilities. International
Journal of Behavioral Development, 19, 101119.
Molfese, V. J., Holcomb, L., & Helwig, S. (1994). Biomedical and social-environmental inuences
on cognitive and verbal abilities in children 1 to 3 years of age. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 17(2), 271287.
Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine childrens motiva-
tion and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 3352.
Musun-Miller, L., & Blevins-Knabe, B. (1998). Adults beliefs about children and mathematics:
How important is it and how do children learn about it? Early Development and Parenting, 7,
191202.
National Scientic Council on the Developing Child. (2004). Young children develop in an environ-
ment of relationships. Working Paper No. 1. Retrieved from http://www.developingchild.net.
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2002). Duration and developmental timing of pov-
erty and child social development from birth through third grade. Child Development, 76,
795810.
Oxford, M., & Spieker, S. (2006). Preschool language development among children of adolescent
mothers. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 27, 165182.
Passolunghi, M. C., & Lanfranchi, S. (2012). Domain-specic and domain-general precursors of
mathematical achievement: A longitudinal study from kindergarten to rst grade. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 4263.
Paxon, C., & Schady, N. (2007). Cognitive development among young children in Ecuador:
The roles of wealth, health, and parenting. The Journal of Human Resources, 42, 4984.
Peairson, S., Austin, A. M. B., de Aquino, C. N., & de Burr, E. U. (2008). Cognitive development
and home environment of rural Paraguayan infants and toddlers participating in Pastoral del
Nio, and early development program. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 22,
343362.
Pinto, A. I., Pessanha, M., & Aguiar, C. (2013). Effects of home environment and center-based
child care quality on childrens language, communication, and literacy outcomes. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 28(1), 94101. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.07.001.
Purpura, D. J., Hume, L. E., Sims, D. M., & Lonigan, C. J. (2011). Early literacy and early numer-
acy: The value of including literacy skills in the prediction of numeracy development. Journal
of Experimental Child Psychology, 110, 647658. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2011.07.004.
Richardson, G. A., Ryan, C., Willford, J., Day, N., & Goldschmidt, L. (2002). Prenatal alcohol and
marijuana exposure: Effects on neuropsychological outcomes at 10 years. Neurotoxicology and
Teratology, 24, 309320.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Sarsour, K., Sheridan, M., Jutte, D., Nuru-Jeter, A., Hinshaw, S., & Boyce, W. T. (2011). Family
socioeconomic status and child executive functions: The roles of language, home environment,
and single parenthood. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 17, 120132.
Siegel, L. S. (1979). Infant perceptual, cognitive, and motor behaviours as predictors of subse-
quent cognitive and language development. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 33, 382395.
Siegel, L. S. (1984). Home environmental inuences on cognitive development in preterm and
full-term children during the rst ve years. In A. W. Gottfried (Ed.), Home environment and
early cognitive development (pp. 197234). New York, NY: Academic.
Siegler, R. S. (2000). The rebirth of childrens learning. Child Development, 71, 2635.
Siegler, R. S., & Lortie-Forgues, H. (2014). An integrated theory of numerical development. Child
Development Perspectives, 8, 144150.
Siegler, R. S., & Ramani, G. B. (2008). Playing linear numerical board games promotes low-
income childrens numerical development. Developmental Science, 11, 655661.
doi:10.1111/j/1467-7687.2008.00714.x.
Skwarchuk, S.-L., Sowinski, C., & LeFevre, J.-A. (2014). Formal and informal learning activities
in relation to childrens early numeracy and literacy skills: The development of a home numer-
acy model. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 121, 6384. doi:10.1016/j.
jecp.2013.11.006.
Sloan, S., Stewart, M., & Dunne, L. (2010). The effect of breastfeeding and stimulation in the
home on cognitive development in one-year-old infants. Child Care in Practice, 16, 101110.
Smith, M. C. (1993). Reconceptualizing the measurement of persistence in an attempt to facilitate
prediction of infant problem-solving competence. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of
the Society for Research in Child Development. New Orleans, LA.
Son, S. V., & Morrison, F. J. (2010). The nature and impact of changes in home learning environ-
ment on development of language and academic skills in preschool children. Developmental
Stein, A., Malmberg, L. E., Sylva, K., Barnes, J., Leach, P., & FCCC team. (2008). The inuence
of maternal depression, caregiving, and socioeconomic status in the post-natal year on chil-
drens language development. Child: Care, Health and Development, 34(5), 603612.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2214.2008.00837.x.
Stylianides, A. J., & Stylianides, G. J. (2011). A type of parental involvement with an isomorphic
effect on kurban childrens mathematics, reading, science, and social studies achievement at
kindergarten entry. Urban Education, 46, 408425. doi:10.1177/0042085910377605.
Szucs, D., Devine, A., Soltesz, F., Nobes, A., & Gaabriel, F. (2014). Cognitive components of
mathematical processing network in 9-year-old children. Developmental Science, 17,
506524.
Terrisse, B., Roberts, D. S. L., Palacio-Quintin, E., & MacDonald, B. E. (1998). Effects of parent-
ing practices and socioeconomic status on domains of child development. Swiss Journal of
Tong, S., Baghurst, P., Vimpani, G., & McMichael, A. (2007). Socioeconomic position, maternal
IQ, home environment, and cognitive development. The Journal of Pediatrics, 151, 284288.
e1. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2007.03.020.
Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2012). Preschools reduce early academic-achievement gaps: A longitudinal
twin approach. Psychological Science, 23, 310319. doi:10.1177/0956797611426728.
Tudge, J., & Doucet, F. (2004). Early mathematical experiences: Observing Black and White chil-
drens everyday activities. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 2139.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In M. Cole, V. John-
Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society. The development of higher psy-
chological processes (pp. 7991). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wachs, T. D. (2000). Necessary but not sufficient. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Wang, P. J., Hwang, A. W., Liao, H. F., Chen, P. C., & Hsieh, W. S. (2011). The stability of mastery
motivation and its relationship with home environment in infants and toddlers. Infant Behavior
and Development, 34, 434442.
Weisglas-Kruperus, N., Baerts, W., Smrkovsky, M., & Sauer, P. J. J. (1993). Effects of biological
and social factors on the cognitive development of very low birth weight children. Pediatrics,
92, 658665.
Wigeld, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2001). Development of achievement motivation. San Diego, CA:
Academic.
Wu, J. C.-L., Bradley, R. H., & Chiang, T.-L. (2011). Cross-border marriage and disparities in early
childhood development in a population-based birth cohort study: The mediation of the home
environment. Child: Care, Health and Development, 38, 595603. doi:10.1111/
j.1365-2214.2011.01276.x.
Yeung, W. J., & Conley, D. (2008). Black-White achievement gap and family wealth. Child
Chapter 4
Early Mathematics Skill Development,
Low Performance, and Parental Support
in the Finnish Context
Pirjo Aunio, Anna Tapola, Riikka Mononen, and Markku Niemivirta
Essential Early Mathematics Skills
In discourse about mathematics skills in early childhood, there are several ways
to dene early mathematics skills, and some research-based models have been
published about early mathematics development (Krajewski & Schneider, 2009;
Purpura & Ganley, 2014; Purpura & Napoli, 2015; Sarama & Clements, 2009). If
the most essential skills in early development are focused on, it might be possible
to prevent or at least decrease possible learning difculties mathematics later. As
part of the development work of the Finnish LukiMat web service (www.lukimat.
) for educators and parents about preventing mathematical learning difculties,
a research-based core factor model of mathematics skills development in chil-
dren aged 58 years was formed by using longitudinal studies and published
mathematics assessment batteries as the main data (Aunio & Rsnen, 2015).
According to this model, mathematics skills can be divided into four core factors:
symbolic and non-symbolic number sense, understanding mathematical rela-
tions, counting skills, and basic skills in arithmetic (see Table 4.1). This chapter
describes the model with a focus on the development of mathematics skills before
any formal schooling.
P. Aunio, Ph.D. (*) A. Tapola, Ph.D. M. Niemivirta, Ph.D.

Faculty of Behavioural Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
e-mail: pirjo.aunio@helsinki.; anna.tapola@helsinki.;
markku.niemivirta@helsinki.
R. Mononen, Ph.D.
Department of Special Needs Education, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
e-mail: r.m.mononen@isp.uio.no

52 P. Aunio et al.
Table 4.1 Core numerical skills for learning mathematics in children aged 58 years
Symbolic and non-symbolic number sense Counting skills
Number word sequence skills
Knowledge of number symbols
Enumeration skills
Understanding mathematical relations Basic skills in arithmetic
Early mathematical-logical principles Simple addition and subtraction skills
Operational symbols in mathematics
Symbolic and Non-symbolic Number Sense
The current educational neuroscience research has increased knowledge of the early
skills needed for successful learning of mathematics skills (Butterworth, Varma, &
Laurillard, 2011). Neuroscientists suggest that there is a basic preverbal number
sense (also called an approximate representation of magnitude), which refers to the
ability to discriminate numerical magnitudes (Ansari, 2008). Number sense is
already present prior to the emergence of symbolic number representation. In some
broader denitions, number sense also includes the ability to discriminate the mag-
nitudes represented by number symbols (De Smedt, Nol, Gilmore, & Ansari,
2013). Research suggests that decits in the representation and processing of
numerical magnitude information are at the core of severe mathematical learning
difculties (Price & Ansari, 2013).
Understanding Mathematical Relations
The study of how children learn early mathematical-logical principles began with
Piaget (1965) and continued with other neo-Piagetian researchers (Case, 1996;
Smith, 2002). Early mathematical-logical principles refer to skills such as seriation,
classication, comparison, and one-to-one correspondence (Aunio & Rsnen,
2015). The seriation skill is needed to understand number word sequences and their
ordinality features, and it might rst be visible in a young child who orders his or
her toys in line based on their size. The ability to classify items is highly needed in
mathematical problem solving. For example, classifying toys by color is an early
sign of this skill. The comparison skill is needed, for instance, when a child decides
which of two dice has more dots. One-to-one correspondence refers to the ability to
make connections between the entities in one set and the entities in another set. An
example of when one-to-one correspondence is needed is during an enumeration
task in which a child makes a connection between the number sequence word and
pointing act, and between the pointing act and item to be counted. Understanding
operational symbols in mathematics is an important skill since it enables the child
to follow instruction at school. In many cultures, during their kindergarten year
4 Early Mathematics Skill Development, Low Performance, and Parental Support 53
(usually 6 years of age), children learn to understand basic mathematical symbols

such as < (less than), > (more than), and = (equal to), which reveal the relationship
between two entities.
Counting Skills
Counting skills include three sets of skills: knowledge of number words and sym-
bols, number word sequence skills, and enumeration (Aunio & Rsnen, 2015).
Knowledge of number words and symbols refers to the skills involved in making
symbolverbal and verbalsymbol transitions. These skills are important, as they
enable a child to understand how the cultural number system works. Number word
sequence skills refer to knowledge of saying number words in sequences forward,
backward, and skipping (e.g., by twos, ves, and tens), and in addition, saying num-
ber words forward and backward from a given number. Well-developed number
word sequence skills are a powerful tool for the later solving of enumeration and
arithmetics tasks. Enumeration skills imply that a child is counting the numerosity
of a set of items by using his or her number word sequence skills. The development
of counting skills starts approximately at the age of 2, when a child recites a number
word sequence as a nursery rhyme. Via modeling and practice, children learn to use
number word sequence skills efciently and exibly so that enumeration and basic
arithmetic tasks (addition and subtraction) are smoothly solved by the age of 6.
Basic Skills in Arithmetic
In the early childhood context, basic arithmetic skills refer to the ability to make
simple addition and subtraction tasks with concrete materials and with numbers less
than 20 (Aunio & Rsnen, 2015). Usually, young children use their number word
sequence and enumeration skills to solve these addition and subtraction tasks.
Early Signs of Mathematical Learning Difficulties and Early

Interventions
The literature shows that children with mathematical learning difculties have signi-
cant problems in early numeracy and basic arithmetic skills (Mazzocco, 2007).
Learning difculties in mathematics are usually diagnosed later on during compre-
hensive schooling (World Health Organization, 1992). However, longitudinal studies
report that early mathematics skills strongly predict later mathematics skills. In longi-
tudinal studies, most often a set of mathematics skills are predicted by another set of
mathematics skills in terms of composite scores (Jordan, Glutting, & Ramineni, 2010;
Kurdek & Sinclair, 2001; Lachance & Mazzocco, 2006), thus suggesting that earlier
54 P. Aunio et al.
mathematics performance predicts later mathematics performance at the beginning of

ones schooling. Studies using distinct mathematics subskills to predict later mathe-
matics composite scores provide more elaborate information. More precisely, count-
ing skills (Aubrey, Dahl, & Godfrey, 2006; Aubrey & Godfrey, 2003; Krajewski &
Schneider, 2009), basic arithmetical skills (Aunola, Leskinen, Lerkkanen, & Nurmi,
2004), counting, number knowledge, nonverbal calculation, story problems and num-
ber combinations (Jordan, Kaplan, Locuniak, & Ramineni, 2007), calculation, num-
ber line and magnitude comparison (LeFevre, Fast, et al., 2010), number reading
(Passolunghi, Vercelloni, & Schadee, 2007), and mathematical-logical principles
(Aunio & Niemivirta, 2010; Desoete, Stock, Schepens, Baeyens, & Roeyers, 2009;
Stock, Desoete, & Roeyers, 2009) have been found to be good predictors of later
mathematics performance.
From a mathematical learning difculties point of view, it is noteworthy that
early mathematics skills are very important. Firstly, a decit in number sense is
related to mathematical learning difculties (Price & Ansari, 2013). However,
research has suggested promising results in support of the development of number
sense by using the Number Race computer game that has been developed to practice
nonverbal and symbolic number sense abilities (Wilson, Dehaene, Dubois, & Fayol,
2009). Secondly, weak number sequence skills can hinder the development of enu-
meration and consequently simple arithmetic skills (Aunio & Niemivirta, 2010).
Nevertheless, there are research-based intervention programs, mostly provided as
part of day care or kindergarten activities, that have shown positive results in sup-
porting the development of counting and arithmetic skills in mathematically low-
performing children (Dyson, Jordan, & Glutting, 2013; Fuchs et al., 2006; Mononen,
Aunio, & Koponen, 2014; Ramani & Siegler, 2008). In addition, knowledge of early
mathematical-logical principles supports the development of counting and arithme-
tic skills, and these can be educationally supported before the beginning of formal
schooling (Aunio, Hautamki, & Van Luit, 2005).
In real-world situations among day care centers and kindergartens, it is possible
to identify those children who are potentially at risk for developing mathematical
learning difculties by using screening tests. In Finland, educators can use the Early
Numeracy Test (Aunio, Hautamki, Heiskari, & Van Luit, 2006) or scales from the
LukiMat web service, which are normed measurements. But it is also possible to
identify these children by observing their behavior in everyday situations at home,
in day care centers, or in kindergartens. For instance, in situations where children
need to count objects, an educator or parent can observe how uently the child can
say the number word sequence and point out objects to be counted at the same time.
An important issue is that the child understands that counting can be used to solve
problems such as those presented in games or in everyday situations. For instance,
a child can be asked to join in the preparation of dinner, a situation in which it is
easy to observe whether the child can count how many forks and plates are needed
for six people. It is also quite easy to observe whether the child understands if there
are more potatoes on one plate than on another. Hannula, Rsnen, and Lehtinen
(2007) found that young children who do not spontaneously focus on numerosities
in their everyday living will possess lower mathematics skills during their school
career. One of the explanations for such results is that those who are not interested
in numbers or quantities miss important opportunities to practice early numeracy
skills, and as a result, they fall behind their peers early on. It is thus important that
adults pay attention to mathematics skills development in early years, play mathe-
matical games with children, and encourage them to use their numeracy skills and
practice new, challenging skills.
Factors Affecting Mathematics Development
Early mathematics development happens in relation to various intra-individual and

environmental factors (Hart, Petrill, & Thompson, 2010; Petrill et al., 2012). In the
literature, these elements are often considered to include domain-general cognitive
skills, domain-specic mathematics skills, and family background factors.
Domain-General Cognitive Skills
Research has long veried that intelligence is strongly correlated with academic
performance and especially mathematics. However, to be able to understand what
contributes to this correlation, researchers investigate separate cognitive elements.
For example, executive functioning (McClelland, Acock, & Morrison, 2006) and
rapid automatized naming (Georgiou, Tziraki, Manolitsis, & Fella, 2013) have been
identied to affect the learning of early mathematics skills. LeFevre and colleagues
(LeFevre, Fast, et al., 2010) suggest that one of the three key developmental path-
ways by which children acquire numeracy skills is a general linguistic pathway. In
line with LeFevre et al. (LeFevre, Fast, et al., 2010), Durand, Hulme, Larkin, and
Snowling (2005) as well as Jordan et al. (2007) report that decits in literacy skills
may result in slower numeracy development. More specically, Purpura and Napoli
(2015) have found that language skills especially affect informal numeracy knowl-
edge (i.e., exibly connecting quantities to number words and understanding rela-
tions among quantities).
Domain-Specific Mathematics Skills
According to current research, the most powerful specic numerical ability affecting
mathematics development is number sense. Number sense seems to be associated
with a specic brain area, the horizontal segment of the intraparietal sulcus (Cantlon,
Brannon, Carter, & Pelphrey, 2006; Dehaene, Piazza, Pinel, & Cohen, 2003). The
importance of number sense is highlighted by the fact that studies using neuroimag-
ing methods have revealed abnormalities in the intraparietal sulcus of students with
56 P. Aunio et al.
severe mathematical learning difculties (Isaacs, Edmonds, Lucas, & Gadian, 2001;
Kucian et al., 2006; Molko et al., 2003). In addition, longitudinal studies highlight
the relevance of early mathematics skills development (i.e., mathematical-logical
principles, counting, and basic arithmetic) to later mathematics learning (Aubrey
et al., 2006; Aunola et al., 2004; Aunola, Leskinen, & Nurmi, 2006).
Family Background
Research, mostly conducted in the North American context, has shown that children
from low-income families lag behind and make less progress in early mathematics
skill development than their peers from middle-income families (Jordan et al., 2007;
Jordan, Kaplan, Olh, & Locuniak, 2006; Siegler & Ramani, 2008). It has been sug-
gested that children from low-income families have had fewer opportunities and less
support from their home environment for learning early mathematics skills (Siegler,
2009). This is likely inuenced by the nancial constraints and lower education level
of parents in low-income families (Ramani & Siegler, 2014). Family background has
been found to have a less important role in childrens academic performance in
Finland than in other countries (Kupari & Nissinen, 2015; Rsnen & Nrhi, 2013).
It has been argued that the Finnish early childhood education and general education
systems balance out socioeconomic differences between families. However, the
increasing number of immigrant and low-income families in Finland sets new chal-
lenges for the educational system. Fortunately, metropolitan cities that have areas
with several socioeconomic status (SES) risk factors have been provided with several
years of extra funding for day care and school services (Tapola-Tuohikumpu, 2005).
The emphasis has been on supporting at-risk families and day care staff in order to
provide learning support for children who are at risk socially and academically.
Finnish Context for Development and Learning
Finland, a country with approximately 5.5 million inhabitants (of which 5.2 % are
immigrants), has recently received attention as a country with excellent educational
results. This is based on the success of international assessments such as PISA 2012
(12th in mathematics for 9th graders with a mean score of 519 and OECD average
score of 494) and TIMMS 2011 (8th in mathematics among fourth-graders with a
mean score of 545 and TIMMS average score of 500; Provasnik et al., 2012). Before
the beginning of comprehensive schooling at the age of 7, there is an emphasis on
providing a quality 1-year kindergarten education as well as early childhood educa-
tion and care (ECEC) for toddlers, for which all children are entitled to participate.
The national curriculum guidelines that serve as a basis for local (municipal) curri-
cula have been set from ECEC through the secondary level of education in order to
ensure a rm educational continuum.
Children and their families are entitled to free health care in order to support the
progress of childrens physical, mental, and social development. Finnish children
enjoy an overall high level of well-being, as has been reported by The Child
Development Index with a score of 1.37 (14th place; Save the Children, 2012). One
important aim in the Finnish early health care system is to identify children with
possible special educational needs in their development as early as possible in order
to provide them with appropriate support (National Institute for Health and Welfare,
2015). There are a number of health care checkups on a regular basis throughout the
early childhood and school years. Education from kindergarten to secondary level
of education (i.e., high school and vocational education) is free of charge for all
families. In addition, children are entitled to free school meals from kindergarten to
secondary level of education, and for free school materials from kindergarten to
ninth grade (Basic Education Act 21.8.1998/628).
According to the Finnish ECEC legislation (Finlex, 2015), a child has a subjec-
tive right to ECEC. The National Curriculum Guidelines for ECEC (Heikkil,
Ihalainen, & Vlimki, 2004) serve as a basis for local curricula and for the curri-
cula implemented in day care centers and other forms of ECEC such as family day
care. According to the ECEC Act, an individual plan for education and care has to
be made for each child. This plan includes goals and procedures that support a
childs development, learning, and well-being, also taking possible special educa-
tional needs into account. Related to mathematical learning, the National Curriculum
Guidelines on ECEC demand that the learning of early mathematics skills should
happen in a playful manner in daily situations in which children are encouraged to
use concrete materials that they are familiar with and nd interesting.
A mandatory 1-year kindergarten education just before the beginning of compre-
hensive schooling is mainly organized by municipalities and implemented in day
care centers or at schools. Children are given kindergarten education approximately
4 h per day. If necessary, children are entitled to day care services before and after
kindergarten hours. The National Core Curriculum for Kindergarten Education
(Finnish National Board of Education, 2014b) serves as a basis for local curricula.
In relation to mathematics, emphasis is given to the learning of counting, enumera-
tion, comparison, geometry, measurement, and problem solving skills through play-
ing, hands-on doing, observing, and applying technology. Often, kindergarten
teachers use published instructional materials that follow the National Core
Curriculum guidelines.
Most (98 %) of the compulsory education grade 19 schools in Finland are run
by municipalities. The rst 6 years of instruction are given by classroom teachers
who teach multiple subjects for their class. The next 3 years of instruction (grades
79) in the lower secondary education system are given by subject teachers who
specialize in teaching one or two subjects. Children are entitled to educational sup-
port according to their needs, which is based on a three-tiered system: general,
intensied, and special support (Basic Education Act 21.8.1998/628). The length of
the school day in the rst and second grade is approximately 4 h per day (with a
minimum of 19 h/week). Municipalities may provide children with morning
and after-school day care, which is mostly targeted for rst- and second-graders.
58 P. Aunio et al.
The National Core Curriculum for Basic Education (Finnish National Board of
Education, 2014a) serves as a basis for local curricula. Children receive approxi-
mately three to four mathematics lessons per week that focus on counting, basic
arithmetic, the base-10 system, geometry, and measurement in the number range up
to 100. In early grades, learning by doing with concrete materials is emphasized
even though mathematics text books, which follow the National Core Curriculum
guidelines, are also used.
The Role of the Home Environment in the Development

of Mathematics Skills in the Finnish Context
In line with international ndings, at the beginning of kindergarten, there are large
individual differences in Finnish childrens mathematics skills (Aunio, Heiskari,
Van Luit, & Vuorio, 2015), and it seems that these differences stabilize and even
increase in the course of formal schooling (Aunola et al., 2004). As one explanation
for these early differences, the role of the home environment has been brought into
discussion and under research focus. Compared to the research on home literacy
environment and its inuence on childrens linguistic skills (e.g., Niklas & Schneider,
2013; Silinskas et al., 2012), systematic studies on home numeracy environment are
few. Existing evidence suggests, however, that different characteristics of the home
environment, parental involvement, and parentchild interaction contribute to the
development of childrens mathematics skills (Anders et al., 2012; DeFlorio &
Beliakoff, 2015; Kleemans, Peeters, Segers, & Verhoeven, 2012; Skwarchuk, 2009).
While in Finland the research on home numeracy environment has not been particu-
larly active, the results pertaining to childrens family background and parental
involvement in general seem to echo previous international ndings.
It has been shown that parents SES predicts childrens mathematics performance
throughout the course of their education, although this relationship is not as strong
in Finland as in some other (e.g., OECD) countries (Ministry of Education and
Culture, 2013). In the latest PISA results, factors related to students socioeconomic
background (economic, cultural, and social status) accounted for some variation in
mathematics performance but far less so in Finland than in the other participating
countries (Kupari & Nissinen, 2015). Instead of being a matter of mere material
wealth, the resources and atmosphere in the home environment that support and
convey the importance of schooling and education seem to make the difference.
Accordingly, the results from Finnish samples also emphasize the importance of
parental beliefs and expectations concerning academic education in general and
mathematics learning in particular. Parents belief in and expectations related to
their childrens mathematics competence at the onset of the rst grade has been
found to predict childrens mathematics performance, even after controlling for the
level of previous performance (Aunola, Nurmi, Lerkkanen, & Rasku-Puttonen,
2003). Similarly, in a representative longitudinal study conducted by the Finnish
National Board of Education, third- to ninth-grade students perceptions of their
parents valuing education and considering mathematics to be an important school

subject was found to contribute to an increase in students mathematics learning
(Metsmuuronen, 2013). The inuence of parental beliefs was even more pro-
nounced if both parents had taken the Finnish matriculation examination.
As parents educational level, occupational status, and education-related values
seem to be connected, it is not surprising that signicant associations may also be
found in terms of parenting styles and involvement with childrens schooling.
Findings from a Finnish study by Silinskas, Leppnen, Aunola, Parrila, and Nurmi
(2010) suggest that parental involvement style may differ according to parents SES.
The authors found that kindergartners parents with lower SES reported more teach-
ing of mathematics skills (dened as direct and formal involvement in a childs
academic development) at home than those with higher SES. The researchers dis-
cuss the possibility that low and high SES parents hold different preferences and
strategies for involvement that might partly derive from differences in their attitudes
toward teaching and learning; while low SES parents seem to be more likely to use
traditional and direct teaching strategies, high SES parents tend to rely on a more
child-centered approach and focus on providing a culturally rich home learning
environment.
One important research nding is that not all kinds of parental involvement are
equally benecial. In studies among Finnish primary school children, it has been
observed that if parental involvementin homework situations, for exampleis
characterized by control, direct and active teaching, and negative affect, it may have
detrimental effects on the childs skill development, including mathematics (Aunola
& Nurmi, 2004; Silinskas, Kiuru, Aunola, Lerkkanen, & Nurmi, 2015). However,
results support the existence of a reciprocal relationship between a childs skill
development and the frequency and quality of parental involvement. In a study by
Silinskas et al. (2010), it was found that after the transition to the rst grade, the
frequency of teaching at home was (besides SES) dependent on the childs aca-
demic performance; if the child performed poorly during the rst grade, the more
teaching of mathematics the parents reported. In other words, the parents adjusted
their teaching according to their childs actual skills. It is important to consider that
low- and high-performing children in mathematics may benet from different kinds
of parental involvement, with low-performing children being in need of more struc-
tured and direct help than high-achieving children (Silinskas et al., 2010).
In sum, the results suggest that the benecial factors related to a childs home
environment seem to accumulate. Economic and cultural resources available at
home, as well as values attached to educational aims, provide children with the kind
of learning environment and support that are likely to contribute not only to the
development of early academic skills but presumably also to childrens own atti-
tudes and beliefs toward schooling. Consequently, besides examining parent-directed
engagement in academic activities, another perspective is to investigate the charac-
teristics in the home environment that support childrens self-initiated and inher-
ently motivated efforts to engage with and explore different kinds of academic
content. One of the key constructs describing such intrinsically motivated engage-
ment is interest (Hidi, 2006).
60 P. Aunio et al.
The Role of the Home Environment in Supporting Child

Interest in Mathematics Content and Activities
Child interest is manifested in the daily activities that the child partakes in volun-
tarily, frequently, and by his or her own initiative (Renninger & Su, 2012). Children
have been observed to develop individual interests (i.e., a tendency to enjoy and
re-engage with particular content) well before the beginning of school (Renninger
& Leckrone, 1991). Although they have begun to emerge, studies on the role of
parental support in the development of child interest in mathematics content and
activities are still few. Irrespective of the domain of interest, it has been suggested
that providing sufcient amount of opportunities to explore certain kinds of materi-
als and resources (e.g., books, toys, and games) is essential for an interest to develop
(Renninger & Su, 2012). It also seems that, as with the development of skills, the
style of parental involvement matters. Collaborative and autonomy-supportive
interaction with the child while engaging with certain content or activities is more
likely to result in enjoyable learning experiences than controlling and parent-
directed involvement (Lukie, Skwarchuk, LeFevre, & Sowinski, 2014). In a Finnish
study focusing on the role of maternal support in school beginners interest in math-
ematics, mothers active encouragement of autonomy in daily learning situations
(e.g., prompting children to try things by themselves) proved to be an especially
signicant predictor of both child interest and mastery orientation in the rst grade
(Aunola, Viljaranta, Lehtinen, & Nurmi, 2013).
An intriguing question, then, is to what extent does child interest in mathematics
content or activities contribute to the development of early mathematics skills?
According to the theories on interest development (Hidi & Renninger, 2006;
Renninger & Hidi, 2011), interest should increase the time, effort, and persistence
invested in engaging with the object of interest. Naturally, frequency and amount of
practice and effort might be considered to be factors contributing to the develop-
ment of early academic skills. Studies, however, have reported mixed results; some
of them suggest that interest and skills in mathematics might be associated even
before the onset of formal schooling (Fisher, Dobbs-Oates, Doctoroff, & Arnold,
2012), while other studies have found no association (Aunola et al., 2006; Viljaranta,
Tolvanen, Aunola, & Nurmi, 2014). These contradictory results are likely due in
part to challenges related to measuring young childrens interest; the ndings seem
to depend both on the operationalization and measurement (e.g., parent, child,
teacher, and researcher reports) of child interest (Baroody & Diamond, 2013). The
few existing longitudinal studies on the relationship between early child interest and
mathematics skills suggest that in the beginning of rst grade, a weak but signicant
relationship emerges (Aunola et al., 2013).
However, during the early school years, the predictive paths seem to point from
skills to interest rather than the other way around (Jgi, Kikas, Lerkkanen, & Mgi,
2015). Consequently, the development of interest in mathematics as a school subject
depends partly on how the child succeeds in it at school. These ndings emphasize the
importance of early support for children with weak skills, before their difculties start
to interfere with their motivational beliefs and tendencies. It is also possible that the
role of interest in academic achievement emerges only later in the course of the educa-
tional path. For example, in the Finnish PISA results, students motivational attitudes
toward mathematics (including indicators of interest) were the strongest predictors of
their mathematics performance and accounted for more variation in performance than
in other OECD countries (Kupari & Nissinen, 2015). Moreover, even though there is
less evidence on the direct effects of interest on childrens and adolescents academic
performance, it seems to be inuential in terms of other kinds of academic outcomes,
such as students educational and occupational decisions (Watt et al., 2012).
To summarize, although it has been suggested that for child interest to emerge in
the rst place, caregivers appreciation and support toward child initiatives is crucial
(Ainley, 2013; Chak, 2002), empirical evidence on the issue is lacking. Some stud-
ies with adolescent samples suggest, however, that in a home environment where
parents themselves show interest in and value certain activities, their children are
also more likely to value and become interested in similar content and practices
(Frenzel, Goetz, Pekrun, & Watt, 2010). In order to partly address this issue with
younger children in the present follow-up study, we investigated the role of the
home environmentspecically the level of parents education and values concern-
ing mathematicsin the development of childrens early mathematics skills and
interest in mathematics activities at home.
The Current Study on Finnish Kindergartners
As part of a larger research project, we collected follow-up data involving a group of

children from the beginning of their kindergarten year (Mage = 6 years and 3 months,
SDage = 3 months) to the end of their rst semester of rst grade. Altogether, 104
children (56 boys and 48 girls) from the northern part of Finland participated in the
study. The majority of the children (97 %) spoke Finnish as their native language,
while only 3 % represented some linguistic minority or were bilingual (e.g., Finnish
and Russian). Most of the mothers and fathers (55 % and 66 %, respectively) had an
upper secondary education (i.e., 3-year vocational school or academic track), while
parents holding a university degree comprised the second largest group (42 % of
mothers and 26 % of fathers). A clear minority of the mothers (3 %) and fathers (8 %)
reported having a basic level education (i.e., 9 years of compulsory education).
The measurements included several variables; we will report those focusing on
childrens mathematics skills, parent-reported child interest in mathematics activi-
ties at home, parental values (utility and importance) concerning mathematics, and
the level of parents education. Childrens mathematics skills were measured three
times during the kindergarten year and once in the middle of rst grade. Parents
twice answered a questionnaire measuring their values concerning mathematics and
child interest in mathematics activities: once at the beginning of kindergarten and
once at the end of the rst semester of the childs rst grade. A brief description of
each scale is given below.
62 P. Aunio et al.
Fig. 4.1 The empirical model illustrating direct effects (standardized regression coefcients)
between variables of the study. Solid lines represent signicant effects (p < 0.05), and dashed lines
represent marginally signicant effects (p < 0.10)
Childrens mathematics skills were measured using ThinkMath-K and

ThinkMath-1 group-based paper-and-pencil tests (Aunio & Mononen, 2012a,
2012b). These tests include tasks that measure the following essential mathematics
skills (Aunio & Rsnen, 2015, see Fig. 4.1): (m1) understanding mathematical
relations (i.e., quantity and number comparison), (m2) addition and subtraction
word problems, (m3) number word sequence skills forward and backward, and (m4)
enumeration skills. The number range in the ThinkMath-K is 120; the range in the
ThinkMath-1 is 1100. It takes about 40 min to complete the whole test. Each item
was scored either one for a correct answer or zero for a wrong answer. In
ThinkMath-K the maximum score is 43 points and in ThinkMath-1 the maximum
score is 42 points.
Parents were asked to estimate their childs interest with three items referring to
the frequency of the childs self-initiated engagement with mathematics-related
activities at home (e.g., How often does your child engage in play involving count-
ing and simple calculations?). Parental values toward mathematics as a school
subject were measured via four items describing its perceived utility and impor-
tance (e.g., I consider mathematics to be a very useful school subject.).
The question we were interested in was how childrens mathematics skills and
interest in mathematics-related activities would predict one another during kinder-
garten and across the transition to the rst grade while taking into account child
gender, parent educational level, and parent values concerning mathematics. In
order to estimate the predictive effects, we used partial least squares (PLS) path
modeling (Chin, 1998). Like other structural equation models, a PLS model consists
of a structural part, which reects the relationships between the latent variables, and
a measurement part, which shows how the latent variables and their indicators are
related. PLS was particularly suitable for our current purpose, as it imposes little or
no demands on the sample size, scale type, and variable distribution. As for the
predictions, we did not set any specic hypotheses concerning the relationship
between interest and skills, as previous ndings are inconsistent. Consequently, all
possible cross-lagged effects between the four skill and two interest and value mea-
sures were estimated. However, we expected successive skill and interest measures
to display stability, thus predicting the subsequent measures. Since child gender and
parent educational level have both been shown to be linked to mathematics skills,
they were controlled for. Finally, as it was justied to expect parental values con-
cerning math to inuence both childrens skills and interest, the two measures con-
cerning parental values were also included in the model.
With the empirical model (Fig. 4.1), we were able to explain 56 % of the variance
in childrens mathematics skills and 44 % of the variance in their interest in the rst
grade. As expected, the successive skill and interest measures predicted one another.
Also, parental values concerning mathematics were rather stable over time. We
found only one cross-lagged effect between skill and interest measures: mathematics
skills at the end of the kindergarten year (time 3) predicted a change in child interest
in the rst grade. Parental values concerning mathematics positively predicted child
interest both in kindergarten and in the rst grade, while there were no effects of
parental values on childrens mathematics skills. Parents education signicantly
predicted only child interest in the rst grade, and this effect was negative. This sug-
gests that the change in interest over time was stronger for children of parents with
lower education. The effects of parents education on the rst two measurements of
childrens mathematics skills reached only marginal signicance. Regarding gender,
there was only one marginally signicant effect on rst-grade mathematics skills: the
negative prediction suggests there was slightly greater improvement among boys.
Even though the analyses revealed only one predictive effect between mathemat-
ics skills and interest, the correlations between the latent factors showed the concur-
rent skill and interest measures to be related: both at the beginning of kindergarten
(time 1) and in the rst grade (time 4), childrens mathematics skills correlated sig-
nicantly with their interest in mathematics activities at home (r1 = 0.35, p < 0.001,
and r2 = 0.42, p < 0.001, respectively). Our results point to some interesting issues
concerning the role of parents education and values in childrens mathematics skills
and interest. While the level of parents education made a small contribution to chil-
drens mathematics skills at the beginning of kindergarten, both child interest in
mathematics activities and parental values concerning mathematics were not depen-
dent on parents education. The change in childrens skills from kindergarten to rst
grade was not predicted by the level of parents education either. Interestingly, how-
ever, parental education negatively predicted the change in child interest; the lower
the level of parents education, the more the childs interest in mathematics activities
increased. In other words, in the rst grade, parents with lower education estimated
their children to have become more interested in engaging with activities involving
mathematics. This nding might be cautiously interpreted as suggesting that the
64 P. Aunio et al.
kindergarten and school environments were especially supportive of those children

who were coming from families with lower educational backgrounds. Given that
children with less educated parents also had slightly weaker mathematics skills in
the beginning of kindergarten, it could be implied that the school system managed
to compensate for the differences through supporting these childrens interest.
That parental factors did not seem to play almost any role in childrens mathe-
matics skills during kindergarten and after the transition to rst grade is somewhat
surprising but still in line with previous ndings from Finnish samples showing
only small to moderate contributions from parents SES to a childs skills (Aunio &
Niemivirta, 2010). It must also be noted that our current sample was not a represen-
tative one, and that most of the parents were relatively highly educated. The fact that
child interest and parental values concerning mathematics did not predict the devel-
opment of childrens mathematics skills might be partly due to the high observed
stability in mathematics skills, which leaves only a small amount of variance unex-
plained. The concurrent correlations suggest, however, that child interest and math-
ematics skills seem to partly go hand in hand: the more likely the child was to show
interest in mathematics activities at home, the better his or her performance on the
mathematics skills test, and vice versa. In line with previous studies on early school
years (Jgi et al., 2015; von Maurice, Der, & Artelt, 2014), childrens mathemat-
ics skills seemed to be inuential in terms of their later interest, rather than the other
way around. In our study, mathematics skills that children had developed up until
the end of their kindergarten year predicted their interest in mathematics activities
in the rst grade. In addition, while parents values were not directly related to chil-
drens mathematics skills, they contributed to child interest, which in turn correlated
with mathematics skills. Although being only a tentative result, it might be possible
that a childs interest would mediate the inuence of parental values on a childs
mathematics skills. However, this should be examined longitudinally, as this nding
applied only to concurrent measurements in our study. It should also be acknowl-
edged that our results may in part represent bias in parents evaluations; parents who
value mathematics might be more inclined to interpret their childrens activities
accordingly. Or, alternatively, they might pay more attention to such activities than
parents who value mathematics less.
Our results were in line with previous studies suggesting that parents valuing of
mathematics inuences the frequency of a childs self-initiated engagement with
mathematics activities in the home environment. If certain activity is valued at
home, parents are more likely to provide their child with a rich learning environ-
ment that supports the development of interest (Frenzel et al., 2010). It is also pos-
sible that parents who value mathematics engage more often with their children in
mathematics-related activities, and in doing so, familiarize them with such activities
and possibilities (LeFevre, Polyzoi, Skwarchuk, Fast, & Sowinski, 2010; Lukie
et al., 2014). Among the parents of the current sample, valuing mathematics was not
dependent on educational level, which may be partly due to our somewhat selective
sample. However, this nding also ts well with the common conception that most
Finnish parents value academic skillsespecially mathematicsand represent a
relatively homogeneous group in this respect.
Discussion
In this chapter, we have introduced the most important mathematics skills that
develop in early childhood, namely the symbolic and non-symbolic number sense,
counting skills, understanding mathematical relations, and basic arithmetic skills
(Aunio & Rsnen, 2015). These skills develop in a reciprocal manner (Desoete
et al., 2009; Jordan et al., 2010). Childrens cognitive elements and learning envi-
ronments at home, day care centers, and kindergartens are important for this devel-
opment (Georgiou et al., 2013; Purpura & Napoli, 2015). It is possible to detect
those children potentially at risk for later mathematical learning difculties by
observing their behavior in situations that demand them to use their core mathemat-
ics skills (Aunio & Niemivirta, 2010; Vukovic & Siegel, 2010).
The most evident conclusion suggested by our ndings is that early mathematics
skills seem to be highly stable. Children performing low in mathematics tasks dur-
ing kindergarten are also likely to perform low in the rst grade. It is also notewor-
thy that the development of childrens mathematics skills was almost entirely
independent of parental factors. Thus, at least in our study, the individual differ-
ences in childrens skills are not attributed to their parents education or values
toward mathematics. The results further indicate that differences in mathematics
skills remain, irrespective of the high quality of both the Finnish kindergarten and
school systems. Consequently, even though our kindergarten system may partly
manage to even out individual differences, it seems that those with weak skills
would need intensied support as early as possible.
Parents should be provided with proper information and advice on the benecial
practices supporting the development of their childrens skills. As suggested by previ-
ous studies (Aunola & Nurmi, 2004; Silinskas et al., 2015), the quality and style of
parentchild interaction should also be taken into account; mere rehearsal or direct
teaching of mathematics can be maladaptive if perceived as controlling. The best results
are likely to be obtained in an encouraging atmosphere that feeds on the childs interests
and encourages initiatives, even though children with weaker skills may need more
parent-directed support than other children. As our results indicate, interest and skills
seem to be interconnected; enjoying an activity and knowing how to do it tend to go
hand in hand. The good news is that supporting one factor in this dyad might possibly
support the other as well. However, the earlier the coupling of interest and skills emerges,
the sooner a child with weakness in either one of them is in need of intervention.
From the viewpoint of mathematical learning difculties and special education,
the early years are very important. If children are supported in their early numeracy
development at home or an early education center, they will have an opportunity to
practice relevant skills for later learning during real-life situations. We are not sug-
gesting earlier formalized teaching but supporting children in their daily living to
use and practice relevant early skills.
The Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture (FMEC) has recently provided
funding to support the development of early mathematics skills in children and pre-
vent later mathematical learning difculties. The FMEC has funded two projects
that have provided parents and educators with research-based information about the
66 P. Aunio et al.
development of childrens mathematics skills and mathematical learning difculties.

They also offer tools to identify at-risk children and support their learning. All mate-
rials are available free of charge for users via two web services: LukiMat (www.
lukimat.) and ThinkMath (www.blogs.helsinki./thinkmath). The LukiMat web
service provides two computer games, The Number Race and Graphogame Math,
that are aimed at young children (under 8 years old) who need extra practice in
developing core mathematics skills. Although most of the ThinkMath materials have
been developed for small-group interventions to be implemented in kindergartens
and schools, these materials include a variety of board and card games and hands-on
activities that can easily be incorporated into playtime or daily activities at home.
References
Ainley, M. D. (2013). One ingredient in the mix: Interest and psychological well-being.
In A. Efklides & D. Moraitou (Eds.), A positive psychology perspective on quality of life
(pp. 243258). New York, NY: Springer.
Anders, Y., Rossbach, H. G., Weinert, S., Ebert, S., Kuger, S., Lehrl, S., & von Maurice, J. (2012).
numeracy skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27, 231244.
Ansari, D. (2008). Effects of development and enculturation on number representation in the brain.
Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 9, 278291.
Aubrey, C., Dahl, S., & Godfrey, R. (2006). Early mathematics development and later achieve-
ment: Further evidence. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 18(1), 2746.
Aubrey, C., & Godfrey, R. (2003). The development of childrens early numeracy through key stage
1. British Educational Research Journal, 29(6), 821840. doi:10.1080/0141192032000137321.
Aunio, P., Hautamki, J., Heiskari, P., & Van Luit, J. E. H. (2006). The early numeracy test in
Finnish: Childrens norms. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 47(5), 369378.
Aunio, P., Hautamki, J., & Van Luit, J. E. H. (2005). Mathematical-thinking intervention pro-
grammes for preschool children with normal and low number sense. European Journal of
Special Needs Education, 20, 131146.
Aunio, P., Heiskari, P., Van Luit, J., & Vuorio, J. M. (2015). The development of early numeracy
skills in kindergarten in low-, average- and high-performance groups. Journal of Early
Childhood Research, 13(1), 316.
Aunio, P., & Mononen, R. (2012a). Matematiikan arviointitehtvist esikouluun. [Assessment of
Mathematical Skills in the Kindergarten.] Unpublished.
Aunio, P., & Mononen, R. (2012b). Matematiikan arviointitehtvist ensimmiselle luokalle.
[Assessment of Mathematical Skills in the First Grade.] Unpublished.
Aunio, P., & Niemivirta, M. (2010). Predicting childrens mathematical performance in grade one
by early numeracy. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(5), 427435.
Aunio, P., & Rsnen, P. (2015). Core numerical skills for learning mathematics in children aged
ve to eight years A working model for educators. European Early Childhood Education
Research Journal. doi:10.1080/1350293X.2014.996424.
Aunola, K., Leskinen, E., Lerkkanen, M. K., & Nurmi, J. E. (2004). Developmental dynamics of math
performance from preschool to grade 2. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 699713.
Aunola, K., Leskinen, E., & Nurmi, J. E. (2006). Developmental dynamics between mathematical
performance, task motivation, and teachers goals during the transition to primary school.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 2140.
Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J. E. (2004). Maternal affection moderates the impact of psychological
control on a childs mathematical performance. Developmental Psychology, 40, 965978.
doi:10.1037/0012-1649.40.6.965.
Aunola, K., Nurmi, J. E., Lerkkanen, M. K., & Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2003). The role of achievement-
related behaviors and parental beliefs in childrens mathematical performance. Educational
Aunola, K., Viljaranta, J., Lehtinen, E., & Nurmi, J. E. (2013). The role of maternal support of
competence, autonomy and relatedness in childrens interests and mastery orientation. Learning
and Individual Differences, 25, 171177.
Baroody, A. E., & Diamond, K. E. (2013). Measures of preschool childrens interest and engage-
ment in literacy activities: Examining gender differences and construct dimensions. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 28, 291301.
Basic Education Act 21.8.1998/628. Retrieved from https://www.nlex./en/laki/kaannokset/
1998/19980628.
Butterworth, B., Varma, S., & Laurillard, D. (2011). Dyscalculia: From brain to education. Science,
27(6033), 10491053. doi:10.1126/science.1201536.
Cantlon, J. F., Brannon, E. M., Carter, E. J., & Pelphrey, K. A. (2006). Functional imaging of
numerical processing in adults and 4-year-old children. PLoS Biology, 4(5), e125. doi:10.1371/
journal.pbio.0040125.
Case, R. (1996). Reconceptualizing the nature of childrens conceptual structures and their devel-
opment in middle childhood. In R. Case, & Y. Okamoto (Eds.), The role of central conceptual
structures in the development of childrens thought. Monographs of the Society for Research in
Child Development, 61 (12), Serial No. 246, 126.
Chak, A. (2002). Understanding childrens curiosity and exploration through the lenses of Lewins
eld theory: On developing an appraisal framework. Early Child Development and Care,
172(1), 7787.
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. In G. A.
Macoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295336). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
De Smedt, B., Nol, M. P., Gilmore, C., & Ansari, D. (2013). How do symbolic and non-symbolic
numerical magnitude processing skills relate to individual differences in childrens mathemati-
cal skills? A review of evidence from brain and behaviour. Trends in Neuroscience and
Education, 2(2), 4855. doi:10.1016/j.tine.2013.06.001.
Dehaene, S., Piazza, M., Pinel, P., & Cohen, L. (2003). Three parietal circuits for number process-
ing. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20(36), 487506. doi:10.1080/02643290244000239.
Desoete, A., Stock, P., Schepens, A., Baeyens, D., & Roeyers, H. (2009). Classication, seriation,
and counting in grades 1, 2, and 3 as two-year longitudinal predictors for low achieving in
numerical facility and arithmetical achievement. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment,
27(3), 252264. doi:10.1177/0734282908330588.
Durand, M., Hulme, C., Larkin, R., & Snowling, M. (2005). The cognitive foundations of reading
and arithmetic skills in 7- to 10-year-olds. Journal of Exceptional Child Psychology, 91(2),
113136.
Dyson, N. I., Jordan, N. C., & Glutting, J. (2013). A number sense intervention for low income
kindergartners at risk for mathematics difculties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46(2),
166181. doi:10.1177/0022219411410233.
Finlex. (2015). Varhaiskasvatuslaki [ECEC legislation]. Retrieved from https://www.nlex.//
laki/ajantasa/1973/19730036.
Finnish National Board of Education. (2014a). The National Core Curriculum for Basic Education
2014. Retrieved from http://www.oph./download/163777_perusopetuksen_opetussuunnitel-
man_perusteet_2014.pdf.
Finnish National Board of Education. (2014b). The National Core Curriculum for Pre-Primary
Education 2014. Retrieved from http://www.oph./download/163781_esiopetuksen_opetussu
unnitelman_perusteet_2014.pdf.
Fisher, P. H., Dobbs-Oates, J., Doctoroff, G. L., & Arnold, D. H. (2012). Early math interest and
the development of math skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 673681.
68 P. Aunio et al.
Frenzel, A. C., Goetz, T., Pekrun, R., & Watt, H. M. G. (2010). Development of mathematics interest
in adolescence: Inuences of gender, family and school context. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 20, 507537.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Powell, S. R., Capizzi, A. M., & Seethaler, P. M. (2006).
The effects of computer-assisted instruction on number combination skill in at-risk rst grad-
ers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(5), 467475. doi:10.1177/00222194060390050701.
Georgiou, G., Tziraki, N., Manolitsis, G., & Fella, A. (2013). Is RAN related to reading and math-
ematics for the same reason(s)? A follow-up study from kindergarten to grade 1. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 115, 481496.
Hannula, M. M., Rsnen, P., & Lehtinen, E. (2007). Development of counting skills: Role of
spontaneous focusing on numerosity and subitizing-based enumeration. Mathematical
Thinking and Learning, 9(1), 5157.
Hart, S. A., Petrill, S. A., & Thompson, L. A. (2010). A factorial analysis of timed and untimed
measures of mathematics and reading abilities in school aged twins. Learning and Individual
Differences, 20, 6369. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2009.10.004.
Heikkil, M., Ihalainen, S. L., & Vlimki, A. L. (2004). National curriculum guidelines on
early childhood education and care in Finland. Retrieved from http://urn./URN:
NBN:-fe201204193910.
Hidi, S. (2006). Interest: A unique motivational variable. Educational Research Review, 1, 6982.
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational
Psychologist, 41, 111127.
Isaacs, E. B., Edmonds, C. J., Lucas, A., & Gadian, D. G. (2001). Calculation difculties in chil-
dren of very low birthweight: A neural correlate. Brain, 124(9), 17011707.
Jgi, A. L., Kikas, E., Lerkkanen, M. L., & Mgi, K. (2015). Cross-lagged relations between math-
related interest, performance goals and skills in groups of children with different general abili-
ties. Learning and Individual Differences, 39, 105113.
Jordan, N. C., Glutting, J., & Ramineni, C. (2010). The importance of number sense to mathemat-
ics achievement in rst and third grades. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 8288.
Jordan, N. C., Kaplan, D., Locuniak, M. N., & Ramineni, C. (2007). Predicting rst-grade math
achievement from developmental number sense trajectories. Learning Disabilities Research
and Practice, 22(1), 3646.
Jordan, N. C., Kaplan, D., Olh, L., & Locuniak, M. N. (2006). Number sense growth in kinder-
garten: A longitudinal investigation of children at risk for mathematics difculties. Child
Development, 77(1), 153175.
Krajewski, K., & Schneider, W. (2009). Early development of quantity to number-word linkage as a pre-
cursor of mathematical school achievement and mathematical difculties: Findings from a four-year
longitudinal study. Learning and Instruction, 19, 513526. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.10.002.
Kucian, K., Loenneker, T., Dietrich, T., Dosch, M., Martin, E., & von Aster, M. (2006). Impaired
neural networks for approximate calculation in dyscalculic children: A functional MRI study.
Behavioral and Brain Functions, 2, 31. doi:10.1186/1744-9081-2-31. 17 p.
Kupari, P., & Nissinen, K. (2015). Matematiikan osaamisen taustatekijt. [The background vari-
ables of mathematical performance.] In J. Vlijrvi, & P. Kupari (Eds.), Mill evill osaa-
minen uuteen nousuun? PISA 2012 Tutkimustuloksia. [PISA 2012 Research results.] (1027).
Helsinki, Finland: Ministry of Education and Culture.
Kurdek, L. A., & Sinclair, R. J. (2001). Predicting reading and mathematics achievement in fourth-grade
children from kindergarten readiness scores. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 451455.
Lachance, J. A., & Mazzocco, M. M. M. (2006). A longitudinal analysis of sex differences in math and
spatial skills in primary school age children. Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 195216.
LeFevre, J. A., Fast, L., Skwarchuk, S. L., Smith-Chant, B. L., Bisanz, J., Kamawar, J., &
Penner-Wilger, M. (2010). Pathways to mathematics: Longitudinal predictors of performance.
Child Development, 81(6), 17531767.
LeFevre, J. A., Polyzoi, E., Skwarchuk, S. L., Fast, L., & Sowinski, C. (2010). Do home numeracy
literacy practices of Greek and Canadian parents predict the numeracy skills of kindergarten
children? International Journal of Early Years of Education, 18(1), 5570.
Lukie, I. K., Skwarchuk, S. L., LeFevre, J. A., & Sowinski, C. (2014). The role of child interests
and collaborative parent-child interactions in fostering numeracy and literacy development in
Canadian homes. Early Childhood Education Journal, 42(4), 251259.
Mazzocco, M. M. M. (2007). Dening and differentiating mathematical learning disabilities and
difculties. In D. B. Berch & M. M. M. Mazzocco (Eds.), Why is math so hard for some chil-
dren? The nature and origins of mathematical learning difficulties and disabilities (pp. 2947).
Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes Publishing.
McClelland, M. M., Acock, A. C., & Morrison, F. J. (2006). The impact of kindergarten learning-
related skills on academic trajectories at the end of elementary school. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 24(4), 471490.
Metsmuuronen, J. (2013). Matemaattisen osaamisen muutos perusopetuksen luokilla 39. [The
change in mathematics learning outcomes from 3rd to 9th grade.] In J. Metsmuuronen (Ed.),
Perusopetuksen matematiikan oppimistulosten pitkittisarviointi vuosina 20052012.
Koulutuksen seurantaraportit 4/2013 [The report on the longitudinal study of the National
Learning Assessment of Mathematical skills.] (pp. 65171). Helsinki, Finland: National Board
of Education.
Ministry of Education and Culture. (2013). PISA 12 leaflet. Still among the best in the
OECD. Performance declining. Retrieved from http://www.minedu./OPM/Julkaisut/2013/
PISA12_esite.html?lang=en.
Molko, N., Cachia, A., Rivire, D., Mangin, J. F., Bruandet, M., Le Bihan, D., Dehaene, S.
(2003). Functional and structural alterations of the intraparietal sulcus in a developmental
dyscalculia of genetic origin. Neuron, 40(4), 847858.
Mononen, R., Aunio, P., & Koponen, T. (2014). Investigating RightStart Mathematics kindergarten
instruction in Finland. Journal of Early Childhood Education Research, 3(1), 226.
National Institute for Health and Welfare. (2015). Children, young people and families: Promoting
the well-being of children. Retrieved from https://www.thl.//web/lapset-nuoret-ja-perheet.
Niklas, F., & Schneider, W. (2013). Home literacy environment and the beginning of reading and
spelling. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38, 4050.
Passolunghi, M. C., Vercelloni, B., & Schadee, H. (2007). The precursors of mathematics learning:
Working memory, phonological ability and numerical competence. Cognitive Development,
22, 165184.
Petrill, S., Logan, J., Hart, S., Vincent, P., Thompson, L., Kovas, Y., & Plomin, R. (2012). Math
uency is etiologically distinct from untimed math performance, decoding uency, and untimed
reading performance: Evidence from a twin study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(4),
371381. doi:10.1177/0022219411407926.
Piaget, J. (1965). The childs conception of number. New York, NY: Norton.
Price, G. R., & Ansari, D. (2013). Dyscalculia: Characteristics, causes, and treatments. Numeracy,
6(1), Article 2. doi:10.5038/1936-4660.6.1.2.
Provasnik, S., Kastberg, D., Ferraro, D., Lemanski, N., Roey, S., & Jenkins, F. (2012). Highlights
from TIMSS 2011: Mathematics and science achievement of U.S. fourth- and eighth-grade
students in an international context. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.
asp?pubid=2013009rev.
Purpura, D. J., & Ganley, C. (2014). Working memory and language: Skill-specic or domain-
general relations to mathematics? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 122, 104121.
doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2013.12.009.
Purpura, D. J., & Napoli, A. R. (2015). Early numeracy and literacy: Untangling the relation
between specic components. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 17 (23). doi:10.1080/10
986065.2015.1016817.
Ramani, G. B., & Siegler, R. S. (2008). Promoting broad and stable improvements in low income
childrens numerical knowledge through playing number board games. Child Development,
79(2), 375394.
Ramani, G. B., & Siegler, R. S. (2014). How informal learning activities can promote childrens
numerical knowledge. Oxford Handbooks Online. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642342.013.012.
Rsnen, P., & Nrhi, V. (2013). Heikkojen oppijoiden koulupolku. [Pathways to poor
performance in mathematics.] In J. Metsmuuronen (Ed.), Perusopetuksen matematiikan
oppimistulosten pitkittisarviointi vuosina 20052012. Koulutuksen seurantaraportit 4/2013
70 P. Aunio et al.
[The report on the longitudinal study of the National Learning Assessment of Mathematical
skills.] (pp. 173224). Helsinki, Finland: National Board of Education.
Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. (2011). Revisiting the conceptualization, measurement, and genera-
tion of interest. Educational Psychologist, 46, 168184.
Renninger, K. A., & Leckrone, T. G. (1991). Continuity in young childrens actions: A consideration
of interest and temperament. In L. Oppenheimer & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The origins of action:
Interdisciplinary and international perspectives (pp. 205238). New York, NY: Springer.
Renninger, K. A., & Su, S. (2012). Interest and its development. In R. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford
handbook of human motivation (pp. 167187). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2009). Early childhood mathematics education research. Learning
trajectories for young children. New York, NY: Routledge.
Save the Children. (2012). The child development index 2012: Progress, challenges and
inequality. Retrieved from http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/sites/default/les/docs/Child_
Development_Index_2012_UK_low_res.pdf.
Siegler, R. (2009). Improving the numerical understanding of children from low-income families.
Child Development Perspectives, 3(2), 118124.
Siegler, R., & Ramani, G. B. (2008). Playing linear numerical board games promotes low-income
childrens numerical development. Developmental Science, 11(5), 655661.
Silinskas, G., Kiuru, N., Aunola, K., Lerkkanen, M. L., & Nurmi, J. E. (2015). The developmental
dynamics of childrens academic performance and mothers homework-related affect and prac-
tices. Developmental Psychology, 51(4), 419433.
Silinskas, G., Leppnen, U., Aunola, K., Parrila, R., & Nurmi, J. E. (2010). Predictors of mothers
and fathers teaching of reading and mathematics in kindergarten and grade 1. Learning and
Instruction, 20, 6171. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.01.002.
Silinskas, G., Lerkkanen, M. L., Tolvanen, A., Poikkeus, A. M., Nurmi, J. E., & Niemi, P. (2012).
The frequency of parents reading-related activities at home and childrens reading skills dur-
ing kindergarten and grade 1. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 33, 302310.
Skwarchuk, S. L. (2009). How do parents support preschoolers numeracy learning experiences at
home? Early Childhood Education Journal, 37, 189197.
Smith, L. (2002). Reasoning by mathematical induction in childrens arithmetic. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Stock, P., Desoete, A., & Roeyers, H. (2009). Predicting arithmetic abilities: The role of prepara-
tory arithmetic markers and intelligence. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 27(3),
237251. doi:10.1177/0734282908330587.
Tapola-Tuohikumpu, S. (2005). Positiivisella diskriminaatiolla varhaista tukea. Helsingiin kaupun-
gin sosiaaliviraston Positiivisen diskriminaation hankekokonaisuuden (2001-2004) loppura-
portti. [Early support with positive discrimination Project report Positive discrimination in
City of Helsinki.] SOCCA and Heikki Waris-institute publications, 3.
Viljaranta, J., Tolvanen, A., Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J. E. (2014). The developmental dynamics
between interest, self-concept of ability, and academic performance. Scandinavian Journal of
Educational Research, 58, 734756.
von Maurice, J., Der, T., & Artelt, C. (2014). The relation between interests and grades: Path
analyses in primary school age. International Journal of Educational Research, 64, 111.
Vukovic, R. K., & Siegel, L. S. (2010). Academic and cognitive characteristics of persistent math-
ematic difculty from rst through fourth grade. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice,
25(1), 2538.
Watt, H. M., Shapka, J. D., Morris, Z. A., Durik, A. M., Keating, D. P., & Eccles, J. S. (2012).
Gendered motivational processes affecting high school mathematics participation, educational
aspirations, and career plans: A comparison of samples from Australia, Canada, and the United
States. Developmental Psychology, 48(6), 15941611.
Wilson, A. J., Dehaene, S., Dubois, O., & Fayol, M. (2009). Effects of adaptive game intervention
on accessing number sense in low-socioeconomic-status kindergarten children. Mind, Brain
and Education, 3(4), 224234.
World Health Organization. (1992). The ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioural disor-
ders: Clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines. Geneva: World Health Organization.
Chapter 5
Towards a Theoretical Framework
on Individual Differences in Numerical
Abilities: Role of Home Numeracy
Experiences
Tijs Kleemans, Eliane Segers, and Ludo Verhoeven
Towards a Theoretical Framework on Individual Differences

in Numerical Abilities: Role of Home Numeracy Experiences
The home environment can be seen as a combination of uniqueyet interrelated

aspects that include parentchild activities (Payne, Whitehurst, & Angell, 1994) and
parents expectations of their childs (academic) development (Martini & Snchal,
2012). Experiences at home impact childrens academic abilities, especially in the
early years of primary education (Melhuish et al., 2008). Especially with regard to
literacy development, research has pointed out that the more the parent is involved
in indirect activities (e.g., storybook reading together with the child) or direct activi-
ties (e.g., word-focused instruction) at home, the better the language and literacy
skills on the part of the child (e.g., Snchal & LeFevre, 2014). Research has also
made clear that the higher the parents literacy expectations, the better the childs
literacy skills (Bennett, Weigel, & Martin, 2002). Compared to home literacy, the
theoretical framework on numeracy experiences in the home is less developed, but
the trend seems to emerge towards a similar consensus: that parentchild numeracy
activities as well as parents numeracy expectations positively predict childrens
numeracy skills. In other words, the more parents are engaged in numeracy related
activities with the child, the higher the childs numerical abilities (e.g., Huntsinger,
Jose, Larson, Balsink Krieg, & Shaligram, 2000; LeFevre et al., 2009) and the
higher the parent expectations, the better the childs numeracy skills (e.g., LeFevre,
Polyzoi, Skwarchuk, Fast, & Sowinski, 2010).
T. Kleemans, Ph.D. (*) E. Segers, Ph.D. L. Verhoeven, Ph.D.

Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University, Montessorilaan 3, P.O. Box 9104,
6500 HE Nijmegen, The Netherlands
e-mail: m.kleemans@pwo.ru.nl; e.segers@pwo.ru.nl; l.verhoeven@pwo.ru.nl

72 T. Kleemans et al.
However, numerical abilities have not only found to be related with home
numeracy experiences but also with cognitive (e.g., De Smedt et al., 2009; Friso-
van den Bos, Van der Ven, Kroesbergen, & Van Luit, 2013) and linguistic child
factors (e.g., De Smedt & Boets, 2010; Kleemans, Segers, & Verhoeven, 2012;
Simmons & Singleton, 2008). An expansion of the theoretical framework on indi-
vidual differences in numerical skills is therefore needed. Moreover, given that cog-
nitive as well as linguistic child skills have an impact on numerical abilities, the
question rises whether children with language difculties may have a dual risk in
developing lower numerical abilities. Besides having a language problem, their
home environment may be less stimulating than that of children without language
problems (Martin, Volkmar, & Lewis, 2007). In this chapter, we will present a theo-
retical framework on individual differences in numerical abilities in which we
include both child and home factors. Existing research on child and home factors of
atypical language populations will also be reviewed in light of this theoretical
framework. We close with a perspective on future research and implications for
practice in the eld of home numeracy.
A Theoretical Framework on Individual Differences

in Numerical Abilities
Numerical abilities consist of early numeracy skills and basic arithmetic skills. Early
numeracy skills can be seen as a multi-componential construct that consists of logical
operations, numerical representations, and numeral estimations (cf. Desoete &
Grgoire, 2006; Kleemans, Segers, & Verhoeven, 2011a; Passolunghi, Vercelloni, &
Schadee, 2007). Logical operations refer to the more classical Piagetian skills, such
as comparison, classication, one-one correspondence, and seriation (Van de Rijt,
Van Luit, & Pennings, 1999). Numerical representations refer to counting and knowl-
edge of the number system. And numeral estimations involve the ability to make
number line estimations and to compare numerical magnitudes (e.g., Laski & Siegler,
2007). Basic arithmetic skills comprise the addition and subtraction of single digits
in grade 1 and 2, and are preceded by the acquisition of early numeracy skills in kin-
dergarten (Desoete & Grgoire, 2006; Watts, Duncan, Siegler, & Davis-Kean, 2014).
Child factors of numerical abilities. Cognitive as well as linguistic child factors
can partly account for individual differences in numerical abilities. With respect to
cognitive factors, both general intelligence and working memory have been found to
predict the acquisition of numerical abilities. General intelligence was found to play
a role in early numeracy (Stock, Desoete, & Roeyers, 2009) as well as basic arith-
metic (De Smedt et al., 2009). For working memory, Baddeleys three componential
model is often used, dening a central executive as primary system, and a phono-
logical loop and visual spatial sketchpad as slave systems (Baddeley, 1996). In a
recent meta-analysis, it was evidenced that the central executive is of importance for
numerical abilities throughout primary school (Friso-van den Bos et al., 2013).
5 Towards a Theoretical Framework on Individual Differences in Numerical 73
The role of the two slave systems, however, was found to be dependent on the
strategy use of children during the solution process of arithmetical problems. When
arithmetic becomes more automatized, the strategy use of young children tends to
shift from a nger counting strategy (i.e., visual-spatial sketchpad) to a more verbal
strategy (i.e., phonological loop) (Siegler, 1996). The phonological loop was found
to play a role in basic arithmetic in second grade, when most children rely on count-
ing strategies and fact retrieval that are based on phonologically encoded informa-
tion (De Smedt et al., 2009; Hecht, Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 2001). For the
visual-spatial sketchpad, a relationship was evidenced with early numeracy skills
(Rasmussen & Bisanz, 2005), and with additional procedural strategies in basic
arithmetic, such as carryover operations (Siegler, 1996).
With respect to linguistic factors, convergent evidence from neuroimaging stud-
ies in adults suggests that most of the numerical abilities are recruited from
language-related networks (Dehaene, Molko, Cohen, & Wilson, 2004; Dehaene,
Piazza, Pinel, & Cohen, 2003; Dehaene, Spelke, Pinel, Stanescu, & Tsivkin, 1999),
whereas the estimation and approximation of numbers appears to operate indepen-
dently of language representations (Gordon, 2004; Pica, Lemer, Izard, & Dehaene,
2004). From an individual differences perspective, an important limitation is that
these studies do not make clear which linguistic factors account for these results
during acquisition in childhood (Kaufmann, 2008). Recent behavioural research
examined the developmental patterns in language and numeracy in young children.
From this research, several linguistic components in the domains of phonological,
lexical, and syntactical abilities can be identied.
With respect to phonological abilities, phonological awareness was found to
uniquely predict numerical abilities, as these are stored within a phonological for-
mat in long-term memory (Hecht et al., 2001; Krajewski & Schneider, 2009;
Simmons & Singleton, 2008). Problems in retrieving those formats may cause an
inability to manipulate verbal codes during counting (Purpura, Hume, Sims, &
Lonigan, 2011) and later basic arithmetic (De Smedt, Taylor, Archibald, & Ansari,
2010; Kleemans, Segers, et al., 2012). With respect to lexical skills, both receptive
vocabulary and naming speed have been found to predict numerical abilities; recep-
tive vocabulary reects children ability to acquire vocabulary in the number system
(LeFevre, Fast, et al., 2010), whereas naming speed and numerical abilities rely on
fast and efcient retrieval of linguistically encoded representations (i.e., arithmetic
fact retrieval; arithmetic conceptual knowledge) from long-term memory (Koponen,
Mononen, Rsnen, & Ahonen, 2006). Finally, at the level of syntax, it was found
that the growth patterns in grammatical ability and numerical abilities share similar
origins in relatively simple processes (e.g., Hauser, Chomsky, & Fitch, 2002;
Johnson, 2003). For example, the order of words in a sentence determines the out-
come (She pushes him. vs. He pushes her.), as does the order of the numbers in
an arithmetical subtraction problem (15-4 = vs. 4-15 =) (cf. Baldo & Dronkers,
2007). Signicant effects of grammatical ability have been found on early numer-
acy skills (Durkin, Mok, & Conti-Ramsden, 2013; Kleemans, Segers, & Verhoeven,
2011b) as well as on later basic arithmetic (Kleemans, Segers, & Verhoeven, 2014).
Home factors of numerical abilities. Although cognitive and linguistic child factors
may account for individual differences in numerical abilities, the theoretical frame-
work on early numeracy skills and basic arithmetic skills is in need of expansion as
individual differences in numerical skills are also found to be related to external
control variables, such as the home numeracy environment. Given the high correla-
tion between linguistic and numerical abilities, recent studies on the neurocognitive
mechanisms of language processing may help to explain why inclusion of the home
environment in an individual differences framework is so important. According to
Hagoort (2013), the faculty of language consists of three functional components:
representation, unication, and control. The representation component comprises a
specication of the different types of language information stored in long-term
memory, as well as retrieval operations (e.g., phonological and lexical representa-
tions). The unication component refers to the integration of lexically retrieved
information into a representation of multi-word utterances (e.g., grammatical abil-
ity). And the control component relates language to action (e.g., cognitive control
like executive functions). It is interesting to note that control not only plays a crucial
role in language representation and unication (e.g., Van de Sande, Segers, &
Verhoeven, 2013), but in numerical abilities as well (e.g., Kolkman, Hoijtink,
Kroesbergen, & Leseman, 2013). Because young kindergartners have relative
immature control functions (Gathercole, Pickering, Ambridge, & Wearing, 2004),
parents may nd the need to guide their children in learning both language and
arithmetic by acting as a temporary external control mechanism until childrens
control functions are sufciently matured. To be more specic, in the early years of
primary education, parentchild activities as well as parents expectations should be
targeted just above the current competence level of the child in order to facilitate
learning in an optimal way (Vygotsky, 1978).
Behavioural research on the impact of home numeracy experiences on numeri-
cal abilities makes it clear that a distinction can be made between parentchild
numeracy activities and parents numeracy expectations. With respect to parent
child numeracy activities, Skwarchuk (2009) showed that parents involvement in
numeracy activities was positively related to childrens early numeracy skills.
LeFevre, Clarke, and Stringer (2002) reported similar results in a sample of 27
French- and 38 English-speaking Canadian children: the higher the reported fre-
quency of parentchild numeracy activities, the better the childs counting skills.
Comparable longitudinal outcomes have been found for the development of basic
arithmetic in rst grade. To begin with, Huntsinger and colleagues (2000) found
the efforts of parents teaching simple sums in kindergarten to be positively related
with childrens later achievement in basic arithmetic. Furthermore, LeFevre et al.
(2009) showed that parentchild numeracy activities predicted rst grade addition
and subtraction, after controlling for vocabulary and spatial memory as a proxy for
intelligence. And Niklas and Schneider (2013) reported similar results in a sample
of 609 German children: the more parents reported to engage in numeracy related
activities with their child, the higher the basic arithmetic skills of the child 1 year
later. Although there seems to be a general consensus that the frequency of par-
entchild numeracy activities is positively related to early numeracy skills and
basic arithmetic skills, it should be noted, however, that Blevins-Knabe and
Musun-Miller (1996) and Blevins-Knabe, Berghout, Musun-Miller, Eddy, and

Jones (2000) did not nd correlations between the frequency of number related
activities in the home and math outcomes. In a recent study on home literacy,
Snchal and LeFevre (2014) showed that in kindergarten, parent teaching of for-
mal literacy skills was positively related to childrens word reading whereas in
Grade 1 the correlation reversed as parents adjusted their practices to the perfor-
mances of the child; those who are getting more parental attention in rst grade are
the ones having trouble with word reading. A similar pattern might have occurred
in the studies of Blevins-Knabe and colleagues for the case of early numeracy
skills. In other words, parents may tend to adapt their activities, and increase the
frequency when their child starts lagging behind.
With respect to parents numeracy expectations, LeFevre, Polyzoi, et al. (2010)
found that higher expectations resulted in more numeracy-related practices being
associated with better numeracy achievement on the part of the child. In a cross-
sectional study in kindergarten, Kleemans, Peeters, Segers, and Verhoeven (2012)
used both measures of home numeracy experiences (i.e., parentchild numeracy
activities and parents numeracy expectations) in predicting childrens early
numeracy skills and found both aspects to be positively with the early numeracy
skills of 89 typically developing children, after controlling for their cognitive and
linguistic abilities.
Since recent studies have shown that not only cognitive but also linguistic factors
play an important role in predicting numeracy development, it may be assumed that
it is not so much the home numeracy environment but rather the home literacy envi-
ronment that predicts early numeracy (cf. Manolitsis, Georgiou, & Tziraki, 2013).
To test this hypothesis, we examined the unique role of the home numeracy environ-
ment (Segers, Kleemans, & Verhoeven, 2015). Although parentchild literacy activ-
ities and parentchild numeracy activities were highly correlated (r = 0.71,
p < 0.001), the results of our study indicated that both aspects of home numeracy
experiences (i.e., parentchild numeracy activities and parents numeracy expecta-
tions) were uniquely related to the early numeracy skills of 60 kindergartners, after
controlling for cognitive and linguistic child factors and home literacy environment.
It was thus concluded that the home numeracy environment could be seen as a
unique factor in the home environment in predicting early numeracy skills. For
basic arithmetic skills in grade 1 and grade 2, LeFevre and colleagues (2009)
reported comparable results for accuracy measures in addition and subtraction, but
not for uency measures. For the latter, there was a positive signicant effect of
home numeracy experiences and a negative effect of home literacy practices, after
controlling for spatial span and vocabulary as cognitive and linguistic child mea-
sures. The negative effect of home literacy practices on early numeracy skills was
not explained in the discussion section, but it might have been the case that parents
who engaged more in literacy activities with their children in rst and second grade
were the ones whose child had difculties in acquiring literacy skills.
To sum up, so far we have shown that the acquisition of early numeracy skills
and basic arithmetic skills can be predicted by the cognitive and linguistic skills
children bring into the classroom, on the one hand, and their home numeracy expe-
riences, on the other hand. In Fig. 5.1, this theoretical model is depicted.
Fig. 5.1 Child and home factors of individual differences in numerical abilities
Home Numeracy Experiences in Children with Language

Problems in the Netherlands
Given that linguistic skills have an impact on numerical abilities (e.g., Kleemans,
Peeters, et al., 2012), and that home literacy and home numeracy experiences are
highly correlated (cf. Segers et al., 2015), it can be assumed that having difculties in
acquiring linguistic skills may have serious consequences for the development of
numerical abilities in the early years of primary education. Accordingly, children with
language difculties form an interesting group. Possible interactions between experi-
ences in the home and deciencies in language development place children with lan-
guage problems at an elevated risk for learning difculties (Martin et al., 2007).
Therefore, we will now focus on two groups of children with atypical language devel-
opment: Second language learners with limited second language input and Children
with Specic Language Impairment (SLI) who have a deficit in linguistic skills.
Given that our studies were conducted in the Netherlands, we will rst provide some
demographic information about the educational context in the Netherlands.
Demographic characteristics of the Dutch educational context. In the Netherlands,
a distinction can be made between informal and formal daycare. Preschool, home
daycares and after-school care are considered formal childcare, and occasional
baby-sitters and lunch-break care are deemed informal. Formal daycares have to
follow the rules as stated in the Dutch Childcare Act (2005). According to this Act,
parents, employers and the government are together responsible to pay for the costs
of formal childcare. To do so, all employers are imposed a childcare levy by the
government.
Daycare in a home or an institution can be attended until 4 years of age. Next to

daycare, 2- or 3-year-old children are also allowed to attend preschool 1 or 2 days a
week. Central aims of the Dutch preschool are preventing and mitigating educa-
tional deciencies in disadvantaged children (e.g., children who are lagging behind
in language development because they speak poor Dutch, and/or receive little
(Dutch) stimulation at home). Most Dutch pre-schools use ready-made curricular
programmes, selected by either the local government or the organization itself.
Preschool programmes often emphasize school readiness skills in which the empha-
sis lies on language development. Most programmes are designed for 2- and 3-year-
old children from parents of low educational background. Van Tuijl and Leseman
(2007) showed that these programmes are effective in enhancing language and cog-
nitive abilities as well as domain-specic school readiness skills.
Children enter mainstream education (i.e., the rst of 2 years of kindergarten) at
the age of 4. Each school can choose among a variety of reading and math methods,
but each method has to meet the nal terms as stated in a national curriculum (Van
der Stap, 2012). Furthermore, there are schools for special education for children
with severe vision problems (i.e., children with blindness), severe problems in lan-
guage and communication (e.g., deaf children, children with SLI), intellectual dis-
abilities, and behavioural problems (e.g., children with conduct disorder). Compared
to mainstream primary education, these children receive an adapted curriculum in
language as well as math in relative small classrooms.
Halfway through kindergarten, children are expected to have phonological
awareness (e.g., rhyming, synthesis) and knowledge of some letters of the alphabet.
Furthermore, children are expected to count objects forward and backward (e.g.,
candies) with and without hands and they should be able to solve elementary arith-
metical problems (e.g., one block plus one block makes two blocks). After 2 years
of kindergarten, the children enter the equivalent of rst grade where formal reading
and arithmetic instruction is started. Halfway through rst grade, children are able
to accurately read one-syllable words (Verhoeven & Van Leeuwe, 2008).
Furthermore, they are expected to successfully solve simple addition and subtrac-
tion problems (i.e., addition and subtraction problems that do not contain carryover
operations). These problems should be fully automatized halfway second grade, in
which more emphasis is given on addition and subtraction problems with carryover
operations (Van der Stap, 2012).
Progress in language and mathematics is biannually monitored using a standard-
ized series of national tests. According to Trends in International Mathematics and
Science Study (TIMSS; Mullis, Martin, Foy, & Arora, 2012), the Netherlands cur-
rently holds the 12th place with a grade 4 average of 541, right after the United
States (11th) and before Denmark (13th). On the Child Development Index (CDI)
the Netherlands holds the 10th place with an index number of 0.93 (i.e., very high).
Second language learners. In the Netherlands, 189 different ethnicities are rep-
resented in which Turkish and Moroccan form the largest minority groups (Central
Bureau of Statistics, 2015). Children from Turkish and Moroccan families tend to
live in native-language speaking homes; their early language input is thus restricted
to Turkish and Moroccan Arabic; and the Dutch language only gradually enters
their lives via Dutch school and playmates (Scheele, Leseman, & Mayo, 2010).
Especially when being raised in a context in which the rst language is submersive
(as is the case for the Turkish and Moroccan children in the Netherlands), bilingual
children lag behind in their scores in the second language and this gap tends to
increase in primary school (Verhoeven & Vermeer, 2002).
Bilingual children may not only have a language problem in primary school.
Their numerical abilities also tend to lag behind. One reason for this is that the
language of instruction is the second language, which is more difcult for them to
understand. As a consequence, their mathematical learning is being placed at risk
(Mullis et al., 2012). A second reason is the interrelationship between linguistic and
mathematical skills. In a cross-sectional study in kindergarten (Kleemans et al.,
2011b), we found the cognitive skills of second language learners as well as rst
language learners to be mediated by their linguistic skills: the higher the cognitive
skills (i.e., general intelligence and working memory), the better the linguistic
skills (i.e., phonological awareness and grammatical ability). And the better their
linguistic skills, the higher their early numeracy skills (i.e., logical operations and
numeral representations).
In yet another cross-sectional study in second grade (Kleemans et al., 2014), we
found comparable results in 69 rst language learners and 60 s language learners
which we tested on their cognitive, linguistic as well as their basic arithmetic skills
(i.e., addition and subtraction). In addition to non-verbal intelligence and working
memory, we found both phonological awareness and grammatical ability to
account for the variation in basic arithmetic skills. It was therefore concluded that
the assessment of arithmetic problems in rst and second language learners should
take into account the cognitive and linguistic abilities that children bring to the
classroom.
It is interesting to note that the results of our cross-sectional study in second grade
(Kleemans et al., 2014) still showed a group difference on both addition and subtrac-
tion, after controlling for cognitive and linguistic skills; there was still some unac-
counted variance in explaining the lower scores of second language learners in basic
arithmetic skills. Possibly, individual differences may also be related to differences
in numeracy experiences in the home, but to the best of our knowledge, no research
has been conducted yet to test this hypothesis. Previous research on home literacy
practices of second language learners suggests that there may be both positive and
negative effects. Positive effects refer to the transfer of knowledge and skills from
the home language to the second language (Hernandez, Li, & MacWhinney, 2005;
Verhoeven, 2007). On the other hand, there may be negative effects, as the time
spent on learning the rst language cannot be spent on learning the second language
(Scheele et al., 2010). When the bilingual children grow up in a language-minority,
low-income family with a low socioeconomic status, there may be a dual risk, as the
input is sparse and also has to be divided over two languages (Scheele et al., 2010).
As such, research on home literacy of bilingual children often continues to focus on
low-income families (e.g., Farver, Xu, Eppe, & Lonigan, 2006), with outcomes urg-
ing towards early interventions in this group in particular.
Children with specific language impairment. Specic Language Impairment (SLI)

is characterized by deciencies in language development, which are not the direct
result of intellectual or physical disabilities, hearing loss, or environmental inu-
ences (Bishop, 1992). Besides having language problems, children with SLI also
have problems in acquiring numerical abilities. With respect to early numeracy
skills, it has been found that children with SLI tend to score below their peers with
Normal Language Achievement (NLA) on logical operations and numeral represen-
tations, but score at age appropriate levels on numeral estimations (Arvedson, 2002;
Donlan, Bishop, & Hitch, 1998; Fazio, 1994, 1996; Kleemans et al., 2011a). With
respect to basic arithmetic skills, previous research showed that children with SLI
score below their peers with NLA on both addition and subtraction (Cowan, Donlan,
Newton, & Lloyd, 2005). In a cross-sectional study in kindergarten (Kleemans
et al., 2011a) and a longitudinal study from kindergarten to rst grade (Kleemans,
Segers, et al., 2012), we found that the differences in numerical abilities between
children with SLI and their peers with NLA could be understood in terms of the
dependency of these tasks on the linguistic abilities on the part of the child: Children
with SLI performed worse on early numeracy skills (i.e., logical operations and
numeral representations) and basic arithmetic skills, because these tasks are highly
dependent on linguistic input (i.e., phonological awareness and grammatical abil-
ity), especially when contrasted to numeral estimations, in which only signicant
effects were found for general intelligence and the visual-spatial sketchpad.
Furthermore, the results showed that naming speed as a lexical child factor might
act as a clinical marker for children with SLI: those who have better naming speed
skills were better able to reduce their delays in basic arithmetic as compared to
those who had lower naming speed skills.
To the best of our knowledge, there is ample data available on the home envi-
ronment of children with SLI. With respect to home literacy practices, Skibbe,
Justice, Zucker, and McGinty (2008) showed that parents of children with SLI
report engaging in fewer literacy-related practices and also have lower literacy
expectations than parents of children with NLA. McGinty and Justice (2009)
found signicant relations between home literacy experiences and print knowl-
edge in children with SLI. Given the relation between linguistic and numerical
abilities, similar results may be expected for home numeracy experiences in pre-
dicting numeracy skills. To explore this hypothesis, a longitudinal study was con-
ducted on the unique contribution of home numeracy experiences (i.e., parentchild
numeracy experiences and parents numeracy expectations) in predicting the
basic arithmetic skills of 50 rst graders with SLI and 100 peers with NLA, after
controlling for cognitive and linguistic child factors (Kleemans, Segers, &
Verhoeven, 2013). Indeed, the results showed that parents of children with SLI
report engaging in fewer numeracy-related activities, and have lower numeracy
expectations, as compared to parents of children with NLA. Furthermore, in pre-
dicting the basic arithmetic skills of children with SLI in rst grade, we found a
unique longitudinal contribution of both parentchild numeracy activities and
parents numeracy expectations to addition and subtraction, after controlling
for cognitive (i.e., general intelligence, working memory) and linguistic (i.e.,
phonological awareness, grammatical ability, naming speed) child factors.
These results highlight the unique role of the home numeracy environment in the
development of basic arithmetic skills in children with SLI. It should be noted, how-
ever, that in this study we did not differentiate between basic numeracy practices
and more advanced numeracy practices. In predicting symbolic number knowledge
in rst grade, Skwarchuk, Sowinkski, and LeFevre (2014) reported signicant
effects of advanced numeracy practices at home (e.g., learning simple sums) but not
of basic numeracy practices (e.g., singing counting songs). Indeed, post hoc analy-
ses on our own dataset (Kleemans et al., 2013) showed that for children with NLA
a similar pattern occurred as in the study of Skwarchuk and colleagues (2014): the
items that were specically aimed at early numeracy (e.g., rehearsing counting
rhymes) had considerable lower (r varied between 0.201 and 0.202), yet signicant
(p < 0.01) correlations with addition and subtraction, as compared to the items that
were more related to basic arithmetic (e.g., making arithmetic puzzles, talking about
money when shopping, playing with arithmetic computer; r varied between 0.398
and 0.501). So possibly, for children with normal language achievement the effects
of the home numeracy environment on numerical abilities in rst grade are restricted
to the more advanced numeracy practices. However, given that children with SLI
lag behind their peers with NLA on basic arithmetic skills, it could be expected that
the correlations between the items that were specically aimed at early numeracy
were of similar strength as compared to the items that were targeted at basic arith-
metic. Indeed, another posthoc analysis showed similar correlations (r varying
between 0.404 en 0.430, p < 0.001) among the various parentchild numeracy activ-
ities items and basic arithmetic skills (i.e., addition and subtraction) of children with
SLI. Furthermore, it turned out that parentchild numeracy activities were more
strongly associated with the basic arithmetic skills of children with SLI (addition:
r = 0.782, p < 0.001; subtraction: r = 0.599, p < 0.001), when compared to the group
of children with NLA (addition: r = 0.250, p = 0.012; subtraction: r = 0.199,
p = 0.012). These results suggest that for children with SLI, parentchild numeracy
activities may act as a compensatory mechanism in that especially parents of chil-
dren who are at risk for developing problems in numerical abilities can make a dif-
ference in reducing the delays in addition and subtraction.
To sum up, given that the home environments of children with SLI differ from
their typically developing peers, the theoretical framework on numerical abilities
for this group may also have different accents as compared to children with
NLA. Based on the research described above, Fig. 5.2 depicts a path model on how
such a theoretical framework may look like. In line with typically developing chil-
dren, cognitive (i.e., general intelligence and working memory) and linguistic (i.e.,
phonological and grammatical skills) skills as well as home numeracy expectations
are related to the development of early numeracy skills and basic arithmetic skills of
children with SLI. On top of that, lexical skills (i.e., naming speed) as a clinical
marker and parentchild numeracy activities may reduce the delays in early numer-
acy skills and basic arithmetic skills.
Fig. 5.2 Child and home factors in predicting numerical abilities of children with SLI. Broken
lines refer to compensatory mechanisms specically for children with SLI that may reduce their
delays in numerical abilities
Future Perspective and Practical Implications
In this chapter we presented a theoretical framework on individual differences in

numerical abilities, in which we included the full range of both child and home fac-
tors. In light of this theoretical framework, we also discussed existing research on the
home environment of second language learners and children with SLI. For future
research, the question rises to what extent home numeracy experiences are related to
the numerical abilities in other atypical learning groups as well. Remarkably few
studies have done research on home numeracy experiences in special populations,
especially when contrasted to what has been done in the eld of home literacy experi-
ences in atypical learning populations (e.g., Van der Schuit, Peeters, Segers, Van
Balkom, & Verhoeven, 2009). For example, Van der Schuit and colleagues (2009),
studying children with intellectual disabilities, suggested that parents adapt their level
to the developmental level of their children, which may not always be the most stimu-
lating option for children who lag behind. Given the fact that children with intellec-
tual disabilities have poor reading and numerical abilities (Jenks, Van Lieshout, & De
Moor, 2012), it could be the case that variation in the home numeracy environment
may also account for the delays in early numeracy and basic arithmetic.
Another issue for future research is what happens when children progress through
the mathematical curriculum. Given that home numeracy experiences may only
affect those skills that are within the zone of proximal development of the child and
that are being subject of the educational curriculum at that time (Skwarchuk et al.,
2014), it can be expected that the effects of aspects of home numeracy experiences
may reduce in strength when children have acquired basic arithmetic skills, and
other mathematical skills such as geometry and algebra are becoming increasingly
important (Van der Stap, 2012). For children who lag behind this may be different
as they need more time to automatize their basic arithmetic skills. Given the little
time that rests for these children to arrive at a level of functional numeracy at the end
of primary school, we are in need of carefully designed intervention and implemen-
tation studies that focus on compensatory techniques in learning arithmetic in both
the home and school environment.
The role of both child and home factors in predicting numerical abilities has
important practical implications for both teachers and parents. For teachers, it can
be recommended to take into account both child and home factors when it comes to
an assessment of numerical abilities. Furthermore, teachers are encouraged to stim-
ulate parents in engaging in numeracy activities with their child. For parents, it is
important to note that the expectations they have inuence the numerical develop-
ment of their child. Furthermore, parents should be aware that they play an impor-
tant role in stimulating the numerical abilities of their child in the early years of
primary education. To be more precise, parents should provide children with numer-
acy activities just above their current competence level in order to provide them
with challenging learning opportunities, which may stimulate further numeracy
development (cf. Wells, 1999). Professional communication between teachers and
parents is crucial to stimulate the childs numerical skills in the most optimal way.
References
Arvedson, P. J. (2002). Young children with specic language impairment and their numerical
cognition. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 970982. doi:10.1044/
1092-4388(2002/079).
Baddeley, A. D. (1996). Exploring the central executive. Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 49, 528. doi:10.1080/027249896392784.
Baldo, J., & Dronkers, N. (2007). Neural correlates of arithmetic and language comprehension: A
common substrate? Neuropsychologia, 45, 229235. doi:10.1016/j.
neuropsychologia.2006.07.014.
Bennett, K. K., Weigel, D. J., & Martin, S. S. (2002). Childrens acquisition of early literacy skills:
Examining family contributions. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17, 295317.
doi:10.1016/s0885-2006(02)00166-7.
Bishop, D. V. M. (1992). The underlying nature of specic language impairment. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 33, 366. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1992.tb00858.x.
Blevins-Knabe, B., Berghout, A. A., Musun-Miller, L., Eddy, A., & Jones, R. M. (2000). Family
and its relationship to early mathematical performance. Early Development and Parenting, 5,
Central Bureau of Statistics. (2015). Bevolkingsprognose 2014-2060: Veronderstellingen migratie
[Estimates of human population in the Netherlands 2014-2060: Presuppositions migration].
Retrieved from http://www.cbs.nl/NR/rdonlyres/26C1F4DD-159A-4109-9330-6A2BD29DFC
AE/0/2015BT06bevolkingsprognose20142060.pdf.
Cowan, R., Donlan, C., Newton, E. J., & Lloyd, D. (2005). Number skills and knowledge in chil-
dren with specic language impairment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 732744.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.4.732.
De Smedt, B., & Boets, B. (2010). Phonological processing and arithmetic fact retrieval: Evidence
from developmental dyslexia. Neuropsychologia, 48, 39733981. doi:10.1016/j.
neuropsychologia.2010.10.018.
De Smedt, B., Janssen, R., Bouwens, K., Verschaffel, L., Boets, B., & Ghesquire, P. (2009).
Working memory and individual differences in mathematics achievement: A longitudinal study
from rst grade to second grade. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 103, 186201.
doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2009.01.004.
De Smedt, B., Taylor, J., Archibald, L., & Ansari, D. (2010). How is phonological processing
related to individual differences in childrens arithmetic skills? Developmental Science, 13,
508520. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00897.x.
Dehaene, S., Molko, N., Cohen, L., & Wilson, A. J. (2004). Arithmetic and the brain. Current
Opinion in Neurobiology, 14, 218224. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2004.03.008.
Dehaene, S., Piazza, M., Pinel, P., & Cohen, L. (2003). Three parietal circuits for number process-
ing. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20, 487506. doi:10.1080/02643290244000239.
Dehaene, S., Spelke, E., Pinel, P., Stanescu, R., & Tsivkin, S. (1999). Sources of mathematical
thinking: Behavioural and brain-imaging evidence. Science, 284, 970974. doi:10.1126/
science.284.5416.970.
Desoete, A., & Grgoire, J. (2006). Numerical competence in young children and in children with
mathematical learning disabilities. Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 351367.
doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2006.12.006.
Donlan, C., Bishop, D. V. M., & Hitch, G. J. (1998). Magnitude comparisons by children with
specic language impairments: Evidence of unimpaired symbolic processing. International
Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 33, 149160. doi:10.1080/136828298247866.
Durkin, K., Mok, P. L., & Conti-Ramsden, G. (2013). Severity of specic language impairment
predicts delayed development in number skills. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 110. doi:10.3389/
fpsyg.2013.00581.
Farver, J. A. M., Xu, Y., Eppe, S., & Lonigan, C. J. (2006). Home environments and young Latino
childrens school readiness. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21(2), 196212.
doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.04.008.
Fazio, B. B. (1994). Counting abilities of children with specic language impairment: A compari-
son of oral and gestural tasks. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 37, 358
368. doi:10.1044/jshr.3702.358.
Fazio, B. B. (1996). Mathematical abilities of children with specic language impairment: A
2-year follow-up. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 39, 839849.
doi:10.1044/jshr.3904.839.
Friso-van den Bos, I., Van der Ven, S. H. G., Kroesbergen, E. H., & Van Luit, J. E. H. (2013).
Working memory and mathematics in primary school children: A meta-analysis. Educational
Research Review, 10, 2944. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2013.05.003.
Gathercole, S. E., Pickering, S. J., Ambridge, B., & Wearing, H. (2004). The structure of working
memory from 4 to 15 years of age. Developmental Psychology, 40(2), 177190.
doi:10.1037/0012-1649.40.2.177.
Gordon, P. (2004). Numerical cognition without words: Evidence from Amazonia. Science, 306,
496499. doi:10.1126/science.1094492.
Hagoort, P. (2013). MUC (Memory, Unication, Control) and beyond. Frontiers in Psychology, 4,
416. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00416.
Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W. T. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has
it, and how did it evolve? Science, 298, 15691579. doi:10.1126/science.298.5598.1569.
Hecht, S. A., Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (2001). The relations between
phonological processing abilities and emerging individual differences in mathematical compu-
tation skills: A longitudinal study from second to fth grades. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 79, 192227. doi:10.1006/jecp.2000.2586.
Hernandez, A., Li, P., & MacWhinney, B. (2005). The emergence of competing modules in bilin-
gualism. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 220225. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.03.003.
Huntsinger, C. S., Jose, P. E., Larson, S. L., Balsink Krieg, D., & Shaligram, C. (2000). Mathematics,
vocabulary, and reading development in Chinese American and European American children
over the primary school years. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 745760.
doi:10.1037//0022-0663.92.4.745.
Jenks, K. M., Van Lieshout, E. C. D. M., & De Moor, J. (2012). Cognitive correlates of mathemati-
cal achievement in children with cerebral palsy and typically developing children. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 120135. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02034.x.
Johnson, S. P. (2003). The nature of cognitive development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 102
104. doi:10.1016/s1364-6613(03)00030-5.
Kaufmann, L. (2008). Dyscalculia: Neuroscience and education. Educational Research, 50(2),
163175. doi:10.1080/00131880802082658.
doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.12.004.
Kleemans, T., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2011a). Precursors to numeracy in kindergartners with
specic language impairment. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32(6), 29012908.
doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2011.05.013.
Kleemans, T., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2011b). Cognitive and linguistic precursors to numer-
acy in kindergarten: Evidence from rst and second language learners. Learning and Individual
Differences, 21(5), 555561. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.07.008.
Kleemans, T., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2012). Naming speed as a clinical marker in predicting
basic calculation skills in children with specic language impairment. Research in
Developmental Disabilities, 33(3), 882886. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2011.12.007.
Kleemans, T., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2013). Relations between home numeracy experiences
and basic calculation skills in children with and without specic language impairment. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 28(2), 415423. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.10.004.
Kleemans, T., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2014). Cognitive and linguistic predictors of basic
arithmetic skills: Evidence from rst and second language learners. International Journal of
Development, Disability and Education, 61(3), 306316. doi:10.1080/1034912X2014.934017.
Kolkman, M. E., Hoijtink, H. H., Kroesbergen, E. H., & Leseman, P. P. M. (2013). The role of
executive functions in numerical skills. Learning and Individual Differences, 24, 145151.
doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2013.01.004.
Koponen, T., Mononen, R., Rsnen, P., & Ahonen, T. (2006). Basic numeracy in children with
specic language impairment: Heterogeneity and connections to language. Journal of Speech,
Language, and Hearing Research, 49(1), 5873. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2006/005).
Krajewski, K., & Schneider, W. (2009). Exploring the impact of phonological awareness, visual-
spatial working memory, and preschool quantity-number competencies on mathematics
achievement in elementary school: Findings from a 3-year-longitudinal study. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 103, 516531. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2009.03.009.
Laski, E. V., & Siegler, R. S. (2007). Is 27 a big number? Correlational and causal connections
among numerical categorization, number line estimation, and numerical magnitude compari-
son. Child Development, 78, 17231743. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01087.x.
LeFevre, J. A., Clarke, T., & Stringer, A. P. (2002). Inuences of language and parental involve-
ment on the development of counting skills: Comparisons of French- and English-speaking
Canadian children. Early Child Development and Care, 172, 283300.
doi:10.1080/03004430212127.
LeFevre, J., Fast, L., Skwarchuk, S. L., Smith-Chant, B. L., Bisanz, J., Kamawar, D., & Penner-
Development, 81(6), 17531767. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01508.x.
LeFevre, J. A., Polyzoi, E., Skwarchuk, S., Fast, L., & Sowinski, C. (2010). Do home numer-
acy and literacy practices of Greek and Canadian parents predict the numeracy skills of
kindergarten children? International Journal of Early Years Education, 18(1), 5570.
doi:10.1080/09669761003693926.
LeFevre, J. A., Skwarchuk, S., Smith-Chant, B. L., Fast, L., Kamawar, D., & Bisanz, J. (2009).
Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 41, 5566. doi:10.1037/a0014532.
Quarterly, 28, 692703. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2013.05.004.
Martin, A., Volkmar, F. R., & Lewis, M. (2007). Lewis Child and adolescent psychiatry.
A comprehensive textbook. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.
Martini, F., & Snchal, M. (2012). Learning literacy skills at home: Parent teaching, expectations,
and child interest. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 44, 210221. doi:10.1037/a0026758.
McGinty, A. S., & Justice, L. M. (2009). Predictors of print knowledge in children with specic
language impairment: Experiental and developmental factors. Journal of Speech, Language,
and Hearing Research, 52, 8197. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2008/07-0279).
Melhuish, E. C., Sylva, K., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B., & Phan, M. (2008).
numeracy development in early primary school. Journal of Social Issues, 64, 157188.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2008.00550.x.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Arora, A. (2012). TIMSS 2011. International results in
mathematics. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.
Education, 29(3), 327345. doi:10.1007/s10212-013-0201-6.
Passolunghi, M. C., Vercelloni, B., & Schadee, H. (2007). The precursors of mathematics learning:
Working memory, phonological ability, and numerical competence. Cognitive Development,
22, 165184. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2006.09.001.
Payne, A. C., Whitehurst, G. J., & Angell, A. L. (1994). The role of home literacy environment in
the development of language ability in preschool children from low-income families. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 9, 427440. doi:10.1016/0885-2006(94)90018-3.
Pica, P., Lemer, C., Izard, V., & Dehaene, S. (2004). Exact and approximate arithmetic in an
Amazonian indigene group. Science, 306(5695), 499503. doi:10.1126/science.1102085.
Purpura, D. J., Hume, L. E., Sims, D. M., & Lonigan, C. J. (2011). Early literacy and early numer-
acy: The value of including early literacy skills in the prediction of numeracy development.
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 110(4), 647658. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2011.07.004.
Rasmussen, C., & Bisanz, J. (2005). Representation and working memory in early arithmetic.
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 91, 137157. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2005.01.004.
Scheele, A. F., Leseman, P. P. M., & Mayo, A. Y. (2010). The home language environment of mono
and bilingual children and their language prociency. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31, 117140.
doi:10.1017/S0142716409990191.
17, 219236. doi:10.1080/10986065.2015.1016819.
Snchal, M., & LeFevre, J.-A. (2014). Continuity and change in the home literacy environment as
predictors of growth in vocabulary and reading. Child Development, 85(4), 15521568.
doi:10.1111/cdev.12222.
Siegler, R. S. (1996). Emerging minds: The process of change in childrens thinking. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Simmons, F., & Singleton, C. (2008). Do weak phonological representations impact on arithmetic
development? A review of research into arithmetic and dyslexia. Dyslexia, 14(2), 7794.
doi:10.1002/dys.341.
Skibbe, L. E., Justice, L. M., Zucker, T. A., & McGinty, A. S. (2008). Relations among mater-
nal literacy beliefs, home literacy practices, and the early literacy skills of preschoolers
with specic language impairment. Early Education and Development, 19, 6888.
doi:10.1080/10409280701839015.
Skwarchuk, S.-L. (2009). How do parents support preschoolers numeracy experiences at home?
Early Childhood Education Journal, 37(3), 189197. doi:10.1007/s10643-009-0340-1.
Skwarchuk, S.-L., Sowinski, C., & LeFevre, J. (2014). Formal and informal home learning activi-
ties in relation to childrens early numeracy and literacy skills: The development of a home
numeracy model. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 121, 6384. doi:10.1016/j.
jecp.2013.11.006.
Stock, P., Desoete, A., & Roeyers, H. (2009). Predicting arithmetic abilities: The role of prepara-
tory arithmetic markers and intelligence. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 27(3),
237251. doi:10.1177/0734282908330587.
Van de Rijt, B. A. M., Van Luit, J. E. H., & Pennings, A. H. (1999). The construction of the Utrecht
early mathematical competence scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59,
289309.
Van de Sande, E., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2013). How phonological awareness mediates the
relation between childrens self-control and word decoding. Learning and Individual
Differences, 26, 112118. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2013.05.002.
Van der Schuit, M., Peeters, M., Segers, E., Van Balkom, H., & Verhoeven, L. (2009). Home lit-
eracy environment of pre-school children with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual
Disability Research, 53(12), 10241037. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2009.01222.x.
Van der Stap, M. (2012). Van kerndoel tot leerlijn. Concretisering van de kerndoelen voor het
speciaal onderwijs [Elaboration of the primary objectives in special education]. Amsterdam:
Uitgeverij SWP.
Van Tuijl, C., & Leseman, P. P. M. (2007). Increases in verbal and uid cognitive abilities of dis-
advantaged children attending preschool in the Netherlands. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 22, 188203. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.02.002.
Verhoeven, L. (2007). Early bilingualism, language transfer, and phonological awareness. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 28, 425439. doi:10.1017/s0142716407070233.
Verhoeven, L., & Van Leeuwe, J. (2008). Predictors of text comprehension development. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 22, 407423. doi:10.1002/acp.1414.
Verhoeven, L., & Vermeer, A. (2002). Communicative competence and personality dimensions in
rst and second language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 23, 361374. doi:10.1017/
s014271640200303x.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Watts, T. W., Duncan, G. J., Siegler, R. S., & Davis-Kean, P. E. (2014). Whats past is prologue:
Relations between early mathematics knowledge and high school achievement. Educational
Researcher, 43(7), 352360. doi:10.3102/0013189x14553660.
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chapter 6
The Home Numeracy Environment:
What Do Cross-Cultural Comparisons Tell Us
About How to Scaffold Young Childrens
Mathematical Skills?
Ozlem Cankaya and Jo-Anne LeFevre
Introduction
Childrens numeracy knowledge and performance varies across countries, regions,

and languages (Aunio, Aubrey, Godfrey, Pan, & Liu, 2008; Cankaya, LeFevre, &
Dunbar, 2014; Dowker, Bala, & Lloyd, 2008; Ee, Wong, & Aunio, 2006; Huntsinger,
Jose, Liaw, & Ching, 1997; Miller, Smith, Zhu, & Zhang, 1995). These cross-
cultural differences occur even prior to formal schooling. For example, preschoolers
from East Asian countries such as China, Korea, and Japan outperform their Western
counterparts (Geary, Bow-Thomas, Liu, & Siegler, 1996; Paik, van Gelderen,
Gonzales, de Jong, & Hayes, 2011). Similarly, English-speaking preschoolers in
Canada outperform their French-speaking peers (LeFevre, Clarke, & Stringer,
2002); Chinese-American and Taiwanese-Chinese kindergarten children perform
better on mathematics tests than their Euro-American peers (Huntsinger et al.,
1997), and Canadian preschoolers show higher levels of numeracy knowledge than
Turkish children (Cankaya et al., 2014). The variation across countries in mathe-
matical achievement has been documented in international comparisons such as the
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS, Mullis, Martin,
Foy, & Arora, 2012). Observations of these performance differences do not explain
why cross-cultural variability exists, however.
The term cross-cultural as applied to research on childrens numeracy skills and
home environment is used broadly, but often refers to comparisons of children from
O. Cankaya, Ph.D. (*)

Alberta Centre for Child, Family, and Community Research, Edmonton, AB, Canada
e-mail: ocankaya@research4children.com
J.-A. LeFevre, Ph.D.
Institute of Cognitive Science and Department of Psychology, Carleton University,
Ottawa, ON, Canada
e-mail: jo-anne.lefevre@carleton.ca

88 O. Cankaya and J.-A. LeFevre
different countries (Aunio et al., 2008; Cankaya et al., 2014; LeFevre, Polyzoi,
Skwarchuk, Fast, & Sowinski, 2010; Mark & Dowker, 2015). In these studies,
researchers have considered various factors, such as language spoken, individual
characteristics (e.g., parents education level), and sociological elements (e.g., the
value of mathematics education in the culture) as inuences on differences in math-
ematical knowledge between groups. The term can also be used to reect differences
within countries where ethnic or language factors differ across subgroups (e.g.,
Huntsinger & Jose, 2009; LeFevre et al., 2002). Documenting variations in home
numeracy practices across cultures is essential for understanding cross-cultural dif-
ferences, and may suggest effective ways for parents and educators to scaffold chil-
drens developing numeracy skills. In this chapter we included research ndings in
which the values, practices or outcomes were compared between different countries,
languages or cultural groups, whether they were conducted within a country (e.g., in
Canada, LeFevre et al., 2002; in Greece, Manolitsis, Georgiou, & Tziraki, 2013) or in
different countries (e.g., Taiwan versus the USA; Jose, Huntsinger, Huntsinger, &
Liaw, 2000; Turkey versus Canada; Cankaya, 2013). The goal of this chapter is to
catalogue cross-cultural differences in parental practices and early educational expe-
riences that have been linked to superior performance, and to use these distinctions to
suggest ways that parents and educators can facilitate all young childrens learning.
Sources of Cross-Cultural Differences in Early Numeracy

Performance
The role of language in the development of numeracy skills has been most widely
explored (e.g., Aunio et al., 2008; Cankaya et al., 2014; Fuson & Kwon, 1992;
LeFevre et al., 2002; Miller et al., 1995; Miura, Okamoto, Chungsoon, Steere, &
Fayol, 1993; Paik & Mix, 2003). Researchers have shown that children who speak
languages that have regular number naming systems (e.g., Chinese, Japanese)
appear to acquire rote counting and numeracy knowledge earlier than children who
speak languages such as English and French, which have irregular number naming
systems (Aunio et al., 2008; Fuson & Kwon, 1992; Geary, 1996; Miller et al., 1995;
Miura et al., 1993). A regular number naming system has consistent rules for pro-
duction of number words. In Chinese and Turkish, for example, the word for 11 is
the equivalent of ten-one, which makes generating higher numbers simple once the
basic rule is mastered. Further, in Chinese, number words map directly to the base-
ten structure of Arabic digits (e.g., 35 is literally three-ten-ve). In contrast, number
naming conventions that were inuenced by different languages or cultural systems
may have persistent irregular forms. In French, for example, the word for 80 is
quatre-vingt (literally, four-twenty), reecting a base 20 system (see Menninger,
1969 for a fascinating historical description of how various irregularities arose and
persisted in different languages). Both the inherently simpler naming rules and the
correspondence between the spoken and written (i.e., Arabic digit) systems may
contribute to the advantages shown by children who speak East Asian languages or
other languages with regular naming systems.
6 The Home Numeracy Environment 89
The majority of regular number naming systems that have been explored so far
are spoken in East Asian countries (cf. Cankaya et al., 2014; Welsh, Dowker et al.,
2008), specically in China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong (Ni, Chiu, &
Cheng, 2009). In many cross-cultural numeracy studies, East Asian childrens per-
formance was compared to that of North American or European children. However,
recent research has shown that the regularity of a number naming system does not
necessarily have a universally benecial effect on cross-cultural differences in
young childrens numeracy knowledge and performance. Instead, its inuence is
selective and may only affect some numeracy skills (Cankaya et al., 2014; Dowker
et al., 2008; LeFevre et al., 2002; Mark & Dowker, 2015; Paik & Mix, 2003).
Accordingly, other researchers have argued that the differences in childrens early
numeracy knowledge and skills may be largely a consequence of differences in
numeracy-related experiences at home or in school, rather than of differences in
number languages (Alsawaie, 2004; Cankaya et al., 2014; Huntsinger et al., 1997;
LeFevre et al., 2002; Towse & Saxton, 1997; for a review, Ng & Rao, 2010). Only
a limited number of studies examined young childrens early numeracy knowledge
in relation to both regularity of number language and childrens numeracy-related
experiences. In these studies, strong relations existed between childrens numeracy
experiences at home and their numeracy performance (3- to 5-year olds, Cankaya
et al., 2014; LeFevre et al., 2002; 6-year-olds, Huntsinger et al., 1997).
Furthermore, it is important to consider the possibility that differences in chil-
drens numerical knowledge and performance across countries may result, in part,
from cultural differences in sociological factors such as the perceived value of edu-
cation and achievement (Chen & Uttal, 1988; Geary, 1995; Pan, Gauvain, Liu, &
Cheng, 2006; Stevenson & Stigler, 1992). For example, societies which are grounded
in collectivist cultures, such as China, may support childrens academic achieve-
ment in part because obtaining a high level of education is one way of helping the
society to advance as a group (Chao & Tseng, 2002; Geary, 1996; Huntsinger et al.,
1997; Luo, Tamis-LeMonda, & Song, 2013; Ni et al., 2009; Triandis, 1995).
Furthermore, in East Asian countries (e.g., China, Korea, and Japan), mathematics
achievement is highly valued, and therefore both parents and teachers focus on
teaching numeracy skills and provide children with formal instruction as early as
possible (Aunola, Leskinen, Lerkkanen, & Nurmi, 2004; Chang, Sandhofer,
Adelchanow, & Rottman, 2010; Ni et al., 2009; Pan et al., 2006).
Another sociological difference that may inuence differences between cultures
is the societys perspective about what children should be learning during early
childhood. Early childhood educators in North America believe that learning in
early childhood should be primarily play-based and centered on childrens own
activities (McMullen et al., 2005). Similarly, in some European countries, parents
and early childhood educators de-emphasize academic skills and instead emphasize
social skills for children between the ages of three and ve (Aunio et al., 2008;
Ojala, 2000). When children reach school age, North American parents are more
concerned about the acquisition of reading than of numeracy skills (Cankaya, 2013;
LeFevre et al., 2002; LeFevre, Polyzoi, et al., 2010; Musun-Miller & Blevins-
Knabe, 1998; Skwarchuk, 2009). These results suggest that it is important to con-
sider how cultural norms inuence parents and educators beliefs, perspectives,
and practices because they shape young childrens home experiences, educational
contexts, and academic achievement. In summary, it is important to attempt to dis-
tinguish among home-based, language-related, educational and broader cultural
factors to fully understand differences in childrens mathematical competence.
Home Numeracy Practices Within and Across Cultures
The development of childrens numerical knowledge is active, constructed, and cul-

turally specic (Saxe, 1991) and therefore the variability across cultures in experi-
ential factors presumably affects childrens early numeracy learning. Young
childrens numerical knowledge varies greatly even before kindergarten such that
their knowledge level predicts their achievement throughout elementary school
(Duncan et al., 2007). In particular, structural characteristics surrounding young
children in different countries such as socioeconomic status, parental education,
housing, family composition, and parental native language status are associated
with childrens initial numeracy levels as well as with its growth (e.g., Anders et al.,
2012; Dowsett, Huston, Imes, & Genettian, 2008; Krajewski & Schneider, 2009).
A variety of other factors operating in the home environment across countries are
correlated with childrens early numeracy skills. Regardless of which culture they
learn in, the quality of home learning environment (Anders et al., 2012; Melhuish
et al., 2008), parents academic expectations and attitudes towards numeracy
(Skwarchuk, Sowinski, & LeFevre, 2014), childrens early involvement in
numeracy-related activities (Cankaya et al., 2014; Chen & Uttal, 1988; Pan et al.,
2006; Sonnenschein et al., 2012), the frequency of home numeracy experiences
(Berkowitz et al., 2015; LeFevre et al., 2002; LeFevre, Polyzoi, et al., 2010) and the
amount of numeracy talk during numeracy activities (Chang et al., 2010; Ramani,
Rowe, Eason, & Leech, 2015) are related to young childrens numerical knowledge
(Aunio et al., 2008; Huntsinger, Jose, Larson, Balsink-Krieg, & Shali-gram, 2000;
LeFevre et al., 2002; LeFevre, Polyzoi, et al., 2010; Skwarchuk et al., 2014). The
results of these studies all support the view that childrens numeracy-related experi-
ences at home are important in the development of early numeracy skills.
The Quality of Home Learning Environment
The quality of the home learning environment is commonly dened by the availabil-
ity of educational resources such as books, and the nature of parenting activities, such
as reading to the child, using complex language, playing with numbers, counting, and
taking the child to the library (Anders et al., 2012; Melhuish et al., 2008). For exam-
ple, Anders and colleagues (2012) found that, in Germany, mothers with a university
degree provided signicantly more numeracy-related materials, games, and math
learning activities for their children than mothers with only high school education.
Several longitudinal studies showed that the quality of the early home environment
predicts childrens later mathematics achievement (Anders et al., 2012; Krajewski &
Schneider, 2009; Manolitsis et al., 2013; Melhuish et al., 2008). Thus, childrens
cognitive development and educational experiences are inuenced by family charac-
teristics and home learning environment within as well as across cultures (Anders
et al., 2012; Melhuish et al., 2008; Sirin, 2005; Sonnenschein et al., 2012).
Parents Academic Expectations and Attitudes

Towards Numeracy
In countries as diverse as Canada, Greece, Germany, Turkey, China, Taiwan, and

USA, the differences in young childrens numeracy knowledge and performance
have been linked to differences in parents beliefs, academic expectations, and atti-
tudes related to the importance of mathematics (Aunio et al., 2008; Cankaya et al.,
2014; Huntsinger et al., 1997; Jose et al., 2000; LeFevre et al., 2002; Manolitsis
et al., 2013; Niklas & Schneider, 2014). For example, compared to North American
and European parents, East Asian parents have high expectations of their childrens
numeracy skills, which are sometimes related to more frequent numeracy activities
at home (Aunio et al., 2008; Huntsinger et al., 2000; Jose et al., 2000). Even among
North American parents, those with Asian backgrounds express higher academic
expectations of their children than those with European backgrounds (Cankaya,
2013; Huntsinger et al., 1997, 2000; Jose et al., 2000).
Parents conceptions of school readiness and childrens academic achievement in
mathematics from kindergarten through Grade 1 were positively associated with
childrens beginning achievement and growth. LeFevre and colleagues (LeFevre
et al., 2009; LeFevre, Polyzoi, et al., 2010; Skwarchuk et al., 2014) found that par-
ents education and their academic expectations about numeracy preparation were
indirectly related to childrens numeracy performance through numeracy experi-
ences provided at home. LeFevre et al. (2010) compared 5-year-old Canadian and
Greek childrens numeracy knowledge and performance in relation to their parents
academic expectations and numeracy practices. One major difference that parents
reported across cultures was less concern among Greek parents about preparing
their children academically for Grade 1 (similar results were found in a Turkish
versus Chinese comparison; Cankaya, 2013). According to these ndings, parents
attitudes and beliefs may inuence the frequency and the quality of their numeracy-
related activities at home, which in turn, can inuence childrens performance.
Frequency and Quality of Numeracy Activities
Strong cultural values about importance of mathematics and parents expectations of

whether children should learn numeracy skills early is related to the frequency of
practices at home (Ng & Rao, 2010). Cross-cultural comparisons also show that chil-
dren in East Asian countries receive more numeracy practice and instruction than
children in Europe and North America (Ni et al., 2009; Stigler, Lee, Lucker, &
Stevenson, 1982). Pan et al. (2006) compared the involvement of American and
Chinese mothers in young childrens number learning activities and found that
Chinese mothers taught their 5- to 7-year-old children computation as early as possi-
ble and practiced it at every opportunity (see also Chen & Uttal, 1988; Pan et al.,
2006). Moreover, observations revealed that Chinese parents involved their children
in numeracy activities frequently and used a wide variety of strategies to teach numer-
acy concepts (Chang et al., 2010; Pan et al., 2006; Zhou et al., 2006). In particular,
children whose parents used positive strategies while teaching such as praising or
negotiating stayed engaged in the numeracy tasks longer than children whose parents
used negative strategies (e.g., criticizing, intimidating; Zhou et al., 2006). These nd-
ings show that, even in East Asian cultures where the importance given to math
achievement results in a systematic approach to disciplined practice early in life, par-
ents actions can inuence childrens performance. Such factors may be even more
important in cultures where less societal support for early numeracy activities exist.
In various studies comparing Chinese- and European-American parents,
Huntsinger and colleagues (1997, 1998, 2000) found that Chinese-American par-
ents reported more frequent and diverse numeracy activities than European-
American parents and that Chinese-American children outperformed their
European-American peers on numeracy tasks. Nevertheless, analyses showed that
home numeracy practices predicted of early numeracy outcomes both across and
within cultural groups. Similarly, LeFevre and colleagues (LeFevre, Polyzoi, et al.,
2010) compared Canadian and Greek parents activities and childrens outcomes.
They found that higher frequencies of formal home numeracy practices (e.g., teach-
ing simple sums) predicted childrens number knowledge (e.g., digit recognition) in
both cultural groups. In a Canadian sample (Skwarchuk et al., 2014), researchers
found that formal and informal numeracy activities (e.g., direct practice of numer-
acy skills versus exposure to games with numeracy content) differentially predicted
childrens numeracy outcomes. In contrast to these ndings, Blevins-Knabe and
Musun-Miller (1996) did not nd a link between parents reports of parentchild
joint home numeracy practices and young childrens mathematical knowledge. The
inconsistent ndings may be due to parents less accurate reporting of their own
activities than their childs (Blevins-Knabe & Musun-Miller, 1996). In sum, numer-
ous researchers found links between childrens numeracy practices and numeracy
knowledge both within countries and across cultural groups.
Effects of Home Numeracy and Language in a Specific

Cross-Cultural Comparison: Chinese and Turkish Families
Comparisons between children speaking regular versus less-regular number lan-

guages have been made for English and Asian languages (Fuson & Kwon, 1992;
Geary et al., 1996; Huntsinger et al., 1997; Miller et al., 1995; Miura et al., 1993;
Paik & Mix, 2003), English and French (LeFevre et al., 2002), and English and
Welsh (Dowker et al., 2008). In all cases, children speaking the more-regular
number language have an advantage on counting and sometimes on other early

numeracy measures than children speaking the less-regular language. However,
the comparisons between Asian-educated children and those from other coun-
tries may be confounded by dramatic differences in the amount of early numer-
acy experience (e.g., Pan et al., 2006; see also LeFevre et al., 2002).
In a series of studies, we tested the hypothesis that young childrens numeracy
knowledge would be related to numeracy-related activities at home and parents
expectations across different cultural groups (Cankaya, 2013). We compared
Turkish- and Chinese-speaking childrens numeracy knowledge and skills, because
both the Turkish and Chinese (Mandarin) number languages have the potential to
facilitate childrens numeracy learning due to regularity in number names between
10 and 20. Childrens numeracy skills (i.e., rote counting in Turkish/Chinese and in
English, cardinality knowledge, nonsymbolic arithmetic skills, and numeration
knowledge) were measured. A parent questionnaire explored childrens numeracy-
and literacy-related home experiences in addition to parents academic expectations
of their young children, their attitudes towards numeracy across groups, and the
home numeracy activities they shared with their child. We expected Chinese- and
Turkish-speaking childrens early numeracy skills to be different despite the regu-
larity in the Turkish and Chinese number naming systems. Mathematics education
is highly important for Chinese parents. Therefore, Chinese parents were expected
to focus on practicing numeracy skills at home more frequently than Turkish par-
ents before Grade 1.
A total of 42 children from immigrant families were recruited in Ottawa, Canada.
Testing children in the same country from different language/cultural groups
allowed us to focus on differences in home experiences, because the main contexts
in which these children were exposed to Chinese or Turkish was at home. Other
aspects of childrens experience in the wider culture were similar across the two
groups (e.g., attending daycare or preschool). Children were given instructions in
Chinese or Turkish by native speakers and completed the numeracy tasks in that
language. Every child was also asked to count in English. Because the parents were
skilled immigrants, they were highly educated in both groups. Mean age of the chil-
dren in both groups was 5 years, with a range from 3 to 6-and-a-half years.
We found, the Chinese- and Turkish-speaking childrens cognitive skills and
nonverbal numerical skills were equivalent. Nevertheless, the Chinese-speaking
children had better early number knowledge than Turkish-speaking children, despite
similarities in the regularity of the number language to 20. Furthermore,
Chinese-speaking children outperformed Turkish-speaking children while counting
in English, suggesting that the numeracy advantage of the Chinese children was not
solely language based. In previous research, despite differences in rote counting
performance, childrens cardinality knowledge was similar across different number
naming systems (LeFevre et al., 2002; Miller et al., 1995; Rasmussen, Ho, Nicoladis,
Leung, & Bisanz, 2006). In our study, however, Turkish children also lagged behind
their Chinese peers in cardinality knowledge. Thus, we found evidence that the
regularity of number language did not provide advantages for Turkish children in
that performance differences were observed in all numerical tasks and measures.
As expected, we found substantial differences in parents academic expectations:

Chinese parents had higher expectations for their children for all of the numeracy
and literacy skills than Turkish parents. Chinese parents indicated that they expected
their children to count up to 1000 and to be able to print numbers up to 100 before
starting school whereas Turkish parents did not nd these skills as important. This
pattern of parental academic expectations was consistent with what is known about
the emphasis on early academic skills across the two cultures. Turkish parents
placed less importance on childrens acquisition of academic skills before formal
schooling than the Chinese parents. Parents reported similar frequencies of basic
and formal numeracy activities at home. The only signicant difference was that the
Chinese parents indicated asking their children how many questions more fre-
quently than did Turkish parents.
The results of this comparison of Turkish- and Chinese-speaking children living
in Canada suggests that differences in early numeracy performance can occur even
when language-based advantages were similar. They also show, however, that home
experiences are not the only factors in childrens literacy development. Our obser-
vations of the two groups of children during testing suggested that the Chinese
children were more prepared for the attentional and behavioral demands of the test-
ing situation than the Turkish children, raising the possibility that the childrens
home experiences differed in ways that were not captured by questions about spe-
cic activities. Overall, this study suggested that more comprehensive assessments
of the home experiences of children will reveal a complex set of factors that inu-
ence childrens early numeracy development.
Recommendations for Scaffolding Young Childrens

Numeracy Skills Across Cultures
On the basis of the research summarized previously, we extracted four recommen-

dations for parents and educators on how to support childrens numeracy learning in
different countries. These recommendations are consistent with observed differ-
ences, but more research is necessary to establish causal links with numeracy
outcomes.
Watch Your Language! Understand the Advantages

and Disadvantages a Particular Language Might Have
for Childrens Acquisition of Counting
Learning the counting words and internalizing the principles of the counting sequence
is an important task for the preschool years (LeFevre et al., 2006; Sarnecka & Carey,
2008). Cross-cultural research shows that learning how to count in each language has
unique challenges. For example, Miller et al. (1995) compared the early numeracy
skills of 99 3- to 5-year-old English- and Chinese-speaking preschool children from

the USA and China, respectively. Fifty percent of the English-speaking children
could not count up to 20 compared to only 25 % of the Chinese-speaking children.
The types of errors English-speaking children made revealed that differences in rote
counting performance emerged in the teens (e.g., numbers from 11 to 19), presum-
ably because English number names in the teens do not follow a regular rule and
instead have to be memorized. Error patterns also showed that English-speaking
children fail to understand the underlying base-10 structure of large number names.
Evidence of this difculty is found when English-speaking children produced num-
ber names that do not exist or were ill-structured (i.e., idiosyncratic number names
such as twenty-eleven or twenty-twelve, Miller et al., 1995). Children learning to
count in English, therefore, may need extra help learning the counting words through
the teens and may also struggle with the decade words. They need to learn more
unique number words than Chinese-speaking children.
On the other hand, Chinese-speaking children also showed errors in rote count-
ing, such as skipping numbers and mistakenly counting by 10s rather than by 1s.
The latter error may reect the close correspondence between unit and decade
names in Chinese (Miller & Stigler, 1987). Thus, although the speakers of both
regular and irregular number naming systems make errors (e.g., Chinese and
English), the types and the frequencies of errors differed according to the character-
istics of the counting system. Mastery of fundamental skills such as counting paves
the way for children to learn more complex numerical knowledge and skills.
Spend Time on Numbers, Too! Focus on Both Numeracy

and Literacy Skills
Across countries, parents place different amounts of emphasis on learning literacy

versus numeracy skills (Aunola et al., 2004; LeFevre et al., 2009). For example,
reading holds an important place in North American homes (LeFevre et al., 2009;
Snchal & LeFevre, 2002) and North American parents de-emphasize numeracy
knowledge while highly valuing literacy (LeFevre et al., 2009; Skwarchuk, 2009).
In contrast, mathematics education is highly valued in East Asian countries and
therefore parents focus on math skills before Grade 1, and teach their children at
every opportunity. These results suggest that culture on a broader level inuences
childrens home experiences and hence their academic achievement.
The focus on literacy skills in North America may occur because English is a non-
transparent language, specically; there are many exceptions to spelling-to-sound
rules and thus learning to read in English is more difcult than learning to read in
many other languages (Aro, 2004). Presumably these characteristics of English may
encourage or demand that parents spend a signicant amount of time preparing their
children for learning to read in Grade 1. Differences between Greek and Canadian
parents may reect, in part, the ease of learning to read in Greek (a transparent lan-
guage) compared to English (LeFevre, Polyzoi, et al., 2010; Manolitsis et al., 2013).
Focusing on home numeracy may make a difference in childrens readiness to ben-

et from schooling across cultures because early numeracy skills are a strong pre-
dictor of childrens later achievement (e.g., Aunola et al., 2004; Duncan et al., 2007;
LeFevre et al., Fast, 2010). A meta-analysis of longitudinal data sets in North
America (Duncan et al., 2007) showed that the strongest predictor of childrens later
school achievement was the level of numeracy knowledge at school entry. Hence,
despite the importance of literacy learning in early childhood years in North
America, exposing children to numeracy activities is also critical (e.g., Aunola
et al., 2004; LeFevre et al., 2009). Therefore, parents should balance their emphasis
on literacy and numeracy activities to provide a broad foundation of skill for their
children before Grade 1.
Mix It Up! Provide Children with a Variety of Informal

and Formal Learning Opportunities
The superior performances of Asian compared to American children were also par-
tially linked to substantial differences in parents academic expectations and variety
of numeracy activities (Aunio et al., 2008; Huntsinger et al., 1997). Some parents
have high expectations for their childrens numeracy skills (Skwarchuk et al., 2014)
and these may result in more frequent or diverse numeracy activities for children
(Aunio et al., 2008; Huntsinger et al., 2000).
Playing numerical board games is an engaging activity that may be useful for
increasing childrens home numeracy exposure through a variety of numeracy-
relevant experiences. Correlational evidence (e.g., Skwarchuk et al., 2014) and
experimental studies indicate that board games can be an effective method for
improving childrens familiarity with early numeracy concepts, particularly for
children who have little experience with the number system (Bjorklund, Hubertz,
& Reubens, 2004; Cankaya et al., 2014; Ramani & Siegler, 2008; Ramani, Siegler,
& Hitti, 2012; Siegler & Ramani, 2009; Vandermaas-Peeler, Ferretti, & Loving,
2012; Young-Loveridge, 2004). For example, in Cankaya et al. (2014), 3- to 5-year-
old Turkish and Canadian children played a number game with an adult that was
designed to teach children the ordered counting words. In total, an hour of numerical
game exposure, spread across 4 weeks, helped children improve in rote counting
and some other numeration skills. Similarly, Siegler and Ramani (2009) conducted
intervention studies in which economically disadvantaged American children
played a number board game. Childrens brief experience with the number board
game led to higher scores on various mathematical tasks (e.g., magnitude compari-
son, counting, number recognition, and number-to-position line task) compared
with controls who played a non-numerical board game (see also Whyte &
Bull, 2008). In these studies, adults who provide instruction through modeling
and explaining helped children acquire numeracy-related knowledge. Also,
through numerical board games, children experience sufcient repetition to
learn basic numeracy skills in relatively short periods of timeand they have fun.
Other games may also provide similar educational value and, more generally,
developing engaging methods of exposure to early numeracy knowledge may be
especially helpful for children who have less experience with numeracy skills or
are at risk of poorer performance (Ramani et al., 2012).
Additionally, implementing numeracy activities during bedtime and exposing
children to numeracy concepts regularly has a considerable impact. In a large-scale
intervention study, Berkowitz et al. (2015) showed that the frequency with which
parents accessed math activities that were delivered to parents via the internet and
intended to be used at bedtime, was strongly related to childrens growth in math
skills in Grade 1. The easy access to materials that would support childrens learn-
ing and increase numeracy-specic parentchild interaction may help change the
culture of math avoidance among some parents.
Consider the Choices! Provide High Quality

Numeracy Activities
Although parents may expose children to a variety of numeracy activities, not all
numeracy activities contribute to young childrens learning. Ramani and colleagues
(2015) showed that the quality of parents numeracy talk is another important source
of variation in numeracy knowledge and outcomes for American children from low
income families. The frequency of engaging in number-related activities at home
predicted childrens foundational number skills, such as counting. However, par-
ents talk during the interaction about more advanced number concepts for pre-
schoolers, such as cardinality and ordinal relations, predicted childrens advanced
number skills that build on these concepts, such as numerical magnitude under-
standing. Similarly, Gunderson and Levine (2011) also found that providing young
children with advanced numerical concepts increased their learning. Number talk
that referred to large numbers of objects (i.e., 410) robustly predicted childrens
later cardinal-number knowledge compared to talking about small number sets.
Parents and teachers are encouraged to use number-related storybooks to enhance
childrens early numeracy learning (Skwarchuk et al., 2014). Shared reading is a
powerful source of vocabulary learning (Snchal & LeFevre, 2002) but there is
limited evidence about how number storybooks might support numeracy develop-
ment. Powell and Nurnberger-Haag (2015) analyzed the content of counting-related
storybooks published in English. They found that 68 % of books discussed numbers
only to 10 (or less). Given that the counting word difculties in English occur after
10, such materials can have only a limited inuence on childrens developing rote
counting knowledge although some books might provide other useful information,
for example, about cardinality. Parents who are aware of the limitations of the exist-
ing materials will be better prepared to enhance the quality of their childrens
numeracy experiences.
Methodological Challenges in Cross-Cultural Comparisons
Although we argue in this chapter that useful information can be gained from
cross-cultural/cross-language comparisons, it is important to recognize the many
methodological challenges in conducting such research. In many cases, it will not
be possible to completely disentangle effects of culture, language, society, and
home experiences. Accordingly, existing cross-cultural studies predominantly have
been focussed on comparing one component of a culture such as nationality
(e.g., Paik et al., 2011; compared American, Taiwanese, Dutch, and Peruvian pre-
schoolers), language (e.g., Miller et al., 1995, compared English and Chinese),
country (Aunio, Korhonen, Bashash, & Khoshbakht, 2014; compared Finland and
Iran), societal values (Ng & Rao, 2010) or parents practices (e.g., Pan et al., 2006).
Only rarely researchers have explored multiple factors simultaneously or attempted
to control or match groups on some variables (cf. Cankaya, 2013; LeFevre et al.,
2002). In this chapter, we argue that consideration of childrens home numeracy
experiences is critical when researchers compare childrens early numeracy knowl-
edge across cultures. However, even when attempts are made to capture these fea-
tures of childrens experiences (Cankaya, 2013; Cankaya et al., 2014; LeFevre
et al., 2002; Rasmussen et al., 2006), it is never possible to measure or control for
all possible relevant differences.
Another limitation of the existing research is that few cross-cultural numeracy
studies have explored childrens numeracy skills comprehensively. Young children
develop various components of numeracy skills and concept knowledge gradually
(Carey, 2004) and only some skills may differ across cultures. In previous research,
differences were observed in young childrens rote counting but not in cardinality
knowledge (LeFevre et al., 2002; Miller et al., 1995; Rasmussen et al., 2006).
Other studies have explored older childrens standardized mathematics scores
(Aunio et al., 2008; Huntsinger et al., 1997) and some more advanced tasks (e.g.,
transcoding; Dowker et al., 2008; base-10 knowledge, Laski, Ermakova, &
Vasilyeva, 2014). However, ways in which different early numeracy skills develop
in relation to home numeracy activities are still being dened (cf. Skwarchuk
et al., 2014 in North America; Kleemans, Peeters, Segers, & Verhoeven, 2012 in
the Netherlands).
A third methodological issue is that childrens previous exposure to numeracy
activities at the preschool or kindergarten and how home numeracy activities inter-
act with home numeracy experiences are often disregarded in cross-cultural studies
(Anders et al., 2012; Cankaya et al., 2014). Some of the variation in cross-cultural
research may be a by-product of the quality of childrens preschool experience and
rather than a function of parental inuences (McMullen et al., 2005; Ng & Rao,
2010). Accordingly, such interactions may result in the overestimation and under-
valuation of the inuences of the home learning environment on childrens numer-
acy outcome across cultures (Anders et al., 2012; Cankaya, 2013).
Fourth, data collection methods also varied in different cross-cultural studies, which
results in difculty in comparing and contrasting the ndings. The number-related
activities and support for learning that parents provide to children has been examined
through self-report questionnaires, naturalistic observations in the home, structured
observations, and analysis of parentchild conversations. Questionnaires and inter-
views are the most common way in which home numeracy experiences have been
documented across countries, including the Netherlands (Kleemans et al., 2012), the
USA (Blevins-Knabe & Musun-Miller, 1996), Canada (LeFevre et al., 2009; Lukie,
Skwarchuk, LeFevre, & Sowinski, 2014; Skwarchuk et al., 2014), Greece (LeFevre
et al., 2009; Manolitsis et al., 2013), Germany (Niklas & Schneider, 2014) and Turkey
(Cankaya, 2013). Efforts to coordinate the content of the questions would enhance
opportunities for comparing childrens home experiences.
Questionnaires and interviews are retrospective and prone to social desirability
biases; they may impair the capacity to document childrens actual exposure to
numeracy at home. This bias interferes with the interpretation of average tenden-
cies as well as individual differences. In contrast, observation studies may not be
biased in these ways, but only a few studies on home numeracy have used this
method (Pan et al., 2006; Skwarchuk, 2009; Vandermaas-Peeler, Boomgarden,
Finn, & Pittard, 2012; Vandermaas-Peeler, Nelson, & Bumpass, 2007; Vandermaas-
Peeler, Nelson, Bumpass, & Sassine, 2009; Zhou et al., 2006). Only one of these
studies was cross-cultural (Pan et al., 2006). Observational studies also have limi-
tations. Parents may not act in front of the experimenter as they would typically
and it may be difcult to encourage participation from some parents. Nevertheless,
observational studies in cross-cultural research could help to identify relevant
dimensions of home numeracy such as strategies parents use that may lead to dif-
ferences in childrens performance that may not be captured through question-
naires and interviews.
Last, although all of these studies were informative, they produced different
types of information that is not easy to compare because of the differences in
questions and the ways home numeracy activities or parents expectations were
categorized (e.g., Huntsinger et al., 1997; LeFevre, Polyzoi, et al., 2010). Many of
these studies showed that a high frequency of home activities was correlated with
superior numeracy knowledge (e.g., Blevins-Knabe & Musun-Miller, 1996;
Kleemans et al., 2012; LeFevre et al., 2002, 2009; Skwarchuk, 2009) however the
specic activities that predicted difference in childrens numeracy outcomes var-
ied. For example, Blevins-Knabe and Musun-Miller (1996) showed that chil-
drens use of number words, counting, and talking about number facts at home
predicted early numeracy skills whereas LeFevre et al. (2009) found that informal
(indirect) numeracy activities (i.e., playing board or card games, shopping or
cooking) were more strongly related to childrens numeracy skills than directed
activities such as counting. One source of variability is that the range of activities
that were queried varied considerably across studies. Further, the lack of consis-
tency in the ndings of these studies is probably related to the use of different
questionnaires and researchers varying denitions of home numeracy factors and
numeracy outcomes.
Conclusions and Future Directions
Children spend a considerable amount of time at home with their parents during
early childhood (LeFevre et al., 2002, 2009; Skwarchuk, 2009) and parents play a
key role in many dimensions of childrens acquisition of mathematical competen-
cies (Aunio et al., 2008; Blevins-Knabe & Musun-Miller, 1996; Huntsinger et al.,
2000; LeFevre et al., 2002; LeFevre, Polyzoi, et al., 2010). Accordingly, it is not
surprising that parents beliefs and expectations related to their childrens education
directly inuence the quality of the home learning environment (Chen & Uttal,
1988; Kleemans et al., 2012; Pan et al., 2006), childrens early involvement in
numeracy activities (Musun-Miller & Blevins-Knabe, 1998; Pan et al., 2006), the
frequency of home numeracy activities (Anders et al., 2012; Kleemans et al., 2012;
LeFevre et al., 2002, 2009; Pan et al., 2006), and the quality of time spent on prac-
ticing early numeracy skills (Aunio et al., 2008; Chen & Uttal, 1988; Geary, 1996).
Documenting home numeracy practices in different cultures that lead to superior
performance between groups suggested ways for all parents and educators to facili-
tate all young childrens learning. On the basis of previous cross-cultural research
we recommended that parents and educators (1) pay close attention the advantages
and disadvantages a particular language poses on learning to maximize childrens
counting knowledge, (2) provide high quality numeracy activities that scaffold chil-
drens variety numeracy skills through both informal and formal learning opportu-
nities, (3) consider home experiences that are relevant for both numeracy and
literacy skills, and (4) be aware of the type of input children need and the quality of
numeracy talk that would support childrens learning. However, to accommodate
the differences in childrens knowledge and performance these practices should be
gauged according to childrens developmental needs, own culture, and language.
Despite these useful conclusions, overall the ndings of cross-cultural studies
exploring young childrens home numeracy experiences are not comprehensive and
results have often been inconsistent. Inconsistent results may indicate that research-
ers have not developed a clear distinction between different components of home
numeracy that can be related to different numeracy outcomes. Skwarchuk et al.
(2014) proposed the Home Numeracy Model which described how specic home
numeracy activities predict specic numeracy outcomes. In their model, formal
home numeracy activities (i.e., direct and intentional teaching activities about num-
bers, quantity or arithmetic to enhance childrens numeracy skills) predicted
childrens number knowledge. In contrast, informal numeracy activities such as
playing board games predicted childrens performance on a nonsymbolic arithmetic
task (i.e., manipulating quantity with objects). They also found that parents aca-
demic expectations were related to their formal numeracy practices (LeFevre et al.,
2002). The Home Numeracy Model could be applied across many different cultures
because the formal versus informal distinction in home numeracy activities is one
that can be applied to activities in any culture. The Home Numeracy Model could
unite the efforts to understand the relations between the variety of activities that
children experience and their numeracy learning, resulting in a broader understand-
ing of different early numeracy experiences across countries and how they relate to
childrens numeracy outcomes.
References
Alsawaie, O. N. (2004). Language inuence on childrens cognitive representation of number.

School Science and Mathematics, 104, 105111.
Anders, Y., Rossbach, H. G., Weinert, S., Ebert, S., Kuger, S., Lehrl, S., & von Maurice, J. (2012).
numeracy skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(2), 231244.
Aro, M. (2004). Learning to read: The effect of orthography. Jyvskyln: Yliopisto.
Aunio, P., Aubrey, C., Godfrey, R., Pan, Y., & Liu, Y. (2008). Childrens early numeracy in
Education, 16(3), 203221.
Aunio, P., Korhonen, J., Bashash, L., & Khoshbakht, F. (2014). Childrens early numeracy in
Finland and Iran. International Journal of Early Years Education, 22(4), 423440.
Aunola, K., Leskinen, E., Lerkkanen, M. K., & Nurmi, J. E. (2004). Developmental dynamics of
math performance from preschool to grade 2. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4),
699713.
Berkowitz, T., Schaeffer, M. W., Maloney, E. A., Peterson, L., Gregor, C., Levine, S. C., & Beilock,
S. L. (2015). Math at home adds up to achievement in school. Science, 350(6257), 196198.
Bjorklund, D., Hubertz, M., & Reubens, A. (2004). Young childrens arithmetic strategies in social
context: How parents contribute to childrens strategy development while playing games.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28(4), 347357.
and its relationship to early mathematical performance. Early Development and Parenting,
5(1), 3545.
Cankaya, Z. O. (2013). The role of number naming systems and numeracy experiences in the
development of early numeracy knowledge (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis). Carleton University,
Ottawa, Canada.
Cankaya, O., LeFevre, J. A., & Dunbar, K. (2014). The role of number naming systems and numer-
acy experiences in childrens rote counting: Evidence from Turkish and Canadian children.
Learning and Individual Differences, 32, 238245.
Carey, S. (2004). Bootstrapping and the origin of concepts. Daedalus, 133(1), 5968.
Chang, A., Sandhofer, C. M., Adelchanow, L., & Rottman, B. (2010). Parental numeric language
input to Mandarin Chinese and English speaking preschool children. Journal of Child
Language, 38(02), 341355.
Chao, R., & Tseng, V. (2002). Parenting of Asians. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parent-
ing: Social conditions and applied parenting (2nd ed., pp. 5993). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Chen, C., & Uttal, D. H. (1988). Cultural values, parents beliefs, and childrens achievement in
the United States and China. Human Development, 31, 351358.
Dowker, A., Bala, S., & Lloyd, D. (2008). Linguistics inuence of mathematical development:
How important is the transparency of the counting system? Philosophical Psychology, 21,
523538.
Dowsett, C. J., Huston, A. C., Imes, A. E., & Genettian, L. (2008). Structural and process features
in three types of child care for children from high and low income families. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 23, 6993.
Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C., Klebanov, P., Japeli,
C. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43,
14281446.
Ee, J., Wong, K. Y., & Aunio, P. (2006). Numeracy of young children in Singapore, Beijing &
Helsinki. Early Childhood Education Journal, 33(5), 325332.
Fuson, K. C., & Kwon, Y. (1992). Learning addition and subtraction: Effects of number words and
other cultural tools. In J. Bideaud, C. Meljac, & J. P. Fischer (Eds.), Pathways to number
(pp. 283302). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Geary, D. C. (1995). Reections of evolution and culture in childrens cognition: Implications for
mathematical development and instruction. American Psychologist, 50(1), 24.
Geary, D. C. (1996). International differences in mathematical achievement: Their nature, causes,
and consequences. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 5, 133137.
Geary, D. C., Bow-Thomas, C. C., Liu, F., & Siegler, R. S. (1996). Development of arithmetical
competencies in Chinese and American children: Inuence of age, language, and schooling.
Child Development, 67, 20222044.
Gunderson, E. A., & Levine, S. C. (2011). Some types of parent number talk count more than oth-
ers: Relations between parents input and childrens cardinal number knowledge. Developmental
Science, 14(5), 10211032.
Huntsinger, C. S., & Jose, P. E. (2009). Parental involvement in childrens schooling: Different
meanings in different cultures. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24(4), 398410.
Huntsinger, C. S., Jose, P. E., Larson, S. L., Balsink-Krieg, D., & Shali-gram, C. (2000).
Mathematics, vocabulary, and reading development in Chinese American and European
American children over the primary school years. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92,
745760.
Huntsinger, C. S., Jose, P. E., Liaw, F. R., & Ching, W. D. (1997). Cultural differences in early
mathematics learning: A comparison of Euro-American, Chinese-American, and Taiwan
Chinese families. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 21, 371388.
Huntsinger, C. S., Jose, P. E., & Larson, S. L. (1998). Do parent practices to encourage academic
competence inuence the social adjustment of young European American and Chinese
American children? Developmental Psychology, 34(4), 747.
Jose, P. E., Huntsinger, C. S., Huntsinger, P. R., & Liaw, F. R. (2000). Parental values and practices
relevant to young childrens social development in Taiwan and the United States. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(6), 677702.
Krajewski, K., & Schneider, W. (2009). Early development of quantity to number-word linkage as
a precursor of mathematical school achievement and mathematical difculties: Findings from
a four-year longitudinal study. Learning and Instruction, 19(6), 513526.
Laski, E. V., Ermakova, A., & Vasilyeva, M. (2014). Early use of decomposition for addition and
its relation to base-10 knowledge. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 35(5),
444454.
LeFevre, J., Clarke, T., & Stringer, A. (2002). Inuences of language and parental involvement on
the development of counting skills: Comparisons of French- and English-speaking children.
Early Child Development and Care, 172(3), 283300.
LeFevre, J. A., Fast, L., Skwarchuk, S. L., Smith-Chant, B. L., Bisanz, J., Kamawar, D., & Penner-
development, 81(6), 17531767.
LeFevre, J., Polyzoi, E., Skwarchuk, S. L., Fast, L., & Sowinski, C. (2010). Do home numeracy
and literacy practices of Greek and Canadian parents predict the numeracy skills of Kindergarten
children? International Journal of Early Years Education, 18(1), 5570.
LeFevre, J., Skwarchuk, S. L., Smith-Chant, B. L., Fast, L., Kamawar, D., & Bisanz, J. (2009).
Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 41, 5566.
LeFevre, J. A., Smith-Chant, B. L., Fast, L., Skwarchuk, S. L., Sargla, E., Arnup, J. S., Kamawar,
D. (2006). What counts as knowing? The development of conceptual and procedural knowl-
edge of counting from kindergarten through Grade 2. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 93(4), 285303.
Lukie, I. K., Skwarchuk, S. L., LeFevre, J. A., & Sowinski, C. (2014). The role of child interests
and collaborative parentchild interactions in fostering numeracy and literacy development in
Canadian homes. Early Childhood Education Journal, 42(4), 251259.
Luo, R., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., & Song, L. (2013). Chinese parents goals and practices in early
childhood. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28(4), 843857.
Quarterly, 28(4), 692703.
Mark, W., & Dowker, A. (2015). Linguistic inuence on mathematical development is specic
rather than pervasive: Revisiting the Chinese number advantage in Chinese and English chil-
dren. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 203.
McMullen, M. B., Elicker, J., Wang, J., Erdiller, Z., Lee, S. M., Lin, C. H., Sun, P. Y. (2005).
Comparing beliefs about appropriate practice among early childhood education professionals
from the U.S., China, Taiwan, Korea, and Turkey. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20(4),
451464.
Melhuish, E. C., Phan, M. B., Sylva, K., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2008).
numeracy development in early primary school. Journal of Social Issues, 64(1), 95114.
Menninger, K. (1969 [2014]). Number words and number symbols: A cultural history of numbers.
New York, NY: Dover Publications.
Miller, K., Smith, C., Zhu, J., & Zhang, H. (1995). Preschool origins of cross-national differences in
mathematical competence: The role of number-naming system. Psychological Science, 6, 5660.
Miller, K. F., & Stigler, J. W. (1987). Counting in Chinese: Cultural variation in a basic cognitive
skill. Cognitive Development, 2(3), 279305.
Miura, I. T., Okamoto, Y., Chungsoon, C. K., Steere, M., & Fayol, M. (1993). First graders cogni-
tive representation of number and understanding place value: Cross-national comparisons
France, Japan, Korea, Sweden, and the United States. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85,
2430.
Mullis, I. V., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Arora, A. (2012). TIMSS 2011 international results in math-
ematics. Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
Musun-Miller, L., & Blevins-Knabe, B. (1998). Adults belief about children and mathematics:
How important is it and how do children learn about it? Early Development and Parenting, 7,
191202.
Ng, S. S. N., & Rao, N. (2010). Chinese number words, culture, and mathematics learning. Review
of Educational Research, 80, 180206.
Ni, Y. J., Chiu, M. M., & Cheng, Z. J. (2009). Chinese-speaking learning mathematics: From home
to school. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 143154).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Education, 29(3), 327345.
Ojala, M. (2000). Parent and teacher expectations for developing young children: A cross-cultural
comparison between Ireland and Finland. European Early Childhood Education Research
Journal, 8(2), 3961.
Paik, J. H., & Mix, K. S. (2003). U.S. and Korean childrens comprehension of fraction names:
A reexamination of cross-national differences. Child Development, 74(1), 144154.
Paik, J. H., van Gelderen, L., Gonzales, M., de Jong, P. F., & Hayes, M. (2011). Cultural differ-
ences in early math skills among US, Taiwanese, Dutch, and Peruvian preschoolers.
International Journal of Early Years Education, 19(2), 133143.
young childrens mathematics learning. Cognitive Development, 21, 1735.
Powell, S. R., & Nurnberger-Haag, J. (2015). Everybody counts, but usually just to 10! A system-
atic analysis of number representations in childrens books. Early Education and Development,
26(3), 377398.
Ramani, G. B., Rowe, M. L., Eason, S. H., & Leech, K. A. (2015). Math talk during informal learn-
ing activities in Head Start families. Cognitive Development, 35, 1533.
Ramani, G. B., & Siegler, R. S. (2008). Promoting broad and stable improvements in low-income
childrens numerical knowledge through playing number board games. Child Development, 79,
375394.
Ramani, G. B., Siegler, R. S., & Hitti, A. (2012). Taking it to the classroom: Number board games
as a small group learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 661672.
doi:10.1037/a0028995.
Rasmussen, C., Ho, E., Nicoladis, E., Leung, J., & Bisanz, J. (2006). Is the Chinese number-
naming system transparent? Evidence from Chinese-English bilingual children. Canadian
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 6067.
Sarnecka, B. W., & Carey, S. (2008). How counting represents number: What children must learn
and when they learn it. Cognition, 108(3), 662674.
Saxe, G. B. (1991). Culture and cognitive development: Studies in mathematical understanding.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Snchal, M., & LeFevre, J. (2002). Parental involvement in the development of childrens reading
skill: A 5 year longitudinal study. Child Development, 73, 445460.
Siegler, R. S., & Ramani, G. B. (2009). Playing linear number board games -- But not circular
ones -- Improves low-income preschoolers numerical understanding. Journal of Educational
Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socio-economic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of
research. Review of Educational Research, 75, 417453. doi:10.3102/00346543075003417.
Skwarchuk, S. (2009). How do parents support preschoolers numeracy learning experiences at
home? Early Childhood Education Journal, 37(3), 189197.
Skwarchuk, S. L., Sowinski, C., & LeFevre, J. A. (2014). Formal and informal home learning
home numeracy model. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 121, 6384.
Sonnenschein, S., Galindo, C., Metzger, S. R., Thompson, J. A., Huang, H. C., & Lewis, H. (2012).
Parents beliefs about childrens math development and childrens participation in math activi-
ties. Child Development Research, 2012, 113.
Stevenson, H. W., & Stigler, J. W. (1992). The learning gap: Why our schools are failing and what
we can learn from Japanese and Chinese education. New York, NY: Summit Books.
Stigler, J. W., Lee, S. Y., Lucker, G. W., & Stevenson, H. W. (1982). Curriculum and achievement
in mathematics: A study of elementary school children in Japan, Taiwan, and the United States.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 315322.
Towse, J. N., & Saxton, M. (1997). Linguistic inuences on childrens number concepts:
Methodological and theoretical considerations. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 66,
362375.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Vandermaas-Peeler, M., Boomgarden, E., Finn, L., & Pittard, C. (2012). Parental support of
numeracy during a cooking activity with four-year-olds. International Journal of Early Years
Education, 20(1), 7893.
Vandermaas-Peeler, M., Ferretti, L., & Loving, S. (2012). Playing The Ladybug Game: Parent
guidance of young childrens numeracy activities. Early Child Development and Care, 182(10),
12891307.
17(1), 6784.
Vandermaas-Peeler, M., Nelson, J., & Bumpass, C. (2007). Quarters Are What You Put into the
Bubble Gum Machine: Numeracy Interactions during Parent-Child Play. Early Childhood
Research and Practice, 9(1).
Whyte, J. C., & Bull, R. (2008). Number games, magnitude representation, and basic number skills
in preschoolers. Developmental Psychology, 44(2), 588596.
Young-Loveridge, J. M. (2004). Effects on early numeracy of a program using number books and
games. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19(1), 8298.
Zhou, X., Huang, J., Wang, Z., Wang, B., Zhao, Z., Yang, L., & Yang, Z. (2006). Parentchild
interaction and childrens number learning. Early Child Development and Care, 176(7),
763775.
Chapter 7
Number Line Skills and Home Numeracy
Activities for Preschoolers in Center-Based
and Family-Based Child Care
Jacob A. Esplin, Brionne G. Neilson, Ann M. Berghout Austin,

Belinda Blevins-Knabe, Shawnee M. Hendershot, and Lori A. Loesch
Introduction
The research described in this chapter builds on previous work relating home
numeracy experiences, linguistic prociency (including receptive language and
phonological awareness), executive functioning, and early mathematics knowledge
with number line performance for children in two forms of licensed child care, cen-
ter- and family-based care.
The data were collected in Utah, a state in western USA that has been ranked last
(50th) out of 50 states by the Institute for Womens Policy Research (2016) on its
child care index score. The child care index score includes the number of quality
indicators met by the states Pre-K programs; the percentage of 4-year-olds enrolled
in state Pre-K programs, Preschool Special Education, and State and Federal Head
Start programs; and the ratio of infant care costs to womens median annual income
in the state. Utah ranks 48th out of 50 states for its gender wage gap; women earn
70 cents for every dollar earned by men in a comparable job (Status of Women in
J.A. Esplin, B.S. (*) B.G. Neilson, M.Ed. L.A. Loesch, B.A.
Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA
e-mail: jacob.esplin@aggiemail.usu.edu; brionne.thompson@usu.edu;
loriloesch3@gmail.com
Department of Family, Consumer, and Human Development and Center for Women and
Gender, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA
B. Blevins-Knabe, Ph.D.
S.M. Hendershot, M.S.
Pittsburgh University, Pittsburgh, KS, USA
e-mail: shendershot@pittstate.edu

106 J.A. Esplin et al.
the States, 2016). Thirty-ve percent of working mothers with children living at
home earn poverty-level wages; 61 % of Utah mothers with preschool children work
outside the home (Hard at WorkWomen in the Utah Labor Force, 2014).
Center- and Family-Based Child Care, Home Numeracy

Experiences, Mathematics Skills, and Performance
on Number Line
Our previous work has found clear differences in academic-related skills between
preschool children in center-based child care and those in family-based care. Center-
based children appear to have the early advantage in several ways with higher scores
on phonological awareness, receptive vocabulary, verbal working memory, early
mathematics (Austin, Blevins-Knabe, Ota, Rowe, & Lindauer, 2011), and executive
functioning (Blevins-Knabe, Austin, & Hendershot, 2015). On the other hand to our
knowledge, number line skills of center- and family-based preschool children have
not been compared nor has a systematic comparison been conducted between the
two care settings on childrens home numeracy environment, creating a substantial
gap in the early mathematics/early care literature.
Some researchers feel that number lineskills are unrelated to general mathematics
performance (Muldoon, Towse, Simms, Perra, & Menzies, 2013; White, Berthelsen,
Walker, & Williams, 2015). Others believe that poor number line skills link to prob-
lems with calculation skills (Praet & Desoete, 2014), if not to problems with math-
ematics overall (Friso-van den Bos, Van Luit, et al., 2015). A more comprehensive
view is taken by Friso-van den Bos et al. (Friso-van den Bos, Kroesbergen, et al.,
2015) and LeFevre et al. (2013) who believe that number line skills and other early
mathematics skills predict each other. Developmentally, Friso-van den Bos et al.
(Friso-van den Bos, Van Luit, et al., 2015) believe that number line skills in kinder-
garten along with verbal working memory are accurate predictors of general math-
ematics skills at the end of second grade. Regardless of the direction of prediction
(number line predicting general mathematics skills or vice versa), both sets of skills
appear to be important to the early development of mathematics concepts. Home
numeracy activities, in most studies, seem to promote both sets of skills, although
the evidence is far deeper for the link between home activities and mathematics
concepts than for the link between home numeracy activities and number line skills.
As has been amply demonstrated in other chapters in this book, pre-K home
numeracy experiences, for the most part, link favorably with childrens early math-
ematics skills (Anders et al., 2012; Kleemans, Peeters, Segers, & Verhoeven, 2012;
Kleemans, Segers, & Verhoeven, 2013; LeFevre et al., 2009; Manolitsis, Georgiou,
& Tziraki, 2013). In fact, in one study, quality home numeracy activities accounted
for a signicant portion of the variance in mathematics scores alongside maternal
education and family SES (Anders et al., 2012). Other researchers, however, have
not found the same signicant relationship between home numeracy and early
mathematics skills (Blevins-Knabe, Austin, Musun, Eddy, & Jones, 2000; Missall,
Hojnoski, Caskie, & Repasky, 2015).
7 Number Line Skills and Home Numeracy Activities for Preschoolers 107
When home numeracy experiences are divided into formal (direct teaching) and
informal mathematics activities, it is clear that the two types of activities each
predict different child skills, at least in some studies (e.g., LeFevre et al., 2009;
Snchal et al., 1998; Skwarchuk, Sowinski, & LeFevre, 2014); formal numeracy
activities predict childrens symbolic number knowledge and informal activities
predict nonsymbolic number knowledge.
Different patterns of home numeracy activity have been found by ethnic group.
For example, Chinese American parents in one study involved their children more
often in formal mathematics activities while European American parents tended to
prefer informal mathematics activities. Nonetheless, regardless of ethnicity, partici-
pation in formal, didactic mathematics activities at home was more predictive of
childrens mathematics skill level than participation in informal activities for both
groups (Huntsinger, Jose, Larson, Krieg, & Shaligram, 2000). These results have
been duplicated with samples of Greek and Canadian parents and children (LeFevre,
Polyzoi, Skwarchuk, Fast, & Sowinski, 2010) and French- and English-speaking
Canadian children (LeFevre, Clarke, & Stringer, 2002). Similarly, Chinese 5-year-
olds outscored American 5-year-olds on mathematics assessments, and Chinese
mothers reported including more instruction during home activities on mathematics
calculations than American mothers. On the other hand, Chinese mothers reported
spending less time overall with their children on mathematics tasks than American
mothers suggesting that similar to other research ndings, didactic content might be
particularly effective at promoting childrens mathematics competence (Pan,
Gauvain, Liu, & Cheng, 2006).
The amount of formal as opposed to informal, home numeracy activities can be
driven by parents higher expectations for their childs mathematics performance
(Skwarchuk et al., 2014), but the impact of home numeracy activities on child abili-
ties appears to be modied, not surprisingly by child intelligence, working memory
(Kleemans et al., 2012), and child language delay (Kleemans et al., 2013). It is
encouraging that some parents have reported as much interest in providing home
numeracy activities as home literacy activities (Skwarchuk et al., 2014), but there is
evidence that home literacy activities may also predict mathematics competence
(Manolitsis et al., 2013). In fact, in one study, print knowledge and vocabulary were
particularly good predictors of the mathematics scores of 5-year-olds (Purpura,
Hume, Sims, & Lonigan, 2011). On the other hand, Segers, Kleemans, and
Verhoeven (2015) found that home literacy activities did not predict arithmetic
skills when other child factors including intelligence and working memory were
controlled for.
Home numeracy activities appear to support number line skills as evidenced by
the work of Kleemans et al. (2012) and Segers et al. (2015). In both studies, how-
ever, other child mathematics skills were also assessed and summed with number
line skills to create an overall mathematics variable; thus, in these pieces, the
separate contribution of home numeracy activities to number line skills is not read-
ily apparent. It appears, however, if quasi-experimental results may be generalized
from home to lab, that number line skills might be supported by home numeracy
activities that at least include linear board games with numbers (Ramani & Siegler,
2008; Whyte & Bull, 2008).
Other Predictors of Number Line Performance:

Working Memory, Executive Functioning, Phonological
Awareness, and Receptive Language
It is clear from extant literature that number line skills are related to visuomotor
integration and visuospatial skills (Simms, Clayton, Cragg, Gilmore, & Johnson,
2016); however, the relationship between number line skills and variables more
commonly linked with mathematics skills including executive functioning, verbal
working memory, phonological awareness, and receptive language is much less
clear. One of the aims of the present study is to help close the gap in our understand-
ing of the link between preschool number line skills and executive functioning,
verbal working memory, phonological awareness, and receptive language skills.
The specic questions guiding this work are as follows:
(1) Do families with children in center-based child care differ from families with
children in family-based child care on the home numeracy experiences they provide
their preschool children? (2) What is the relationship for children in both child care
types between the stimulation parents provide via the home numeracy environment
and the childs number line performance? (3) In what ways do parent and teacher
ratings of child self-regulation/executive functioning, childs performance on verbal
working memory, phonological awareness, mathematics skills, and receptive lan-
guage tasks relate to competency on the number line assessment?
Method
Child Care Programs
Thirty child care program directors, including those in center- and family-care pro-
grams, were invited by post card to participate in the study. Within a week after
receipt of the post card, the directors received a telephone call asking if they had
questions about the project and if they would be willing to participate.
Children and Families. Children between the ages of 42 months and kindergarten
entry, their parent/legal guardian and their primary out-of-home caregiver were
invited to participate in the study. In each case English was the primary language of
child, parent, and caregiver. Potential participants were told that no remuneration
would be provided but all participating parents and providers would receive a sum-
mary of study results.
Measures
Provider and Parent Measures
Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Preschool Version (BRIEF-P:

(Gioia, Espy, & Isquith, 2003)). The BRIEF-P is an age- and gender-normed mea-
sure designed to be completed by the childs parent and/or out-of-home caregiver or
preschool teacher. Composed of 63 questions, responses comprise ve different
subscales of executive functioning: (a) the childs ability to resist impulses (Inhibit
subscale); (b) how well a child shifts attention between tasks (Shift); (c) the childs
skill in controlling emotions (Emotional Control); (d) the childs ability to focus and
sustain attention (Working Memory); and (e) the childs skill in planning and orga-
nizing tasks (Plan/Organize). The ve subscale scores are totaled for a Global
Executive Composite (GEC), = 0.95, test-retest stability = 0.90. On the BRIEF-P,
higher scores indicate more concerns about child behavior. The BRIEF-P takes
about 810 min to complete.
Parent Measures
Demographic questionnaire. The demographic questionnaire, completed by each

childs parent, collected information on parent education, income, number of hours
typically worked each week, and family size.
Home Numeracy Assessment Survey (HNAS: LeFevre et al., 2009, 2010). The
HNAS, a paper and pencil instrument, was completed by the childs parent and
assesses the numeracy-related items in which the child engages at home. Composed
of 37 items, the HNAS assesses mathematics activities that occur with direct teach-
ing (i.e., frequency of using ash cards, reciting numbers in order) and indirect
teaching (i.e., playing board games, cooking with the child). The HNAS takes about
5 min for the parent to complete.
Home Literacy Assessment Survey (HLAS; Grifn & Morrison, 1997). The HLAS is
a seven question, paper and pencil survey assessing the informal literacy environ-
ment and practices in the home including the number of times the child and parent
read together during the week, number of child and parent magazines and number
of books available in the home. It was completed by the childs parent. Typically, the
HLAS takes less than 3 min for a parent to complete.
Child Measures
Number Line Task. A number-to-position and position-to-number task (Siegler &

Ramani, 2008) was used to assess the childs understanding of the number line.
After a brief training period, the child participated in nine number-to-position tasks
and nine position-to-number tasks as directed by the examiner.
Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening for Preschoolers, Pre-K (PALS). The

PALS (Invernizzi, Sullivan, Meier, & Swank, 2004) is an individually administered
measurement that assesses eight areas of phonological awareness: (a) name writing;
(b & c) upper- and lower-case alphabet recognition; (e) beginning sound awareness;
(f) print and word awareness; (g) rhyme awareness; (h) nursery rhyme awareness.
Reliability ranges from 0.75 (print and word awareness) to 0.93 (beginning sound).
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-III). The PPVT-III (Dunn & Dunn, 1997)
is an individually administered assessment of receptive vocabulary, with no reading
or writing skill necessary. The child is shown a succession of black-and-white cards
with four pictures on each card and asked to point to the picture that best represents
a given word (house, rabbit, ball, etc.). Reliability = 0.95.
Test of Early Mathematics Ability, Third Edition, Form B (TEMA-3). The TEMA
(Ginsburg & Baroody, 2003) is an individually administered assessment of young
childrens verbal and nonverbal mathematical knowledge including numbering,
number concepts, calculation, number comparisons, and general concepts. TEMA
reliability ranges from 0.80 to 0.90 and shows criterion validity with other norm-
referenced math scales ranging from 0.54 to 0.91.
Verbal Working Memory (Gathercole & Adams, 1993). Childrens working memory
was assessed for one-, two, and three-syllable words and non-words. Real words
were presented rst and both real word and non-word presentations followed the
same format. The assessor told the child, I will say a word and I would like you to
repeat it. Any problems the child had with immature articulation was taken into
consideration when scoring. For this sample, reliability was 0.80.
Assessment Protocol
Children were assessed at their out-of-home care program by child development

graduate students, who, in addition to being trained on each instrument, were also
trained to look for test fatigue or child boredom. In order to maximize child com-
fort, the same graduate student administered all assessments with a particular child.
The assessments were given in two different sessions on separate days within a
1-week time frame. The order of exposure to assessments was randomized.
Results
Child Care Programs and Caregivers
Of the 30 programs (3 center care) that received an invitation to participate, 23

(77 %) agreed to participate. This number included all three-center care programs
and 20 of 27 family programs. The research coordinator, a graduate student, called
the directors of each of the 23 programs to discuss participation further. Across the
23 programs, there were a total of 377 potential child participants. Of these, 101
child parents/guardians (27 %) gave permission to have their children assessed. Of
the 101 children, data for 89 children were collected. Reasons for child data not
being collected included: (a) child either being too old or too young (n = 2); (c) child
not uent enough in English to be tested (n = 1); (c) sibling pairs (n = 2; only one
sibling was assessed); and (d) scheduling conicts (n = 7). The nal number of pro-
grams included three center care and eight family care programs.
On average, the three centers had been operating for 30 years (range = 181 years;
SD = 45 years). One center was accredited by the National Association for the
Education of Young Children (NAEYC). Program capacity ranged from 45 to 173
children, with an average of 90 children. In each center, the children attended same-
age classrooms. Fifty-ve children (62 %, n = 26 females) came from the three
centers.
The eight state-licensed family-based child care programs had been in business
an average of 12 years (range = 424 years; SD = 7.36 years) and all involved
mixed-aged, family groupings. On average the family programs served 14 children
each (range = 816 children). In total, 34 children (38 %, n = 16 females) from the
eight state-licensed family child care programs participated in the study. Three of
the family child care programs were accredited by the National Association of
Family Child Caregivers (NAFCC).
Written, informed consent was obtained from parent and out-of-home caregiver
in compliance with the universitys institutional review board.
Child and Family Demographics
Children. Eighty-nine children (n = 42 girls), ages three-and-a-half to kindergarten

entry participated in this study. Fifty-ve (62 %) children (n = 29 boys) were
recruited from 3 state-licensed child care centers and 34 from eight state-licensed
family child care programs.
Seventy-six children (85 %) were Caucasian, reecting the homogeneity of the
region. Eight parents (9 %) described their childs ethnicity as Latino/Hispanic,
Asian/Pacic Islander, or other. Five (6 %) parents declined to report child ethnic-
ity. Seventy-eight (88 % of sample) of the children spoke English as a rst language.
The remaining 11 children (12 %) had sufcient uency in English as determined
by their provider and parent and validated by an assessor, to participate in the assess-
ments. Of these children Spanish, French, and Hmong were spoken as rst lan-
guages by one child each. Parents did not specify a rst language for the remaining
eight children. All programs were English-speaking and were registered with the
Child Care Resource and Referral (CCR&R) in the area. T tests comparing assess-
ment scores between English rst-language and English second-language children
indicated no signicant differences in scores.
Parents. A 2-way ANOVA (care child gender) was used to check for differences on
parent age, parent education, annual income, and number of hours worked each week
by parents. Signicant differences were found between parents by care type. Center
care fathers (M = 38.42, SD = 8.04, n = 26) were signicantly older than family care
fathers (M = 32.47, SD = 5.49, n = 17, t(40.88) = 2.89, p < 0.01). Center care mothers
(M = 1.94, SD = 0.98, n = 48) had signicantly more education than family care moth-
ers (M = 0.78, SD = 0.97, n = 27; t(54.14) = 4.95, p < 0.001); center care fathers
(M = 2.09, SD = 1.07, n = 44) had signicantly more education than family care fathers
(M = 1.00, SD = 0.97, n = 18; t(34.87) = 3.89, p < 0.001). Center-based care mothers
and fathers were more likely to have a college/university degree than family-based
care mothers and fathers. Regarding marital status (2 (1) = 5.31, p = 0.02) there were
signicantly more one-parent families with children in family child care (12/31) than
in center care (8/50). Table 7.1 presents correlations among all variables.
Child Academic and Executive Functioning Measures
A 2 way ANOVA with care type and child gender as IVs was used to assess the main
effects and interactions for all child academic and executive functioning measures.
Means, standard deviations and sample sizes are given in Table 7.2.
Number Line. The main effect of care type was signicant for Number Line
F(1,88) = 13.15, p = 0.0001; center-based care children scored higher on Number
Line than family-based care children.
Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening for Preschoolers, Pre-K (PALS). The
main effect of care type was signicant for PALS total score, F(1,87) = 6.63, p = 0.01.
Center care children outscored family care children.
PPVT-III. The main effect of gender was signicant for PPVT-III, F(1,87) = 3.94,
p = 0.050. Boys scored higher on the assessment of receptive vocabulary than girls.
TEMA-3 Math Ability Score. The main effect of care type was signicant for
TEMA-3 scores, F(1,87) = 5.68, p = 0.02. Center care children scored higher on the
early mathematics measure than family care children.
Verbal Working Memory. Verbal Working Memory (total score) was signicant for
the main effect of care type (F(1,88) = 10.79, p = 0.001). Center care children out-
scored family care children.
BRIEF-P Parent Ratings. The main effects of gender were signicant for three execu-
tive functioning subscales; in each case boys received higher scores than girls indicat-
ing more problems for boys as follows: Emotional Control (F(1,69) = 8.27, p = 0.005);
Working Memory (F(1,69) = 10.41, p = 0.002); Inhibit (F(1,69) = 9.16, p = 0.004).
BRIEF-P Teacher Ratings. The main effects of caregiving were signicant for four
of ve executive functioning subscales. In each case-based center care teachers/
providers rated the children in their care as having fewer problems than family-
based care providers as follows: Plan/Organize (F(1,80) = 9.35, p = 0.003); Working
Memory (F(1,80) = 11.70, p = 0.001); Emotional Control (F(1,80) = 9.32, p = 0.003);
Inhibit (F(1,80) = 8.51, p = 0.005).
Table 7.1 Correlations among variables
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. Child age
2. Gender 0.08
3. Center or home 0.11 0.00
4. Marital status 0.10 0.04 0.26*
5. Mother age 0.23 0.02 0.28* 0.25
6. Mother workweek 0.17 0.01 0.10 0.15 0.13
7. Father age 0.23 0.02 0.39* 0.10 0.87*** 0.09
8. Father workweek 0.11 0.23 0.21 0.03 0.09 0.07 0.02
9. # Siblings 0.03 0.09 0.14 0.19 0.42** 0.01 0.48** 0.14
10. Subsidy 0.04 0.09 0.15 0.58*** 0.25 0.16 0.22 0.26 0.08
11. Mother education 0.13 0.08 0.50*** 0.20 0.35** 0.13 0.31* 0.10 0.01 0.48***
12. Father education 0.13 0.02 0.43*** 0.21 0.58*** 0.03 53*** 0.05 0.28* 0.38** 0.71***
13. Income 0.01 0.11 0.20 0.68*** 0.51** 0.16 0.58** 0.15 0.41** 0.72** 0.45** 0.53**
14. TEMA 0.72*** 0.05 0.18 0.04 0.19 0.14 0.20 0.25 0.07 0.01 0.20 0.36** 0.00
15. PPVT 0.55*** 0.21 0.21 0.01 0.20 0.01 0.19 0.02 0.10 0.10 0.38** 0.41** 0.02
16. PALS 0.55*** 0.02 0.26* 0.02 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.22 0.10 0.02 0.30** 0.31* 0.02
17. Verbal WM 0.27* 0.09 0.34** 0.05 0.40** 0.03 0.52*** 0.06 0.23* 0.13 0.19 0.29* 0.06
18. Teacher BP WM 0.10 0.19 0.39*** 0.22 0.07 0.17 0.07 0.04 0.16 0.16 0.39** 0.28* 0.15
19. Teacher BP PO 0.19 0.16 0.38** 0.25* 0.23 0.22 0.27 0.06 0.18 0.19 0.42*** 0.38** 0.21
7 Number Line Skills and Home Numeracy Activities for Preschoolers
20. Number Line 0.37*** 0.12 0.36** 0.07 0.06 0.18 0.03 0.08 0.02 0.08 0.32** 0.28* 0.24
21. Factor 1 0.11 0.05 0.22 0.16 0.17 0.00 0.01 0.15 0.07 0.09 0.12 0.21 0.14
22. Factor 2 0.31* 0.02 0.21 0.23 0.13 0.07 0.15 0.32* 0.01 0.12 0.07 0.35* 0.08
23. Factor 3 0.07 0.26* 0.03 0.28* 0.03 0.16 0.22 0.16 0.15 0.03 0.10 0.01 0.10
24. Factor 4 0.06 0.08 0.14 0.07 0.18 0.02 0.21 0.08 0.28* 0.15 0.09 0.06 0.13
(continued)
113
Table 7.1 (continued)
114
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Variable 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
1. Child age
2. Gender
3. Center or home
4. Marital status
5. Mother age
6. Mother workweek
7. Father age
8. Father workweek
9. # Siblings
10. Subsidy
11. Mother education
12. Father education
13. Income
14. TEMA
15. PPVT 0.70***
16. PALS 0.79*** 0.67***
17. Verbal WM 0.44*** 0.43*** 0.41***
18. Teacher BP WM 0.22 0.06 0.20 0.09
19. Teacher BP PO 0.29* 0.08 0.27* 0.19 0.82***
20. Number Line 0.51*** 0.52*** 0.48*** 0.30** 0.33** 0.36**
21. Factor 1 0.23 0.10 0.17 0.04 0.11 0.18 0.16
22. Factor 2 0.39*** 0.26* 0.43*** 0.12 0.16 0.15 0.19 0.20
23. Factor 3 0.14 0.07 0.09 0.35** 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.20 0.15
24. Factor 4 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.10 0.06 0.13 0.06 0.22 0.12 0.11
J.A. Esplin et al.
Note. Raw scores used

*p 0.05, **p 0.01, ***p 0.001
Table 7.2 Means, standard deviations, sample size, and signicant effects for child academic and
executive functioning measures by caregiving type
Center child care Family child care
n M SD n M SD
Number line score (out of 18) 54 4.54*** 4.61 34 1.29 3.25
PALS total score (out of 125) 53 70.36* 34.55 34 50.53 37.93
TEMA math ability score 54 102.31* 12.92 33 95.18 15.69
Verbal working memory total score 54 28.52*** 1.54 34 26.82 3.18
(out of 30)
BRIEF-P t-scores (Teacher)
Plan/Organize 55 46.58 7.63 25 52.80** 9.57
Working Memory 55 46.60 7.37 25 53.28*** 9.15
Emotional Control 55 46.95 9.82 25 54.16** 10.06
Inhibit 55 46.85 8.34 25 52.96** 8.95
Boys Girls
n M SD n M SD
PPVT-III 45 108.18* 14.51 42 102.43 12.43
BRIEF-P t-scores (Parent)
Emotional Control 55 51.61** 8.67 25 46.48 7.67
Working Memory 55 54.92** 9.93 25 48.12 8.63
Inhibit 55 52.58** 9.64 25 47.03 6.62
Note. Higher scores on the BRIEF-P indicate more problem behaviors
*p 0.05, **p 0.01, ***p 0.001
Question 1: Do Families with Children in Center-Based Child

Care Differ from Families with Children in Family-Based Child
Care on the Home Numeracy Experiences They Provide Their
Preschool Children?
HNAS factors. To better understand the home numeracy environment a factor anal-
ysis using a principal component extraction with an oblimin rotation with pairwise
deletion of missing data was run. Based on preliminary exploratory analysis, the
following items from the HNAS were eliminated: child plays with number refrig-
erator magnets; child solves connect the dots pictures; child wears a watch; uses
number activity books; reads number storybooks; uses computerized educational
programs. The factor analysis procedure found four orthogonal factors using ques-
tions that loaded 0.48 or above (see Table 7.3). Based on similarities between items
on each of the four numeracy factors, they were named as follows: Factor 1, Playing
with Numbers; Factor 2, Working with Numbers; Factor 3, Measuring and
Comparing; and Factor 4, Counting and Technology.
Differences by care type and gender on HNAS factors. A 2 way ANOVA (care
type) 2 (gender) was run to determine signicant main effects and interactions for
the four factors. See Table 7.4 for means, standard deviations, and sample size. The
main effect of gender was signicant for Factor 3Measuring and Comparing.
Parents of girls reported they engaged in more measuring and comparing activities
than parents of boys (Table 7.1, F(1,83) = 4.42, p < 0.05).
Table 7.3 Factor loadings for home numeracy scale

Home numeracy scale Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
Q1: Use number or arithmetic ashcards 0.590
Q3: Count objects 0.657
Q4: Countdown (10, 9, 8, 7, ) 0.434 0.415
Q5: Print numbers 0.641
Q6: Talk about money when shopping 0.744
Q7: Play with calculators 0.619 0.360
Q12: Play board games with dice or spinner 0.551
Q13: Play card games 0.733
Q14: Watch educational TV shows 0.841
Q16: Build with Lego or construction set 0.620
Q17: Talk about time with clocks & calendars 0.598
Q18: Encourage child to do math in their head 0.515 0.332
Q19: Help child learn simple sums 0.680
Q20: Sing counting songs 0.511
Q21: Play games that involve counting, adding, or subtracting 0.550
Q22: Sort and classify by color, shape, and size 0.594
Q23: We time how fast an activity can be completed 0.480
Q24: Help child to recite numbers in order 0.515 0.362 0.386
Q25: Ask child about quantities 0.642
Q26: Encourage collecting 0.616
Q27: Encourage use of ngers to indicate how many 0.796
Q28: Teach child to recognize printed numbers 0.623
Q29: Help child weigh, measure, and compare quantities 0.320 0.575
Note. These 4 factors explained 52.2 % of the variance; Loadings in bold are values greater than 0.48
Table 7.4 Differences between care type on the HNAS (Home Numeracy Assessment Survey)
Center child Family child
care (n = 40) care (n = 29)
M SD M SD
Q16: Build with Lego or construction set 2.38* 1.13 1.76 1.27
Q17: Talk about clocks and calendars 2.55* 1.22 1.97 1.18
Q18: Encouraged to do math in head 1.65** 1.39 0.76 1.12
Q19: Help learn simple sums 2.35*** 1.08 1.28 1.25
Note. These questions were scored on a 5-point scale (0 = rarely or never, 1 = monthly, 2 = weekly,
3 = several days per week, 4 = most days per week)
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001
Differences by gender on individual HNAS items. A 2 (care setting) 2 (gender)

ANOVA was run to check for response differences on individual HNAS items. The
main effect of gender was signicant for the following items: Q6 F(1,69) = 4.72,
p = 0.03, parents were more likely to talk to boys about money than girls; Q7
F(1,69) = 6.05, p = 0.02 parents were more likely to allow or encourage girls to play
with calculators than boys; Q16 (F(1,69) = 5.46, p = 0.02), boys were more likely to
build with blocks at home than girls.
Differences by care type on individual HNAS items. Signicant main effects were
found between care types for the following HNAS questions. In each case families
using center-based care scored higher than families using family-based care as
follows: Q16 (F(1,69) = 4.62, p = 0.04) children in center care were more likely to
build with blocks at home than children in family care. Q17 F(1,69) = 3.94, p = 0.05,
center care parents were more likely to talk to children about calendars and clocks
than family care parents; Q18 F(1,69) = 7.98, p = 0.006, center care parents were
more likely to encourage children to do mental arithmetic than family care parents;
Q19 F(1,69) = 14.29, p = 0.0001, center care parents were more likely to talk to
encourage children to do math sums than family care parents.
HLAS Items by care type. As a comparison, parents were asked to describe their
home literacy environment (HLAS; Table 7.5). Using a 2 (care type) 2 (gender)
ANOVA, the main effects of care type were signicant for the following items. Q1a
(F(1,69) = 4.76, p = 0.03) indicating that children in family-based care watched
more TV during the week day than children in center-based care. Q1b (F(1,69) = 9.30,
p = 0.003) indicated that children in family care watched more TV during on the
weekend than children in center care.
For Q3a (F(1,69) = 9.16, p = 0.004) center care parents were more likely to sub-
scribe to a newspaper than family care parents. For Q3b (F(1,69) = 6.34, p = 0.02)
families in center care subscribed to more child magazines than families in family
care. For Q3c (F(1,69) = 6.34, p = 0.02) families in center care subscribed to more
parent and news magazines than families in family care.
Responses on Q6 (F(1,69) = 4.11, p = 0.05) indicated that parents in center care
more often read to their children than parents in family care.
HLAS Item significant for the interaction of care type and gender. The interaction of
care type and gender was signicant for Q7 F(1,69) = 9.27, p = 0.003. Girls in cen-
ter-based care owned more books (M = 2.00, SD = 0.001) than boys in center-based
care (M = 1.90, SD = 0.30), girls in family-based care (M = 1.36, SD = 0.75) or boys
in family-based (M = 1.87, SD = 0.32).
Table 7.5 Differences between care type on the HNAS (Home Numeracy Assessment Survey)
Center child care (n = 40) Family child care (n = 29)
M SD M SD
Q1: Hours of TV daily (Mon-Fri) 1.38 1.47 2.33* 2.10
Q1: Hours of TV (Sat) 1.43 1.20 2.35** 1.29
Q1: Hours of TV (Sun) 1.26 1.17 2.33** 1.55
Q3: # Newspaper subscriptions 0.70** 0.65 0.28 0.46
Q3: # Magazine subscriptions (parent) 1.95* 2.00 0.93 1.13
Q3: # Magazine subscriptions (child) 1.05* 1.01 0.52 0.79
Q6: How often parent reads to child 1.73* 0.55 1.38 0.73
Q7: Number of books child owns 1.95** 0.22 1.62 0.62
Note. Frequency read to child: 0 = weekly or less, 1 = several times a week, 2 = daily. Number of
books child owns: 0 10, 1 = 1030, 2 30
*p 0.05, **p 0.01, ***p 0.001
Question 2: What Is the Relationship for Children in Both Child

Care Types Between the Stimulation Parents Provide via the Home
Numeracy Environment and the Childs Number Line Performance
As reported above, Number Line scores were signicantly higher for children in
center care than children in family care. Number line scores were not signicantly
related to any of the HNAS factors, but the following items on the HNAS and HLAS
correlated signicantly with Number Line scores as follows: HLAS Q7 Number of
books the child owns (r = 0.30, p = 0.02); HNAS Q4 Child practices counting back-
wards (r = 0.26, p = 0.03); HNAS Q6 Parent talks about money with the child (r = 0.28,
p = 0.02); HNAS Q18 Child is encouraged to compute sums in head (r = 0.24,
p = 0.05). Additionally, the following variables were signicantly correlated with
number line (see Table 7.1): Childs age (r = 0.37, p = 0.001); mothers education
(r = 0.32, p = 0.01); fathers education (r = 0.28, p = 0.05); scores on TEMA (r = 0.51,
p = 0.001); PPVT (r = 0.52, p = 0.001); PALS (r = 0.48, p = 0.001); Verbal Working
Memory (r = 0.30, p = 0.01); teacher BRIEF-P Working Memory (r = 1.33, p = 0.01);
and teacher BRIEF-P Plan/Organize (r = -0.36, p = 0.01).
Question 3: In What Ways Do Parent and Teacher Ratings

of Child Self-Regulation/Executive Functioning and Childs
Performance on Verbal Working Memory, Phonological
Awareness, Receptive Language Tasks, and Mathematics Skills
Relate to Competency on Number Line?
A path analysis was run (see Fig. 7.1) to explore direct and indirect relationships
with number line scores. Early mathematics skills measured by the TEMA-3 was
the strongest direct predictor of number line performance ( = 0.29, p = 0.02) fol-
lowed by receptive vocabulary (PPVT-III; = 0.28, p = 0.02) and caregiving type
( = 0.26, p = 0.003). HNAS Factor 2 (Working with Numbers) was a signicant
predictor through early mathematics skills. Early mathematics skills were also a
signicant predictor through receptive vocabulary. No other academic or executive
functioning measures entered the model. The model showed good t: = 1.465 (2),
p = 0.481; RMSEA = 0.0001; NFI = 0.987; CFI = 1.000.
Discussion
Our results demonstrate clear difference between children in center-based care and
children in family-based care and their home numeracy and literacy environments.
These differences have implications for each of our three research questions and for
childrens mathematics development overall. Center care children had older fathers,
Fig. 7.1 Path analysis model. *p 0.05, **p 0.01, ***p 0.001
which may mean they had fathers who are better established. The mothers and fathers
of center care children had more education than the mothers and fathers of family
care children, and our own correlational data indicate that fathers higher education
level correlates signicantly with Number Line and all other child academic mea-
sures and with more favorable responses on teacher BRIEF-P. Mothers higher edu-
cation likewise correlates with Number Line and all other academic and BRIEF-P
measures except TEMA-3 and Verbal Working Memory. This reinforces what has
been known for years that children benet from growing up in a home where parents
have more education. Not surprisingly, the two groups of children are signicantly
different from each other on a number of measures including Number Line, PALS,
TEMA, and BRIEF-P ratings, with family-based care children scoring signicantly
below center-based care children on each measure. These scores suggest that not
only are center care children individually different from family care children, but that
the child care atmosphere likely is also different because center care and family care
providers/teachers serve groups of children with very different academic and execu-
tive functioning skill levels. Our ndings suggest that trainings for family child pro-
viders might focus on more effective ways to address the individual needs of children
in family care, given the typically wide range in ages and the concomitant differences
in cognitive and physical skills, space requirements, and learning materials. With
these points in mind, we now move to the research questions.
Question 1: Do Families with Children in Center-Based Child

Care Differ from Families with Children in Family-Based Child
Care on the Home Numeracy Experiences They Provide Their
Preschool Children?
Although we found no signicant differences for the four HNAS factors based on
care type, we noted signicant differences on HNAS questions 1619 that continue to
highlight the differences in home learning environments between the two groups of
families (see Table 7.4). Both Number Line and TEMA-3 scores differed between the
two care settings. Differences in parent education levels, discussed above, and the
signicant differences in numeracy activities addressed in these questions may help
explain some of the Number Line and TEMA-3 scores. Specically, of the differences
noted, clock and calendar activities (Q17) can be benecial in teaching children fun-
damental mathematics skills as connections have been found between clock reading
and number knowledge, mathematical facts, and mathematical procedures (Friedman
& Laycock, 1989; Siegler & McGilly, 1989; Vakali, 1991) and between calendar use
and concepts of numeracy, sequencing, and patterns (Beneke, Ostrosky, & Katz,
2008). Additionally, encouraging children to do mental calculation (Q1819), even
with simple sums, may help develop a childs intuitive understanding of numbers
along with greater facility with number manipulations. Questions 1719 all require a
deeper understanding of numeracy than other informal activities (e.g., Q24: recite
numbers in order, Q26: encourage collecting) as well as more one-on-one instruction
from a more knowledgeable other (e.g., parent or teacher). These types of more for-
mal mathematics activities have been seen as more predictive of childrens mathemat-
ics skill level than participation in informal activities (Huntsinger et al., 2000).
There were signicant differences by gender on the frequency of some home
numeracy activities. These differences fell in line with gender stereotypes with boys
being more likely to play more with Legos or construction sets (Q16) than girls, par-
ents more frequently discussing money (Q6) with boys, and girls being more likely
to play with calculators (Q7). Parents might be more willing to talk about money with
boys if they feel managing money is stereotypically a male responsibility and that
females are bad at math (e.g., Jacobs & Eccles, 1985; Nosek et al., 2009). Girls might
be more likely to play with calculators if they are integrated into pretend play, with
play being a great way to integrate learning (Bennet, Wood, & Rogers, 1998).
Questions about the home literacy environment were included as a comparison
with the home numeracy environment, and our analyses indicated that, similar to
numeracy practices, aspects of home literacy practices also differed between center-
based and family-based families. Center care parents reported signicantly more
magazines and newspapers in the home. They reported that they read to their chil-
dren more often and that their children owned more books and watched less TV.
Qualitatively speaking these differences suggest more comprehensive literacy and
language development practices in the homes of center-based care children.
An emphasis on home literacy activities has been shown to inuence mathematics
competence (Manolitsis et al., 2013), which for center-based care families was seen
in number line performance (supporting work by Kleemans et al., 2012; Segers

et al., 2015) and on TEMA-3 math ability score.
While there were no signicant differences between groups in reported family
income or in receipt of state subsidies, the differences identied between center-
and family-care families perhaps might be explained as differences in SES given
that center care fathers and mothers reported more education than their family care
counterparts and had different home literacy and numeracy practices. Extant litera-
ture has repeatedly shown that parents have different priorities by SES as demon-
strated the work of Anders et al. (2012) and many others. Additionally, some studies
have found lower academic scores for children in one-parent vs. two-parent fami-
lies. With this in mind we ran a partial correlation analysis separating out the effects
of mothers and fathers education levels and marital status but still found a
signicant correlation between caregiving type and number line scores in favor of
center care children (r = 0.27, p = 0.05).
Question 2: What Is the Relationship for Children in Both

Child Care Types Between the Stimulation Parents Provide
via the Home Numeracy Environment and the Childs Number
Line Performance
Although home numeracy factors were not directly connected with childrens num-
ber line performance, Factor 2, Working with Numbers signicantly predicted num-
ber line performance through early mathematics skills. Apparently working with
numbers is effective in promoting number line skills provided some level of general
mathematics prociency is present. In particular, it makes sense that a level of com-
petence in general mathematics skills would enable the child to make better sense
of the Factor 2 activities including using ashcards, counting backward, printing
numbers, playing card games, and doing simple sums. Largely considered formal
activities, the Factor 2 items imply aspects of direct teaching that are effective in
promoting number line skills but only when supported by other mathematics skills
measured by TEMA-3.
Some researchers feel that number line performance is unrelated to general math-
ematics skills (Muldoon, Towse, Simms, Perra, & Menzies, 2013; White, Berthelsen,
Walker, & Williams, 2015); however, we noted a signicant correlation between
TEMA-3 raw scores and number line performance (r = 0.51, p < 0.001). Although not
part of our research questions, we ran a simple linear regression to predict TEMA-3
raw scores based on number line performance. The equation was signicant
(F(1,87) = 30.84, p = 0.0001, = 0.51, R2 = 0.26) suggesting that number line pro-
ciency explains a portion of general mathematics scores. It is possible that the pre-
dicted portion might relate particularly to calculation skills as noted by Praet and
Desoete (2014). Regardless, Friso-van den Bos et al. (Friso-van den Bos, Kroesbergen,
et al., 2015) found that kindergarten difculties with number line skills are particu-
larly signicant in forecasting general difculties with mathematics later on.
Question 3: In What Ways Do Parent and Teacher Ratings

of Child Self-Regulation/Executive Functioning and Childs
Performance on Verbal Working Memory, Phonological
Awareness, Receptive Language Tasks, and Mathematics Skills
Relate to Competency on Number Line?
Although not directly related to number lineWorking with Numbers (Factor 2)

predicted number line skills through mathematics skills (TEMA), implying that
childrens early mathematics skills may assist them in applying the numeracy
activities practiced at home to the number line task. Thus, early mathematics skills
or early number sense appear to be a key element for success with number line.
This is in line with other research providing evidence for links between home lit-
eracy and mathematics performance (Manolitsis, Georgiou, & Tziraki, 2013).
Early mathematics skills also support number line skills through receptive vocabu-
lary skills (PPVT) suggesting that spoken language comprehension, or more basi-
cally, the cognitive skills of sound discrimination and matching sound to meaning,
plays a signicant role in helping the child utilize number sense skills to accom-
plish number line tasks. Our ndings support those of Friso-van den Bos et al.
(Friso-van den Bos, Van Luit, et al., 2015) who found that childrens number line
performance was related to the domain-specic skills of number sense and to the
domain-general skills of verbal working memory. In our model instead of verbal
working memory performance, the domain-general skill relating to number line
was receptive language skills.
The caregiving environment predicted number line skills apart from the contri-
butions made by the home numeracy environment, early mathematics skills, and
receptive vocabulary. It is clearly the case that in this study, center-based care chil-
dren and family-based care children represent two separate and distinct populations
relative to their ability to solve number line tasks. Center care children scored higher
on domain-specic number sense skills and domain-general receptive vocabulary
skills and also on number line performance than family care children. One might
attribute the differences to the child care environments, above and beyond family
and home differences. It is certainly true that previous studies report signicant dif-
ferences between caregiver behavior and the caregiving environment in child care
centers and family child care (i.e., Kontos, 1992) and between childrens school
readiness scores for center care and family care children (i.e., Austin et al., 2011).
One reason for these differences might be the fact that family-based care programs
generally have mixed age groups creating a different linguistic and conceptual
development climate than that in center-based care programs where age mates are
usually grouped together. According to Kontos, center and family care environ-
ments may differ in the quantity and variability of materials, provider training, and
provider interactions. It might also the case that center care providers feel more
professional and emotional support because they typically work with more col-
leagues than providers in family care programs. Extra support might translate into a
richer and more varied curriculum and perhaps lower provider stress. In this sample,
providers are required by the state each year to complete a certain number of train-
ing hours; these allow the provider to move up a career ladder scale, with rungs
on the ladder ranging from 0 to 10. Providers advance rung by rung according to the
training hours they accumulate across the years. The center care providers in this
sample had attained an average career ladder level of 6.3 while the family providers
had attained an average level of 8.5. Accreditation is another marker for quality
care; one of the three centers was accredited by the National Association of
Education for Young Children (NAEYC) while three of the eight family programs
were accredited by the National Association for Family Child Care (NAFCC). Thus,
in terms of provider training level and program accreditation, family care providers
were not lagging behind their center care peers.
It was beyond the scope of this study to assess center-based and family-based
care environment quality, but the indicators for quality such as provider training or
program accreditation suggest the quality levels were similar. While direct assess-
ment of the quality of center and family care environments would provide the most
compelling evidence we believe that the differences in child performance between
the two care types are related to the signicant differences in their actual home
environments and their experiences with their parents, siblings, and others.
Limitations
Overall sample size is a limitation along with sample size by care type. We do not
know if the child care programs and the individual families declining to participate
in the study would have scored similarly to the programs and individuals that did
participate. However, our ndings are in line with our previous work, involving a
completely different sample of child care programs and child and family partici-
pants, but still nding signicant child differences by care type on child
academic/school readiness measures. We are not aware of other labs that have
compared home environment and child functioning by center-based child care and
family-based child care settings, and we believe that in many states in the USA and
in other countries, these differences between licensed center child care and licensed
family child care likely do not exist. In this state though, our ndings replicate our
earlier work completed more than a decade ago suggesting that home environ-
ments and child skills differ signicantly when families systematically sort them-
selves into one category (in this case, licensed center child care vs. licensed family
child care) or another.
Acknowledgement We thank the Utah State University Agriculture Experiment Station for their
support of this work. We are grateful to Roxane Pster for her statistical assistance and to Krista
Gurko and Alexander T. Fronk for assistance with data collection. We thank the children, parents,
and providers who participated in this study for their willingness to be part of the investigation
References
Anders, Y., Rossbach, H. -G., Weinert, S., Ebert, S., Kuger, S., Lehrl, S., & von Maurice, J. (2012).
numeracy skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(2), 231244. doi:10.1016/j.
ecresq.2011.08.003.
Austin, A. M. B., Blevins-Knabe, B., Ota, C., Rowe, T., & Lindauer, S. L. K. (2011). Mediators of
preschoolers early mathematics concepts. Early Child Development and Care, 180, 118.
Beneke, S., Ostrosky, M., & Katz, L. (2008). Calendar time for young children: Good intentions
gone awry. Young Children, 63(3), 1216.
Bennet, N., Wood, E., & Rogers, S. (1998). Teaching through play. Maidenhead: Open University
Press.
Blevins-Knabe, B., Austin, A. M. B., Musun, L., Eddy, A., & Jones, R. M. (2000). Family home
care providers and parents beliefs and practices concerning mathematics with young children.
Early Child Development and Care, 165, 4158.
Blevins-Knabe, B. L., Austin, A. M. B., & Hendershot, S. L. (2015) Predictors of early numeracy:
Applied measures in two child care contexts. Paper presented at the Biennial meeting of the
Society for Research in Child Development, April 2015.
Friso-van den Bos, I., Kroesbergen, E. H., Van Luit, J. E. H., Xenidou-Dervou, I., Jonkman, L. M.,
Van der Schoot, M., & Van Lieshout, E. C. D. M. (2015a). Longitudinal development of num-
ber line estimation and mathematics performance in primary school children. Journal of exper-
imental child psychology, 134, 1229.
Friso-van den Bos, I., Van Luit, J. E. H., Kroesbergen, E. H., Xenidou-Dervou, I., Van Lieshout,
E. C. D. M., Van der Schoot, M., & Jonkman, L. M. (2015b). Pathways of number line develop-
ment in children. Zeitschrift fr Psychologie, 223(2), 120128.
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997). PPVT-III: Peabody picture vocabulary test. Circle Pines, MN:
American Guidance Service.
Friedman, W. J., & Laycock, F. (1989). Childrens analog and digital clock knowledge. Child
Gathercole, S. E., & Adams, A. M. (1993). Phonological working memory in very young children.
Developmental Psychology, 29(4), 770. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.29.4.770.
Ginsburg, H. P., & Baroody, A. J. (2003). The test of early mathematics ability (3rd ed.). Austin,
TX: Pro Ed.
Gioia, G. A., Espy, K. A., & Isquith, P. K. (2003). BRIEF-P: Behavior Rating Inventory of
Executive Function--Preschool Version [kit]. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Grifn, E., & Morrison, F. (1997). The unique contribution of home literacy environment to differ-
ences in early literacy skills. Early Child Development and Care, 127(1), 233243.
Hard at WorkWomen in the Utah Labor Force. (2014). Utah Division of Workforce Services.
Salt Lake City, Utah. Retrieved from http://jobs.utah.gov/wi/pubs/hardatwork/.
Huntsinger, C. S., Jose, P. E., Larson, S. L., Krieg, D. B., & Shaligram, C. (2000). Journal of
Educational Psychology, 92, 745760.
Invernizzi, M., Sullivan, A., Meier, J., & Swank, L. (2004). Phonological Awareness Literacy
Screening: Preschool (PALS-PreK). Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia.
Jacobs, J. E., & Eccles, J. S. (1985). Gender differences in math ability: The impact of media
reports on parents. Educational Researcher, 14(3), 2025.
doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.12.004.
Kleemans, T., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2013). Relations between home numeracy experiences
and basic calculation skills of children with and without specic language impairment. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 28, 415423.
Kontos, S. (1992). Family day care: Out of the shadows and into the limelight. Research Monograph
of the National Association for the Education of Young Children (Vol. 5). Washington, DC:
National Association for the Education of Young Children.
LeFevre, J.-A., Clarke, T., & Stringer, A. P. (2002). Inuences of language and parental involvement
on the development of counting skills: Comparisons of French- and English-speaking Canadian
children. Early Child Development and Care, 172(3), 283300. doi:10.1080/03004430212127.
LeFevre, J.-A., Lira, C. J., Sowinski, C., Cankaya, O., Kamawar, D., & Skwarchuk, S.-L. (2013).
Charting the role of the number line in mathematical development. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 641.
LeFevre, J.-A., Polyzoi, E., Skwarchuk, S.-L., Fast, L., & Sowinski, C. (2010). Do home numeracy
and literacy practices of Greek and Canadian parents predict the numeracy skills of kindergar-
ten children? International Journal of Early Years Education, 18(1), 5570.
doi:10.1080/09669761003693926.
LeFevre, J.-A., Skwarchuk, S.-L., Smith-Chant, B. L., Fast, L., Kamawar, D., & Bisanz, J. (2009).
Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement,
41(2), 5566. doi:10.1037/a0014532.
Missall, K., Hojnoski, R. L., Caskie, G. L., & Repasky, P. (2015). Home numeracy environments
of preschoolers: Examining relations among mathematical activities, parent mathematical
beliefs, and early mathematical skills. Early Education and Development, 26(3), 356376. doi
:10.1080/10409289.2015.968243.
Muldoon, K., Towse, J., Simms, V., Perra, O., & Menzies, V. (2013). Developmental Psychology,
49(2), 250257.
Nosek, B. A., Smyth, F. L., Sriram, N., Lindner, N. M., Devos, T., Ayala, A., Greenwald, A. G.
(2009). National differences in genderscience stereotypes predict national sex differences in
science and math achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(26),
10593-10597.
young childrens mathematics learning. Cognitive Development, 21(1), 1735. doi:10.1016/j.
cogdev.2005.08.001.
Praet, M., & Desoete, A. (2014). Enhancing young childrens arithmetic skills through non-
intensive, computerized kindergarten interventions: A randomized controlled study. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 39, 5665.
Purpura, D. J., Hume, L., Sims, D., & Lonigan, C. J. (2011). Early literacy and early numeracy:
The value of including early literacy skills in the prediction of numeracy development. Journal
of Experimental Child Psychology, 110, 647658.
79(2), 375394.
17(2-3), 219236. doi:10.1080/10986065.2015.1016819.
Snchal, M., LeFevre, J., Thomas, E., & Daley, K. (1998). Differential effects of home literacy
experiences on the development of oral and written language. Reading Research Quarterly, 32,
96116.
Siegler, R. S., & McGilly, K. (1989). Strategy choices in childrens time-telling. In I. L. D. Zakay
(Ed.), Time and human cognition: A life-span perspective (pp. 185216). Oxford: North Holland.
income childrens numerical development. Developmental Science, 11(5), 655661.
Simms, V., Clayton, S., Cragg, L., Gilmore, C., & Johnson, S. (2016). Explaining the relationship
between number line estimation and mathematical achievement: The role of visuomotor inte-
gration and visuospatial skills. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 145, 2233.
Skwarchuk, S., Sowinski, C., & LeFevre, J. (2014). Formal and informal home learning activities
in relation to childrens early numeracy and literacy skills: The development of a home numer-
acy model. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 121, 6384. doi:10.1016/j.
jecp.2013.11.006.
Status of Women and Girls in the United States. (March 2016). Institute for Womens Policy
Research, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.iwpr.org/initiatives/the-status-of-
women-and-girls/.
Vakali, M. (1991). Clock time in seven- to ten-year-old children. European Journal of Psychology
of Education, 6, 325336.
White, S. J., Berthelsen, D., Walker, K. E., & Williams, K. E. (2015). Early mathematical learning:
Number processing skills and executive function at 5 and 8 years of age. Asia-Pacific Journal
of Research in Early Childhood Education, 9(3), 4566.
in preschoolers. Developmental Psychology, 44(2), 588596.
Chapter 8
Optimizing the Home Numeracy
Environments of 3- to 6-Year-Old Children
in the USA and Canada
Sheri-Lynn Skwarchuk, Maureen Vandermaas-Peeler, and Jo-Anne LeFevre
Researchers around the world recognize the importance of the early home environ-
ment as a critical starting point for numeracy development (Perry, Macdonald, &
Gervasoni, 2015). Children who start school without foundational numeracy knowl-
edge, presumably because of varied early learning circumstances, have difculty
gaining that knowledge and consistently lag behind their peers (Duncan et al., 2007;
Jordan, Kaplan, Locuniak, & Ramineni, 2007). Researchers are beginning to
uncover the specic skills and contexts required for childrens numeracy growth
(e.g., Skwarchuk, Sowinski, & LeFevre, 2014), and to determine ways to promote
the development of numeracy skills at an early age. Although knowledge about
numeracy development and pedagogy continues to lag behind that of literacy devel-
opment, numeracy ndings are being used to support numeracy intervention and
program developmentsometimes even on par with literacy initiatives (e.g., Parent
Zone by Healthy Child Manitoba, n.d.). The purpose of this chapter is to: (1)
describe the cultural context in the countries in which we work, (2) outline the
assumptions made by numeracy researchers as they make sense of home numeracy
environments, (3) identify some of the best practices supported by research to
S.-L. Skwarchuk, Ph.D. (*)

Faculty of Education, University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
e-mail: s.skwarchuk@uwinnipeg.ca
M. Vandermaas-Peeler, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology, Center for Research on Global Engagement, Elon University,
Elon, NC, USA
e-mail: vanderma@elon.edu
J.-A. LeFevre, Ph.D.
Institute of Cognitive Science and Department of Psychology, Carleton University,
Ottawa, ON, Canada
e-mail: jo-anne.lefevre@carleton.ca

128 S.-L. Skwarchuk et al.
enhance numeracy development; and (4) to provide parents and educators with
contextual examples from observational work to support early numeracy learning in
the early learning environment.
Considering Cultural Context
We begin this chapter with a description and cross-cultural comparison of the envi-
ronmental contexts associated with childrens home numeracy experiences in the
USA and Canada. Compared to the robust effects in the early literacy eld that have
clearly substantiated the importance of early home literacy practices, ndings in the
home numeracy eld are comparatively modest. Because the home numeracy eld
is still evolving, we reect on the ways in which researchers assumptions and cul-
tural inuences may contribute to the ndings in this eld.
The Early Learning Numeracy Context in the USA
In 2014, the estimated population of the USA was just over 300 million, with over
69 million of the population under age 18 years, and 18 million under the age of
5 years (United States Census Bureau, n.d.). Approximately 77.7 % of citizens were
Caucasian, 13.2 % were Black or African American, 5.3 % were Asian, 1.4 % were
American Indian/Native, and 2.4 % were of mixed racial decent. Racial and ethnic
diversity continues to grow; by 2050 it is estimated that nearly half of the US popu-
lation under 18 years will represent Hispanic, Asian, or mixed races (Federal
Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2013).
It has generally been established that estimates of childrens well-being in the
USA are affected by family income. Children living in families with middle-to-high
income levels have access to a wealth of resources such as excellent medical care
and high quality early childhood education. In contrast, children living in poverty
face signicant challenges to well-being similar to those of children living in poor
nations. The Center for Disease Control (n.d.) in the United States indicates that
5.5 % of children under the age of 18 years are living without health insurance.
However, the recent passage of the Affordable Care Act ensures that the national
government will provide tax subsidies to individuals unable to afford health insur-
ance. The USA is ranked 23rd in the world (out of 141 countries) on the Child
Development Index (Save the Children, 2012), based on aggregate measures of
child mortality, primary school enrollment, and nutrition. Of these three indicators,
nutrition has been the most resistant to change and remains the most serious threat
to childrens health and well-being around the world. In a recent UNICEF report of
childrens well-being in rich countries, the USA ranked a dismal 26th out of 29
countries, grouped with far poorer countries including Lithuania, Latvia, and
Romania (UNICEF, 2013). In the USA, approximately 20 % or more of all children
8 Optimizing the Home Numeracy Environments of 3- to 6-Year-Old Children 129
live in families whose income falls below the poverty line and on average they fall
almost 40 % below that line. By comparison, in Canada, 15 % of children live in
families with incomes below the poverty line and on average they fall 25 % below
that line.
Between the years of 1995 and 2007, approximately 55 % of all children aged
36 years in the USA attended center-based child care programs, including day care
centers, preschools, and Head Start programs (Federal Interagency Forum on Child
and Family Statistics, 2013). Other options for early care include being cared for by
a relative (e.g., grandparent) or nonrelative care, such as family day care providers,
in-home caregivers, and other nonrelatives. Family income level, ethnic back-
ground, geographical location and program access, parental educational attainment,
and other demographic variables inuence the participation rates and types of pro-
grams attended by young children. Preschool education is only subsidized for chil-
dren living in low-income families who qualify for federally funded programs such
as Head Start. The quality of early childhood programs in the USA is difcult to
assess given the geographical size and large population of the country, wide dispari-
ties in income and therefore in the choice of programs. However, several recent
reports have noted that unfortunately, there are still many poor quality care centers
(especially for infant and toddler programs) operating in the USA (National Institute
of Child Health and Human Development, n.d.; Zero to Three, 2009).
Although math and science curricula vary according to the goals and quality of
specic early childhood programs in the USA, the National Association for the
Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and the National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics (NCTM) issued a position statement afrming the importance of high
quality, challenging, and accessible mathematics education for 3- to 6-year-old chil-
dren (2002). Recommendations included capitalizing on childrens interests, pro-
viding early experiences in the home environment, using a developmentally
appropriate evidence-based curriculum and teaching practices that support problem-
solving and reasoning, and ensuring effective teacher preparation and ongoing pro-
fessional development in support of high quality mathematics instruction. Despite
increasing national attention to early mathematical and scientic education, these
standards are not upheld on a daily basis in most preschool settings (Anderson &
Gold, 2006; Tsunghui, 2006). Public education becomes universally available to,
and mandatory for all children between the age of 5 and 8 years of age, depending
on the laws established in each state. There are considerable regional disparities
across the USA in test scores on international assessments such as the Trends in
International Mathematics and Science Study (i.e., TIMSS, Mullis, Martin, Foy, &
Arora, 2012). Test scores from North Carolina were used as the US benchmark for
international comparisons on the 2011 TIMSS (which by coincidence is where the
second author conducts research), and fourth grade students scored signicantly
higher than national and international averages.
In the research conducted by Vandermaas-Peeler and colleagues (e.g.,
Vandermaas-Peeler, Ferretti, & Loving, 2012; Vandermaas-Peeler & McClain,
2015; Vandermaas-Peeler, Nelson, Bumpass, & Sassine, 2009; Vandermaas-Peeler
& Pittard, 2014) participating families lived in North Carolina, a state in the
southeastern region of the country. Data from the 2013 Census indicates that in
North Carolina, approximately one in four children live in poverty and the rate is
twice as high for children of Hispanic, African American and American Indian eth-
nic backgrounds. Children attending Head Start programs in three counties in cen-
tral North Carolina participated in some of the research projects described in this
chapter, along with one or more parents. However, the majority of the research was
conducted with middle-to-high income families whose preschool-aged children
attend a variety of early childhood education programs in mid-sized towns and cit-
ies in central North Carolina.
Growing Up Numerate in Canada
Canada is a pluralistic society, with over 35 million people, including ve million

children under the age of 14, representing over 100 identied ethnicities (Statistics
Canada, n.d.). In addition, Canada has the second highest concentration of
Aboriginal people in the world, constituting approximately 5 % of the Canadian
population. According to the Child Development Index (CDI; Save the Children,
2012), Canada is ranked 6th in the world (out of 141 countries) for its treatment of
children on variables related to health, wellness, and nutrition. In 1982, the Canadian
Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms (Government of Canada, n.d.) was estab-
lished to ensure that all individuals are treated equally under the law, regardless of
their culture, gender identity, or ability. Separate governmental departments exist
within each of the 13 provinces and territories for health, family services/child wel-
fare, and education, resulting in regional discrepancies. Nonetheless, there are fed-
eral Canadian health care priorities that probably childrens well-being including:
(1) universal access to basic medical care including immunizations, developmental
screenings and therapy initiatives, (2) free access to prenatal care, breastfeeding
support, and nutritional income supplements as needed, and (3) free vision and
hearing screenings up to age 18 years. In terms of child welfare, only three prov-
inces have laws about the age at which children can be left unattended (e.g., 12
years of age; Parent Zone by Healthy Child Manitoba, n.d.; Ruiz & Radic, 2015).
All provinces have established laws and requirements restricting the age and condi-
tions when children can legally work (Government of Canada, n.d.). Since 2001,
many working parents qualify for a nancially subsidized and government man-
dated year of parental leave, allowing one parent to stay home with their infant for
the rst year of life. There is signicant discussion about developing a national
childcare strategy to support universal access to affordable childcare. Currently,
childcare is government regulated but program quality (i.e., available full or part
time spaces, trained staff, and program variety and quality) varies. There is no feder-
ally mandated early childhood curriculum; policy makers borrow from philosophies
and position statements from national organizations (e.g., NAEYC and NCTM)
established in the USA.
Children are required to attend school from the ages of 618 years (e.g., Manitoba
Education, n.d.), although many children begin full or part time formal schooling in
programs that have been differentially labeled as nursery or junior kindergarten
programs at age 4, or kindergarten programs at age 5. In Ontario, Canadas most
populated province, full-day care is provided in schools, funded by the provincial
government, that integrates kindergarten and childcare for the length of the school
day for children aged 4 and 5 (City of Toronto, n.d.). Most children in Canada attend
public schools and follow a provincially developed curriculum, although private
schools exist for specialized secular, athletic, or alternative academic programming.
Current issues being debated in the media include the generational of impact of resi-
dential schooling of Aboriginal students; and reforms to the mathematics curricu-
lum in relation to recent declines in Canadas ranking on international assessments.
Although there is a range in provincial results, Ontario (one of the benchmark com-
parison provinces) ranked above the 18th jurisdiction on the 2011 Trends In
International Mathematics and Science Study (Mullis et al., 2012) and scored sig-
nicantly higher than the international average. However, Canada dropped out of
the top 10 in the TIMSS rankings in the 2011 assessment, dropping to 13th position.
This change has raised interest in childrens early mathematical learning among
various stakeholders, including parents and educators.
For our Canadian research (e.g., LeFevre, Fast, Sowinski, et al., 2009; LeFevre,
Fast, Skwarchuk, et al., 2009; LeFevre, Skwarchuk, Smith-Chant, et al., 2009;
Lukie, Skwarchuk, LeFevre, & Sowinski, 2013; Skwarchuk et al., 2014), the
researchers and the participants lived in various moderate to large urban centers in
either Manitoba or Ontario, provinces that are located in the central part of Canada.
Various ethnicities were represented. Participation from fathers was rare, despite our
efforts. Many children from our sample were enrolled in French Immersion pro-
gramming, where they completed a large proportion of their early schooling in
French with the goal of becoming bilingual (English/French). Children in Canada
typically have a 2-month break from school in summer months (July and August).
Many are enrolled in day programs or overnight summer camps, to cover childcare
responsibilities while parents work. Digital media is a preferred activity and many
children are becoming very adept at using their parents cellphones and other devices.
Parents also report reading to their children, and spending time together involved in
mutually interesting activities. However, there is concern that with the increase in
homework demands, parents extended working hours vis--vis virtual contact
through cellphones and the internet, and enrollment in extracurricular programming,
there has been a reduction in family interaction time and unstructured free play.
Readers from a world audience may assume that the contextual backdrop from
the USA and Canada concerning early numeracy development is the same; but sev-
eral similarities and differences are noteworthy. First, both countries encourage
opportunities, celebrate and respect children, ensuring that they have opportunities
for play. Furthermore, both countries value education, as all children are required to
attend school, and the majority of schools follow a government-mandated curricu-
lum. There has also been a marked increase in the use of technology, resulting in
digital applications for numerical calculations and communication. Children of all
ages are relying on technology in many aspects of daily life. Finally, with the high
percentage of families where both parents work, and the consequently limited time
available to meet household and family obligations, parental support of numeracy
relative to literacy activities is limited in both countries. Parents report that they
value numeracy skills, but they report that they do not know the best ways to support
their childs numeracy learning (Blevins-Knabe, Berghout Austin, Musun, Eddy, &
Jones, 2000; Skwarchuk, 2009).
However, approaches toward education appear to be different across the two
countries. Canadian systems provide basic universal funding to support all students,
and children/families are assessed according to their individual learning strengths
and weaknesses. In contrast to the USA, there is less government mandated testing
in Canada (although this varies across provinces), and there appears to be less of an
emphasis on publically ranking schools according to test scores. Instead, many
provinces and territories use the Early Development Instrument (EDI; Janus et al.,
2007), a population-based questionnaire, administered by kindergarten teachers,
that allows the collection of information about school readiness. Results from EDI
assessments are used at the aggregated level (i.e., across neighborhoods or regions),
for example, to determine geographical areas of need and can thus guide govern-
ment expenditures on education and other forms of support for children and fami-
lies. Except in extremely impoverished areas, there are no Head Start programs that
provide free access to early childhood education programs, health and nutrition
support. Generally, there are no subsidized lunch programs. Instead, support is pro-
vided to an entire school or community via a government funded school or com-
munity programnot just to individuals in need. Despite Canadas decline on
international assessments in recent years, score variability across provinces and
regions is not as wide as in other countries, perhaps showing Canadian efforts to
provide quality education to all students.
Assumptions About Numeracy Learning in a Preschool Home
Our philosophical perspectives as developmental and cognitive psychologists have

inuenced our assumptions about children and their early numeracy learning. Our
research is embedded in the following assumptions: (1) childrens learning is medi-
ated as described according to social-constructivist approaches; (2) numeracy
opportunities are available for all children; and (3) parents have the best intentions
to foster childrens developmental and educational needs, making choices based on
resources available. We describe these assumptions in this next section, in terms of
how they have inuenced our research questions, and the emerging story we have to
share about early numeracy learning.
Consistent with the tenets of social-constructivist theory proposed for example,
by Vygotsky (1978), we assume that children learn through observation of and par-
ticipation in tandem with others (often caregivers) who mediate learning
(Vandermaas-Peeler & Pittard, 2014). Early numeracy forerunners have provided
rich descriptions of exemplar numeracy environments and the developmental pro-

cess through which children become numerate (Anderson, 1997; Baroody, 1987;
Ginsburg, 1977; Young-Loveridge, 1989). Other studies have described numeracy
exposure in varied settings, for example, during museum visits (Vandermaas-Peeler,
Massey, & Kendall, 2015), shared storybook reading (Anderson, Anderson, &
Shapiro, 2004) and when children have very high mathematics interests and ability
(Skwarchuk & LeFevre, 2015). The term fast mapping was coined by Carey and
Bartlett (1978) to describe childrens rapid acquisition of a concept after only one
brief encounter, and has been used to account for the strong increases in vocabulary
development during the rst 5 years of life. Applying this term to numeracy knowl-
edge, children may acquire the early number sequence through home exposure and
practice, while overgeneralizing some rules and conventions (e.g., saying eleven-
teen or twelveteen), undergeneralizing others (e.g., three only means the num-
ber of ngers held out by a child to represent their age), and eventually working out
the patterns and exceptions implicit in number system conventions. Having the
belief that children construct their knowledge based on environmental exposure
leads to research questions about optimal activities that promote numeracy growth.
It is further assumed that numeracy opportunities abound in childrens environ-
ments. Numeracy growth occurs as the result of children experiencing numeracy
concepts, and parents guiding children to making sense of the environment to inu-
ence learning. For example, in some North American homes, numeracy growth
may occur because children have experienced patterns of the numbers associated
with street addresses on homes; discussions about addition, subtraction and sharing
during play; counting practice using board games with dice; measurement oppor-
tunities using a vehicle speedometer; height charts and weight information obtained
from the bathroom scale; or understanding the concept of time using a stopwatch
or stove timer.
David Andersons (2013) observations of Canadian Aboriginal people show how
mathematics concepts have existed and have been passed down through generations
in traditional Anishinaabe context. He indicated that numeracy knowledge is
implicit in the teachings about time in regard to hunting water fowl or picking wild
rice, engineering principles involved in designing housing structures based on avail-
able resources (e.g., igloos) and measurement and estimation such as how many
stops it takes to cross a frozen lake (Anderson, 2014). Studies have investigated the
extent to which children are exposed to numeracy knowledge early in life, and how
exposure impacts academic learning (e.g., Blevins-Knabe & Musun-Miller, 1996;
LeFevre, Skwarchuk, Smith-Chant, et al., 2009). Some work has examined the
extent to which impoverished environments contribute to numeracy difculties and
ways to overcome the early environmental inequities in preschoolers numeracy
exposure (Vandermaas-Peeler & Pittard, 2014).
Finally, it is assumed that parents (or their responsible designate) are often at the
helm alongside preschoolers to navigate the numeracy landscape. Adult guidance
helps children to reinforce knowledge and skills, make new connections, and
develop enhanced understandings about numeracy concepts (Vandermaas-Peeler &
Pittard, 2014). Parents can be available to scaffold relevant numeracy information to
reinforce numeracy skills, and/or provide the social engagement required for an
activity, compared to having the child involved in a numeracy task independently
(Vandermaas-Peeler & Pittard, 2014).
Several ndings about parental expectations and behaviors have rened our
understanding of the home numeracy context. First, some parents have expressed
concerns that they do not know how to expose their children to numeracy concepts
(Skwarchuk, 2009). Parents consistently rank the importance of acquiring literacy
goals over numeracy goals (Blevins-Knabe et al., 2000; Skwarchuk, 2009), which
may affect the home resources available for numeracy learning. However, when
parents are reminded to focus on introducing numeracy content in their interactions
with their children, the quality of the numeracy interaction is improved (Vandermaas-
Peeler et al., 2012). Some parents discuss advanced skills that extend beyond basic
counting (Skwarchuk, 2009). Finally, parents with strong mathematics skills
(Skwarchuk & LeFevre, 2015; Young-Loveridge, 1989) and dispositions toward
child-centered involvement (Lukie et al., 2013) report high quality early numeracy
exposure, presumably because they know and feel comfortable with introducing
relevant content.
Attitudes toward mathematics among parents, teachers, and children are also
becoming of interest and are relevant to the home context. Anxiety in children about
mathematics can start as early as Grade 1 (Maloney & Beilock, 2012; Ramirez,
Gunderson, Levine, & Beilock, 2012). Relatedly, work with preschool educators has
shown that teacher expectations are important (Baker, Tichovolsky, Kupersmidt,
Voegler-Lee, & Arnold, 2015); and those educators who had high expectations for
their childrens numeracy development tended to adopt advanced numeracy practices
in their classrooms and interactions with children. In contrast, educators who them-
selves are not condent about mathematics can pass along their negative views to
children as early as Grade 1, with particularly serious consequences for the mathe-
matics achievement of girls (Beilock, Gunderson, Ramirez, & Levine, 2010).
Intervention studies have begun to focus on improving the role that parents play in
fostering childrens numeracy development (e.g., Vandermaas-Peeler et al., 2012;
Vandermaas-Peeler & Pittard, 2014). Numeracy goals have been included (in addi-
tion to literacy goals) in recent public awareness publications and campaigns pertain-
ing to school readiness (e.g., Getting Ready for School by Healthy Child Manitoba,
n.d.). Some communication has begun to focus on the importance of parents main-
taining positive attitudes about mathematics to their children (e.g., Skwarchuk, 2015).
Toward an Understanding of Early Numeracy Learning
To ensure that children are adequately prepared for formal schooling in the USA
and Canada, stakeholders often pose two questions: What skills are important for
numeracy learning? and What preschool activities can be used to develop pre-
requisite numeracy skills? We provide a brief review of the research that has accu-
mulated over the past 15 years in attempts to answer these questions.
Stakeholders often discuss the importance of having good number sense abili-
ties, becoming numerate, and being quantitatively numerate during the rst
years of school. These qualities sound desirable, but sorting through the skills that
might reect numeracy has been challenging. Many issues exist, including dening
criteria for adequate numeracy, determining the developmental order of acquisition,
assessment; and using relevant evidence to develop effective intervention. In fact,
scholars have difculty describing what it means to be numerate or to adequately
operationalize number sense. Whyte and Bull (2008) suggest that researchers
generally agree on four core skills critical for developing number sense. The skills
include: (1) ability to recognize small exact quantities (e.g., knowing how many
items there are, such as the paragraphs on this page, without counting them), (2)
comparison of the sizes of numbers (e.g., which number is bigger, 6 or 9), (3) esti-
mating (e.g., how many jellybeans are in the jar), and (4) developing understanding
of where numbers t on a number line (e.g., knowing that 20 should be placed half
way between 10 and 30). Other researchers have emphasized the importance of
procedural and conceptual counting (knowing the rules for how to count and per-
forming the task successfully in different situations), along with domain-general
cognitive abilities that help children perform a wide range of cognitive tasks such as
working memory, behavioral attention, and phonological awareness (Martin, Cirino,
Sharp, & Barnes, 2014). Recent research centers on the relative importance of rep-
resenting numbers symbolically (e.g., as digits) compared to a focus on concrete
(i.e., nonsymbolic) quantity manipulation skills (De Smedt, Nol, Gilmore, &
Ansari, 2013) as precursors for learning more advanced mathematics.
LeFevre et al. (2009) developed the Pathways Model of Numeracy Development
to account for the wide range of individual differences in childrens numeracy abili-
ties before school entry. In this study, over 500 Canadian children (aged 411 years)
participated in a longitudinal study and their skills were measured at the end of every
school year for up to 4 years. Using the aggregate data from the study participants,
three kinds of cognitive skills were found to be important for numeracy learning:
quantitative awareness, linguistic skills, and spatial attentional abilities. Consistent
with Whyte and Bulls (2008) requisite skills summary, the quantitative pathway
includes childrens representation and manipulation of small exact numbers, count-
ing knowledge and skill, and number comparisons (Sowinski et al., 2014). The lin-
guistic pathway includes the understanding of the symbolic number system, including
ordinality and place value, and relevant vocabulary concepts (e.g., names and order
of number words, geometric terms, arithmetic concepts, relational terms such as
more than, above, and place value translations; see also Purpura & Logan,
2015). Finally, the attentional/spatial pathway includes skills involving working
memory and executive functions; such as when children hold information in mem-
ory while performing a task, inhibit irrelevant information, mentally represent infor-
mation, sustain attention to appropriate cues, and order/align digits. Our research
indicates that exposure to numeracy concepts and other relevant activities that occur
in childrens environments helps to develop these pathways at home and school.
The second question that is often asked concerns the kinds of activities that can be
used to promote preschoolers numeracy development. In another longitudinal study
involving over 120 children and their parents, we developed the Home Numeracy
Model to explain the relation between preschool home numeracy activities and
mathematical competence at the end of Kindergarten (Skwarchuk et al., 2014).
Parents were asked to rate the extent to which their preschoolers were involved in
numeracy- and literacy-related activities. Children then completed a mathematics
assessment one year later that was aligned with the three competencies (i.e., linguis-
tic, quantitative, spatial working memory). Results indicated that there are two gen-
eral categories of preschool activities, formal practices and informal practices, which
are relevant for preschool learning. Formal practices are designed with the goal of
teaching specic numeracy concepts (and may include, for example, writing num-
bers, practicing arithmetic facts, or reciting the number sequence). These formal
activities predicted childrens knowledge of number concepts at the end of
Kindergarten. Conversely, informal practices were dened as occurring when numer-
acy goals are implicit in the activity, but are not the intended focus of the activity,
such as being exposed to games with mathematics content or talking about math
concepts while baking. Informal practices were associated with the quantitative path-
way, specically, childrens ability to use basic addition and subtraction concepts in
everyday activities. Thus, the study conrmed that there was no one particular activ-
ity or set of activities that led to enhanced numeracy development. As a result of this
work, parents and early educators are encouraged to follow the active interests of
their children to provide tailored numeracy discovery that is individually and contex-
tually relevant to them (Lukie et al., 2013). Our research showed that exposure to
formal and informal activities affected numeracy learning in different ways.
Contexts for Enhancing Early Numeracy Experiences
In a recent conversation, an experienced teacher was expressing her concerns over

constant struggles to use the new and upcoming technologies to teach numeracy
content. She stated that she would be willing to give a professional development
meeting on how to learn numeracy with just a pencil and paper. We laughed and
noted that numeracy content may also be taught using a deck of cards. These two
items are easy to store in purses or car glove boxes for easy accessibility. To illus-
trate the point that numeracy opportunities abound with simple, available objects we
provide some suggestions of the kinds of activities that can be used to provide (for-
mal and informal) numeracy opportunities, tailored to age and developmental level.
Pencil and Paper. Pencil and paper may be used to: write numbers (by twos, threes,
etc.; odd/even), demonstrate concept of innity, write calculation problems, write
addition and multiplication tables, play dot-to-dot and other strategic games, fold
into smaller and smaller halves, make paper money, draw time clocks, use the length
of the paper and pencil to measure, fold paper to make boxes, hats and boats, divide
the paper into fractions, make a snakes and ladders game, draw a hundreds chart,
make big numbers and read them, talk about place value, and draw tree diagram to
show value of coins.
Deck of Cards. A deck of cards may be used to: count all the cards, nd all the twos,
nd all the black cards and put them in sequence, nd the odd/even numbers, turn
the cards (one, two or three at a time) over and say the resulting number quickly,
play memory and say numbers correctly for a math, play memory and matches must
add to 10 (or 11, 12), build a card house, use the cards for measuring, make the big-
gest number with the digits on the cards, play number relevant card games such as
war, 31, or cribbage; cover digits on corner of cards and practice subitizing, sort
cards from highest to lowest, and estimate how many cards are in a stack.
Learning by Doing: Observations of Adult Guidance

of Numeracy Learning in Everyday Activities
As previously mentioned, social constructivist theoretical frameworks emphasize

the importance of childrens participation in engaging, meaningful activities for
early learning. In early childhood, parents and teachers in many cultures support
childrens numeracy understandings through formal and informal practices in daily
activities such as reading and play (Tudge & Doucet, 2004; Vandermaas-Peeler
et al., 2009; Vandermaas-Peeler, Nelson, & Bumpass, 2007). Adult guidance during
numeracy-related activities is critical for developing understandings of concepts
and strategies that are just beyond a childs current understanding but within reach
if the appropriate guidance is provided, known as the zone of proximal development
or ZPD (Saxe & Posner, 1983; Vygotsky, 1978). For instance, in their review of the
development of spatial thinking, Newcomb and Frick (2010) emphasized the impor-
tance of adult support for young childrens developing spatial awareness and
problem-solving during joint participation in everyday activities such as grocery
shopping (e.g., predicting how many groceries will t in the shopping bag), cooking
(e.g., deciding how to cut the bagel so it will t into a toaster) or taking a trip (e.g.,
planning a route on a map). Adults often employ scaffolding techniques such as
questioning and collaborative problem-solving to enhance childrens learning in
meaningful, culturally relevant experiences (Lindner, Powers-Costello, & Stegelin,
2011; Vandermaas-Peeler et al., 2007, 2009). This section will focus on the pro-
cesses of facilitating inquiry-based learning to enhance numeracy exposure. Field
related suggestions are highlighted in italics.
In inquiry-based learning, parents and teachers ask children open-ended ques-
tions designed to facilitate problem solving and reasoning (Lindner et al., 2011;
Vandermaas-Peeler & McClain, 2015). An example of inquiry-based guidance is
provided in the following exchange (in italics for emphasis), which occurred
between one 4-year-old child and his teacher as they were walking through the gar-
den at their preschool.
Child: Oh look, I found something! (looking at a large plant that had fallen
over) I wonder what it is, right there.
Teacher: Ill come around and look. I wonder what youre noticing?
Child: Look, right here.
Teacher: What is that?
Child: I wonder what it is.
Teacher: I wonder if you get underneath and look at it from the under part, can
you recognize it?
Child: (bending down to look under the plant) Whoa!
Teacher: What is it?
Child: Its a huge sunower!
Teacher: Is that what you discovered from there? You got way under there and
thats how you could see it.
Child: Oh man thats big.
This exchange illustrates the ways in which childrens thinking can develop in
the context of joint participation in everyday activities with adult guidance. Through
intrinsic curiosity and observation in the environment, the child made an initial
discovery in the garden and was curious about the object. Instead of offering the
answer, his teacher supported the childs further discovery through open-ended
questioning. By engaging in inquiry, or the processes of observing, questioning,
predicting, and evaluating, children construct knowledge and learn to coordinate
evidence and theory, particularly when guided and encouraged by adults (Bourne,
2000; Inan, Trundle, & Kantor, 2010; Vandermaas-Peeler & McClain, 2015).
Vandermaas-Peeler, Mischka, and Sands (2015) compared parents who were
trained to use inquiry methods with the guidance of parents who received no train-
ing. The following transcript example from a parent in the inquiry training group
illustrates the use of open-ended questions such as why do you think so to foster the
childs reasoning in an animal print matching activity. The parent suggested that the
child employ a counting strategy to compare the footprints and use evidence to eval-
uate the prediction. They have counted and compared the number of claws and toes
on several prints. The parents open-ended questions are italicized for emphasis.
Parent: Hmmm, how many does this have? (holding up the paw print card)
Child: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Parent: 5, now does that one look like this? (holding the paw print next to a picture
of another animal in a book)
Child: Totally no, thats a duck.
Parent: (laughs) Why do you say its a duck? What makes you think its a duck?
Child: Because I see its footprints and it has these on them (pointing to the
webbed feet).
Parent: Oh, okay. Yeah.
Child: They do not look like a bear!
Parent: Why do you think it has those?
Child: To swim in the water?
Parent: Yeah, that might be.
Although all parents introduced developmentally appropriate mathematics

content into the various activities, the research demonstrated that parents in the
inquiry-training group asked more open-ended questions and encouraged children
to integrate math with science processing skills such as making predictions,
evaluations and comparisons more frequently than parents in the control group.
Unlike their counter-parts in the inquiry-training group, parents in the control group
were more likely to provide the correct answers to their children rather than encour-
age them to make guesses and evaluate their predictions with evidence. As one
parent in the inquiry group noted in a follow-up interview: I just had to pace myself
to give her time to answer. Because as a grown-up we are trained to answer, spit it
out quick. The harder part was like, take your time, give her time, let her connect it.
In order to develop complex problem-solving skills, children need repeated
exposure and practice using relevant math language in the context of guided, mean-
ingful activities (Gelman & Brenneman, 2004). As children gain knowledge and
experience with particular concepts, they move from a contextualized, concrete
understanding to abstract conceptual thinking (Gelman & Brenneman, 2004;
Peterson, 2009). According to Clements (2001), a quality preschool mathematics
approach should invite children to experience mathematics as they play in, describe
and think about their world (p. 270). In his view, based on extensive research and
practice, children should participate in activities that simultaneously involve cogni-
tive, socio-emotional and physical development, and build on their informal math-
ematical knowledge. A holistic approach acknowledges and extends preschoolers
high levels of motivation and self-directed learning.
The physical environment in combination with the activity quality, emerging dia-
logue, and personal relationships embedded in a social environment can also affect
inquiry-based learning opportunities (Gelman & Brenneman, 2004; Inan et al.,
2010; Vandermaas-Peeler, Massey, et al., 2015). One preschool in North Carolina
adopts an inquiry-based learning philosophy by focusing on a curriculum of authen-
tic work inspired by the childrens interests, including free movement indoors and
outdoors to a beautiful garden. Ongoing research at this preschool has demonstrated
that adults can facilitate young childrens mathematical and scientific understand-
ings in everyday conversations during engaging activities such as gardening. By
observing and recording childrens interactions with their teacher in a preschool
garden, Vandermaas-Peeler and McClain (2015) found that with appropriate guid-
ance, gardening activities afforded myriad opportunities for young children to
develop mathematical thinking, ecological awareness and positive affective
responses to the natural world. There was extensive discussion of spatial orienta-
tion, particularly during harvesting and planting as the teacher guided the childrens
movements in relation to the plants and the garden beds. Use of number concepts,
and size estimation and comparison occurred frequently during gardening activities.
The preschoolers and their teacher also engaged in dialogue employing process
skills such as observing, predicting, evaluating, and comparing. In the following
example, the teacher was helping the children plant broccoli. Inquiry guidance is
italicized for emphasis.
Teacher: Theres 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 of those (pointing to the plants).

Child 1: Man, thats a lot.
Teacher: But they cant stay this close together so when we plant them they need
to be spread out. So we should make a little plan. How can we figure out
where nine plants could go in there?
Child 1: Like 6, 5, 4, 3, 2. I know! (counting on his ngers) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
9, 10.
Teacher: Nine all together. So I noticed that theyre in these little rows. So it goes
1, 2, 3. And then the second row goes 1, 2, 3 in here somewhere.
Child 2: How about we dig a big hole to put them in?
Teacher: So if we put them all in one hole Im worried that they would be too
crowded because I think every plant can grow a big ol head of broccoli
if it has enough space. So does that make sense to have 3 and 3 and 3?
Would that give us 9?
The teacher then demonstrated where they could dig holes so that the plants
would have enough space to grow, and the children continued to count them in
groups of three as they planted. She prompted mathematical thinking throughout
the garden activities, often by open-ended questioning followed with more specific
prompts. Children spontaneously incorporated number concepts such as counting
(e.g., I found six!) into their discourse, and utilized size estimation by comparing
plants over time and determining which vegetables could be harvested (e.g., using
the rule that a bean must be longer than your thumb to be picked). Klibanoff,
Levine, Huttenlocher, Vasilyeva, and Hedges (2006) found that the amount of
math talk by the teachers was related to childrens math knowledge development
over the school year, and they concluded that engaging in math-related conversa-
tions with teachers helped to increase young childrens conceptual understanding
of mathematics.
Museums are another real-world physical setting where children may partici-
pate in numeracy activities with adult guidance. However, studies have shown
mixed ndings with regard to exposure to math in this venue. Falk and Dierking
(2000) found that families who choose to visit museums seek a learning-oriented
entertainment experience. Further, parents and children solve problems and co-
construct meaning through collaborative inquiry; and when children engage in
explanatory talk with parents they demonstrate greater conceptual understanding
and stay engaged with the exhibit longer (Ash, 2003; Callanan, 2012; Falk &
Dierking, 2000). However, in an observational study by Cooper (2011), very few
conversations between children and family members included mathematical ideas.
Families rarely stopped to read the posted signs, but the math conversations
observed often occurred in response to parents reading the sign prompts.
Vandermaas-Peeler, Massey, et al. (2015) also observed that families rarely read
the posted signs in a math-related science exhibit. They found that all parents
incorporated math talk into their conversations, but parents who received explicit
guidance to prompt childrens reasoning through open-ended questions such as
why and how provided more total guidance, asked signicantly more why and how
questions, and discussed the complexity of width and height dimensions more fre-
quently than the control group. The ndings provide further evidence that when
parents are reminded or instructed to use math, they do so at nearly twice the rate
of those who receive no explicit math-related information (e.g., Vandermaas-
Peeler et al., 2012).
Summing Up What We Know and What to Do Next
Over the past 15 years, research has established the importance of the home envi-
ronment in introducing numeracy concepts and enhancing mathematics develop-
ment in children. We have learned that numeracy opportunities abound and there is
not one specic set of activities, artifacts, or situations that maximizes numeracy
learning. Numeracy learning happens as the result of children learning about experi-
ences that are of interest to them. Sometimes, parents want to teach their children
about math facts by playing number games and songs, writing numerals, or other
formalized addition and subtraction problems and these experiences are positively
related to childrens number system knowledge when they are in school. At other
times, parents socially mediate activities where numeracy is not the focus such as
playing board games, or cooking. These informal practices help children to develop
good attention skills, patience, and problem solving and help to develop their gen-
eral sense of quantity, skills that are valuable once they attend school. Both types of
formal and informal activities are important. We have also learned that parents are
their childs rst teacher, and they have the best of intentions to provide develop-
mentally appropriate stimulating environments to meet their childrens needs.
Inquiry-based guidance using open-ended questioning (e.g., how/why questions) is
helpful to facilitate problem solving, reasoning and learning by discovery. Using
repeated exposure and practice, assuming a child is learning in their zone of proxi-
mal development, and the fast mapping of numeracy concepts can facilitate learn-
ing. Sometimes, however, parents and teachers are unsure of how to direct these
kinds of approaches and training workshops have been useful to promote enriched
literacy and now numeracy contexts for teachers (Vandermaas-Peeler &
Hollingsworth, 2016) and parents (Kotsopoulos & Lee, 2014). In other cases,
reminding parents to draw out numeracy content affects numeracy learning
(Vandermaas-Peeler et al., 2012).
Collecting and integrating the research for this chapter has provided the opportu-
nity for reection on further research. First, there is relatively little research on par-
entchild discourse related to scientic and mathematical reasoning in everyday
activities (cf. Vandermaas-Peeler, Massey, et al., 2015), and little is known about how
parent guidance is linked to cognitive changes in children (Fender & Crowley, 2007;
Peterson, 2009). No known research has examined long-term effects of guidance
instructions on parents interactions with their children or on the inuences of differ-
ent guidance techniques on childrens subsequent performance in educational set-
tings. Another obvious area that lacks information is the role that fathers play in the
numeracy education of their children. In our personal experience, it has been difcult
to enroll fathers in studies, and thus, there may be sample bias in those who are
enrolled. Children have different relationships with their fathers than with their moth-
ers. Because men still dominate the STEM disciplines, fathers may serve as effective
numeracy models and sources of expertise for children. Furthermore, it will be
important to uncover the relation between parents own feelings of condence or
anxiety in relation to mathematics and corresponding exposure of numeracy concepts
to their children. Schools often extend services to parents who have school anxiety,
to ensure that negative anxiety provoking situations do not inuence their children
perhaps the same precautions should be followed for parents with mathematics anxi-
ety. In a recent intervention, providing appropriate math activities for parents to do
with their children predicted childrens learning in Grade 1 (Berkowitz et al., 2015).
Math anxious parents were less likely to use the math activities with their children,
however, when they did, children benetted as much or more as those of less-anxious
parents. Finally, more basic research is needed to understand the acquisition of math-
ematics concepts from counting to algebra, and to then create evidence-based meth-
ods to teach these concepts to both typically developing children and those with
numeracy difculties.
Finally, despite the relatively paucity of information for numeracy learning com-
pared to that on literacy, there are implications of the extant research ndings on
math learning in formal and informal contexts. Providing guidance in sustained and
engaging activities over time affords children multiple opportunities to practice and
develop foundational math skills. Teacher preparation and development programs
should incorporate inquiry-based methods of teaching and learning, and ideally will
incorporate the home context as well as the early childhood educational environ-
ment. With encouragement and support from teachers and community organiza-
tions, parents can use engaging practices, both formal, such as practicing numbers,
counting, and arithmetic, and informal, such as gardening, visiting museums, cook-
ing, and playing games to enhance their childrens numeracy development.
References
Anderson, A. (1997). Families and mathematics: A study of parentchild interactions. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 484511. doi:10.2307/749684.
Anderson, D. (2013). Anishinaabe mathematics: A way of seeing and doing. The MERN Journal,
7(1119), 7. http://www.mern.ca/publications.asp.
Anderson, D. (2014). Aboriginal mathematics: A traditional approach to learning and under-
standing. Paper presented at the Manitoba Education Research Network conference in
Winnipeg, MB.
Anderson, A., Anderson, J., & Shapiro, J. (2004). Mathematical discourse in shared storybook
reading. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35, 533. doi:10.2307/30034801.
Anderson, D. D., & Gold, E. (2006). Home to school: Numeracy practices and mathematical iden-
tities. Mathematical Thinking & Learning, 8(3), 261286. doi:10.1207/s15327833mtl0803_4.
Ash, D. (2003). Dialogic inquiry in life science conversations of family groups in a museum.
Journal of Science Teaching, 40(2), 138162. doi:10.1002/tea.10069.
Baker, C. N., Tichovolsky, M. H., Kupersmidt, J. B., Voegler-Lee, M. E., & Arnold, D. H. (2015).
Teacher (mis)perceptions of preschoolers academic skills: Predictors and associations with
longitudinal outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(3), 805820. doi:10.1037/
edu0000008.
Baroody, A. J. (1987). Childrens mathematical thinking: A developmental framework for pre-
school, primary and special education teachers. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Beilock, S. L., Gunderson, E. A., Ramirez, G., & Levine, S. C. (2010). Female teachers math
anxiety affects girls math achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of
the United States of America, 107(5), 18601863. doi:10.1073/pnas.0910967107.
Berkowitz, T., Schaeffer, M. W., Maloney, E. A., Peterson, L., Gregor, C., Levine, S. C., & Beilock,
S. L. (2015). Math at home adds up to achievement in school. Science, 350(6257), 196198.
doi:10.1126/science.aac7427.
Blevins-Knabe, B., Berghout Austin, A., Musun, L., Eddy, A., & Jones, R. M. (2000). Family
homecare providers and parents beliefs and practices concerning mathematics with young
and its relationship to early mathematical performance. Early Development and Parenting, 5,
Bourne, B. (2000). Taking inquiry outdoors. Reading, writing, and science beyond the classroom
walls. Portland, MA: Stenhouse Publishers.
Callanan, M. (2012). Conducting cognitive developmental research in museums: Theoretical
issues and practical considerations. Journal of Cognition and Development, 13(2), 137151.
doi:10.1080/15248372.2012.666730.
Carey, S., Bartlett, E. (1978). Acquiring a single new word. Proceedings of the Stanford Child
Language Conference, 15, pp 1729.
Centers for Disease Control. (n.d.). Retrieved June 19, 2015, from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/
fastats/child-health.htm.
City of Toronto (n.d.). Factsheet regarding Full-Day Kindergarten (FDK) for parents with children
currently in child care. Retrieved 28-August-2016 from http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/
contentonly? vgnextoid=975f8dbf50d62410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD&vgnextchanne
l=6d3e8ed34ce9e310VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD.
Clements, D. (2001). Mathematics in the preschool. Teaching Children Mathematics, 7(5),
270275.
Cooper, S. (2011). An exploration of the potential for mathematical experiences in informal learn-
ing environments. Visitor Studies, 14(1), 4865. doi:10.1080/10645578.2011.557628.
De Smedt, B., Nol, M.-P., Gilmore, C. K., & Ansari, D. (2013). How do symbolic and non-
symbolic numerical magnitude processing skills relate to individual differences in childrens
mathematical skills? A review of evidence from brain and behavior. Trends in Neuroscience
and Education, 2(2), 4855. doi:10.1016/j.tine.2013.06.001.
Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C., Klebanov, P., Japel,
C. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1428
1446. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1428.
Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2000). Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the making
of meaning. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. (2013). Americas children: Key
national indicators of well-being. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Ofce.
Fender, J. G., & Crowley, K. (2007). How parent explanation changes what children learn from
everyday scientic thinking. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 28, 189210.
doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2007.02.007.
Gelman, R., & Brenneman, K. (2004). Science learning pathways for young children. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 150158. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2004.01.009.
Ginsburg, H. (1977). Childrens arithmetic: The learning process. New York, NY: Litton
Educational.
Government of Canada. (n.d.). Canadian charter of rights and freedoms. Retrieved June 19, 2015,
from http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html.
Government of Canada. (n.d.). Services for youth. Retrieved June 19, 2015, from http://www.
youth.gc.ca/eng/topics/jobs/age.shtml.
Healthy Child Manitoba. (n.d.). Getting ready for school: A parents guide. Retrieved June 19,
2015, from https://www.gov.mb.ca/healthychild/edi/gettingreadyforschool.pdf.
Healthy Child Manitoba. (n.d.). Parent zone. Retrieved June 19, 2015, from http://www.manitoba-
parentzone.ca/en/ask-an-expert/child-care.html.
Inan, H. Z., Trundle, K. C., & Kantor, R. (2010). Understanding natural sciences education in a
Reggio Emilia-inspired preschool. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 11861208.
doi:10.1002/tea.20375.
Janus, M., Brinkman, S., Duku, E., Hertzman, C., Santos, R., Sayers, M., Schroeder, J. (2007). The
early development instrument: A population-based measure for communities A handbook on
development, properties and use. Hamilton, ON: Offord Centre for Child Studies. Retrieved
from https://edi.offordcentre.com/resources/publications-presentations/.
Jordan, N. C., Kaplan, D., Locuniak, M. N., & Ramineni, C. (2007). Predicting rst-grade math
achievement from developmental number sense trajectories. Learning Disabilities Research
and Practice, 22, 3646. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00229.x.
Klibanoff, R. S., Levine, S. C., Huttenlocher, J., Vasilyeva, M., & Hedges, L. V. (2006). Preschool
childrens mathematical knowledge: The effect of teacher math talk. Developmental Psychology,
42, 5969. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.42.1.59.
Kotsopoulos, D., & Lee, J. (2014). Lets talk about math: The little counters approach to building
early math skills. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
LeFevre, J. A., Fast, L., Skwarchuk, S. L., Smith-Chant, B., Bisanz, J., Kamawar, D., & Penner-
Development, 81, 17531767. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624. 2010.01508.x.
LeFevre, J. A., Fast, L., Sowinski, C., Osana, H., Skwarchuk, S. -L., Manay Quian, N. (2009).
Whos counting? Numeracy and literacy practices of early learning and child care practitio-
ners. Canadian Council on Learning. Retrieved June 19, 2015, from http://ccl-cca.ca/pdfs/
FundedResearch/LeFevreWhosCountingEN.pdf.
LeFevre, J., Skwarchuk, S. L., Smith-Chant, B. L., Fast, L., Kamawar, D., & Bisanz, J. (2009).
Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement,
41, 5566. doi:10.1037/a0014532.
Lindner, S. M., Powers-Costello, B., & Stegelin, D. A. (2011). Mathematics in early childhood:
Research-based rational and practical strategies. Early Childhood Education Journal, 39,
2937. doi:10.1007/s10643-010-0437-6.
Lukie, I., Skwarchuk, S. L., LeFevre, J., & Sowinski, C. (2013). Relating child interests and col-
laborative parent-child interactions to the home learning environment. Early Childhood
Education Journal, 42, 251259. doi:10.1007/s10643-013-0604-7.
Maloney, E. A., & Beilock, S. L. (2012). Math anxiety: Who has it, why it develops, and how to
guard against it. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(8), 404406. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2012.06.008.
Manitoba Education. (n.d.). School entry. Retrieved June 19, 2015, from http://www.edu.gov.
mb.ca/k12/schools/gts.html.
Martin, R., Cirino, P., Sharp, C., & Barnes, M. (2014). Number and counting skills in kindergarten
as predictors of grade 1. Learning and Individual Differences, 34, 1223. doi:10.1016/j.
lindif.2014.05.006.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Arora, A. (2012). TIMMS 2011 international results in
mathematics. Boston, MA: TIMMS & PIRLS International Study Center.
National Association for the Education of Young Children and National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics. (2002). Position statement. Early childhood mathematics: Promoting good
beginnings. Retrieved June 19, 2015, from http://www.naeyc.org/about/positions/psmath.asp.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (n.d.). The National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development: Findings
for children Up to 4 years. Retrieved December 15, 2015, from https://www.nichd.nih.gov/

publications/pubs/documents/seccyd_06.pdf.
Newcomb, N. S., & Frick, A. (2010). Early education for spatial intelligence: Why, what and how.
Mind, Brain, and Education, 4, 102111. doi:10.1111/j.1751-228X.2010.01089.x.
Perry, B., Macdonald, A., & Gervasoni, A. (2015). Mathematics and transition to school:
International perspectives. Singapore: Springer.
Peterson, S. M. (2009). Narrative and paradigmatic explanations in preschool science discourse.
Discourse Processes, 46, 369399. doi:10.1080/01638530902959448.
Purpura, D. J., & Logan, J. A. R. (2015). The nonlinear relations of the approximate number sys-
tem and mathematical language to early mathematics development. Developmental Psychology,
51, 17171724. doi:10.1037/dev0000055.
Ramirez, G., Gunderson, E. a., Levine, S. C., & Beilock, S. L. (2012). Math anxiety, working
memory, and math achievement in early elementary school. Journal of Cognition and
Development, 14(2), 187202. doi:10.1080/15248372.2012.664593.
Ruiz, M., & Radic, I. (2015). Legal age for leaving children unsupervised across Canada.
Retrieved June 19, 2015, from http://cwrp.ca/sites/default/les/publications/en/144e.pdf.
Save the Children. (2012). The Child Development Index: Progress, challenges, inequity. Retrieved
June 19, 2015, from http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/sites/default/les/docs/Child_
Development_Index_2012_UK_low_res.pdf.
Saxe, G. B., & Posner, J. (1983). The development of numerical cognition: Cross-cultural perspec-
tives. In H. P. Ginsburg (Ed.), The development of mathematical thinking (pp. 291317).
London: Academic.
Skwarchuk, S.-L. (2009). How do parents support childrens preschool numeracy experiences at
home? Early Childhood Education Journal, 37, 189197. doi:10.1007/s10643-009-0340-1.
Skwarchuk, S.-L., & LeFevre, J.-A. (2015). The role of the home environment in childrens early
development: A Canadian perspective. In B. Perry, A. Gervasoni, & A. MacDonald (Eds.),
International perspectives on mathematics and transitions in the early years. Dordrecht: Springer.
Skwarchuk, S. -L. (2015). Math learning at home. Paper presented at the Manitoba Association of
Parent Councils Math Forum. Winnipeg, MB.
Skwarchuk, S.-L., Sowinski, C., & LeFevre, J. (2014). Formal and informal home learning activi-
ties in relation to childrens early numeracy and literacy skills: The development of a home
numeracy model. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 121, 6384. doi:10.1016/j.
jecp.2013.11.006.
Sowinski, C., LeFevre, J.-A., Skwarchuk, S.-L., Kamawar, D., Bisanz, J., & Smith-Chant, B.
(2014). Rening the quantitative pathway of the Pathways to Mathematics model. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 131C, 7393. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2014.11.004.
Statistics Canada. (n.d.). Aboriginal peoples in Canada: First nations people, Mtis and Inuit.
Retrieved June 19, 2015, from http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-011-x/99-
011-x2011001-eng.cfm.
Tsunghui, T. (2006). Preschool science environment: What is available in a preschool classroom?
Early Childhood Education Journal, 33(4), 245251. doi:10.1007/s10643-005-0049-8.
Tudge, J. R. H., & Doucet, F. (2004). Everyday mathematical experiences: Observing young Black
and White childrens everyday activities. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 2139.
doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2004.01.007.
UNICEF Ofce of Research. (2013). Child well-being in rich countries: A comparative overview.
Innocenti Report Card 11. UNICEF Ofce of Research, Florence. Retrieved June 19, 2015,
from http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc11_eng.pdf.
United States Census Bureau. (n.d.). Centers for disease control and prevention. Retrieved
December 15, 2015, from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/health-insurance.htm.
United States Census Bureau. (n.d.). Quick facts. Retrieved June 19, 2015, from http://quickfacts.
census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html.
Vandermaas-Peeler, M., Ferretti, L., & Loving, S. (2012). Playing The Ladybug Game: Parent
guidance of young childrens numeracy activities. Early Child Development and Care, 182,
12891307. doi:10.1080/03004430.2011.609617.
Vandermaas-Peeler, M., & Hollingsworth, H. (2016). Fostering inquiry-based teaching and learn-
ing with Head Start teachers. Early Child Development and Care. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1080/03004430.2016.1154049.
Vandermaas-Peeler, M., Massey, K., & Kendall, A. (2015). Parent guidance of childrens scientic
and mathematical reasoning in a science museum. Early Childhood Education Journal, 43,
249346. doi:10.1007/s10643-015-0714-5.
Vandermaas-Peeler, M., & McClain, C. (2015). The green bean has to be longer than your thumb:
An observational study of preschoolers math and science experiences in a garden. International
Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 3(1), 827. doi:10.1080/09575146.2014.
Vandermaas-Peeler, M., Mischka, M., & Sands, K. (2015). Parent guidance of young childrens
mathematical and scientific reasoning: Influences of training and activity contexts. Manuscript
in preparation, Elon University, NC.
17, 6784. doi:10.1080/09669760802699910.
Vandermaas-Peeler, M., Nelson, J., & Bumpass, C. (2007). Quarters are what you put into the
bubble gum machine. Numeracy interactions during parent-child play. Early Childhood
Research and Practice, 9, Retrieved from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v9n1/vandermaas.html.
Vandermaas-Peeler, M., & Pittard, C. (2014). Inuences of social context on parent guidance and
low-income preschoolers independent and guided math performance. Early Child Development
and Care, 184(4), 500521. doi:10.1080/03004430.2013.799155.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes.
in preschoolers. Developmental Psychology, 44, 588596. doi:10.1037/00121649.44.2.588.
Young-Loveridge, J. M. (1989). The relationship between childrens home experiences and their
mathematical skills on entry into school. Early Child Development and Care, 43, 4359.
doi:10.1080/0300443890430105.
Zero to Three. (2009). Seizing the potential: Quality infant toddler child care. Retrieved December 15,
2015, from http://www.zerotothree.org/public-policy/policy-toolkit/child_caremar5singles.pdf.
Chapter 9
Mathematics and Language in the Home
Environment
Joanne Lee and Donna Kotsopoulos
Why Mathematical Talk Is Important in Early Childhood

Mathematics Development
Supporting the early acquisition of mathematical knowledge is important. Number

competencenumber recognition, counting, magnitude comparison, and calcula-
tionsin kindergarten has been found to predict mathematics achievement in the
rst and third grade (Jordan, Kaplan, Ramineni, & Locuniak, 2009). Some studies
report that these early number competencies are predictive of mathematical, as well
as literacy, competence throughout elementary school (Duncan et al., 2007; Romano,
Babchishin, Pagani, & Kohen, 2010). Children begin exhibiting individual differ-
ences in mathematics before the age of 4, i.e., prior to formal schooling (Klibanoff,
Levine, Huttenlocher, Vasilyeva, & Hedges, 2006; Levine, Suriyakham, Rowe,
Huttenlocher, & Gunderson, 2010). Furthermore, schooling does not appear to elim-
inate these differences; preschoolers with poor mathematical skills fail to catch up
with their more mathematically skilled peers during formal schooling (Aunola,
Leskinen, Lerkkanen, & Nurmi, 2004; Jordan, Kaplan, Olah, & Locuniak, 2006).
These ndings underscore the critical role that parents play in early childhood
mathematics development prior to formal schooling. Our focus in this chapter is on
parent or caregiver use of mathematical (henceforth, math) talk or math input,
which we dene as the use of math words to represent math concepts. For example,
a parent asking a child to retrieve socks from the oor may request that the child
J. Lee, Ph.D. (*)

Department of Psychology, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, ON, Canada
e-mail: jlee@wlu.ca
D. Kotsopoulos, Ph.D.
Faculty of Education, Department of Mathematics, Wilfrid Laurier University,
Waterloo, ON, Canada
e-mail: dkotsopo@wlu.ca

148 J. Lee and D. Kotsopoulos
bring two socks. Math words can also convey spatial meaning such as distances
between objects, directions, rotations, size, and so forth. To be concise, we use the
term parents throughout but recognize that other caregivers (grandparents, baby-
sitters, nannies, childminders, etc.) may also care for children when at home.
Math talk is not limited to merely labeling numerals and counting, which are
described by Gelman and Gallistels (1978) ve counting principles: (1) cardinality
(i.e., the last numeral tagged represents the total quantity of the set counted); (2)
one-to-one correspondence (i.e., every object is counted once and only once); (3)
abstraction (i.e., anything and everything can be counted); (4) stable order (i.e., a
specied numbering sequence [e.g., three comes after two and not the other way
around]), and (5) order irrelevance (i.e., no specied counting order [e.g., counting
does not necessarily have to start from left to right]). Math talk also includes other
numerical concepts:
1. Ordinality involves the use of numbers such as rst, second, and third that denote
the ranking/ordering of items. An instance of ordering numbers is Four comes
after three.
2. Equivalence/nonequivalence of sets involves the use of words such as more,
less, many and greater than that denote quantity. These words indicate the
magnitude of a set and/or the relative magnitude of more than one set.
3. Calculation/transformation of an array of objects involves the use of words such
as altogether and left. These words indicate the changing relation of an array
of objects when an item or items are added to or subtracted from an array.
Studies using parental interviews and surveys suggest that parental math input is
related to 4- and 5-year-olds level of number knowledge, such as knowing differences
in quantities and that numbers have magnitudes (e.g., Blevins-Knabe & Musun-Miller,
1996; LeFevre, Clarke, & Stringer, 2002; Saxe, Guberman, & Gearhart, 1987).
Furthermore, parental use of number words during everyday interaction with their
children when they were between 14 and 30 months old has been found to relate to the
childrens subsequent cardinal understanding of number words (e.g., realizing that the
number used to tag the last item in an array also refers to the total quantity of the array)
at 46 months old (Levine et al., 2010). In this study, parental number talk with their
children ranged from approximately 281799 words per week.
Similar results have been found when examining parental spatial talkshape (e.g.,
circle, square), dimension (e.g., big, little), feature (e.g., end, corner), and location/
direction (e.g., between, into, forward)during everyday interaction with their chil-
dren (Pruden, Levine, & Huttenlocher, 2011). Specically, parental spatial talk with
children who were between 14 and 46 months old varied from 5 to 525 spatial words
and this variability predicted the childrens subsequent spatial abilities at 54 months
old. That is, children whose parents produced more spatial words subsequently have
better spatial abilities than children whose parents produced fewer spatial words.
Moreover, children with better spatial abilities also produced more spatial words
themselves. All these ndings are consistent with research in neuroscience suggesting
that the rst years of life set the trajectory for a persons subsequent capacity for learn-
ing (Greenough, 1997; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000).
9 Mathematics and Language in the Home Environment 149
Although adult math input has been demonstrated to promote the development of
young childrens math skills, there seems to be a lack of parental engagement in North
America to do so. One of the reasons may be a misplaced belief that young children
are not able, and thus not ready, to learn mathematical concepts. For example, 90 % of
Canadian parents of preschool and kindergarten children believe that schools are pri-
marily responsible for childrens math development (Evans, Fox, Cremaso, &
McKinnon, 2004). This nding is in stark contrast to literacy development, which
only 43 % of these parents believed should be left to formal schooling.
Research over the past three decades has revealed that: (1) young children from
birth to 5 years of age are capable of acquiring foundational, intuitive math con-
cepts, which some researchers have termed as everyday mathematics (e.g.,
Ginsburg, 2006) and (2) these concepts can be learned easily through play and daily
routines (e.g., Kotsopoulos & Lee, 2014). In fact, newborns who were only a few
days old could discriminate two from three black dots (Antell & Keating, 1983).
This study used the habituation method (Jusczyk, 1997), based on childrens natural
inclination for novelty, in which a new stimulus (e.g., three black dots) is presented
once the child stops gazing at an initial stimulus (e.g., two black dots). In a study
that used the sucking rhythm method, newborns were also found to be able to dis-
criminate numerosity in speech, specically two vs. three syllables (Bijeljac-Babic,
Berroncini, & Mehler, 1991).
Similarly, infants starting from 6 months old can discriminate the number of
dots, tones, graham crackers and even the jumps of a puppet for set sizes of no
more than three items (e.g., Feigenson, 2011; Feigenson, Carey, & Hauser, 2002;
Wynn, 1996). In set sizes of more than three, infant number discrimination
appears to follow Webers Lawthey can only discriminate sets which differ in
size by a ratio of between 2:3 and 1:2 (e.g., Lipton & Spelke, 2003, 2004; Xu &
Spelke, 2000; Xu, Spelke, & Goddard, 2005). Besides numerosity discrimina-
tion, 4- and 5-month-olds demonstrate an ability in rudimentary arithmetic,
namely, addition and subtraction. In a study using puppets and the eye gaze para-
digm, which relies on the fact that infants tend to stare longer at something unex-
pected than at something they expect, it was found that infants were sensitive to
the fact that 1 + 1 = 2 (possible) but not 1 + 1 = 1 (impossible) and that
2 1 = 1, but not 2 1 = 2 (Wynn, 1992).
Not only do young children demonstrate an amazing ability in rudimentary
numerical concepts (e.g., distinguishing more from less, adding and subtracting),
they also demonstrate a keen interest in furthering their ability as they become older.
For example, Saxe et al. (1987) found that children between 2 and 4 year olds
engage spontaneously in counting with their mothers in their everyday routines,
such as how many steps on the stairs.
This research suggests that newborns and infants have an abstract, rudimentary,
nonverbal, and nonsymbolic system of number concepts or numerosity at birth. Not
only do they come prepared in this world to acquire language, but they also appear
to have the propensity to acquire mathematics. The question is: how do young
children develop their abstract and rudimentary number system into a system that is
conceptual, verbal, and symbolic?
The Relationship Between Language and Mathematics

Development
It has been suggested that there are two types of representational systems for numer-
osity: nonverbal and verbal (e.g., Cordes & Gelman, 2005). The nonverbal system
is more visual and has been found in young infants and animals while the verbal
system uses linguistic labels such as number words to represent counting concepts
(see Fig. 9.1). Children need time and experience to map between these two numeri-
cal systems (Cordes, Gelman, Gallistel, & Whalen, 2001), as this is a protracted
process in which it may take up to 3 years to go from rote counting to understanding
the cardinal word meaning (Wynn, 1990, 1992). Nonverbal representations of
numerosity with infants younger than 12 months and verbal representations with
children older than 3 years old have been studied extensively (see Fayol & Seron,
2005 for a review). Mathematical language has been identied to be the likely
mechanism that enables mapping between these two systems; language serves to
embody and communicate our thoughts with others (Kuhn, 2000).
Language acquisition studies have indicated that childrens general vocabulary
growth is related to the amount and diversity of language input they receive (e.g.,
Hart & Risley, 1992; Naigles & Hoff-Ginsberg, 1995; Rowe, 2012). Importantly,
expressive vocabulary size at age two has been found to be a good predictor of
subsequent language and literacy competence up to fth grade (Lee, 2011). Besides
general vocabulary acquisition, childrens understandings of mental states are
facilitated by the maternal use of mental verbs such as think or know (Adrian,
Clemente, & Villanueva, 2007; Tardif & Wellman, 2000). Similarly, childrens use
of number words at both 2.5 and 3 years and 2 months is signicantly correlated
with the maternal use of number words when the children were 2.5 years old
(Suriyakham, Levine, & Huttenlocher, 2006). Parental number-word input during
Different representations of numbers
Non-symbolic Non-verbal Verbal Symbolic
One. Two. Three. 1, 2, 3, 4 . . .
Four . . .
Informal Formal
Fig. 9.1 Different representations of number. Kotsopoulos and Lee (2014). Lets talk about math:
A LittleCounters approach to building early math skills. Reprinted by permission from Paul
H. Brookes Publishing Co., Inc, Baltimore, MD
infancy and toddlerhood is strongly related to their preschoolers cardinal knowl-

edge (Levine et al., 2010). These studies suggest the importance of the amount of
math talk children receive in the daily lives during the early years of life and its
impact on their acquisition of mathematically related language and concepts.
Developmental studies suggest that number words such as one and two are
related to early mathematics representations such as one unit or two units of something
(e.g., Huttenlocher, Jordan, & Levine, 1994). To acquire numerals, children must under-
stand that these math words are referents for some sort of quantity in an array (Golinkoff,
Mervis, & Hirsh-Pasek, 1994). Hence, they must be able to differentiate number words
from other adjectives that refer to size, shape, or color in the input they hear (e.g., two
balls vs. red balls). Hearing more words, and their usage in different sentence struc-
tures, facilitates children in their lexical learning (including number words).
When children hear a novel word, they have the tendencyknown as the whole-
object biasto map a novel word they hear to the entire object rather than a part or
property of that object (e.g., Landau, Smith, & Jones, 1988; Markman & Hutchinson,
1984). Once the word ball has been mapped to its referent (i.e., a round-shaped
object that is fun to throw), it makes it easier for children to map another novel word
to a part/property of an object; this tendency is known as mutual exclusivity (e.g.,
Markman & Wachtel, 1988). Now, it is possible for children to gure out the refer-
ent of two (versus red) when they hear that two is often used in the context
referring to quantity in a set or an array. Besides verbal input, parents may facilitate
the lexical learning process by making the referent for the word two more salient
by using gestures such as pointing, touching or moving the items in a collection
(Lee, Kotsopoulos, Tumber, & Makosz, in press). Our research also reveals that
preschoolers whose parents used more mathematically related gestures during play
produce more such gestures and have better numerical abilities than their peers
whose parents did not (Lee, Kotsopoulos, Makosz, & Tumber, under review).
Differences in parental number input have been identied as one of the factors
that account for the earlier and ease of numeracy acquisition in Mandarin-speaking
children than in their English-speaking peers before age 6. North American children
lag behind their Asian peers in preschool and kindergarten and this pattern contin-
ues throughout elementary school, with Asian children surpassing American and
Canadian children in terms of mathematical achievement (Miller, Kelly, & Zhou,
2005; Miller & Parades, 1996; Stevenson, Lee, & Stigler, 1986). For example,
Chinese children at age 4 are able to count up to 40 while American peers are only
able to count up to 15 (Miller, Smith, Zhi, & Zhang, 1995). Furthermore, 4- and
5-year-old Chinese children outperform their peers in the USA, England, and
Finland in mathematical skills ranging from counting to addition and subtraction to
problem solving (Aunio, Aubrey, Godfrey, Pan, & Lin, 2008; Geary, Bow-Thomas,
Fan, & Siegler, 1993; Zhou, Peverly, & Lin, 2005).
Chinese parents have been found to produce more number talk (7.00 %) than
American parents (4.90 %) with their infants during naturalistic interactions (Chang,
Sandhoffer, Adelchanow, & Rottman, 2010). (This also exceeds the observed number
talk (4.62 %) in Canadian parents [Lee, Kotsopoulos, Tumber, Stordy, et al., 2010].)
More importantly, this study found that 49 % of number words were used in modier
form (e.g., give me one apple) by Chinese parents compared to 25 % by American

parents. In contrast, American parents used 57 % of number words in pronominal form
(e.g., give me this one or give me those ones) compared to 24 % by Chinese parents.
A number word in pronominal form provides a cue to singularity and plurality; how-
ever, it does not clearly cue children that the number word refers to a label of an item
in an array (one-to-one correspondence) and to a specic quantity (cardinality).
Understanding that number words have cardinal meaningthe last number word
in a count represents the total quantity of the arrayis foundational to gaining com-
petence in counting. By 2 years old, children begin to learn how to rote count
(Ginsburg, 1989; Wynn, 1990). Children learn the cardinal meaning of one by
2.5 years old, two by 3.03.5 years old, and three by 3.54.0 years old (Wynn, 1990,
1992). By 4 years of age, most are able to count up to 10 (Le Corre & Carey, 2007;
Miller et al., 1995). However, rote counting up to 10 does not necessarily reect
childrens mastery of the cardinal meaning of the count words. Without understand-
ing the cardinal meaning of the count words such as 10, children who can rote count
to 10 may still fail to provide the specic number of items when asked to do so (Le
Corre & Carey, 2007; Sarnecka & Carey, 2008).
To support children in making the connection between cardinal meaning and
number words, research by Mix, Sandhoffer, Moore, and Russell (2012) suggests
that the best approach is to rst verbally provide the cardinality of a collection (i.e.,
ve items in the set) followed immediately by counting the items in the collection
(one, two, three, four, ve); instead of providing the count followed by the cardi-
nality of the collection (i.e., One, two, three, four, ve. Five items). Children may
interpret the second Five heard in the latter approach as a repeated word by an
adult. Therefore, the cardinality label followed by counting approach helps to make
the two concepts (i.e., number words in a counting sequence and cardinality word
principle) more salient to children. This nding is consistent with the structure map-
ping account (e.g., Gentner, 2005), which proposes that children should be pre-
sented with opportunities to notice some kind of similarity across distinctive
contextshearing a number word used in counting and hearing the same number
word used for cardinalityin order for them to realize that the last number word in
a count is the same as the cardinality of the set being counted. However, they found
that the cardinality label followed by counting was only used in 4 % of the total
number talk by American parents.
Another factor that has been found to facilitate the ease of numeracy acquisition is
the language structure. Asian children have been found to outperform their American
peers in rote counting, mental addition and place value in base ten (e.g., Aunio et al.,
2008; Ho & Fuson, 1998; Miller & Stigler, 1987; Miura et al., 1994). This is attributed
to the fact that the number language is simpler, transparent and more consistent in
East Asian languages such as Mandarin Chinese, Japanese or Korean than in English
because they use base-10 structure to denote higher numbers. For example, count
number words beyond ten in East Asian languages are a combination of the same
words used for numbers less than ten (e.g., 12 is ten-two vs. twelve). However, such
ndings may be confounded by the high level of parental involvement in the math
learning of Asian children (LeFevre et al., 2002; Miller, Kelly, & Zhou, 2005).
Factors Influencing Adult Mathematical Input
Approximately 50 % of Canadian adults aged 1665 lack the minimum math liter-
acy skills necessary to cope with the everyday demands of an advanced society,
which may be brought about by the following factors, is a worrisome trend (Statistics
Canada, 2005).
Culture. The level of engagement in math input and activities may be inuenced by
cultural values, and in turn, educational practices. For example, Chinese parents,
including those living in the USA, place a higher value on academic achievement
including mathematics, than do their Caucasian counterparts in North America
(Aunio et al., 2008; Wang & Lin, 2005). Chinese parents deem teaching math at
home to be part of parenting and young children are expected to spend time learning
mathematical concepts; more parental involvement in educational practices such as
mathematical coaching in counting and calculation during preschool years has been
found for Chinese parents compared to North American Caucasian parents
(Huntsinger, Jose, Liaw, & Ching, 1997; Pan, Gauvain, Liu, & Cheng, 2006; Yang
& Cobb, 1995). Tudge and Doucet (2004) found that American 3-year-olds are
exposed to little math input in both their home and childcare environments.
Specically, out of a total of 180 observations per child over the course of a week,
the children averaged less than one observation that contained a mathematical com-
ponent. Furthermore, 60 % of the children did not engage in any type of math-
related play or coaching.
Mathematics anxiety. Mathematics anxietyan emotional response of tension and
fear associated with math-related activitiesmay cause parents to avoid talking or
introducing even foundational math concepts, such as counting, in daily interactions
with their children. This may be a larger factor in households in which the mother
is the primary caregiver, as women tend to have higher levels of mathematics anxi-
ety than men (Hembree, 1990). Mathematics anxiety is related to mathematics
teaching self-efcacy (Swars, Danne, & Giesen, 2010).
Socioeconomic status (SES). SES differences have been shown to impact pre-
schoolers math achievement; those children from a higher SES outperform chil-
dren from a lower SES (e.g., Denton & West, 2002; Duncan et al., 2007).
Specically, children from a low SES enter kindergarten with fewer number and
mathematically related experiences from their home or preschool (Clements &
Sarama, 2008). Given the link between early math-related input and subsequent
math development, this is unsurprising as parents from a low SES produce less
number talk about small sets (13) with and without physical objects than do par-
ents from a middle or high SES (Gunderson & Levine, 2011). Similarly, parents
from a low SES use less spatial talk and engage in fewer spatial activities with their
children as young as 14 months old (Dearing et al., 2012; Pruden et al., 2011;
Verdine, Golinkoff, Hirsh-Pasek, Newcombe, et al., 2014). Supporting parents to
provide a mathematically enriched environment has been found to mitigate the SES
disadvantage (Starkey, Klein, & Wakeley, 2004).
Making Mathematical Talk Happen at Home
Parents often do not know how to do this, or how to support their children in math-
ematics in general, especially when they are unsure of their own mathematical skills
(e.g., Blevins-Knabe et al., 2000) or when their culture does not place a strong
emphasis on mathematical knowledge during early childhood (e.g., Wang & Lin,
2005). An effective way to support math talk in the home and math development is
through purposeful play and daily routines (see Fig. 9.2; Kotsopoulos & Lee, 2014).
Play is a valuable tool for children to learn foundational mathematics through
exploring and interacting with their environment (e.g., Ginsburg, 2006).
Furthermore, elements of play can be mathematized and, at the same time, math-
ematical concepts can be introduced in a playful way (Van Oers, 1996). For
example, if a toddler is playing with a rubber ball, counting the number of bounces
and then asking the toddler for the total bounces provides an opportunity to help
him/her acquire the cardinality word principle. We caution that our view of play
is that adults should attend closely to the cues children give so as to be mindful
of their receptiveness to engagement during play. Childrens play should not be
contaminated with adult intention to the extent to which the play is taken over by
the adult.
Fig. 9.2 What is purposeful play? Kotsopoulos and Lee (2014). Lets talk about math: A
LittleCounters approach to building early math skills. Reprinted by permission from Paul
H. Brookes Publishing Co., Inc, Baltimore, MD
Purposeful playwhich can either be initiated by the adult or childis different

from two other types of play, namely, free play which is initiated by the child, and
play-based learning which is initiated by the adult. It is dened as intentional and
spontaneous engagement of talk or actions by the adult with the child with the
implicit intent of facilitating learning (Kotsopoulos & Lee, 2013, p. 56). In order
for adults to facilitate or scaffold a childs learning, they need to know what aspects
of a particular mathematical concept or topic a child has mastered and what they can
do only with help, which (Vygotsky, 1962, 1978) has termed as their zone of proxi-
mal development (ZPD).
Purposeful play provides a context for adults, including parents, to assess chil-
drens understanding to engage in teachable moments within the ZPD. There are
three key development enhancing features of purposeful play that can be used to
support a young childs mathematical development: (1) checking for understanding
by asking the child to repeat the counting, providing a different counting task, and/
or asking questions such as How do you know you have four cookies?; (2) rein-
forcing learning by afrming (e.g., There are three! You got it.) and praising the
child; and (3) advancing learning by assessing what the child knows to help the
child to progress along his/her ZPD. For example, once the child has mastered the
cardinality concept of three, the adult could use the counting-on strategy when
counting a larger collection. That is, instead of starting at one again when counting
the larger collection, the child could be shown how to continue counting onwards
from three (Kotsopoulos & Lee, 2013).
Two play activities that have been found to support early numeracy acquisition
and provide an occasion for math and spatial talk are linear numerical board games
and block play. Some have suggested that the cognitive process of composing parts
into wholes and decomposing wholes into parts during block play is similar to that
of the composing and decomposing of numbers in arithmetic (Clements, Battista,
Sarama, & Swaminathan, 1998). Recent fMRI ndings have also offered valuable
insights on the close relationship between numeracy/arithmetic and spatial abilities.
For example, the parietal lobe in both hemispheres has been found to be activated
when numerical (e.g., calculation) or spatial (e.g., grasping an object) tasks are
involved (Simon et al., 2004; Simon, Mangin, Cohen, Le Bihan, & Dehaene, 2002).
Linear numerical board games such as Snakes and Ladders provide fun oppor-
tunities for children to become acquainted with numerals, various counting strate-
gies such as counting-on, the relations among numbers such as four precedes
ve on a number line, and even arithmetic. Predictably, an improvement in the
numeracy skills of children between 4 and 5 years old who played the board game
Snakes and Ladders has been reported compared to children who instead played
a linear color board game (Ramani & Siegler, 2008; Siegler & Ramani, 2008).
Specically, numeracy skills such as numeral recognition, counting, magnitude
comparison, and number line estimation improved in children playing the Snakes
and Ladders board game, especially those children from low SES families. To
make the game more age-appropriate for infants and toddlers, we would suggest
that parents create a spinner that reects the numerals 1, 2, and perhaps 3
instead of using a typical dice that has six numerals or sets of dots on it.
Engaging in block playa spatial activityaffords young children with oppor-

tunities to engage in spatial talk as well as counting, comparing, ordering, identify-
ing patterns, and measuring (e.g., Pollman, 2010). Block play has been reported to
facilitate development of a number of mathematical skills and concepts such as the
linear number line (MacDonald, 2001; Verdine, Golinkoff, Hirsh-Pasek, &
Newcombe, 2014), more so than any other types of play or tasks (Kamii, Miyakawa,
& Kato, 2004; Lee, Kotsopoulos, & Zambrzycka, 2012). The complexity of the
level of block play (e.g., simple stacking of blocks versus complex building struc-
ture) encouraged by parents was found to be a signicant predictor of preschoolers
subsequent numeracy competence (Lee, Kotsopoulos, & Zambrzycka, 2013).
Similarly, the level of complexity of constructional structure created by 3- to 4-year-
olds using blocks was found to be a signicant predictor of their subsequent math-
ematical competence in the seventh grade (Stannard, Wolfgang, Jones, & Phelps,
2001). These ndings suggest that constructive block play is one of the play activi-
ties parents are strongly encouraged to spend time with their young children as it
provides a learning platform to support both numeracy and spatial-visual skills.
Purposeful math talk is not restricted to play context alone; it can be extended to
daily routines and activities such as mealtime, snack time, bath time, and bedtime.
The objects including toys in the childs environment afford ample opportunities for
parents to engage in mathematically related activities. For example, at bath time,
parents could model both the one-to-one correspondence principle in counting by
labeling each rubber duck and the cardinality principle in counting by determining
the total number of rubber ducks in the bath tub. Of course, the parent should alter
the number of rubber ducks at each bath time to promote more varied math talk. The
use of objects in counting by parents has been found to be a good predictor of chil-
drens cardinality knowledge at 42 months (Gunderson & Levine, 2011). As number
talk often involves the presence of many objects in the environment, it would require
the child to know the referent when he/she hears a novel number word such as
four. Research has shown that children use pragmatic cues such as pointing ges-
tures by adults to help in narrowing down the correct referent of a novel word (e.g.,
Baldwin, 1993). Our own research provides evidence that parents make use of dif-
ferent gestures such as pointing, tapping/touching and grouping in their number talk
playing with their toddlers (Lee et al., in press). Figure 9.3 depicts the ve most
frequent gestures produced by parents in our study. The use of gesturespointing
or touchingby children between 2 and 4 years old has also been associated with
their counting accuracy (Alibali & DiRusso, 1999; Graham, 1999). Thus, to help
children to keep track of what has been counted and what has not, we develop a
strategy called Name it, Show it (and Say it), Touch it (and Say it), Move it (and
Say it), Say it (see Fig. 9.4). This strategy could also be used by parents to make
the objects to be tagged/labeled and counted salient to the child.
Besides introducing math talk using objects in the environment, storybook read-
inga common activity that parents engage with their children at homecould be
used in math talk. Storybooks afford young children opportunities to acquire gen-
eral language including mathematically relevant language to understand and com-
municate in their environment. Given that research has shown that parents rarely use
number words or introduce mathematical concepts in reading story books focused
Fig. 9.3 Types of gestures. Kotsopoulos and Lee (2014). Lets talk about math: A LittleCounters
approach to building early math skills. Reprinted by permission from Paul H. Brookes Publishing
Co., Inc, Baltimore, MD.
Fig. 9.3 (continued)
Name it. Show it (& say it). Touch it (& say it). Move it (& say it). Say it.
Two. One. Two. One. Two. One. Two. Two.
Fig. 9.4 Name it, Show it (and Say it), Touch it (and Say it), Move it (and Say it), Say it.
Kotsopoulos and Lee (2014). Lets talk about math: A LittleCounters approach to building early
math skills. Reprinted by permission from Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., Inc, Baltimore, MD
on numbers (e.g., Levine et al., 2010), Wilburne, Keat, and Napoli (2011) have bril-
liantly developed what they termed as the Storybook elements approach for early
childhood educators and teachers. In our opinion, this approach is also feasible for
parents to engage children in mathematical thinking. Using this approach, children
are introduced to mathematical concepts through the imaginary world of story-
books. Children enjoy listening to stories and identify with the characters in the
stories; thus, it makes it easier for parents to relate mathematical concepts to the
various elements of a story (i.e., characters, setting, time frame, plot, objects, and
illustrations). For example, the various elements of the story The Little Engine that
Could by Piper (1978), as described in Wilburne et al. (2011), could serve as a talk-
ing point to introduce number concepts such as the number of train engines that
were unable to help the stranded train before the Little Engine that could came
along as well as spatial concepts such as the cargo load the Little Engine that could
had to pull over the difcult terrain. Similarly, telling a story based on one of our
favorite picture books called 1, 2, 3 To the zoo by Eric Carle (1968), parents can
provide their own narrative about the type, number, and orderconveying the ve
counting principles and ordinality conceptsin which the animals are being picked
up to visit the zoo. Their narrative could also include spatial concepts such as the
size of different animals (e.g., one huge elephant and ve little birds) to t in each
railcar of a train. Besides storybooks, we encourage the use of songs, poems, and
hand puppets to help children acquire mathematical language and concepts.
Conclusion
Adult involvement and scaffolding are crucial in a childs early years. Consistent
with Vygotskys Zone of Proximal development (1962, 1978), concept construction
occurs within a social context as determined through problem solving under adult
guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86).
Evidence indicates that adult scaffolding can facilitate the developmental progres-
sion of concept construction (Vygotsky, 1978; Whitebread, 2010). Parents often
engage in naming objects (i.e., nouns) with their toddlers during their daily interac-
tions (e.g., Tardif, Shatz, & Naigles, 1997), but they use mathematically related
language less often to describe the quantity or size of objects. This is supported by
the observation that parents engaged in naming colors and shapes more frequently
than in number talk during a 30-min play session with their children at home (Lee,
Kotsopoulos, & Tumber, 2010).
Mathematics is everywhere but it requires us to wear a mathematical lens to
make it part and parcel of our lives by weaving mathematics language into our
conversations with young children. According to Vygotsky (1987), concepts can
be acquired at two levels: everyday and school-level or scientic. Everyday
concepts such as grocery shopping or setting a table for four are learned via every-
day activities while school-level or scientic concepts such as place value and
counting principles are learned formally via educational curriculum. By using
mathematically relevant talk, parents help their children in relating everyday
concepts to scientic concepts. Using the grocery shopping as an example, the

parent could use one $10 and three $1 bills (an everyday activity) to teach place
value of numbers such as thirteen or 10 plus 3.
In summary, parents are encouraged to provide mathematically relevant talk to
young children to foster their math development given the implications of the use of
such future academic outcomes. The main challenge is conveying this message to
parents to create a home math literacy movement equivalent to the home literacy
movement.
References
Adrian, J. E., Clemente, R. A., & Villanueva, L. (2007). Mothers use of cognitive state verbs in
picture-book reading and the development of childrens understanding of mind: A longitudinal
study. Child Development, 78(4), 10521067.
Alibali, M. W., & DiRusso, A. A. (1999). The function of gesture in learning to count: More than
keeping track. Cognitive Development, 14(1), 3756.
Antell, S. E., & Keating, D. P. (1983). Perception of numerical invariance in neonates. Child
Aunio, P., Aubrey, C., Godfrey, R., Pan, Y., & Lin, Y. (2008). Childrens early numeracy in
Education, 16(3), 203221.
Aunola, K., Leskinen, E., Lerkkanen, M.-K., & Nurmi, J.-F. (2004). Developmental dynamics of math
performance from preschool to grade 2. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 699713.
Baldwin, D. (1993). Infants ability to consult the speaker for clues to word reference. Journal of
Child Language, 20, 395419.
Bijeljac-Babic, R., Berroncini, J., & Mehler, J. (1991). How do four-day-old infants categorize
multisyllabic utterance. Developmental Psychology, 29, 711721.
Blevins-Knabe, B., & Musun-Miller, L. (1996). Number use at home by children and their parents and
its relationship to early mathematical performance. Early Development and Parenting, 5, 3545.
Blevins-Knabe, B., Berghout, A. A., Musun-Miller, L., Eddy, A., & Jones, R. M. (2000). Family
children. Early Child Development and Care, 165, 4158.
Carle, E. (1968). 1, 2, 3 to the zoo. New York, NY: Philomel Books.
Chang, A., Sandhoffer, C. M., Adelchanow, L., & Rottman, B. (2010). Parental numeric language
input to Mandarin Chinese and English speaking preschool children. Journal of Child
Language, 1, 115.
Clements, D. H., Battista, M. T., Sarama, J., & Swaminathan, S. (1998). Development of students
spatial thinking in a curriculum unit on geometric motions and area. The Elementary School
Journal, 98(2), 171186.
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2008). Experimental evaluation of the effects of a research-based
preschool mathematics curriculum. American Educational Research Journal, 45(2), 443494.
Cordes, S., & Gelman, R. (2005). The young numerical mind: When does it count? In J. I.
D. Campbell (Ed.), Handbook of mathematical cognition (pp. 127142). New York, NY:
Psychology Press.
Cordes, S., Gelman, R., Gallistel, C. R., & Whalen, J. (2001). Variability signatures distinguish
verbal from nonverbal counting for both large and small numbers. Psychonomic Bulletin and
Review, 8(4), 698707.
Dearing, E., Casey, B. M., Ganley, C. M., Tillinger, M., Laski, E., & Montecillo, C. (2012). Young
girls arithmetic and spatial skills: The distal and proximal roles of family socioeconomics and
home learning experiences. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(3), 458470.
doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.01.002.
Denton, K., & West, J. (2002). Childrens reading and mathematics achievement in kindergarten
and rst grade. Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/
pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2002125. National Center for Education Statistics [On-line].
Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C., Klebanov, P., Japel, C.
(2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43, 14281446.
Evans, M. A., Fox, M., Cremaso, L., & McKinnon, L. (2004). Beginning reading: The views of
parents and teachers of young children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 130141.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.130.
Fayol, M., & Seron, X. (2005). About numerical representations: Insights from neuropsychologi-
cal, experimental, and developmental studies. In J. I. D. Campbell (Ed.), Handbook of mathe-
matical cognition (pp. 322). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Feigenson, L. (2011). Predicting sights from sounds: 6-month-olds intermodal numerical abilities.
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 110(3), 347361. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2011.04.004.
Feigenson, L., Carey, S., & Hauser, M. (2002). The representations underlying infants choice of
more: Object-les versus analog magnitudes. Psychological Science, 13, 150156.
doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00427.
Geary, D. C., Bow-Thomas, C. C., Fan, L., & Siegler, R. S. (1993). Even before formal instruction,
Chinese children outperform American children in mental addition. Cognitive Development, 8,
517529.
Gelman, R., & Gallistel, C. R. (1978). The childs understanding of number. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Gentner, D. (2005). The development of relational category knowledge. In L. Gershkoff-Stowe &
D. H. Rakison (Eds.), Building object categories in developmental time (pp. 245275).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ginsburg, H. P. (1989). Childrens arithmetic: How they learn it and how you teach it (2nd ed.).
Austin, TX: Pro Ed.
Ginsburg, H. P. (2006). Mathematical play and playful mathematics: A guide for early education.
In D. Singer, R. M. Golinkoff, & K. Hirsh-Pasek (Eds.), Play = Learning: How play motivates
and enhances childrens cognitive and social-emotional growth (pp. 145165). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Golinkoff, R. M., Mervis, C. B., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (1994). Early object labels: The case for a
developmental lexical principles framework. Journal of Child Language, 21, 125156.
Graham, T. A. (1999). The role of gesture in childrens learning to count. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 74, 333335.
Greenough, W. T. (1997, November). We cant focus just on ages 0 to 3. APA Monitor, p. 3.
Gunderson, E. A., & Levine, S. C. (2011). Some types of parent number talk count more than oth-
ers: Relation between parents input and childrens number knowledge. Developmental Science,
14(5), 10211032. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01050.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1992). American parenting of language-learning children: Persisting dif-
ferences in family-child interactions observed in natural home environments. Developmental
Hembree, R. (1990). The nature, effects, and relief of mathematics anxiety. Journal for Research
in Mathematics Education, 21, 3346.
Ho, C. S., & Fuson, K. C. (1998). Childrens knowledge of teen quantities as tens and ones:
Comparisons of Chinese, British, and American kindergartners. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 90(3), 15361544.
Huntsinger, C. S., Jose, P. E., Liaw, F.-R., & Ching, W.-D. (1997). Cultural differences in early
mathematics learning: A comparison of Euro-American, Chinese-American, and Taiwan-
Chinese Families. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 21(2), 371388.
Huttenlocher, J., Jordan, N. C., & Levine, S. C. (1994). A mental model for early arithmetic.
Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 123, 284296.
Jordan, N. C., Kaplan, D., Olah, L. N., & Locuniak, M. N. (2006). Number sense growth in kin-
dergarten: A longitudinal investigation of children at risk for mathematics difculties. Child
Jordan, N. C., Kaplan, D., Ramineni, C., & Locuniak, M. N. (2009). Early math matters:
Kindergarten number competence and later mathematics outcomes. Developmental Psychology,
45(3), 850867. doi:10.1037/a0014939.
Jusczyk, P. (1997). The discovery of spoken language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kamii, C., Miyakawa, Y., & Kato, Y. (2004). The development of logico-mathematical knowledge
in a block-building activity at ages 1-4. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 19(1),
4457.
Klibanoff, R. S., Levine, S. C., Huttenlocher, J., Vasilyeva, M., & Hedges, L. V. (2006). Preschool
childrens mathematical knowledge: The effect of teacher math talk. Developmental
Kotsopoulos, D., & Lee, J. (2013). What are the development enhancing features of mathematical
play? An Leanbhg: The OMEP Ireland Journal of Early Childhood Studies.
Kotsopoulos, D., & Lee, J. (2014). Lets talk about Math: The LittleCounters approach to build-
ing early math skills. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Co.
Kuhn, D. (2000). Metacognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(5),
178181.
Landau, B., Smith, L. B., & Jones, S. S. (1988). The importance of shape in early lexical learning.
Cognitive Development, 3, 299321.
Le Corre, M., & Carey, S. (2007). One, two, three, four, nothing more: An investigation of the
conceptual sources of the verbal counting principles. Cognition, 105(2), 395438. doi:10.1016/j.
cognition.2006.10.005.
Lee, J. (2011). Size matters: Early vocabulary as a predictor of language and literacy competence.
Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 6992.
Lee, J., Kotsopoulos, D., Tumber, D., Stordy, C. -A., McGregor, S., & Schell, A. (2010, May). Can
we increase adult math talk? An evaluation of LittleCounters. Paper presented in the What
Counts for Early Mathematical Learning? Cognitive Skills, Informal Mathematics Knowledge
Teachers, and Parents! Symposium at the Development 2010: A Canadian Conference on
Developmental Psychology, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON.
Lee, J., Kotsopoulos, D., Makosz, S., & Tumber, A. (under review). Preschoolers use of gesture
and mathematics learning. Cognitive Science.
Lee, J., Kotsopoulos, D., Tumber, A., & Makosz, S. (2015). Gesturing about number sense. Journal
of Early Childhood Research, 13(3), 263279. doi:10.1177/1476718X13510914.
Lee, J., Kotsopoulos, D., & Tumber, A. (2010). What is in adult mathematical talk? In P. Brosnan,
D. B. Erchick, & L. Flevares (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd annual meeting of the North
American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education
(Vol. VI, pp. 547554). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.
Lee, J., Kotsopoulos, D., & Zambrzycka, J. (2012). Does block play support childrens numeracy
development? In L. R. Van Zoest, J.-J. Lo, & J. K. Kraty (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th Annual
Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of
Mathematics Education (pp. 10281031). Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University.
Lee, J., Kotsopoulos, D., & Zambrzycka, J. (2013). Block play: Parental input predicts preschool-
ers numeracy competence. Poster presentation at the 2013 Society for the Research of Child
Development Biennial Meeting, Seattle, WA.
LeFevre, J., Clarke, T., & Stringer, A. P. (2002). Inuences of language and parental involvement
on the development of counting skills: Comparisons of French- and English-speaking Canadian
children. Early Child Development and Care, 172(3), 283300.
Levine, S. C., Suriyakham, L. W., Rowe, M. L., Huttenlocher, J., & Gunderson, E. A. (2010). What
counts in the development of young childrens number knowledge? Developmental Psychology,
46, 13091319.
Lipton, J., & Spelke, E. (2003). Origins of number sense: Large number discrimination in human
infants. Psychological Science, 14, 396401.
Lipton, J., & Spelke, E. (2004). Discrimination of large and small numerosities by human infants.
Infancy, 5, 271290.
MacDonald, S. (2001). Blockplay: The complete guide to learning and playing with blocks.
Beltsville, MD: Gryphon House.
Markman, E. M., & Hutchinson, J. E. (1984). Childrens sensitivity to constraints on word mean-
ing: Taxonomic versus thematic relations. Cognitive Psychology, 16, 127.
Markman, E. M., & Wachtel, G. F. (1988). Childrens use of mutual exclusivity to constrain the
meanings of words. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 121157.
Miller, K. F., Kelly, M., & Zhou, X. (2005). Learning mathematics in China and the United States:
Cross-cultural insights into the nature and course of preschool mathematical development. In
J. I. D. Campbell (Ed.), Handbook of mathematical cognition (pp. 163178). New York, NY:
Psychology Press.
Miller, K. F., & Parades, D. R. (1996). On the shoulders of giants: Cultural tools and mathematical
development. In R. J. Sternberg & T. Ben-Zeev (Eds.), The nature of mathematical thinking
(pp. 83117). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Miller, K., Smith, C. M., Zhi, J., & Zhang, H. (1995). Preschool origins of cross-national differences in
mathematical competence: The role of number-naming systems. Psychological Science, 6, 5660.
Miller, K., & Stigler, J. W. (1987). Counting in Chinese: Cultural variation in a basic cognitive
skill. Cognitive Development, 2, 279305.
Miura, I. T., Okatmoto, Y., Kim, C. C., Chang, C. M., Steere, M., & Fayol, M. (1994). Comparisons
of cognitive representation of number: China, France, Japan, Korea, Sweden, and the United
States. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 17, 401411.
Mix, S. K., Sandhoffer, C. M., Moore, J. A., & Russell, C. (2012). Acquisition of the cardinal word
principle: The role of input. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27, 274283.
Naigles, L., & Hoff-Ginsberg, E. (1995). Input to verb learning: Evidence for the plausibility of
syntactic bootstrapping. Developmental Psychology, 31, 827837.
young childrens mathematics learning. Cognitive Development, 21, 1735.
Piper, W. (1978). The little engine that could. New York, NY: Grosset and Dunlap.
Pollman, M. J. (2010). Blocks and beyond. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Pruden, S. M., Levine, S. C., & Huttenlocher, J. (2011). Childrens spatial thinking: Does talk
about the spatial world matter? Developmental Science, 14(6), 14171430.
79(2), 375394.
Romano, E., Babchishin, L., Pagani, L. S., & Kohen, D. (2010). School readiness and later achieve-
ment: Replication and extension using a nationwide Canadian survey. Developmental
Psychology, 46(5), 9951007.
Rowe, M. L. (2012). A longitudinal investigation of the role of quantity and quality of child
directed speech in vocabulary development. Child Development, 83(5), 17621774.
Sarnecka, B. W., & Carey, S. (2008). How counting represents number: What children must learn
and when they learn it. Cognition, 108(3), 662674. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.05.007.
Saxe, G. B., Guberman, S. R., & Gearhart, M. (1987). Social processes in early number development.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 52(2, Serial No. 216), 153159.
Shonkoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. A. (Eds.). (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of
early childhood development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
income childrens numerical development. Developmental Science, 11(5), 655661.
Simon, O., Kherif, F., Flandin, G., Poline, J. B., Riviere, D., Mangin, J. K., Dehaene, S. (2004).
Automatized clustering and functional geometry of human parietofrontal networks for lan-
guage, space, and number. Neuroimage, 23(3), 11921202.
Simon, O., Mangin, J. F., Cohen, L., Le Bihan, D., & Dehaene, S. (2002). Topographical layout of hand,
eye, calculation, and language-related areas in the human parietal lobe. Neuron, 33(3), 475487.
Stannard, L., Wolfgang, C. H., Jones, I., & Phelps, P. (2001). A longitudinal study of the predictive
relations about construction play and mathematical achievement. Early Childhood Development
and Care, 167, 115125.
Starkey, P., Klein, A., & Wakeley, A. (2004). Enhancing young childrens mathematical knowl-
edge through a pre-kindergarten mathematics intervention. Early Childhood Research
Stevenson, H., Lee, S. S., & Stigler, J. (1986). The mathematics achievement of Chinese, Japanese,
and American children. Science, 56, 693699.
Suriyakham, L. W., Levine, S. C., & Huttenlocher, J. (2006). A naturalistic study of input effects
on the development of number concepts. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the
Cognitive Science Society, 2613.
Swars, S. L., Danne, C. J., & Giesen, J. (2010). Mathematics anxiety and mathematics teacher
efcacy: What is the relationship in elementary preservice teachers? School Science and
Mathematics, 106, 306315.
Tardif, T., Shatz, M., & Naigles, L. (1997). Caregiver speech and childrens use of nouns versus verbs:
A comparison of English, Italian, and Mandarin. Journal of Child Language, 24(3), 535565.
Tardif, T., & Wellman, H. M. (2000). Acquisition of mental state language in Mandarin- and
Cantonese-speaking children. Developmental Psychology, 36, 2536.
The Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey. (2005). Retrieved from Statistics Canada.
Tudge, J., & Doucet, F. (2004). Early mathematics experiences: Observing young black and white
childrens everyday activities. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 2139. doi:10.1016/j.
ecresq.2004.01.007.
Van Oers, B. (1996). Are you sure? Stimulating mathematical thinking during young childrens
play. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 4(1), 7187. doi:10.1080/
13502939685207851.
Verdine, B. N., Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Newcombe, N. S., Filipowicz, A. T., & Chang,
A. (2014). Deconstructing building blocks: Preschoolers spatial assembly performance relates
to early mathematics skills. Child Development, 85(3), 10621076.
Verdine, B. N., Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Newcombe, N. S. (2014). Finding the missing
piece: Blocks, puzzles, and shapes fuel school readiness. Trends in Neuroscience and
Education, 3(1), 713.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962, 1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development (M. Lopez-Morillas, Trans.).
In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The develop-
ment of higher psychological processes (pp. 7991). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In L. S. Vygotsky, The collected works of L. S.
Vygotsky, Vol. 1. R. W. Rieber, & A. S. Carton (Eds.), N. Minick (Trans.), pp. 39285.
New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Wang, J., & Lin, E. (2005). Comparative studies on U.S. and Chinese mathematics learning and the
implications for standards-based mathematics teaching reform. Educational Researcher, 34(5), 313.
Whitebread, D. (2010). Play, metacognition and self-regulation. In P. Broadhead, J. Howard, &
E. Wood (Eds.), Play and learning in the early years (pp. 161176). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications Ltd.
Wilburne, J. M., Keat, J. B., & Napoli, M. (2011). Cowboys count, monkeys measure and prin-
cesses problem solve: Building early math skills through storybooks. Baltimore, MD: Brookes
Publishing Co.
Wynn, K. (1990). Childrens understanding of counting. Cognition, 36, 155193.
Wynn, K. (1992). Addition and subtraction by human infants. Nature, 27, 749750.
Wynn, K. (1996). Infants individuation and enumeration of actions. Psychological Science, 7,
164169.
Xu, F., & Spelke, E. (2000). Large number discrimination in 6-month-old infants. Cognition, 74,
B1B11.
Xu, F., Spelke, E., & Goddard, S. (2005). Number sense in human infants. Developmental Science,
8(1), 88101.
Yang, M. T., & Cobb, P. (1995). A cross-cultural investigation into the development of place-value
concepts of children in Taiwan and the United States. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 28, 133.
Zhou, Z., Peverly, S. T., & Lin, J. (2005). Understanding early mathematical competencies in
American and Chinese children. School Psychology International, 26, 413427.
Chapter 10
Are Games a Viable Home Numeracy
Practice?
Adam K. Dub and Andy Keenan
When you nish reading this book, it would be wonderful if you could review the
material by playing a game of trivial pursuit instead of having to reread your meticu-
lously detailed notes. Better yet, instead of reading the book you could learn the
content by embarking on an epic journey set in a virtual fantasy world. In this virtual
world, you would learn how the home environment inuences childrens numeracy
development through an immersive narrative involving engaging quests and mean-
ingful choices. Then again, would a game of trivial pursuit based on numeracy
development really be all that fun? Are virtual quests the most effective and efcient
way to understand the topic? Here in lies both the promise and the peril of using
games as a teaching tool.
For numeracy, there is evidence that games can be a valuable home practice in
the years preceding formal education on mathematics, with early exposure aiding
later procedural and conceptual knowledge (Skwarchuk, Sowinski, & Lefevre,
2014). However, there is also a troubling amount of evidence suggesting games are
no more effective at teaching than more traditional approaches (Dempsey,
Rasmussen, & Lucassen, 1996; Emes, 1997; Harris, 2001; Randel, Morris, Wetzel,
& Whitehall, 1992) and, considering how difcult it is to create a truly good game
(Presser, Vahey, & Zanchi, 2013; Wilson et al., 2006), this brings to question the
utility of games as a mathematics teaching tool.
A.K. Dub, Ph.D. (*)

Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, McGill University,
Montreal, QC, Canada
e-mail: Adam.dube@mcgill.ca
A. Keenan, Ph.D.
Faculty of Information, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, USA
e-mail: andy.keenan@mail.utoronto.ca

166 A.K. Dub and A. Keenan
The question of whether games should be employed in the home to aid chil-
drens numeracy is a particularly pertinent issue considering the mass adoption of
tablet computers. Additionally, these tablet games are being heralded as a panacea
(Annetta, Minogue, Holmes, & Cheng, 2009; Kucirkova, 2014) that can address
childrens ailing performance and interest in all STEM elds, not just mathemat-
ics. The seemingly unstoppable momentum behind the tablet craze in early math
education is largely due to the promise that engaging and child-friendly tablet
games can change the perception of mathematics from abstract and boring to
relatable and fun (Chang, Evans, Kim, Deater-Deckard, & Norton, 2014).
Despite the interest in games as an educational tool and the considerable
amount of research on the topic, it is unclear whether math games aid early
numeracy development or whether games, for that matter, are a viable learning
approach whatsoever. Interestingly, this ambiguity does not result from a lack of
researchthere exists a meta-analysis of meta-analyses investigating the effec-
tiveness of educational games (Young et al., 2012)it results from researchers
lumping fundamentally different learning experiences all under the umbrella of
games without a sound theoretical framework of what constitutes a game. How
can the effectiveness of games as a learning tool be understood when board
games, sports, and computer gameswhich include platformers, rst person
exploration, simulation, strategy, and action genres amongst othersare all held
equal and, worse, are not understood as different by the very researchers inves-
tigating their effectiveness? To this end, the following discussion will focus on
analyzing the effectiveness of mathematics video games as a home numeracy
practice. Mathematics video games are particularly pertinent considering that
smartphone and tablet adoption in western countries is at an all time high, that
these devices are used for gaming, and that math games are the most popular
educational games downloaded on these devices (PEW Research Internet
Project, 2014). The goal is to determine which video game types are best for
supporting childrens numeracy development and what is it about these games
that makes them effective?
Why Games?
In the face of the current push to incorporate games in education, one might con-
clude that it is a relatively recent educational practicethis is not the case. There
is a longstanding view that games and play are unique vectors to childrens learn-
ing because play creates a zone of proximal development for the child [in which
the child] always behaves beyond his average age, above his daily behavior
(Vygotsky, 1978, p. 102) and it provides a context for practicing rule-sets critical
to a system (Barab, Thomas, Dodge, Carteaux, & Tuzun, 2005). Games provide
both challenge and reason to persist in the face of challenge; this is at the heart of
why they continue to be a mainstay of education and why mathematics educators
and researchers are looking at games as a way to boost early numeracy skills.
10 Are Games a Viable Home Numeracy Practice? 167
Games Are Fun, Math Games Are Games, Math Games

Are Not Often Fun
A reason often cited as to why games enable persistence in the face of challenge is that
games are fun. In fact, over 80 % of video game players cite fun as the primary reason
they play games (Kirriemuir & McFarlane, 2004). When using games to teach math-
ematics, the goal should be for the game to combine with the learning mechanics in
such a way that fun is intrinsic to the instruction or practice itself (Kebritchi, Hirumi,
& Bai, 2010). For example, in the game Treasure Hunt children plot XY coordinates
to nd buried gold and this simultaneously teaches players about coordinates while
setting the fun goal of searching for treasure (Ke, 2008). In this game, the learning
mechanic, the lesson, and the fun are all one and the same and this keeps children play-
ing, providing ample opportunity for practice and eventual mastery of the mathematics
skills inherit in the game. This is the goal of a good math game.
Unfortunately, it is much more common for math games to use fun as a carrot to
draw children through the lesson and this approach is rarely successful and is at
odds with good game design (Foreman, 2003). Moreover, researchers often over-
look the importance of fun in games. In one study, researchers outlined 11 key
design principles for making good math games for young children and not one of
the principles included or made reference to fun (Presser et al., 2013). In fact, the
word fun was used only once and in somewhat of a pejorative way, Feedback for
incorrect responses should indicate that the response was not correct, and should not
include engaging material, such as characters making funny faces or sounds, that
could be misconstrued as a reward (or simply be fun to watch) (p. 379). This is not
to say that researchers do not recognize the importance of fun but that fun is often
assumed to just happen as a byproduct of the game.
When it comes to math games, more often than not, fun does not just happen. In
one study, two thirds of children reported that the mathematics portion of the game
was not fun and many of these children required extrinsic rewards to keep them play-
ing, such as playing an actual game after the math game was complete (Shin,
Sutherland, Norris, & Soloway, 2012). When (Ke, 2008) asked children about their
feelings toward math games that use fun as a lure instead of fun being an intrinsic part
of the game, responses included: I feel bored, it needs too much calculation. Oh
they are learning games. Can we play some other games? Games that are fun.
Clearly, simply calling a mathematics task a game is insufcient and researchers
studying the effectiveness of math games need to assess whether or not the game in
their study is indeed fun. The lack of fun is not relegated to just math games; one
meta-analysis of 39 studies comparing educational games to traditional classroom
instruction found that children were just as motivated to play a game as they were to
do a classroom activity (Wouters, van Nimwegen, van Oostendorp, & van der Spek,
2013), suggesting that it is no small task to make a truly fun educational game.
However, identifying and dening fun is not easy. Fun is not just amusement, the
product of leisure, or even bound to specic activities, times, or places (Young et al.,
2012). Fun can even be had during activities traditionally seen as the antithesis of fun.
For example, workers often report having fun on the job when the activity produces
the sensation of ow, the self-setting and achievement of goals (Csikszentmihalyi,
1990). Also, an activity that is typically thought of as fun can easily be made into a
chore if assigned. Playing the piano is fun but being told to practice the piano is not.
All of this is to say that fun is a critical part of why games are used in education but it
is also often overlooked or assumed to exist when it does not.
Games Are Engaging, Math Games Engage Some Children

More Than Others
Fun is not the be all and end all, another reason games enable persistence in the face of
challenge is because they are engaging (Oblinger, 2006). In the context of educational
games, engagement can occur at three levelscognitive, emotional, and behavioral
(Annetta et al., 2009). Cognitive engagement means that players are mentally invested
in the learning activity and willing to exert effort to complete the academic task
(Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004). Emotional engagement refers to how games
can elicit positive and negative feelings during gameplay that include feelings of inter-
est, happiness, anxiety, and belonging (Chang et al., 2014). Behavioral engagement
includes attentiveness, diligence, and following the rules of the game (Deater-Deckard,
Chang, & Evans, 2013). When it comes to math games, the goal is for engagement in
the game to translate into prolonged interaction with mathematics content or, ideally,
engagement with the mathematics content itself. Meaning that the player not only
plays the game for an extended period of time but that he/she are also invested in, inter-
ested by, and attentive to the underlying mathematics content.
The preponderance of the research suggests that math games can keep children
playing (i.e., engaged with the game, Evans, Norton, Chang, Deater-Deckard, &
Balci, 2013) but there is question as to whether children are truly engaged with the
underlying mathematics content. Keeping children playing a math game is valuable
because it is a form of practice and there is considerable merit in identifying activi-
ties that will help children practice mathematics skills. In a study of older childrens
math game use, Chang and colleagues (2015) had 107 low-income children from
rural Virginia play either a custom made math game or complete a paper and pencil
task for 20 min a day for 8 days to see which approach was better for improving the
childrens fraction knowledge. The game was signicantly more cognitively, emo-
tionally, and behaviourally engaging than the paper and pencil task, which was par-
ticularly boring for the male students in the study for whom overall engagement
with the paper and pencil task steadily decreased across the 8 days.
Similarly, Deater-Deckard, Mallah, Chang, Evans, and Norton (2014) had 97 rural
American students in Grades 6, 7, and 8 play a game for 8 weeks to further investi-
gate the factors affecting engagement. They found that all three forms of engagement
were high and strongly correlatedmeaning that students who where highly cogni-
tively engaged tended to also be behaviourally and emotionally engagedbut they
also found that individual characteristics of the learner predicted engagement.
The most engaged children were experienced game playing males with high
mathematics achievement. Unfortunately, this can be interpreted as math games
being the best suited for children with the least need, high math ability males
(Gallagher et al., 2000). This supports Deater-Deckard et al. (2013) model of math
game engagement, which argues that game engagement does not always translate
into mathematics engagement and highlights how this is potentially problematic for
researchers studying the effectiveness of math games who reason that engagement
results in learning.
Games Aid Learning
The inclusion of video games in mathematics education and the validity of using these
games as a home numeracy practice is predicated on the notion that games have been
used as an effective teaching approach in domains other than mathematics. However,
a review of the research does not produce such a clear conclusion. In their review of 67
studies examining the effectiveness of instructional games across 28 years of research,
Randel et al. (1992) found that 38 of the studies showed no difference between educa-
tional games and traditional educational practices, 27 showed a preference for games
but several of these contained questionable methodologies, and three showed a prefer-
ence for traditional practices. The games in question spanned a variety of domains
including math, social science, language arts, logic, and physics. Interestingly, seven
out of the eight math games evaluated in this study were found to be more effective
than traditional instruction and the authors singled out mathematics as a particularly
promising area for educational games because the content seemed easier to target due
to the drill and practice nature of the domain (p. 269). In the meta-analysis by
Wouters and colleagues (2013), their initial analysis suggested that educational games
are more effective than traditional instruction but this effect disappeared when only
randomized control studies were considered.
While these two meta-analyses focused on studies comparing the learning out-
comes of games to traditional practices, a considerable amount of research on games
often ignores directly measuring learning outcomes (Mayer, 2014). Dempsey et al.
(1996) reviewed 91 studies of educational/instructional games and of those 37
(40 %) did not measure learning outcomes at all. Instead, many of these studies used
engagement as the primary determinant of whether a game was an effective educa-
tional tool. Of the studies that did measure learning outcomes, researchers noted
that the most popular academic skill targeted by games was problem solving (cf.,
conceptual understanding) and that the most effective games were those that prac-
ticed skills sets already possessed by the learner instead of teaching new skills.
Despite early meta-analyses of over 158 studies not providing clear support for
educational games, the use of educational games has continued and so too has the
research. For math games, continued interest may have been warranted considering
that mathematics content may align with the strengths of educational games, prob-
lem solving and practice.
For the games themselves, much has changed since the earlier studies of educa-
tional gamesparticularly when considering the advancements made in video games
from the mid 1990s to the present. In fact, the improvement in video games in the past
20+ years has been so dramatic that Young and colleagues (2012) argued a techno-
logical tipping point might have occurred and that this warranted a comprehensive
comparison of recent educational video game research. They reviewed over 300 stud-
ies that compared educational video games to traditional instruction and performed
an in-depth analysis of 39 studies that directly measured learning outcomes (i.e.,
engagement, motivation, content mastery, sustained interest) in the domains of math-
ematics, science, language learning, physical education, and history. In large, the
study concluded that games developed to match existing video game types (e.g.,
MMORPGs) are able to engage students but are not well suited for inclusion into
educational curriculum because the larger structure of the game brings in unneces-
sary and distracting content to the learning scenario and do not consistently outper-
form more traditional educational practices. Further, games that are designed to t the
constraints of the typical school day by functioning much like a work sheet tend to
lack the key characteristics that engage players and, as such, remove the reason for
using games in the rst place. This was true for math games which Young and col-
leagues highlighted as particularly murky area of games research.
An analysis of the math games assessed by Young gives insight as to why the edu-
cational effectiveness of these games is uncertain. First off, most studies on the effec-
tiveness of math games primarily looked at specialized games designed by researchers
that are only referenced in a handful of articles, are not used in further replication
studies, and are unlikely to ever by played by children at home (e.g., Harris, Yuill, &
Luckin, 2008; Mayo, 2009). These types of games tend to improve childrens math-
ematics performance in the specic skill on which they are trained. Yet they tend not
to be engaging and do not show a benet when tested in more natural use case sce-
narios where children have the option of not playing the game and are not forced to
play the game as part of a study, effectively making the games not substantially dif-
ferent from work sheets containing row upon row of math problems to be solved.
Studies assessing math games that lean more heavily on traditional game designs
do not fair any better. These games largely consist of a bifurcated design in which the
game and the math content are separated (Ke, 2008). One of the most prolic exam-
ples of this game type is the game Quest Atlantis, an educational game designed by
researchers and educators with the goal of creating an engaging learning experience
by leveraging the tropes found in the typical Role Playing Game (RPG). In Quest
Atlantis, players navigate an avatar through a 3D world and complete quests by
leveraging the players understanding of a given content area. This design results in
a learning experience in which the game play (i.e., world navigation) is essentially
interrupted by learning content (i.e., solving problems) and can only be continued
once the problems are answered. Studies evaluating the use of Quest Atlantis tend to
focus on user engagement and the broader context of the games in the classroom
(Barab et al., 2005) but Young and colleagues analysis suggests that while this game
type does produce engagement and does show promise in promoting language skills
due to the reading required, it still isolates pedagogy from the moment to moment
game play and this a problem for educational games. As mentioned previously, chil-
dren identify learning games as separate from real games and often require incen-
tive to play them (Ke, 2008). Thus, research on the effectiveness of math games may
be inconclusive but there is a clear reason for it. Most math game research does not
ask whether the gaming objective and the learning objective align and this happens
because most math game research is not based on a good theoretical understanding
of what constitutes a game and this makes reliably aligning pedagogy with game
play a non-starter. To do so, one must rst ask, what is a game?
What Is a Game?
To study games in a considered way, one must ask what a person does when playing
a game (mechanics), how the game directs what the player does (procedural rheto-
ric), and how the player learns what to do (failure). These foundational questions
apply to all games types, digital and traditional, and are informed by how one
denes games. Within game studies, there is no consensus denition of games.
However, there are several common conventions amongst leading theories that
apply to both traditional and digital games/video games. These are:
1. Rulesall games are based on rules that allow certain practices or behaviors and
ban others (Bateson, 1987; Caillois, 1958; Huizinga, 1955; Juul, 2005; Salen &
Zimmerman, 2003; Suits, 1978)
2. Variedgames take on many different forms (Caillois, 1958; Huizinga, 1955;
Juul, 2005; Sutton-Smith, 1997)
3. Articial conictgames involve conict that is articially created by the rules
(Bateson, 1987; Salen & Zimmerman, 2003; Suits, 1978)
4. Sacrice of efciencygames use inefcient means to reach an end goal (Juul,
2005; Salen & Zimmerman, 2003; Suits, 1978)
The most portable denition that incorporates these major principles is not about
games specically but about the action of playing a game. Playing a game is the
voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles (Suits, 1978, p. 55). Players
willingly attempt to achieve a goal that is more difcult to achieve than normal. To
simplify this further, a game is an inefcient way to achieve a simple goal. For
example, the goal of golf is putting a small white ball into a hole in the ground. But
surely I would not take a stick with a piece of metal on one end of it, walk three or
four hundred yards away from the hole, and then attempt to propel the ball into the
hole with the stick (Suits, 1978, p. 34). In both traditional and digital games, the
purpose is overcoming these inefciencies with clever strategies devised by the
player. Players identify the goal and then must achieve the goal within the rules.
This captures the problem-solving component of gameshow does the player reach
the goal using the inefcient means permitted by the rules?
Game Mechanics
All games have a different set of rules. While rules normally dene what a player can-
not do, another way to think of rules is what they permit rather than what they restrict.
Games permit certain kind of actions or behaviors. The action that is most commonly
performed within a specic game is known as the game mechanicthe essential
play activity players perform again and again in a game (Salen & Zimmerman, 2003,
p. 316). For example, in a platform game like Super Mario Brothers, the game
mechanic is precise jumping. In a puzzle game like Candy Crush Saga, the game
mechanic is creating color patterns. In a card game like Go Fish, the game mechanic
is drawing cards and making pairs. This game mechanic creates what we know as
game genres. Game genres share similar sets of game mechanics.
The number of genres and game types is varied and constantly expanding.
Players want different kinds of games, and new genres and game mechanics emerge
as games become increasingly popular. While the complexity of game genres is
growing, the simplest way to understand any game is the game mechanicwhat
you do most often when you play (Koster, 2004; Rogers, 2010). This can also be
further simplied into the kind of action taken. If a game lets you take your time to
make a decision, the game is focused on strategy. If the game does not provide
much time to make a decision, the game is focused on action or reaction. Either
approach can be meaningful to players. The great challenge for game designers is
nding the right balance for the most number of players (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990;
Salen & Zimmerman, 2003; Zimmerman, 2004).
Procedural Rhetoric and Learning in Games
Procedural rhetoric is the practice of using processes persuasively (Bogost, 2007,

p. 28). Bogost argues that games present arguments through their processes. Because
all games have rules, players must work within specic parameters and boundaries
that only allow certain action. This directs what a player can do in a game. Embedded
in the rules are the intentions and the biases of the game developer. Therefore, games
teach biased perspectives about how things work. And the way they teach such
perspectives is through procedural rhetoric, which players read through direct
engagement (Bogost, 2007, p. 260).
According to Bogost, games are unique because they present arguments through
processes or procedurality (Murray, 1997). Procedurality is the sequence of events that
take place in any formal sequential system. Games are a strong example of procedural-
ityone action cannot take place until a previous action has happened. This means
players must follow a predetermined path to proceed through a game, or even perform
an action within a game. What does this mean for players? When playing a game, they
are learning a series of relationships between sequential actions. This has signicant
consequences for the learning outcomes of games. Players are learning how to execute
processes, and often these processes are multi-phased or interrelated.
Ultimately, what a game is teaching its players is how to play the game (Gee,
2005). Players are learning how to execute a sequence of events. While this may
sound pessimistic regarding the learning potential for games, this is not the case.
Games that focus on specic processes, or a specic series of events, like learning
order of operations or trigonometry problem solving strategies, will teach players
those processes or steps. The challenge is designing a game that is simultaneously
educational and entertaining for the players.
Failure
Failure is central to player enjoyment of games (Juul, 2009). While this may initially
seem contradictory, a great game nds a balance between the skill of the players and
the difculty of the game. If a game is too hard, a player becomes quickly frustrated.
If a game is too easy, a player becomes bored. This is analogous to Csikszentmihalys
ow theory, which argues that people are most engaged in activities that match and
slightly exceed their level of skill. There are also connections here with Vygotskys
zone of proximal developmentthe site of learning is that which is just beyond the
reach of the learner (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Vygotsky, 1978).
Juul conducted an empirical study on player enjoyment and failure. He found
that winning without failing leads to dissatisfaction, and that the right amount of
failure has a direct inuence on player satisfaction (Juul, 2009). By creating four
prototype games with the same difculty but varying amounts of failure, Juul found
that failing makes players reconsider their strategy. Players try out different ways to
solve the problems. Returning to Suits, players are forced to reconsider their strate-
gies and try new approaches to overcoming challenges or obstacles. This provides
gratication for the players. If they win after attempting a few different strategies,
the level of satisfaction increases versus succeeding on the rst attempt.
The way a player learns in a game is through failure. Players fail consistently and
often take long or difcult paths towards achieving the end goal. Failure is more
than a contrast to winningrather failure is central to the experience of depth in a
game, to the experience of improving skills (Juul, 2009). Players must reconsider
their problem solving strategies and attempt new solutions in moments of failure.
Again, the goal for game designers is nding the appropriate balance for the most
number of players (Juul, 2013).
Evaluating the Game in Math Games
Having outlined what we believe constitutes a game and highlighting the importance
game mechanics, procedural rhetoric, and failure play in game based learning, we now
turn to recent studies of math games and ask whether or not these factors are being
considered by researchers. To do so, we performed a literature search utilizing PsycInfo,
Table 10.1 Recent studies of math games

Studies Discuss mechanics Discuss failure
Bakker (2015) Chorianopoulos (2014) Bakker (2015)
Chang (2015) Deater-Deckard (2014) Chorianopoulos (2014)
Crompton (2015) Ke (2014) Deater-Deckard (2014)
Chang (2014) Evans (2013) Ke (2014)
Chorianopoulos (2014) Laski (2013) Maertens (2014)
Deater-Deckard (2014) Presser (2013) Evans (2013)
Ke (2014) Presser (2013)
Maertens (2014) Ramani (2012)
Deater-Deckard (2013) Shin (2012)
Evans (2013)
Laski (2013)
Presser (2013)
Shahbodin (2013)
Ramani (2012)
Shin (2012)
Google Scholar, JSTOR, and the search engines of Research Gate and Academia.edu
with variations on the keywords mathematics, games, and education to identify studies
published since the comprehensive analysis conducted by Young in 2012. This yielded
15 studies on the use of math games in childrens education (see Table 10.1). The stud-
ies were then categorized as to whether they considered the role of game mechanics/
rhetoric and failure in either their methodology or discussion.
Game Mechanics and Procedural Rhetoric in Math Games
Young and colleagues (2012) argue that there needs to be an alignment of pedagogy
with gameplay such that they each reinforce the other. In game theory parlance, this
statement can be interpreted as requiring both game mechanics and the procedural
rhetoric of the game to reinforce the underlying learning content. Game mechanics
construct the moment-to-moment actions taken by players (Salen & Zimmerman,
2003) and procedural rhetoric refers to how a well constructed game can use these
actions to teach (Bogost, 2007). For math games, this means that a good educational
game is one that leverages the game mechanics to present a persuasive argument
about how mathematics concepts and procedures work.
When dened in this way, a good math game can be considered what is called a
serious game (Abt, 1975; Girard, Ecalle, & Magnan, 2012)a game designed with
the specic purpose to educate as oppose to a game designed primarily to entertain.
One of the key differences between serious games and normal games is that the
mechanics of a serious game are chosen with learning as the goal whereas the
mechanics in a normal game are chosen with entertainment as the goal (Annetta,
Murray, Laird, Bohr, & Park, 2006). Looking at previous reviews on the effectiveness
of math games, the topic of game mechanics is not often discussed and the question
of whether a math game constitutes a serious game is not asked. Instead, research
lumps all math games together and simply asks whether math games as a whole are
effective. The answer to this question has been a resounding maybe and the likely
reason for this is that researchers are not considering the role game mechanics play in
the effectiveness of math games.
Of the 15 studies yielded in the search, six explicitly discussed game mechanics
and their role in making an effective math game for children. Laski and Siegler
(2013) investigated how a board game similar to Snakes and Ladders can facilitate
childrens understanding of magnitude. In previous work (Ramani & Siegler, 2008;
Ramani, Siegler, & Hitti, 2012; Siegler & Ramani, 2009), it was found that the
simple action of moving a token up a linear arrangement of squares facilitates young
childrens (i.e., preschool and kindergarten age) performance on number line esti-
mation and magnitude comparison tasks. Yet, even after several studies, the specic
mechanism responsible for the improved performance was uncertain. Laski and
Siegler focused on identifying the game mechanic(s) responsible for the facilitation
and pinpointed the cause to a feature that had previously been deemed a minor
procedural detailwhen children moved the token form square to square they
were required to count on from the current number instead of counting up from 1.
For example, a child playing a board game who moves their token 2 spaces from the
fth space on the board would count out loud 6, 7 instead of counting 1, 2.
Children who count on perform signicantly better at posttest than children who
count up and the researchers use this effect as support for their Cognitive Alignment
Framework, which holds that the better the alignment between thoughts, actions,
and the underlying game concept the more successful the math game. This shows
how important it is to consider game mechanics and procedural rhetoric when
analyzing math gameswhat researchers once consider a minor and irrelevant
detail about the moment to moment gameplay was actually the lynchpin.
The previous example makes the goal of identifying effective game mechanics
seem easy, but this is not the case. That study looked at a relatively simple board
game whereas most studies investigate complex math video games that contain
multiple game mechanics and often multiple game types. Evans and colleagues
(2013) produced one such game called The Candy Factory, which aims to improve
childrens understanding of fractions. The authors argue that the game provokes
new ways of thinking about fractions through its action sequences (i.e., game
mechanics). The game involves running a candy store and consists of ve levels,
each with its own unique game mechanic that targets an aspect of fraction reason-
ing. At level one, termed the Whole level, players begin by partitioning whole items
of candy into fractional amounts. At level two (partitive unit level), players reduce
the size of pieces of candy into smaller pieces of equal size. At level three (partitive
level), players create any custom fraction out of a piece of candy to complete a cus-
tomers order. At level four (iterative level), players create any custom fraction out
of a piece of candynow including improper fractions. At level ve (reversible
partitive level), players produce the whole of a given fraction. The game progression
involves players completing multiple trials at each level and progressing upwards
through the levels. This is an example of researchers taking game theory and game
design principles and directly applying them to the creation of a math game.
Unfortunately, it was not the goal of the research project to test whether the game
was indeed effective at improving childrens fraction knowledge. Instead, the goal
was to create a game that is theoretically sound in that the primary mechanics
require players to think about fractions in specic ways. Deater-Deckard and col-
leagues (2014) study on game engagement used The Candy Factory and, as previ-
ously stated, found that the game was more engaging than a traditional paper and
pencil fraction task. This game is an example of another common problem in math
game researchresearch that accounts for the role of game mechanics does not
often focus on assessing efcacy. Interestingly, another paper using The Candy
Factory even proposes that the game mechanics could elicit unique neural activity
in the Intraparietal Sulcus (Norton & Deater-Deckard, 2014), a region associated
with numerical estimation and fraction representation (Dehaene, 1997; Ischebeck,
Schocke, & Delazer, 2009). Again, they do not directly test whether this is the case.
Similarly, the works of Chorianopoulos, Giannakos, and Chrisochoides (2014),
Ke (2014) and Presser and colleagues (2013) all provide detailed account of the
game mechanics in their constructed math games but do not test whether the
mechanics they employ translate into learning. This is not to say that the studies do
not hold value, but that evaluation of the specic game mechanics in these studies
requires further research. On the positive side, these studies actually provide detailed
descriptions of the games and discuss how the game design and mechanics should
theoretically translate into making a successful math gamesomething the major-
ity of research on math games ignores or under explains (Young et al., 2012).
Focusing on game mechanics at the expense of efcacy is problematic but it can
be addressed in follow-up studies. However, there is an additional risk to this
approach of which researchers should be aware. In an effort to align pedagogy with
game design, it may be tempting to create games for math concepts that are ame-
nable to easy game design but are not trainable skills. For example, Presser and
colleagues (2013) developed math games aimed at promoting childrens subitizing
(i.e., the ability to quickly determine the number of objects in a group without
counting, Butterworth, 2011). In the subitizing game, sets of either two or three
items were presented on a screen for a very brief period of time and players had to
correctly state the number of items. Even though the game seems to align perfectly
with the underlying skill, playing the game is theoretically unlikely to improve chil-
drens subitizing ability in a meaningful way. Specically, subitizing small sets of
items is an innate ability found in both infants and primates (Jordan, Kaplan, Nabors
Olh, & Locuniak, 2006; Revkin, Piazza, Izard, Cohen, & Dehaene, 2008), it may
be dependent on visual attention more than a pure numerical ability (Feigenson,
2008; OHearn, Hoffman, & Landau, 2011), and deciency in this ability during
childhood seem to be genetically based rather than experiential (Lefevre, Wells, &
Sowinski, 2014). This means that a game aimed at improving childrens subitizing
ability of small sets is not theoretically warranted.
Just because a game is easy to make does not mean that it should be made. This is
the same mistake made by the designers of popular brain training games that have
people practicing simple cognitive tests, which do not improve actual cognitive ability
beyond getting better at playing the game (Ballard, Corbett, Clack, & Owen, 2010).
Thus, a preponderance of the research on math games is well based in theory of numer-
ical development but lacks a grounding in game design (Young et al., 2012) and the few
select studies that focus on good game design do not always have the best basis in
numerical development. What is needed is a combination of the two in which numeri-
cal cognition researchers and game theory scholars work together from the start to
construct good games with sound mechanics that provoke and shape childrens think-
ing about numbers and validate the mechanics through proper testing.
Failure in Math Games
Unless it is the focus of the research question, providing feedback on childrens

math performance during a study is not typically done because researchers know it
affects performance. Information on a strategys success or failure as well as on its
efciency is crucial in the development of new mathematical skills and this is
reected in models of strategy selection, which hold that a strategys efciency is
the primary determinant of whether it will be adopted (Shrager & Siegler, 1998;
Siegler & Araya, 2005; Siegler & Lemair, 1997). As a result, studies on the efcacy
of math games are somewhat stuck between a rock and a hard place; good game
design dictates that failure is an essential component of games but research shows
that negative feedback can result in anxiety and may reduce persistence at the task
or avoidance of the task altogether (Onatsu-Arvilommi & Nurmi, 2000). Problems
with avoidance and lack of persistence when faced with mathematics instruction are
the reasons math games are being used in the rst place. Clearly, the role failure
plays in math games must be closely considered.
The extent to which researchers consider the role failure plays in the effective-
ness of math games varies greatly but almost all researchers account for it to some
degree. Numerical cognition researchers often discuss failure in math games using
the term difculty and it is typically found in the context of matching a games dif-
culty to a players ability. Bakker, van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, and Robitzsch
(2015) conducted a longitudinal study in which 719 children played online mathe-
matics game to see if the games could improve the childrens multiplicative reason-
ing. The study involved 32 different games that the researchers termed mini-games
and children played the games either at school, at home, at home with a debrieng
at school or in a control group. Math games played in the home and then later dis-
cussed at school by teachers produced the greatest benets but did pose the most
problems for maintaining interest on part of both children and teachers.
The researchers accounted for the role of failure in two ways. First, they adapted the
difculty level of the games such that they would align with students theoretical learn-
ing trajectory, effectively meaning that games were easier for younger children and
more difcult for older children. This was done because the researchers reasoned that
making a game too difcult or too easy would decrease childrens engagement and
persistence. Second, the researchers only chose games that provided immediate feed-
back because they wanted players to see the consequences of their actions in a
risk free environment (p. 55) meaning that the game communicated failure states to
the player. In this study, difculty and feedback were not systematically varied between
participants so the effect of varying levels of difculty and feedback is not known. This
approach to addressing the importance of feedback is typical in studies of math games,
with the majority of the studies we found discussing failure/difculty level/feedback
taking this approach (e.g., Chorianopoulos et al., 2014; Deater-Deckard et al., 2014;
Evans et al., 2013; Presser et al., 2013; Shin et al., 2012).
One distinct feature of video games is that they can be adaptive and this uniquely
enables math video games to adjust the level of failure/difculty to the players ability
not only before the game begins but also as the game progresses. One of the issues
with adapting game difculty to players ability is determining how much failure is
too much and how much is too little because both will discourage further play (Juul,
2009). Maertens, Vandewaetere, Cornillie, and Desmet (2014) investigated how to
determine the optimal failure rate in a math game and found that a good math game
needs to account for difculty attributable to the math content as well as difculty
attributable to the game mechanics. The game they studied is called Monkey Tales
(www.monkeytalesgame.com) and it involves several mini-games each with its own
game mechanic as well as several sets of mathematics rules. Some of the game
mechanics are more demanding than others. For an example, one mini-game classi-
ed as easy involved the presentation of a math problem (e.g., 8 + 6 = ?) and the player
navigating an avatar through a 3D environment to select the correct answer whereas
another mini-game classied as hard involved the player shooting a moving target
containing the correct answer. The math rules in the games also varied in difculty.
The rules/content areas included practicing multiplication tables, adding numbers less
than 100, identifying numbers as either odd or even, and so on.
It is clear that the game mechanics involved in the mini-games do not align with
the math content as well as they should or could. Shooting targets and platforming
are not provoking the players thoughts on multiplication or addition. However, this
type of game is typical of the math games marketed towards and played by young
children (McEwen & Dub, 2015a, 2015b). Maertens and colleagues (2014) found
that adapting failure rate was best achieved using a two step process. First, collect
subjective evaluations of difculty for each type of math rule from players prior to
playing the game and use them to set the initial difculty level. Second, adjust
future difculty based on player performance within each game. The difculty was
not adjusted by changing the math rule but by changing the game mechanic. If per-
formance on a math rule decreased below a threshold in one mini-game then the
next mini-game would contain the same rule but a simpler game mechanic (i.e., one
that required fewer actions by the player to produce an answer)providing a reason
for the player to persist (see Ke, 2014 for another example). This study is a good
example of the unique promise math video games possess for childrens home
numeracy practices. Board games do not adapt themselves to player performance
whereas video games can keep children engaged with a difcult math task by vary-
ing how the player experiences failure via multiple game mechanics. Even if the
child nds the learning content hard, the game gives a reason to play on.
Math Games on Tablet Computers: The Future of Math Home

Numeracy Practice?
The potential for math games to provide both challenge and reason to persist in the face
of challenge is why there is so much research on this topic. Despite the abundance of
research, there is no real clear answer as to whether games are a viable form of math
instruction and it seems this lack of clarity stems from math researchers studying
games and not fully considering what makes a good game and from game researchers
studying math games and not fully testing whether the games are effective teaching
tools. This is a solvable problem but one that still persists. In the face of this, one might
think that math video games are not a popular practice outside of a research lab. This
is far from the case. Math video games abound and they have recently taken off on
tablet computers and smartphones. In fact, math games aimed at young children are the
most predominant type of educational game available for touchscreen devices in terms
of the number of math games made by developers and the number of apps downloaded
by parents (Shuler, 2012). Considering the proliferation of touchscreen devices and the
high number of math games downloaded daily, it is only reasonable to assume that
math games are becoming a common home numeracy practice. Parents are download-
ing these apps and teaching their children about numbers using math games on tablets
and smartphones. Considering that touchscreen devices are controlled differently than
traditional video game systems or a personal computer, it could be the case that the
math games present on tablets are different than the math video games typical studied
by researchers, who mostly study video games on PC.
In two studies, McEwen and Dub (2015a, 2015b) evaluated 4- to 7-year-old chil-
drens use of math games on tablet computers with the goal of determining how chil-
dren learn from touchscreen devices. In the rst study (2015a), children each played
three math games on one of four tablet computers (iPad, Android, LeapPad, InnoTab)
and the researchers evaluated the content in each of the applications, assessed the
childrens cognitive ability, and analyzed how variations in content and cognitive abil-
ity affected childrens successful use of the device. For the content of the math games,
they found that the majority of the tablet games were serious games that focused pri-
marily on educational content rather than entertainment value; that the educational
content of the games predominantly entailed practicing already learned math skills
(cf., instruction on new skills) through the presentation of problems on the screen,
akin to ashcards or work sheets found in a classroom; that the game mechanics in
most of the games did not align with the learning content (for a good example see
Motion Math Zoom available on the iPad); and that children were more engaged when
playing complex games containing multiple mini-games than focused games contain-
ing a single game mechanic. For the childrens cognitive ability, children with poor
working memory and controlled attention had more difculty simply using the tablet
computer than their same age peers.
The second study (McEwen & Dub, 2015b) further investigated childrens
engagement with math games on tablets by using an eye tracker to measure the
specic content to which children attend. In the rst study, content was catego-
rized as either educational or entertainment but in this second study the educa-
tional content was subdivided according to cognitive load theory (Sweller, 1994).
Within the educational content of the math games, there is intrinsic content that
is central to the learning goal and must be interacted with to complete the game,
germane content that scaffolds the learning goal but is not required to complete
the game, and extraneous content that is part of the game design but does not
directly service the learning goal (e.g., menus within the game used to navigate
between levels and entertainment content that aims to engage the user but holds
no educational value). According to cognitive load theory, the goal should be to
maximize attention paid to intrinsic and germane content and limit attention paid
to extraneous content (Pass, Renkle, & Sweller, 2004). The study found that chil-
dren paid more attention to extraneous content when playing complex math
games on tabletsgames that had multiple mini-games with multiple game
mechanicsthan when playing simple math games on tablets. Further, children
with poor attentional control paid the most attention to extraneous content and
ignored the helpful germane content.
These two studies indicate that math games on tablet computers are not that
different from other forms of math video games and the results also raise a poten-
tial red ag for the use of tablets in a home numeracy setting. Tablet math games
primarily consist of mini-games in which the game mechanic and the learning
content do buttress each other. This is also true for most math video games.
Further, games in which the mechanics aligned with the math content were rated
as less fun than games with more traditional video game mechanics. Importantly,
math games relying on more traditional game mechanics still hold value because
they give children a reason to practice their math skills when they otherwise would
not. In McEwen and Dub (2015a, 2015b), children still reported having fun play-
ing the tablet math games despite the fact that the math game mechanic boiled
down to ashcards. The potential red ag is that tablet math games may not be
well suited for children who need the most help. Poor working memory and atten-
tional control hamper childrens mathematics learning (Alloway, 2007) and these
two tablet studies suggest that children with potential math difculties will also
have trouble using tablet computers, which are being given to children with learn-
ing difculties in the hopes that the intuitive touchscreen interactions will aid
learning of difcult concepts. Many of the math games currently available on
tablets and smartphones may be too complex to be a viable home numeracy prac-
tice for children in need.
Summation
To answer the question of whether games are a viable home numeracy practice for
young children one must rst ask whether games are a viable teaching tool.
Currently, this is a question without a clear answer, but it can be answered if future
research leverages the knowledge of both numerical cognition and game studies
scholars simultaneously. This joint research endeavor needs to happen soon; math
games are more popular than ever, children are playing them on their parents tablets
and smartphones, and this is happening despite the fact that research suggests that
most math games are not more benecial than other practices and some may actu-
ally be detrimental.
References
Abt, C. C. (1975). Serious games. New York, NY: Viking Compass.

Alloway, T. (2007). Working memory, reading, and mathematical skills in children with develop-
mental coordination disorder. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 96, 2036.
Annetta, L. A., Minogue, J., Holmes, S. Y., & Cheng, M.-T. (2009). Investigating the impact of
video games on high school students engagement and learning about genetics. Computers &
Education, 53(1), 7485. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.020.
Annetta, L. A., Murray, M. R., Laird, S. G., Bohr, S. C., & Park, J. C. (2006). Serious games:
Incorporating video games in the classroom. Educause Quarterly, 3, 1622.
Bakker, M., Van Den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Robitzsch, A. (2015). Effects of playing mathe-
matics computer games on primary school students multiplicative reasoning ability.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 40(C), 5571.
Ballard, C. G., Corbett, A., Clack, H., & Owen, A. (2010). Can brain training games improve
cognition in people over 60? Alzheimers & Dementia, 6(4), e55e56. doi:10.1016/j.
jalz.2010.08.171.
Barab, S., Thomas, M., Dodge, T., Carteaux, R., & Tuzun, H. (2005). Making learning fun: Quest
Atlantis, a game without guns. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(1),
86107. doi:10.1007/BF02504859.
Bateson, G. (1987). Steps to an ecology of mind. NY: Ballantine.
Bogost, I. (2007). Persuasive games: The expressive power of videogames. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Butterworth, B. (2011). 16 - Foundational numerical capacities and the origins of dyscalculia. Space,
Time and Number in the Brain, 1(c), 249265. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-385948-8.00016-5.
Caillois, R. (1958). Les, jeux et les hommes (Man, play, and games). Librairie Gallimard, Paris.
Chang, M., Evans, M., Kim, S., Deater-Deckard, K., & Norton, A. (2014). Educational video
games and students game engagement (pp. 13). Presented at the 2014 International
Conference on Information Science and Applications (ICISA), IEEE. doi:10.1109/
ICISA.2014.6847390.
Chang, M., Evans, M. A., Kim, S., Norton, A., Deater-Deckard, K., & Samur, Y. (2015). The
effects of an educational video game on mathematical engagement. Education and Information
Technologies, 117.
Chorianopoulos, K., Giannakos, M. N., & Chrisochoides, N. (2014). Design Principles for Serious
Games in Mathematics (pp. 15). Presented at the the 18th Panhellenic Conference, New York,
New York, USA: ACM Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal performance. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Deater-Deckard, K., Chang, M., & Evans, M. E. (2013). Engagement states and learning from
educational games. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2013(139), 2130.
doi:10.1002/cad.20028.
Deater-Deckard, K., Mallah, E., Chang, S., Evans, M. A., & Norton, A. (2014). Student behavioral
engagement during mathematics educational video game instruction with 1114 year olds.
International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 2(3), 101108. doi:10.1016/j.
ijcci.2014.08.001.
Dehaene, S. (1997). The number sense: How the mind creates mathematics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Dempsey, J. V., Rasmussen, K., & Lucassen, B. (1996). Instructional gaming: Implications for
instructional technology. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for
Educational Communications and Technology, Nashville, TN.
Emes, C. E. (1997). Is Mr Pac Man eating our children? A review of the effects of video games on
children. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 42, 409414.
Evans, M. A., Norton, A., Chang, M., Deater-Deckard, K., & Balci, O. (2013). Youth and video
games: Exploring effects on learning and engagement. Zeitschrift Fr Psychologie, 221(2),
98106. doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000135.
Feigenson, L. (2008). Parallel non-verbal enumeration is constrained by a set-based limit.
Cognition, 107, 118.
Foreman, J. (2003). Next-generation educational technology versus the lecture. EDUCAUSE
Review, 38(4), 1222.
Fredricks, J., Blumenfeld, P., & Paris, A. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept,
state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59109.
Gallagher, A. M., De Lisi, R., Holst, P. C., Lisi, A. V. M.-D., Morely, M., & Cahalan, C. (2000).
Gender differences in advanced mathematical problem solving. Journal of Experimental Child
Gee, J. P. (2005). Demonstrating the important learning found in COTS games. Paper presented at
the Serious Games Summit 2005, San Francisco, CA.
Girard, C., Ecalle, J., & Magnan, A. (2012). Serious games as new educational tools: How effec-
tive are they? A meta-analysis of recent studies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(3),
207219. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00489.x.
Harris, J. (2001). The effects of computer games on young children: A review of the research. RDS
Occasional Paper, N0. 72, Research, Development, and Statistics Directorate, Government, UK.
Harris, A., Yuill, N., & Luckin, R. (2008). The inuence of context-specic and dispositional
achievement goals on childrens paired collaborative interaction. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 78, 355374. doi:10.1348/000709907X267067.
Huizinga, J. (1955). Homo Ludens A Study of the Play-Element in Culture. Beacon Press. Boston,
USA.
Ischebeck, A., Schocke, M., & Delazer, M. (2009). The processing and representation of fractions
within the brain: An fMRI investigation. NeuroImage, 47, 403412.
Jordan, N. C., Kaplan, D., Nabors Olh, L., & Locuniak, M. N. (2006). Number sense growth in
kindergarten: A longitudinal investigation of children at risk for mathematics difculties. Child
Juul, J. (2005). Half-real. Video games between real rules and ctional worlds. Cambridge MA:
The MIT Press.
Juul, J. (2009). Fear of failing? the many meanings of difculty in video games. The Video Game
Theory Reader, 2, 237252.
Juul, J. (2013). The art of failure: An essay on the pain of playing video games. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Ke, F. (2008). A case study of computer gaming for math: Engaged learning from gameplay?
Computers & Education, 51(4), 16091620. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.03.003.
Kebritchi, M., Hirumi, A., & Bai, H. (2010). The effects of modern mathematics computer games
on mathematics achievement and class motivation. Computers & Education, 55(2), 427443.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.007.
Kirriemuir, J., & McFarlane, A. (2004). Literature review in games and learning: A report for Futurelab.
Retrieved June 15, 2015, from http://www.futurelab.org.uk/research/reviews/08_01/html.
Koster, R. (2004). Theory of fun for game design. Scottsdale, AZ: Paraglyph Press.
Kucirkova, N. (2014). iPads in early education: Separating assumptions and evidence. Frontiers in
Psychology, 5, 715. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00715.
Laski, E. V., & Siegler, R. S. (2013). Learning From Number Board Games: You Learn What You
Encode. Developmental Psychology, 113.
Lefevre, J.-A., Wells, E., & Sowinski, C. (2014). Individual differences in basic arithmetical pro-
cesses in children and adults. In Oxford handbook of numerical cognition (pp. 117). Oxford:
Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642342.013.005.
Maertens, M., Vandewaetere, M., Cornillie, F., & Desmet, P. (2014). From pen-and-paper content
to educational math game content for children: A transfer with added difculty. International
Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 2(2), 8592.
Mayer, R. (2014). Computer game for learning: An evidence-based approach. London: The MIT Press.
Mayo, M. (2009). Video games: A route to large-scale STEM education? Science, 323(5910),
7982. doi:10.1126/science.1166900.
McEwen, R., & Dub, A. K. (2015a). Intuitive or idiomatic? An information studies and cognitive
psychology study of child-tablet computer interaction. Journal of the Association for
Information Science and Technology, 51, 110. doi:10.1002/asi.23470.
McEwen, R., & Dub, A. K. (2015b). Engaging or distracting: Childrens tablet computer use in
education. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 18, 923.
Murray, J. H. (1997). Hamlet on the holodeck: The future of narrative in cyberspace. New York,
NY: Simon and Schuster.
Norton, A., & Deater-Deckard, K. (2014). Mathematics in mind, brain, and education: A neo-
piagetian approach. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(3), 647
667. doi:10.1007/s10763-014-9512-6.
Oblinger, D. G. (2006). Games and learning: Digital games have the potential to bring play back
to the learning experience. Educause Quarterly, 3, 57.
OHearn, K., Hoffman, J.E., & Landau, B. (2011). Small subitizing range in people with Williams
syndrome. Visual Cognition, 19(3), 289312.
Onatsu-Arvilommi, T., & Nurmi, J. E. (2000). The role of task-avoidant and task-focused behav-
iors in the development of reading and mathematical skills during the rst school year. A cross-
lagged longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3), 478491.
doi:10.1037//0022-0663.92.3.478.
Pass, F., Renkle, A., & Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive load theory: Instructional implications of the inter-
action between information structure and cognitive architecture. Instructional Science, 32, 18.
PEW Research Internet Project. (2014). Mobile technology fact sheet e Jan 2014. Retrieved May
21, 2014, from http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/mobile-technology-fact-sheet/.
Presser, A. L., Vahey, P., & Zanchi, C. (2013). Designing early childhood math games: A research-
driven approach (pp. 376379). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/2485760.2485802.
childrens numerical knowledge through playing number board games. Child Development, 79,
375394.
Ramani, G. B., Siegler, R. S., & Hitti, A. (2012). Taking it to the classroom: Number board games
as a small group learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 661672.
doi:10.1037/a0028995.
Randel, J., Morris, B., Wetzel, C. D., & Whitehall, B. (1992). The effectiveness of games for edu-
cational purposes: A review of recent research. Simulation and Gaming, 23(3), 261276.
Revkin, S., Piazza, M., Izard, V., Cohen, L., & Dehaene, S. (2008). Does subitizing reect numeri-
cal estimation? Psychological Science, 19, 607.
Rogers, S. (2010). Level up!: The guide to great video game design. New York, NY: John Wiley &
Sons.
Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2003). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. Cambridge, MA:
The MIT Press.
Shin, N., Sutherland, L. M., Norris, C. A., & Soloway, E. (2012). Effects of game technology on
elementary student learning in mathematics. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4),
540560. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01197.x.
Shrager, J., & Siegler, R. S. (1998). SCADS: A model of childrens strategy choices and strategy
discoveries. Psychological Science, 9(5), 405410.
Shuler, C. (2012). iLearn II: An analysis of the education category of the itunes app store.
New York, NY: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.
Siegler, R. S., & Araya, R. (2005). A computational model of conscious and unconscious strategy
discover. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 33, 142.
Siegler, R. S., & Lemair, P. (1997). Older and younger adults strategy choices in multiplication:
Testing predictions of ASCM using the choice/no-choice method. Journal of Experimental
Psychology. General, 126, 71.
Siegler, R. S., & Ramani, G. B. (2009). Playing linear number board gamesBut not circular
onesImproves low-income preschoolers numerical understanding. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 101(3), 545560. doi:10.1037/a0014239.
Skwarchuk, S.-L., Sowinski, C., & Lefevre, J.-A. (2014). Formal and informal home learning
home numeracy model. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 121(C), 6384.
doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2013.11.006.
Suits, B. (1978). The grasshopper: Games, life, and utopia. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
Sutton-Smith, B. (1997). The Ambiguity of Play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difculty, and instructional design. Learning
and Instruction, 4(4), 295312.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological process.
Wilson, A. J., Dehaene, S., Pinel, P., Revkin, S. K., Cohen, L., & Cohen, D. (2006). Principles
underlying the design of The Number Race, an adaptive computer game for remediation of
dyscalculia. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 2(1), 19. doi:10.1186/1744-9081-2-19.
Wouters, P., van Nimwegen, C., van Oostendorp, H., & van der Spek, E. D. (2013). A meta-
analysis of the cognitive and motivational effects of serious games. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 105(2), 249265. doi:10.1037/a0031311.
Young, M. F., Slota, S., Cutter, A. B., Jalette, G., Mullin, G., Lai, B., Yukhymenko, M. (2012).
Our princess is in another castle: A review of trends in serious gaming for education. Review of
Educational Research, 82(1), 6189. doi:10.3102/0034654312436980.
Zimmerman, E. (2004). Narrative, interactivity, play, and games: Four naughty concepts in need of
discipline. In N. Wardrip-Fruin & P. Harrigan (Eds.), First person: New media as story, perfor-
mance, and game (pp. 154164). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chapter 11
Conclusions and Future Directions
The challenge with math is that if you dont look with the
right eyes you dont see how pervasive and all-encompassing
it really is.
(Gleiser, 2016, Why Math Rocks, para. 3.)
The chapters in this volume tackle the question of how the home numeracy environment
helps children develop the right eyes for math. It is well established that young chil-
dren from different cultures and backgrounds are ready and able to learn a broad range
of mathematical concepts and skills. Aunio, Tapola, Mononen, and Niemivirta (Chap. 4)
further contribute to our understanding of the development of these concepts and
skills with their 4-factor model of core numerical skills. Although there is still much to
discover about the basic development of childrens math skills and concepts the chapters
in this volume address a different aspect of developing the right eyes for math.
Each chapter is built around the assumption the social environment plays a role
in young childrens mathematical development. Part of developing the right eyes
requires guidance and help from others. The chapters as a whole present a convinc-
ing case that the home numeracy environment can help children become aware of
the math in their environment which in turn aids in developing mathematical skills
and concepts. At the same time, several of the chapters also suggest that the home
literacy environment can be helpful in mathematics development.
Implications for Future Research
Many questions remain about the role of the home numeracy environment.
For example, what role does timing of events in the home numeracy environment
play, are there sleeper or inoculation effects, and what longitudinal patterns emerge?

Department of Family, Consumer, and Human Development and Center for Women
and Gender, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA
How much do activities and attitudes and values that are specic to math versus
general support for curiosity and learning matter? Do certain types of math require
specic instruction? It is clear that direct instruction with numbers can facilitate the
development of mathematics skills including number line skills, but in order to
think in geometric terms, does a child need a specic amount of block play? In order
to develop the foundational skills for algebra does the child need activities in which
sets are created and recreated? Do different types of events in the home numeracy
environment support different types of math concepts and skills? While there are as
of yet no denitive answers there are themes that emerge from the chapters that
provide insights about some of the answers.
The development of linguistic skills and math skills is interconnected. Several chap-
ters make the case that the development of linguistic skills inuences the develop-
ment of math skills and vice versa. However, parents often place more emphasis on
literacy activities. As the chapters by Bradley and Corwyn (Chap. 3); Kleemans,
Segars, and Verhoeven (Chap. 5); Cankaya and LeFevre (Chap. 6); Lee and
Kotsopoulos (Chap. 9); Skwarchuk, Vandermass-Peeler, and LeFevre (Chap. 8);
and Esplin, Neilson, Austin, Blevins-Knabe, Hendershot, and Loesch (Chap. 7)
illustrate, general support for literacy may be necessary, but it is not sufcient to
optimize development of math skills and concepts. Children need focused support
(linguistic and otherwise) that stimulates their curiosity and interest in learning
math from their everyday environments.
There is no set of core math activities for the home environment. A tension exists in
the chapters between attempts to identify a one-to-one relationship between home
numeracy activities and childrens math skills and attempts to nd general charac-
teristics of the home environment that support all types of learning. Skwarchuk
et al. (Chap. 8) describe dividing activities into those that involve teaching (formal)
and those in which learning about math is a by-product (informal). Formal activities
support more advanced math skills. Yet there is of yet no body of evidence that
identies a specic set of formal or informal activities that are more inuential than
others. It appears that a broad range of activities may be optimal. At the same time
it appears, as Bradley and Corwyn (Chap. 3) demonstrate, that general characteris-
tics of the home environment are also inuential. While it is likely the case that an
environment that supports many types of learning can also provide more focused
support for learning about mathematics we do not yet know how these two foci t
together and interact with each other. We also do not yet know, as Bradley and
Corwyn indicate, how the developmental relationship between these two foci
unfolds.
Context, culture, and special cases provide opportunities to identify what matters in
the home numeracy environment. Comparing children across different situations
and backgrounds helps to delineate the generalizability of results and opens new
questions. The chapters by Aunio et al. (Chap. 4), Kleemans, et al. (Chap. 5), and
Cankaya and LeFevre (Chap. 6) use comparisons across different cultures or con-
texts of children and their home environments to question some of the initial, intui-
11 Conclusions and Future Directions 187
tive explanations for the relationship between parental behaviors and childrens
performance. Esplin et al. (Chap. 7) extend that comparison to out-of-home envi-
ronments including center and family child care. It is tempting to assume that there
is a positive correlation between the frequency of number activities and childrens
mathematical performance or that support for less advanced activities in the home
numeracy environment suppresses childrens mathematical development. Instead,
as Kleemans et al. and Aunio et al. indicate, the match between what the environ-
ment provides and what children need may the key variable to study. This conclu-
sion is also consistent with the patterns identied by Bradley and Corwyn (Chap. 3)
showing that at different times different aspects of the home environment are inu-
ential. Similarly, it may be the case, as suggested by Esplin, et al. that even when
overall aspects of the home numeracy environment do not differ between children
in different care settings, there is still enough variability between the two separate
sets of families to predict signicant differences in virtually all early academic per-
formance measures, either because of demographic differences or item-by-item dif-
ferences in home stimulation measures.
The chapter by Dub and Keenan (Chap. 10) also illustrates the match concept.
With respect to game selection by parents Dub and Keenan found that tablet math
games might not be the best choice for children who need the most help with math. In
order to provide optimum support for their childrens learning parents need to match
the games they provide their children with what their children need and can handle.
There is much we do not know about what determines the optimum match
between the childs characteristics and what the home numeracy environment can
provide and how this changes as the child develops.
Educational and Practical Implications
Many of the chapters provided research-based recommendations about how to sup-

port young children as they learn mathematics. The key themes above are repre-
sented in the recommendations for application made in the chapters.
Using language to support mathematics. The chapters by Cankaya and LeFevre
(Chap. 6) and Lee and Kotsopoulos (Chap. 9) directly address how to bring more
mathematics into childrens daily lives through linguistic activities. A key compo-
nent of their recommendations is heightening the awareness of parents to the many
instances of math in the environmentin other words when parents have the right
eyes they can nd the math and bring it to children. For example, both chapters
stress how mathematics can be interwoven into the reading storybooks. As Lee and
Kotsopoulos point out, books that do not have explicit number themes can still be
used effectively to model and teach math concepts and skills.
Variety in math activities. There is no one core set of math activities that we can pres-
ent as a neat and tidy bundle to parents. Many parents, as the chapters demonstrate,
focus on counting with their children in the early years. This is a fundamental skill,
however, daily life presents many additional opportunities for involving children in a
wide variety of math activities as Cankaya and LeFevre (Chap. 6), Lee and
Kotsopoulos (Chap. 9), and Skwarchuk et al. (Chap. 8) indicate. Lee and Kotsopoulos
go further and recommend that math become part of the daily routine and present a
model for how math can be intentionally used in play. Esplin, et al. (Chap. 7) suggest
some specic math activities that relate to number line skills and early mathematics
skills including playing card games, printing numbers, learning to do simple sums,
and using ash cards to enhance rapid recognition skills.
One source of math activities in the everyday environment of many children
today is electronic games. Dub and Keenan (Chap. 10) present a compelling case
that we are not at the point that most young children can learn what they need to
learn about math solely from the electronic world. Games have a role to play, but as
part of a broader array of daily activities. Likewise, Esplin, et al. point out that
working with computerized programs may not even contribute to a broader set of
either formal or informal mathematics activities at home.
Matching What the Environment Provides to Childrens Needs
While there are some common pathways that all children follow, sensitivity to chil-
drens level of development and individual needs can help parents and other care
providers provide the optimum learning environment for their children. Both Dub
and Keenan (Chap. 10) and Aunio et al. (Chap. 4) provide support for this conclu-
sion. Dub and Keenan make the case that rather than assuming that games support
learning about mathematics we need to understand what learning opportunities
games actually provide. Aunio et al. present evidence that suggest that as children
learn about math they become more interested.
Skwarchuk et al. (Chap. 8) and Lee and Kotsopoulos (Chap. 9) provide methods
for parents and other care providers to develop both their awareness of their chil-
drens developmental level and to engage their child in learning more about math.
Inquiry-based learning (Skwarchuk et al.) and purposeful play (Lee and Kotsopoulos)
are interactive methods that allow parents and caregivers to adapt and change as
their children do.
Conclusions
At times it may seem that math researchers present two contradictory messages
young children have impressive math skills and adults need to help children learn
math. After all, children learn language as long as they are exposed to it. Why is
learning math different when there are so many connections between linguistic and
mathematical development?
11 Conclusions and Future Directions 189
A simple answer, although many of the chapters in this volume present more
complex answers (e.g., Bradley and Corwyn (Chap. 3) who present an elegant syn-
thesis and projection for future research), is that while we are surrounded by math-
ematical patterns in our lives young children require more than exposure to optimize
their development. The quotation at the beginning of the chapter refers to the right
eyes; Ginsburg (2009) uses the term mathematizing, and Lee and Kotsopoulos
(Chap. 9) refer to the math lens. Childrens mathematical development is inher-
ently social. They need scaffolding and guidance from the adults who are important
in their lives both to make the math explicit and also to introduce them to the cul-
tural tools used for math. The chapters in this volume build the case for how this can
happen and provide the framework for future research in this area.
References
Ginsburg, H. P. (2009). The challenge of formative assessment in mathematics education:

Childrens minds, teachers minds. Human Development, 52(2), 109128. doi:10.1159/
000202729.
Gleiser, M. (2016, March 15). Why math rocks. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/
sections/13.7/2016/03/30/472405110/why-math-rocks.
Index
A TELD, 35
Abstraction, 148 toys, 35
Academic achievement, 8 watching media, 36
Academic expectations, 91 Adjustment, 32
Academic performance, 10 Adult mathematical input, 153
Academic Stimulation, 35, 4042 Adult mathematical talk and activities
Achievement in math block play, 156
advantage, community resources, 36 counting, 154
broad-based measures, home learning games, 155
environment, 37 purposeful math talk, 156
child performance, 34 purposeful play, 154
childrens experiences, 35 and spatial talk, 155
cognitive and noncognitive skills, 37 storybooks, 156
Early Childhood HOME, 35 Advanced numeracy practices, 80
Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, 37 Arithmetic, 5154, 56, 58, 65
engagement, 36 Attitudes, 134
home experience and childrens Atypical learning populations, 81
performance, 37
HOME scores, 34, 35
home stimulation factor, 35 B
InfantToddler HOME, 34, 35 Basic arithmetic skills, 72
language, 37 Basic numeracy practices and skills, 80, 97
learning materials, 35, 36 Bayley Scale, 40
math competence, 35 Behavior Problems Index, 32
National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, 36 Behavior rating inventory of executive
NICHD SECCYD data, 35 function-preschool version
out-of-home enrichment, 35 (BRIEF-P), 109
parental warmth, 36 Behavioral engagement, 168
parents teaching, 34 Being smart, 29
PIAT, 36 Bilingual children, 78
responsiveness, 36 Books, 109, 115, 117, 118, 120
scores, 34 Bracken numbers scale, 40
socioemotional, 35, 36 BRIEF-P. See Behavior rating inventory of
stimulation, 36 executive function-preschool
Stimulation of Academic Behavior, 34 version (BRIEF-P)

Development in the Home Environment, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-43974-7
192 Index
C Childrens cognitive development, 8

Calculations, 147 Childrens numeracy knowledge, 87
Calculators, 116, 120 Chinese- and Turkish-speaking childrens
Calendars, 116, 117, 120 cognitive skills, 93
Canadian, 17, 19, 20 Chinese-American, 9, 16, 20
The Candy Factory, 175, 176 Clocks, 116, 117
Card game, 172 Cognitive Alignment Framework, 175
Cardinality, 148, 152, 154156 Cognitive engagement, 168
Cardinality knowledge, 93, 98, 156 Cognitive factors, 72
Career ladder, 123 Cognitive processes, 32, 3739
Center-based and family-based child care, and domains of achievement, 32
109, 110, 115, 117, 118, 120 early and middle childhood, 38, 39
assessment protocol, 110 in infants, 38
child academic and executive functioning skills, 37
measures, 115 Cognitive skills, 32, 3739
child and family demographics, 111 Compensatory mechanism, 80
child care programs and caregivers, 108, Competence development, HOME Inventory
110, 111 Behavior Problems Index, 32
early mathematics, 122 children develop multiple strategies, 32
executive functioning measures, 112 cognitive processes, 3739
HNAS, 116, 117 cognitive skills, 37
home numeracy, 106, 107 communications, 31
gender studies, 120 components, 32
HLAS items, 117 grammatical ability and early numeracy
HNAS factors, 115, 120 skills, 33
and literacy environment, mathematics home literacy environment, 32
activities, 118, 120 home numeracy environment, 32
and number line, 118 informal home numeracy activities, 32
scale, 116 investments, 32
NAEYC, 123 language, 33, 37, 38
NAFCC, 123 literacy skills and grammatical ability, 32
number line skills, 106, 122 making adaptive choices, 33
provider and parent measures noncognitive skills, 32
BRIEF-P, 109 numbers, 31
HLAS, 109 numeracy learning environment, 34
HNAS, 109 numeracy skills, 37
number line, 109 problem-solving strategies, 33
phonological awareness, 110 scaffolding, 33
receptive vocabulary, 110 self-productivity function, 32
working memory, 110 skill development in domain, 32
receptive vocabulary, 122 verbal skills, 38
school readiness, 123 zone of proximal development, 33
working memory, 122 Context, 186
Central tasks of parenting, 15 caregiving, 5
Child care programs and caregivers, 1, 2, 108, cultural, 4
110111, 187 opportunities, math talk, 4
Child Care Resource and Referral types of learning, 2
(CCR&R), 111 Counting, 9, 11, 12, 16, 133135, 138, 140,
Child Development Index (CDI), 130 142, 147156, 159
Child factors, 72 skills, 51, 53, 54, 65
Childcare words, 94
environment, 1 Cross-cultural comparisons, methodological
and family childcare, 2 challenges
out-of-home, 2 bias interferes, 99
Index 193
childrens home numeracy experiences, 98 counting skills, 53

childrens previous exposure, 98 ECEC, 57
data collection methods, 98 learning difculties, 51
early numeracy skills, 99 low-income families, 56
home numeracy activities, 99 mathematical relations, 5253
mathematics scores, 98 research-based models, 51
numeracy skills and concept knowledge, 98 skills, 56, 60, 61, 65
observational studies, 99 symbolic and non-symbolic number
questionnaires and interviews, 99 sense, 52
Cross-cultural differences Early numeracy, 130134, 137140
childrens numerical knowledge and attentional/spatial pathway, 135
performance, 89 Canada
early childhood educators, 89 health care priorities, 130
early numeracy performance, 8890 kindergarten and childcare, 131
East Asian childrens performance, 89 cognitive skills, 135
numeracy-related experiences, 89 concepts, 96
parents and educators, 89 counting, 142
regular number naming system, 88 deck of cards, 137
young childrens numeracy knowledge and experience, 93
performance, 89 formal activities, 136
Cross-cultural studies, 98 games, 136, 141
Csikszentmihalys ow theory, 173 home numeracy model, 136
Cultural context, 127 knowledge, 89
Culture, 4, 154 learning by doing
counting, 138, 139
garden activities, 140
D inquiry-based learning, 137, 138
Data collection methods, 98 math talk, 140
Development of early numeracy skills, 90 preschool mathematics approach, 139
Direct teaching, 107, 109, 121 spatial awareness and problem-solving,
Distal, 14, 18, 19 137
Domain-general cognitive skills, 55 zone of proximal development, 137
Domain-specic mathematics skills, 55 linguistic pathway, 135
number sense, 135
parents report, 132
E pathways model of numeracy
Early Adolescence version, 30 development, 135
Early childhood education and care (ECEC), 56 pencil and paper, 136
Early Childhood HOME, 35 preschool activities (see Preschool
Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, 37 numeracy activities)
Early childhood mathematics development skills, 53, 55, 7275, 79, 80
calculations, 147 USA, 128130, 132
counting, 147, 148 zone of proximal development, 141
everyday routines, 149 Eccles expectancy-value model, 14
math input, 147, 148 ECEC. See Early childhood education and
number competence, 147 care (ECEC)
number recognition, 147 Ecologicaldevelopmental theories, 30
ordinality, 148 Education, 106, 109, 111, 113, 114, 118121
Early Childhood version, 30 Educational technology
Early Development Instrument (EDI), 132 analysis, math games, 170
Early involvement, 100 characteristics, 170
Early mathematics, 105, 106, 112, 118, 121, 122 domains, 169
arithmetic, 53 games, 166
core numerical skills, 52 and instructional games, 169
194 Index
Educational technology (cont.) G

learning outcomes, 169 Game genres, 172
meta-analyses, 169 Games, 92, 133, 136, 137, 141, 142, 165,
pedagogy, 171 172173, 187, 188
and practices, 169 action of playing, 171
Quest Atlantis, 170 card, 188
RPG, 170 denition, 171
technological tipping point, 170 educational tool, 166
traditional practices, 169 effectiveness, 166
video games, 169, 170 electronic, 4, 188
Electronic games, 4 engagement, 168169
Emotional engagement, 168 failure, 173
Engagement, 36, 168170, 172, 176, 177, 179 fun, 167168
Enrichment, 35 learning, 169171
Euro-American, 9, 16, 19, 20, 87 educational technology
Everyday mathematics, 149 (see Educational technology)
Executive functioning, 105, 106, 108, 109, opportunities, 188
112, 118, 119, 122123 procedural rhetoric, 172173
Exhibit aggregate behavior, 29 math (see Mathematics games)
Expectancy-value model, 14 mechanics, 171, 172
and play, 166
problem-solving component, 171
F procedural and conceptual knowledge, 165
Failure, 171, 173, 177, 178 procedural rhetoric, 171
Fast mapping, 133 selection, 187
Fathers, 131, 141 STEM elds, 166
Finnish context, development and learning, support/disqualify, 4
56, 57 tablet, 166
Finnish Kindergartners tablet math, 187
child interest and mathematics traditional and digital games/video
skills, 64 games, 171
childs rst grade, 61 utility, 165
childs interest, 62, 63 video games, 166
childs self-initiated engagement, 62 ZPD, 166
childrens mathematics skills, 61, 63, 64 General intelligence, 72
empirical model, 63 Gestures, 151, 156, 157
rst grade, 63 Grammatical ability, 73
interest and skills, 63 Greek, 17, 20
lower educational backgrounds, 64
mathematical relations, 62
mathematics activities, rst grade, 64 H
mathematics activities, home Health care, 57
environment, 64 High quality numeracy activities, 100
parental education, 63 HLAS. See Home literacy assessment survey
parental values, 62, 63 (HLAS)
parent-reported child interest, 61 HNAS. See Home numeracy assessment
parents education, 61, 63 survey (HNAS)
rich learning environment, 64 Home environment, 56, 61, 64, 90, 186
ThinkMath-K and ThinkMath-1 group- academic content, 59
based paper-and-pencil tests, 62 child interest, 60
First grade, 77 childrens family background and parental
First language learners, 78 involvement, 58
Formal, 131, 134, 136, 137, 141, 142 childrens linguistic skills, 58
Future research, 81 childrens mathematics performance, 58
Index 195
controlling and parent-directed practices, 88, 9094

involvement, 60 socioeconomic status, 90
development, mathematics content and sociological elements, 88
activities, 60 Home numeracy assessment survey (HNAS), 109
early mathematics skills, 60 Home numeracy environment, 1013, 29, 32, 37
economic and cultural resources, 59 academic performance, 10
education-related values, 59 cause indicators, 22
low- and high-performing children, 59 children in United States, 10
mathematics skills, 60 conceptual models, 1415
measuring young childrens interest, 60 economic success, 10
parental involvement, 59, 60 home literacy, 22
parentchild interaction, 58 learning
parent-directed engagement, 59 agreement, 13
parents education and values, 61 behaviors, 11
reciprocal relationship, childs skill counting objects, 11
development, 59 frequency of numeracy interactions, 12
resources and atmosphere, 58 HOME, 11
socioeconomic background, 58 home literacy environment, 11
students mathematics learning, 59 low- and high-SES, 12
traditional and direct teaching strategies, 59 math talk, 12
Home experiences, 9395, 98, 100 middle and working class, 13
Home factors, 74 middle-class parents in the United
Home literacy, 8, 11, 14, 22, 107, 117, States, 12
120122 number activities, 10, 11
environment, 8, 11, 32, 37, 75 parental reports, 10, 12
Home literacy assessment survey (HLAS), 109 personenvironment t, 13
Home numeracy, 105108, 115118, 120122, Piaget, 13
185187 reading, 11, 12
activities and linguistic factors, 2 SES, 11
childrens initial numeracy levels, 90 spatial words, 11
childrens numeracy knowledge, 87, 90 standardized measure of arithmetic, 11
cross-cultural, 87 teaching, 11
cross-cultural comparison, Chinese and Vygotskys theory, 13
Turkish families, 9294 longitudinal studies, 22
cultural context, 128 low-income families, 10
early foundational research, 2 mathematical skills, 7, 10
environment and childrens mathematical mathematics achievement, 7
development, 2 measurement, 21, 22
environment and young childrens negative correlations, 22
mathematical skills, 1 parental reports, 22
environment maps, 2 Piagets and Vygotskys theories, 1314
frequency and quality, numeracy activities, post hoc explanation, 22
91, 92 preschool children, 10
home learning environment quality, 90, 91 in preschool years, 10
language problem, 72 research, 89
and linguistic skills, 2 researchers, 7
literacy development, 127 role of parents, 1521
Math Games on Tablet Computers, social desirability, 22
179180 sociocultural theory, 7
model, 1415, 100, 136 types and frequencies, 23
numeracy related activities, 71, 90 Home numeracy research
parental native language, 90 academic achievement, 8
parents academic expectations and age group, 8
attitudes, 91 childrens cognitive development, 8
196 Index
Home numeracy research (cont.) parental responsivity, 31

childrens mathematical performance, 8 parental warmth and responsiveness, 30
childrens performance, 8, 9 physical environment, 31
Chinese-American, 9 semistructured interview and observation, 31
counting, 9 social anthropologists, 30
Euro-American, 9 stimulation, 30
HOME inventory, 8 types of interactions, 29
literacy environment, 8 variety in experience, 31
mathematics, 8
middle class, 8
mother teaching, 9 I
number activities, 8 Immigrants, 93
number words, 8, 9 Indirect teaching, 109
parentchild activities, 9 Individual differences, 7181
parents teaching, 9 InfantToddler HOME, 34, 35
parents reports, 9 InfantToddler version, 30, 31
social aspects, 8 Informal, 136, 137, 139, 141, 142, 186, 188
Taiwan-Chinese, 9 activity, 14
types of activities, 9 numeracy activities, 14, 100
types of cognitive development, 9 Inquiry-based learning, 137139
working class, 9 Interest, 5965
Home Observation for Measurement of the academic achievement, 61
Environment (HOME), 3, 8, 11, childrens and adolescents academic
15, 18 performance, 61
Academic Stimulation, 35, 40, 42 daily activities, 60
acceptance of child, 31 rst grade, 63
achievement in Math, 3437 mathematics content, 60
and childrens performance, 30 mathematics-related activities, 62
cognitive processes, 32, 3739 Intervention studies, 7
cognitive skill, 29 Intraparietal sulcus, 176
competence development, 29, 3134, 3739 Investments, 32
component scales, 31
conceptual framework, 30
diverse array of environmental conditions, 29 K
Early Adolescence version, 30 Kindergarten, 77
Early Childhood version, 30
ecologicaldevelopmental theories, 30
engagement in learning, 36 L
exhibit aggregate behavior, 29 Language, 2, 29, 31, 33, 37, 38, 42, 8890,
InfantToddler version, 30, 31 9295, 98, 100, 187
language competence, 38 competence, 38
language skill, 29 impairment
language stimulation, 31 Dutch educational context, 76, 77
learning materials, 31, 3540, 42, 43 second language learners, 77, 78
learning motivation, 3940 SLI, 79, 80
learning stimulation, 31 mathematics development, 150152
manual recommends, 31 problems, 7681
Middle Childhood version, 30 Learning during early childhood, 89
modeling of social maturity, 31 Learning materials, 31, 3540, 42, 43
NICHD-SECCYD (see National Institute Learning motivation, HOME Inventory,
on Child Health and Human 3940
DevelopmentStudy of Early Learning-oriented entertainment, 140
Child Care and Youth Development Legos, 120
(NICHD-SECCYD)) Lexical skills, 73
Index 197
Linguistic, 2, 3, 135, 136, 186188 Mathematical development, 7

factors, 73, 75, 76 home numeracy environment (see Home
skills, 186 numeracy environment)
Literacy, 127, 128, 132, 134, 136, 141, 142, Mathematical knowledge, 88
185, 186 Mathematical learning difculties, 51, 52, 54, 65
Literacy-related home experiences, 93 arithmetic skills, 53
Logical operations, 72 counting skills, 54
Low income, 10 day care centers and kindergartens, 54
Low-income families, 56 early mathematics skills, 54
Low-performing children, 54, 59 low-performing children, 54
mathematics composite scores, 54
neuroimaging methods, 55
M number race computer game, 54
Magazines, 109, 117, 120 number sense, 54
Magnitude comparison, 147, 155 numerosities, 54
Making adaptive choices, 33 screening tests, 54
Math activities, 97, 186, 187 Mathematical relations, 51, 52, 62, 65
Math input, 147, 149, 150, 153 Mathematize, 15, 154
math talk, 4, 140, 151, 154, 156 McCarthy Scales of Children Abilities, 35
number talk, 148, 151153, 156, 159 Mechanics, 167, 172, 175, 178180
number words, 148, 150152, 156 Methodological challenges, 98
spatial talk, 148, 153, 155, 156 Middle Childhood HOME, 35
Math skills, 186 Middle Childhood version, 30
Mathematic(s), 185188 Middle class, 8
achievement, 7, 89 Money, 116, 118, 120
activities, 107, 109, 120 Motivation, 40
anxiety, 153
children learn, 5
childrens, 4 N
concepts, 3 National Association for the Education of
development, 2, 147152 Young Children (NAEYC), 111,
domain-general cognitive 123, 129
skills, 55 National Association of Family Child
domain-specic mathematics skills, Caregivers (NAFCC), 111, 123
5556 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
executive functioning and automatized (NCTM), 129
naming, 55 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, 36, 39
family background, 56 Negative correlations, 22
intra-individual and environmental the Netherlands, 7681
factors, 55 Newspaper, 117
education, 95 NICHD_SECCYD, 4042
games Non-cognitive skills, 32, 39, 40
engagement, 168169 Normal Language Achievement (NLA), 79
failure, 173, 177178 North American, 89
fun, 167168 Number
game mechanics, 174177 activities, 8, 10, 11, 17
procedural rhetoric, 173177 competence, 147
studies, 174 language, 89, 93
tablet computers, 179180 learning activities, 92
general skills, 2 naming systems, 95
school, 2, 3 recognition, 147
young childrens performance, 1 sense, 51, 52, 54, 55, 65, 122, 135
Mathematical competencies, 100 storybooks, 97
Mathematical concepts, 149, 153, 154, 156 system, 96
198 Index
Number (cont.) nurturance, 39

talk, 97, 148, 151153, 156 organizing and structuring, home
words, 8, 9 environment, 1
Number line, 105, 107109, 113, 114, 121, 122 physical and social environment, 15
center-based and family-based child care, reports, 10, 12, 16, 22
106, 112, 118 social integration, 15, 2021
early mathematics, 106 stimulation, 1517
executive functioning, 108, 122123 structure, 15, 1718
home numeracy, 106, 107, 121 support, 15, 1820
mathematics activities, 107 teaching, 15
phonological awareness, 108, 122123 values, 61, 63, 64
receptive language, 108, 122123 warmth, 30, 36
TEMA-3 scores, 120 warmth and responsiveness, 30
working memory, 106, 122123 Parent-child numeracy activities, 74
Numeracy, 151, 152, 155, 156 Partial least squares (PLS), 62
development, 94, 97 Path analysis model, 119
learning, 94 Pathways Model of Numeracy
learning environment, 34 Development, 135
outcomes, 100 Peabody Individual Assessment Test (PIAT), 36
talk, 97 Pedagogy, 171, 174, 176
Numerical abilities, 7181 Persistence, 40
child factors, 72, 73 Person-environment t, 13
home factors, 74 Phonological awareness, 73, 105, 106, 108,
lexical skills, 73 110, 112, 118, 122123
linguistic factors, 73 Piaget, 1315
logical operations, 72 Piagets theory, 1314
parentchild numeracy activities, 74, 75 Play, 131, 166168, 170, 172, 173, 175, 178,
parents numeracy expectations, 75 185, 188
phonological abilities, 73 free play, 155
Numerical board games, 96 games, 4
parents, 1, 5
play-based learning, 155
O Practical implications, 82
Observational studies, 99 Preschool numeracy activities
One-to-one correspondence, 148, 152, 156 counting, 133, 134
Ordinality, 148 fast mapping, 133
Out-of-home care, 1, 2 games, 133
literacy, 134
mathematics attitudes, 134
P social-constructivist theory, 132
Parent(s), 186188 Previous exposure, 98
academic expectations, 94 Procedural, 165, 171177
attitudes, 14, 20 Procedural and conceptual knowledge, 165
beliefs, 91 Procedural rhetoric and game mechanics,
central tasks of parenting, 15 174176
characteristics, 15 in math games
and children, 2, 3 The Candy Factory, 175, 176
education, 61, 63, 65 Cognitive Alignment Framework, 175
HOME, 15 deniton, 174
home environment, 5 estimation and magnitude comparison
inuences, 98 tasks, 175
involvement, 5860 identication, 175
mathematize, 15 learning content, 174
numeracy expectations, 75 minor procedural detail, 175
Index 199
moment-to-moment actions, 174 Socioeconomic status (SES), 2, 3, 7, 56, 106,

normal games, 174 121, 153, 155
partitive unit level, 175 Socio-emotional, 18, 20, 23, 35
pedagogy, 174, 176 Socio emotional support, 18
play, 175 Spatial, 32, 34, 37, 38, 40, 135137, 139
serious game, 174 Specic language impairment (SLI), 76, 79
subitizing game, 176 STEM elds, 166
Proximal, 14, 18, 19 Stimulation, 1517, 30, 31, 35, 36, 39, 40
Purposeful play, 154, 155 Structure, 15
Puzzle game, 172 Subitizing game, 176
Support, parenting task, 1820
cross-cultural work, 19
Q distal and proximal beliefs, 19
Quantitative, 135, 136 distal beliefs, 19
Quest Atlantis, 170 distal inuences, 18
Questionnaires, 99 HOME, 18
math activities, 20
parents beliefs, 18
R proximal and distal attitudes, 19
Reading, 11, 12, 19 proximal and distal beliefs, 19
Receptive language, 105, 108, 118, proximal inuences, 18
122123 reading, 19
Receptive vocabulary, 106, 110, 112, 118, 122 socioemotional, 18, 20
Regular number language, 9293 teaching activities, 19
Regular number naming system, 88, 89
Responsiveness, 30, 36
Reynell Verbal Comprehension, 40 T
Role Playing Game (RPG), 170 Tablet computers, 179180
Rote counting, 93 Tablet games, 166, 179
Taiwan-Chinese, 9
Teaching, 9, 11, 13, 1520
S Technological tipping point, 170
Scaffolding, 33, 159 Test of Early Language Development (TELD), 35
counting words learning, 94, 95 Theoretical framework, 80
high quality numeracy activities, 97 Toys, 30, 35, 42
informal and formal learning opportunities, Training studies, 7
96, 97 Trends in International Mathematics and
learning literacy vs. numeracy skills, 95, 96 Science Study (TIMSS), 87
School Turkish and Chinese number naming
achievement, 96 systems, 93
readiness, 91, 122, 123 TV, 116, 117, 120
Second language learners, 77, 78
Self-productivity, 32
Serious game, 174 V
Social Video games
cognitive theory, 14 childrens home numeracy practices, 178
constructivist, 132 complex math, 175
constructivist theory, 132 educational, 170
environment, 1 feature, 178
integration, 15, 2021 home numeracy practice, 166
constructivist, 132 in mathematics education, 169
constructivist theory, 132 on PC, 179
Socialization theory, 14 traditional and digital games, 171
Socio-cultural theory, 7, 14 Vygotskys theory, 1314
200 Index
W child academic and executive functioning

Webers Law, 149 measures, 112
WoodcockJohnson (WJ) Achievement Test, home numeracy, 107
35, 36 number line, 106
WoodcockJohnson (WJ) Applied Problems, 40 provider and parent measures, 110
Working class, 9, 13
Working memory, 72, 106, 108, 109, 115, 118,
119, 122123 Z
BRIEF-P parent ratings, 112 Zone of proximal development (ZPD), 33, 81,
BRIEF-P teacher ratings, 112 137, 141, 155, 166, 173

Early Childhood Mathematics Skill Development in The Home Environment PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Early Childhood Mathematics Skill Development in The Home Environment PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BelindaBlevins-Knabe

ISBN 978-3-319-43972-3 ISBN 978-3-319-43974-7 (eBook)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016954310

Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

9 Mathematics and Language in the Home Environment...................... 147

Index ................................................................................................................. 191

Pirjo Aunio, Ph.D. Faculty of Behavioural Sciences, University of Helsinki,

Joanne Lee, Ph.D. Department of Psychology, Wilfrid Laurier University,

Belinda Blevins-Knabe, Ph.D. is Professor of Psychology at the University of

Ann M. Berghout Austin, Ph.D. is Professor of Family, Consumer, and Human

Belinda Blevins-Knabe and Ann M. Berghout Austin

Can parents improve their young childrens performance in mathematics? This

B. Blevins-Knabe, Ph.D. (*)

Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 1

mathematical development, other identied inuences include the type and

B. Blevins-Knabe, Ph.D. (*)

Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 7

Brief History of Home Numeracy Research

More Recent Rationales for Studying the Home Numeracy

What We Have Learned About the Home Numeracy

games or other activities provided by the researchers. Vandermass-Peeler and her

Differing Foci of Piaget and Vygotsky

members of the culture. However, Loureno (2012) claims this difference in

Conceptual Models of Home Numeracy

The Role of Parents

numeracy performance of Canadian kindergarten children. However, there was an

studies report differences in teaching strategies or the frequency of parentchild

Hannula-Sormunen, Lehtinen, and Rsnen (2015) have identied spontaneous

numeracy skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(2), 231244. doi:10.1016/j.

Robert H. Bradley and Robert F. Corwyn

R.H. Bradley, Ph.D. (*)

Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 29

relations between the Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment

HOME Inventory: Description

Competence Development: What Goes Around Comes Around

(Wigeld & Eccles, 2001). In effect, development in the area of mathematics is

Relations with Achievement in Math

considerably in content. As it happens there was a strong correlation between the

involvement in math activities partially mediated the relation. Jimerson, Egeland,

Relations with Competence in Other Domains

Relations with Learning Motivation

According to the theory of skill formation promulgated by Cuhna and Heckman

Three Models from NICHD_SECCYD

Using the NICHD-SECCTYD data, we investigated the inuence of vocabulary

Altman, R. (1977). Privacy regulation: Culturally universal or culturally specic? Journal of

Pirjo Aunio, Anna Tapola, Riikka Mononen, and Markku Niemivirta

Essential Early Mathematics Skills

P. Aunio, Ph.D. (*) A. Tapola, Ph.D. M. Niemivirta, Ph.D.

Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 51

Symbolic and Non-symbolic Number Sense

Understanding Mathematical Relations

(usually 6 years of age), children learn to understand basic mathematical symbols

Basic Skills in Arithmetic

Early Signs of Mathematical Learning Difficulties and Early

mathematics performance predicts later mathematics performance at the beginning of

Factors Affecting Mathematics Development

Early mathematics development happens in relation to various intra-individual and

Domain-General Cognitive Skills

Domain-Specific Mathematics Skills

Finnish Context for Development and Learning

The Role of the Home Environment in the Development