Examining Cognitive Processing in Children with an Arithmetic Disability

Currently there is no consensus as to the specific cognitive impairments that characterize mathematical disabilities (MD) or specific subtypes such as an arithmetic disability (AD). The present study sought to address this concern by examining cognitive processes that might undergird AD in children. The present study utilized archival data to conduct two investigations. The first investigation examined the executive functioning and working memory of children with AD. An age-matched achievement-matched design was employed to explore whether children with AD exhibit developmental lags or deficits in these cognitive domains. While children with AD did not exhibit impairments in verbal working memory or colour word inhibition, they did demonstrate impairments in shifting attention, visual-spatial working memory, and quantity inhibition. As children with AD did not perform more poorly than their younger achievement-matched peers on any of these tasks, impairments in specific areas of executive functioning and working memory appeared to reflect a developmental lag rather than a cognitive deficit. The second study examined the phonological processing performance of children with AD compared to children with comorbid disabilities in arithmetic and word recognition (AD/WRD) and to typically achieving (TA) children. Results indicated that, while children with AD did demonstrate impairments on all isolated naming speed tasks, trail making digits, and memory for digits, they did not demonstrate impairments on measures of phonological awareness, nonword repetition, serial processing speed, or serial naming speed. In contrast, children with AD/WRD demonstrated impairments on measures of phonological awareness, phonological short-term memory, isolated naming speed, serial processing speed, and the alphabet a-z task. Overall, results suggested that phonological processing impairments are more prominent in children with a WRD than children with an AD. Together, these studies further our understanding of the nature of the cognitive processes that underlie AD by focusing upon rarely used methods (i.e., age-matched achievement-matched design) and under-examined cognitive domains (i.e., phonological processing).

Supporting Metacognitive Development in Early Science Education: Exploring Elementary Teachers' Beliefs and Practices in Metacognition

Metacognition is the understanding and control of cognitive processes. Students with high levels of metacognition achieve greater academic success. The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to examine elementary teachers’ beliefs about metacognition and integration of metacognitive practices in science. Forty-four teachers were recruited through professional networks to complete a questionnaire containing open-ended questions (n = 44) and Likert-type items (n = 41). Five respondents were selected to complete semi-structured interviews informed by the questionnaire. The selected interview participants had a minimum of three years teaching experience and demonstrated a conceptual understanding of metacognition. Statistical tests (Pearson correlation, t-tests, and multiple regression) on quantitative data and thematic analysis of qualitative data indicated that teachers largely understood metacognition but had some gaps in their understanding. Participants’ reported actions (teaching practices) and beliefs differed according to their years of experience but not gender. Hierarchical multiple regression demonstrated that the first block of gender and experience was not a significant predictor of teachers' metacognitive actions, although experience was a significant predictor by itself. Experience was not a significant predictor once teachers' beliefs were added. The majority of participants indicated that metacognition was indeed appropriate for elementary students. Participants consistently reiterated that students’ metacognition developed with practice, but required explicit instruction. A lack of consensus remained around the domain specificity of metacognition. More specifically, the majority of questionnaire respondents indicated that metacognitive strategies could not be used across subject domains, whereas all interviewees indicated that they used strategies across subjects. Metacognition was integrated frequently into Ontario elementary classrooms; however, metacognition was integrated less frequently in science lessons. Lastly, participants used a variety of techniques to integrate metacognition into their classrooms. Implications for practice include the need for more professional development aimed at integrating metacognition into science lessons at both the Primary and Junior levels. Further, teachers could benefit from additional clarification on the three main components of metacognition and the need to integrate all three to successfully develop students’ metacognition.