8/27/18

1

Early STEM: Research, Practice, and Policy

NCSL Early Learning Fellows MeetingMinneapolis, MN August 27, 2018

Michèle Mazzocco, Ph.D.Institute of Child Development

University of Minnesota

Why be concerned with STEM Ed?Math achievement predicts …• pursuit of STEM careers• school dropout risk, under-/unemployment • midlife socioeconomic status (Ritchie & Bates, 2013))Math abilities affect …• financial decision making (McCloskey, 2007)• health decision making (e.g., Reyna & Brainard, 2007)• daily skills: schedules, routes, budgets… • leisure activities: sports, cooking, home

improvement…

Why be concerned with early STEM?• Evidence base in math education research

& math LD research:– early gaps widen with time– preventative investment (Rolnick)

Math Academic Standards Over TimeMN Report Card, 2014 - 2016

Does not meet

Partially meets

Grade 3 Grade 8

8/27/18

2

VOLUME 40, NUMBER 5, SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2007 471

and number of errors. The non-MLDgroup did not differ from the MLD-10group (p = .30) but had a faster re-sponse time than the MLD-11–25 group(p = .001). The MLD-10 group did notdiffer in response time from the MLD-11–25 group (p = .30). With regard tothe number of errors, the non-MLDgroup had fewer errors than the MLD-11–25 group (p = .005) and the MLD-10group (p < .001). The MLD-11–25group did not differ from the MLD-10group (p = .10).

Counting Trials. A univariateANOVA was conducted separately foreach grade on the total correct score,the number of times the child an-swered “correct” when the countingwas correct (hits), and the number oftimes the child answered “incorrect”when the counting was incorrect (truenegatives). When appropriate, follow-up testing was conducted using Fisher’sLSD procedure to control the family-wise alpha. In first grade, group differ-ences were found for the total correctscore, F(2, 207) = 30.87, p < .001. The

non-MLD group had a higher total cor-rect score than both MLD groups (ps <.001). The total correct score of theMLD-11–25 group also exceeded thescore of the MLD-10 group (p = .002).These group differences in total correctscore were not due to differences in thenumber of hits, F(2, 207) = 0.75, p = .47,but rather to differences in true nega-tives, F(2, 207) = 32.73, p < .001. Specif-ically, the non-MLD group was morelikely than either MLD group to cor-rectly identify counting errors (ps <.001). The MLD-11–25 group was alsomore likely to identify counting errorsthan the MLD-10 group (p = .004).

The pattern of results observed insecond grade was fairly consistentwith the first-grade pattern. The groupsdiffered in the total correct score, F(2,206) = 29.34, p < .001, and identificationof true negatives, F(2, 206) = 31.35, p <.001. The non-MLD group had a highertotal correct score than both MLDgroups (ps ≤ .001). The total correctscore of the MLD-11–25 group ex-ceeded the score of the MLD-10 group(p < .001). The non-MLD group was

also more likely than the MLD-11–25group (p = .01) and the MLD-10 group(p < .001) to correctly identify countingerrors (true negatives), whereas theMLD-11–25 group was better at iden-tifying such errors than the MLD-10group (p < .001). Furthermore, themath groups differed on identificationof correct counting (hits), F(2, 206) =4.53, p = .01; however, this result is notclinically significant, because perfor-mance in all three of the groups was90% or higher, which suggests masteryof the concepts being measured. Out of10 possible hits, the mean numbers inthe non-MLD, MLD-11–25, and MLD-10 groups were 9.52, 9.05, and 9.41, re-spectively.

Discussion

Studies in the area of MLD have reliedon a range of cutoff scores to definepoor math performance. As a result ofthe varying cutoffs used, the findingsacross studies may reflect either a coregroup of children who meet criteria for

FIGURE 2. TEMA-2 quotient scores by grade based on math ability groupmembership. MLD = mathematics learning disability; MLD-10 = participantswith math performance consistently below the 10th percentile; MLD-11–25 =participants with math performance consistently between the 11th and 25thpercentiles; non-MLD = participants with math performance consistentlyabove the 25th percentile.

At or Above Average

Low Average

Below average

Murphy, Mazzocco, Hanich, & Early, 2007

Test

of E

arly

Mat

hem

atic

s-2

Trajectory of Early Math Ability Scoresshow that performance levels persist over time

N = 2201997 - 2001

Why be concerned with early STEM?• Evidence base in math education research:– early gaps widen

• Evidence base on early brain development (0 to 5)– Early experiences matter

Evidence base supports notion that policies to support early STEM can make a difference …… so long as children are “developmentally ready” – are they? YES!

Wynn, K. (1992). Addition and subtraction by human infants. Nature, 358, 749-750.

© 1992 Nature Publishing Group

Wynn showed that 5 month olds differentiate mathematically possible vs impossible outcomes.

McCrink & Wynn (2004) Large-Number Addition and Subtraction by 9-Month-Old Infants Psychological Science, 15, 776-781

This study showed that infants differentiate mathematically possible vs impossible outcomes.

8/27/18

3

Sample trial used to estimate ANS precision

Mazzocco MMM, Feigenson L, Halberda J (2011) PLOS ONE 6(9)

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0023749

Image by Libertus

From PNAS 2013

There is some evidence

that these intuitive early

math skills are associated

with later school

mathematics

Foundations of Early Mathematics• Intuitive sense of number, space, time, ratio

since infancy (is associated with later math)

Question: If human infants have mathematical competencies, why is mathematics “under performance” observed among many kindergarten students?

Foundations of Early Mathematics• Intuitive sense of number, space, time, ratio

since infancy (is associated with later math)• Answer: in part because formal mathematics

introduces symbols (words, digits, etc.) associated with number / space etc. These must be learned, not merely “presented.”

Activity Part ISolve quickly:

2 + 7 =

8 + 24 =

27 + 13 =

212 + 93 =

8/27/18

4

XXIV + VIII =

XVI + XXIV =

XCIII + CCXII =

VII + II =

Activity Part IISolve quickly:

Part III: Reflect on differences between Parts I and II

XXIV + VIII = XXXII24 + 8 = 32

XVI + XXIV = XL16 + 24 = 40

XCIII + CCXII = CCCV93 + 212 = 305

VII + II = IX7 + 2 = 9

Rivera et al., 2005

(increased activation with age;associated with symbol detection)

(decreased activation with age; associated with effortful cognitive processing)

Automatization of arithmetic skills - protracted developmental period marked by brain function away from effortful to more specialized, automatized processes

Foundations of Early Mathematics• Intuitive sense of number, space, time, ratio

since infancy (is associated with later math)• Formal (learned) mathematics emerges early

via symbols (words, digits, etc.)• Math talk provides opportunities to talk

about, think about, and learn math principles

8/27/18

5

Preschool Teachers’ Math Talk

Klibanoff, Levine, Huttonlocker, Vasilyeva, & Hedges 2006 Dev Psych

Researchers evaluated 140 4-year-olds in 26 preschool classroomsRecorded preschool teachers’ and measured “math talk”

Findings:• 4 years olds’ number knowledge varies greatly• Preschool teachers’ amount of math talk varies greatly• Teacher math talk predicts gains in number knowledge during

preschool year

There’s lots to talk about! Counting, cardinality, equivalence & non-equivalence, shape names & attributes, number symbols, order, calculation, measurement, … (by parents, too!)

Take home messagesMathematical thinking is supported by an intuitive sense of number, ratio, space, time, and by

connections between intuition, symbols, and co concepts.

These connections require input and opportunities to build math vocabulary and ideas via teacher or parentmath talk, and free or structured activities (including play).

Children deserve the chance to learn that math is fun, and that they can achieve mathematical success.

• Team up with one partner

• Use a notebook/something with a flat surface to work on

• Spread out around the room,

Rules:

• Sit back to back (or with a barrier if facing each other)

• Talk through the task, NO LOOKING OR SHOWING each others’ work. Just talk.

• One member of the pair will be the ‘teacher,” the other the “student” who follows the teacher’s instructions.

• Goal is to create the identical design with your tanagrams

• Raise your hand when you think you are “done,” and a proctor will evaluate if your creations match.

Some Possible Policy Focal Areas

• Educate early childhood education workforce:

–More and better pre-service training for ECE

– Higher Ed: capacity for trained teacher educators– (Include paraprofessional in in-service training)

• Resources for ECE workforce

• Educate / resources for families and family support professionals

• Coherence from preK – Grade 3 instruction

8/27/18

6

Resource: DREME website

Early STEM: Thank you!

Early Learning Fellows MeetingMinneapolis, MN August 27, 2018

Michèle Mazzocco, Ph.D.University of Minnesota

Mazzocco@umn.edu