Equals - Realising potential in mathematics for all

Vol. 25 No. 1 Spring 2020 23 low marks because they withdraw from learning; others seem to work as hard as they realistically can but make slow if any progress. It seems reasonable that the foundation of good teaching is a sound understanding of the learner drawn from meaningful and insightful ongoing assessment, focusing not only on their subject knowledge and skills but their attitudes, motivations and metacognitive abilities; this, in turn, can lead to personalised learning, guiding the learner forward most efficiently and effectively. Finally, we need to take account of emotion, as all learning is an emotionally mitigated activity – know the learner, teach for the learner, and make their experience positive and safe. So far, so good, but this entails the analysis of broad and often unobtainable data – not helped by a lack of certainty about the questions we are asking of our data. The purpose of the definition is to allow for better questions to be asked of any data collected. The definition allows the collection of more granular information about an individuals strengths and weaknesses around mathematical cognition. As the guidance that supports the definition asks for a holistic examination of a learners knowledge and skills, it is intended that assessors and teachers will be able to build a detailed picture which will help inform personalised learning. Moving forward, there will be challenges and debates. Elliot and Grigorenko have challenged what they describe as the cultural meme of dyslexia. The concern is that understandings of both the causation and manifestation of dyslexia is wooly. Indeed, I would be inclined to agree that there is a difference in understanding between professionals and the wider population about what difficulties with reading and spelling look like and some misinformation and conflabulation has not helped. It has been the intention of the committees involved to pay heed to the ‘dyslexia debate’ and to be precise about what dyscalculia is. This will undoubtedly create difficulties around labelling and concerns that a diagnosis of a specific maths learning difficulty is somehow less significant than a diagnosis of dyscalculia. This is not the case, any maths difficulty can have a significant impact if significant, unrecognised or ignored. Dyscalculia merely describes a specific sub-type that needs to be considered taking account of the difficulties in developing efficient numbersense. The dyscalculic is likely to need support with their lack of numbersense alongside scaffolding inefficient working memory, but the learner who has working memory problems but no evidence of an impairment in their sense of number will also require support. What is important is the debate now moves into the open for the next stages. So over to you, the practitioners to pick through the bones and to make comment. Equals Online is an excellent forum for debate such as this and we hope that you will engage with us to make the definition work equitably. References Butterworth, B. (2019). Dyscalculia. From science to education . Abingdon. Routledge. Pg 9. Elliott, J.G. & Grigorenko, E.L. (2014). The dyslexia debate. New York: Cambridge University Press. Leibovich, T., Katzin, N., Harel, M., and Henik, A. (2017) From “sense of number” to “sense of magnitude”: The role of continuous magnitudes in numerical cognition. Behaviour and Brain Sciences 1–6 2.