Mathematics Disability vs. Learning Disability: A 360 Degree Analysis.

Roderick Ian Nicolson,Angela Jocelyn Fawcett

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.725694

Roderick Ian Nicolson, Angela Jocelyn Fawcett

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.725694

Copy DOI

Abstract

A fundamental issue for research in mathematics disability (MD) and reading disability (RD) is: If these disabilities are clearly distinct, why is there so high a level of comorbidity, together with the converse; if these disabilities are so similar, why are there clear differences in underlying causes and aetiology? In order to address this puzzle, we introduce the “360 degree analysis” (360DA) framework and apply it to the overlap between RD and MD. The 360DA process starts by analyzing the issue from four perspectives: theoretical, developmental, affective, and pedagogical. Under 360DA, these analyses are then integrated to provide insights for theory, and for individual assessment and support, together with directions for future progress. The analyses confirm extensive similarities between arithmetic and reading development in terms of rote learning, executive function (EF), and affective trauma, but also major differences in terms of the conceptual needs, the motor coordination needs, and the methods of scaffolding. In terms of theory, commonalities are interpreted naturally in terms of initial general developmental delay followed by domain-independent affective trauma following school failure. Dissociations are interpreted in terms of cerebellar vs. hippocampal learning networks, sequential vs. spatial processing, and language vs. spatial scaffolding, with a further dimension of the need for accurate fixation for reading. The framework has significant theoretical and applied implications.

Highlights

This article contributes to the special issue on the links between mathematics disability (MD) and reading disability (RD)
None of these theories explicitly takes into account the affective dimension, and in our view all these theories should be augmented to create a two stage developmental explanation with first a developmental delay leading to lack of school readiness for executive function, reading readiness, or math readiness as appropriate, which leads to school failures, for which the ensuing shame and stress lead to affective trauma and essentially disables learning in that context
The theoretical approach to the developmental disorders was in terms of minimal brain dysfunction (Wender, 1978), and support methods included both occupational therapy and specific task-focused approaches (Gagne, 1965), and in the United States the opportunity to repeat a year, thereby allowing developmental maturation to take place

Summary

Introduction

This article contributes to the special issue on the links between mathematics disability (MD) and reading disability (RD). It builds upon our earlier analysis (Nicolson and Fawcett, 2007), in which we highlighted the need for a re-convergence of research and practice in learning disabilities. We highlighted the decades of increasing differentiation after the 1970s, with each disability developing its own paradigm, from theory to practice to support structures, whereas the high comorbidity between the disorders suggested that there might well be common factors. The existence of these networks has been fully established (Bostan et al, 2013; Buckner and Krienen, 2013), and the strength and breadth of the comorbidities have been fully established.

Objectives

Findings

Discussion

Conclusion