Mathematical Abilities of Children with Down Syndrome

1. Stella Xu (Department of Psychology and Human Development, UCL Institute of Education, London, UK, Centre for Educational Neuroscience, University of London, London, UK)
2. Arcelia Cheung (Department of Psychology and Human Development, UCL Institute of Education, London, UK, Centre for Educational Neuroscience, University of London, London, UK)
3. Zahra Siddiqui (Department of Psychology and Human Development, UCL Institute of Education, London, UK, Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, UK)
4. Jo Van Herwegen (Department of Psychology and Human Development, UCL Institute of Education, London, UK, Centre for Educational Neuroscience, University of London, London, UK)

Correspondence: stella.xu.21@ucl.ac.uk

Mathematical abilities are essential for daily living, yet many aspects of mathematics remain unexplored in children with Down syndrome. This symposium aims to bridge this gap by bringing together studies that explore cognitive variability, how students are supported in the classroom and how interventions can support students with Down syndrome.

The symposium will begin with Stella Xu presenting research on individual variability across different components of mathematics. This work highlights both strengths and difficulties within individuals and within group, challenging preconceived notions of 'overall weakness' in maths for students with Down syndrome. Following this, Dr Zahra Siddiqui will share insights from the MathMIND project, a large-scale study involving children with Down syndrome and other genetic conditions. This project examines how children with Down syndrome engage during mathematics lessons, including their interactions with teaching staff (e.g., one-to-one support staff, class teachers, etc.,) and the materials they use during maths class. Arcelia Cheung will then introduce two interventions for children with Down syndrome that include mathematical activities in everyday routines to support the development of mathematical foundations. The symposium will conclude with Professor Jo Van Herwegen discussing the implications of these studies and how students with Down syndrome can be supported.

Taken together, each presentation emphasises the importance of understanding the mathematical abilities of children with Down syndrome by highlighting the role of variability for understanding cognitive profiles, school learning environments, and interventions. Collectively, the findings presented offer insights into improving educational practices and creating opportunities for meaningful engagement with mathematics for children with Down syndrome.

Individual Differences and Mathematical Profiles in Down syndrome and Williams syndrome

1. Stella Xu (Department of Psychology and Human Development, IOE UCL’s Faculty of Education and Society, London, UK , Centre for Educational Neuroscience, Department of Psychological Sciences, Birkbeck University of London, UK )
2. Michael Thomas (Department of Psychological Sciences, Birkbeck, University of London, London, UK, Centre for Educational Neuroscience, Department of Psychological Sciences, Birkbeck University of London, UK )
3. Jo Van Herwegen (Department of Psychology and Human Development, IOE UCL’s Faculty of Education and Society, London, UK , Centre for Educational Neuroscience, Department of Psychological Sciences, Birkbeck University of London, UK )

Correspondence: stella.xu.21@ucl.ac.uk

Background. Individuals with Down syndrome and Williams syndrome are frequently compared due to their similar levels of learning disability and uneven cognitive profiles. While past studies have identified mathematics as a weakness in both conditions, mathematics is a multi-componential area involving many abilities (e.g., counting, number line, maths language, arithmetic) and thus, it is important to examine the variability of strengths and weaknesses for each of these components within each condition and across each condition.

Research questions: This study examines 1) the individual differences within these component skills, 2) what the profiles of these components look like in Down syndrome and Williams syndrome, and 3) whether profiles are characteristic of each syndrome or alternatively represent transdiagnostic groupings.

Methods: A total of 87 school-aged children (5 - 18 years) participated in the current study, comprising 44 children with Down syndrome and 43 children with Williams syndrome. Participants completed an extensive battery of cognitive and mathematical assessments. Data analyses employed profile plots to visualise patterns of strengths and difficulties within individuals, alongside latent class analyses to identify subgroups of participants within and across syndromes.

Results: Profile plots revealed heterogeneous patterns of strengths and difficulties across mathematical abilities within children with Down syndrome. Latent class analysis identified three distinct profiles within each syndrome. For children with Down syndrome, these comprised a low ability group characterised by relative strengths in number familiarity and mathematical language; a middle ability group demonstrating relative strengths in number familiarity and mathematical language alongside a relative weakness in ordinality; and a high ability group characterised by a relative weakness in dot comparison. A comparable pattern emerged for children with Williams syndrome, with a low ability group showing relative strengths in number familiarity and mathematical language; a middle ability group demonstrating relative strengths in number familiarity and mathematical language alongside a relative weakness in dot comparison; and a high ability group characterised by a relative weakness in dot comparison.

Conclusions and Implications: The findings from this study support a move away from diagnostic labels towards approaches that address individual needs in mathematical development. Furthermore, the results challenge preconceived notions of 'overall weakness' in mathematics among children with Down syndrome, suggesting that such characterisations may not accurately reflect the specific areas of mathematical competence demonstrated by individuals Down syndrome.

Observing the Mathematics Classroom: Support and Differentiation for Children with Down syndrome

1. Zahra Siddiqui (Department of Psychology and Human Development, IOE UCL’s Faculty of Education and Society, London, UK , Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, UK)
2. Jennifer Bullen (Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, UK)
3. Gillian Hughes (Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, UK)
4. Katie-Anne Costello (School of Psychology, University of Surrey, UK)
5. Emily Farran (School of Psychology, University of Surrey, UK)
6. Gaia Scerif (Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, UK)
7. Jo Van Herwegen (Department of Psychology and Human Development, IOE UCL’s Faculty of Education and Society, London, UK , Centre for Educational Neuroscience, Department of Psychological Sciences, Birkbeck University of London, UK )

Correspondence: zahra.siddiqui@ucl.ac.uk

Background. Numeracy is essential for independent living. As education systems move towards more inclusive practice, it is important to understand how to best support neurodivergent children in mathematics. This talk presents findings from MathMIND, a project examining the foundations of numeracy in young children with Down syndrome and other early-identified genetic conditions. It focuses on classroom observations of mathematics learning and how variations in classroom support relate to age and cognitive differences in Down syndrome.

Research questions.

1. What are the characteristics of the mathematical learning environment for children with Down syndrome (e.g. mathematical content, where the child is located, who the child interacts with?)?
2. How do these differ for children with Williams syndrome, another early-identified genetic condition associated with risk of poor mathematics outcomes, but with a cognitive profile distinct from Down Syndrome?
3. How do the characteristics of the mathematical environment relate to age, general cognitive ability and mathematical abilities?

Methods. Children aged 4–9 with Down syndrome or Williams syndrome in the UK were recruited. Participants completed cognitive tasks and were observed during a maths lesson, which practitioners were asked to deliver as usual. A structured observation schedule was used to capture the mathematics class on a minute-by-minute basis. The observations focused on pupil location, level of differentiation, interaction partners, and the materials used (amongst other variables).

Results. A sample of 33 children with Down syndrome were observed. Lesson duration ranged from 5 to 62 minutes (M = 25 minutes, SD = 15.59 minutes). Most children remained in their classroom for the entire lesson (17 of 33), while 10 moved in and out, and 6 were taught entirely outside their classroom. On average, children spent 37% of lesson time on the same task as peers, and 63% on a different task. Interactions occurred primarily with teaching assistants or one-to-one support staff (53% of lesson time), followed by the class teacher (26%), with minimal peer interaction (1%). Mathematical content most often focused on counting and number identification. Final analyses will compare the above with observation of children with Williams syndrome, and will examine associations between classroom characteristics and individual differences in age, cognitive, and math ability.

Conclusions and Implications. Although mathematical abilities are an important aspect of daily life, the mathematics learning environments of children with Down Syndrome remain under-researched. These preliminary findings highlight patterns of differentiation, and a focus on early and basic numeracy skills. As data analysis is ongoing, further insight into the variations in the mathematical learning environment will be explored.

Improving Mathematical Skills in Children with Down Syndrome: A Feasibility Study of Symbolic and Non-symbolic Skills Intervention Programmes

1. Arcelia Cheung (Department of Psychology and Human Development, UCL Institute of Education, London, UK)
2. Michael Thomas (Department of Psychological Sciences, Birkbeck, University of London, London, UK, Centre for Educational Neuroscience, University of London, London, UK)
3. Victoria Simms (School of Psychology, Faculty of Life and Health Sciences, Ulster University, Coleraine, UK)
4. Jo Van Herwegen (Department of Psychology and Human Development, UCL Institute of Education, London, UK, Centre for Educational Neuroscience, University of London, London, UK)

Correspondence: nga.cheung.23@ucl.ac.uk

Background: Individuals with Down syndrome experience persistent mathematical difficulties, which may impact independence and quality of life. While individuals with Down syndrome demonstrate relative strengths in non-verbal skills and weaknesses in verbal skills, the role of symbolic and non-symbolic skills in mathematical development remains unclear. Currently, there are few targeted mathematical interventions and limited evidence on how mathematical skills in Down syndrome can be supported.

Research Question: Present study aims to evaluate the feasibility of implementing symbolic and non-symbolic skills interventions for children with Down syndrome.

Method: This study is part of a larger research protocol with ongoing data collection. Thirty children with Down syndrome aged 5 to 11 years will be recruited across the UK and randomly assigned to either a symbolic or non-symbolic skills intervention. Both interventions will be delivered by parents or teaching assistants over five weeks. General cognitive skills in children will be assessed at baseline. Mathematical outcomes including overall achievement, symbolic and non-symbolic skills, and mathematical language will be assessed at four time-points: baseline, pre-intervention, post-intervention, and follow-up.

Results: The data collection is still in progress but statistical analyses on which children improve after receiving the interventions and to what extend these interventions improve mathematical skills will be reported. Yet, qualitative feedback from parents and teaching assistants indicates practicality and acceptability of both interventions in real-world settings.

Conclusions and Implications: The study shows how incorporating structured activities that target symbolic and non-symbolic skills in everyday life may strengthen the mathematical foundations of children with Down syndrome. A larger-scale study will investigate the effectiveness of both interventions in improving mathematical skills among children with uneven cognitive profiles, as well as how individual differences influence intervention outcomes.