Comorbidity between Dyslexia and Dyscalculia and Their Impact on Classroom Practice - Essay Example

?Research suggests comorbidity between dyslexia and dyscalulia. Discuss in light of recent research and examine the implications for room practice. Dyscalculia is a fairly common specific learning difficulty (SpLD) that affects between 1 and 7% of the UK population. It affects the ability of the individual to deal with arithmetic, whether this be by learning or comprehension. The UK parliament document on dyslexia and dyscalculia describes one adult with a university degree who could not comprehend which of two numbers was the larger (), suggesting that those with dyscalculia do not have impaired intelligence in all areas. Beyond arithmetic difficulties, the abstract nature of mathematics means that dyscalculia sufferers can also have difficulty in spatial reasoning, and with comprehension of time. As mathematical reasoning is used in so many situations, it is important for educators to understand that management of dyscalculia is important for the individual in later life. As with many of the other SpLDs, the difficulties that children have when facing dycalculia in an educational environment is that they will often not understand why they are struggling. Peers may also acknowledge their difficulties, which can lead to feelings of failure, anxiety and stress. For this reason, it is important for educators to understand the needs of those with dyscalculia, which can often be overshadowed by dyslexia. The purpose of this paper is to examine the current research and government recommendations on dyscalculia to ascertain the implications that this SpLD has on classroom practice. It will also cover the evidence for comorbidity between dyslexia and dyscalculia, and how classroom practice should be altered to deal with individuals who have specific learning needs. What is dyscalculia? Dyscalculia is an important SpLD because it affects mathematical and spatial reasoning for the affected individual. This is despite the fact that an individual has had mathematical education, and may be developing normally in other areas. The UK parliament report on dyslexia and dyscalculia suggests that mathematical problems are more likely to affect people in adulthood because the effects of dyscalculia are more long-lasting and mathematical reasoning skills are more valued by employers Reed & Warner-Rogers, 2009. Dyscalculia does affect those with other learning difficulties and is prevalent in those with a low (intelligence quotient) IQ, but dyscalculia can affect a wide range of individuals across the spectrum Reed & Warner-Rogers, 2009. Like dyslexia and the other SpLDs, there is evidence that dyscalculia is highly heriditary and has a strong genetic component. Twin studies suggest that, where one twin has dyscalculia, there is a 70% likelihood that the other will also have the SpLD (). Although twins are likely to share a similar environment and educational history, many twin studies do take this into account, and there is evidence that only 55% of non-identical twins will share dyscalculia. Despite the fact that dyscalculia is thought to affect up to 7% of UK residents (), it is only recently that it has been properly acknowledged and thoroughly researched. Many of the options available for those with dyslexia (for example) are not available for those with dyscalculia. The British Dyslexia Association does provide information about dyscalculia but it does not currently have its own charitable support organization (). Government interventions for educators who are dealing with dyscalculia are fairly new, and based on recent research. However, dyscalculia is recognized as a special educational need and therefore there are guidelines provided for those in primary school, secondary school as well as guidelines and advice for adults Reed & Warner-Rogers, 2009. These will be covered in more detail throughout this essay, but it is important to acknowledge the influx of interest in dyscalculia, which suggests that it is an important and prevalent problem for many in the UK. Causes of Dyscalculia As previously mentioned, much of the information and research on dyscalculia is fairly new and therefore it can be difficult to draw conclusions about the causes of dyscalculia. However, like the other SpLDs, dyscalculia is thought to have a wide range of different causes which may affect each indiviudal differently. These can be grouped into larger “types” of cause (genetic, environmental) and specific “effects” of cause (neurological problems, deficits in working memory). What is generally agreed upon is that there is a difference in brain function between those with dyscalculia and those without. Some individuals with previously normal mathematical and arithmetic skills developed symptoms similar to dyscalculia after acquiring lesions to the supramarginal and angular gyri (), suggesting that the gyrus may play an important role. The gyrus is a part of the brain that has been associated with number processing as well as spatial awareness, so a deficit in this area (whether genetic or environmental) would explain the effects that dyscalculia has on development. As with dyslexia, there are also theories that dyscalculia arises when an individual has problems with their working memory, in that it is not working to the same capacity as those without these SpLDs Reed & Warner-Rogers, 2009. The term working memory refers to the brain function that allows an individual to hold pieces of information in their brain whilst their brain decides where to “put” this information for memory or further processing (). Evidently, working memory is important for mental calculations, as this requires information processing and manipulation to be successful (). However, as this deficit in working memory is more commonly researched in connection with dyslexia, it can be confusing to try to extrapolate results and apply them to individuals who only suffer from dyscalculia. Additionally, as the SpLD group are so commonly co-morbid with each other, deficits in working memory could indicate a wider reaching problem that is common to dyslexia, dyscalculia and dyspraxia (), which again makes it difficult to get results that are relevant to dyscalculia as a singular entity. One controversial belief about dycalculia is that it is caused by inadequate schooling. Whilst there are many cases of poor numerical reasoning that are caused by poor schooling (or perhaps arises from having an attention disorder such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD), it is important to note that dyscalculia is not a ‘problem’ that can be ‘solved’ easily. Poor schooling would not account for the fact that dyscalculia (like the other SpLDs dyslexia and dyspraxia) are highly hereditary (). Additionally, many individuals who are successful in other areas of schooling and have access to high-level, private education do still suffer from dyscalculia, which offers up some anecdotal proof that it is not merely naughtiness or stupidity (Reed & Warner-Rogers, 2009). This type of attitude towards individuals with dyscalculia (and to a certain extent, dyscalculia) are compounded by reports such as The Moser Report, which groups together ‘poor mathematical ability’ which has been in part due to poor schooling and individuals with dyscalculia without any real distinction (Moser, 1999). The report itself suggests that poor numerical ability has “come from home circumstances and, above all, from poor schooling” (Moser, 1999, p3). Although mathematical skills do in part depend on the role of educators and parents, the evidence for a biological cause for dyscalculia is overwhelming (). Educators need to understand the difference between dyscalculia and other mathematical or behavioural problems and bring these differences into the classroom to allow individuals to develop to their best ability. This could be a focus on “phonics” teaching of mathematics, as encouraged by the government Post Note report on dyslexia and dyscalculia, for example (). Current Research on Dyscalculia Although dyscalculia is not amongst the most well-known of the SpLDs, it is gaining more research attention. This means that the knowledge base on dyscalculia is now growing, offering some interesting insights into the disorder as well as connections between dyscalculia, dyslexia, dysgraphia and other SpLDs. Butterworth, Varma & Laurillard (2011) covered the needs of dyscalculic individuals within education in Science magazine, again reinforcing the growing amount of interest and research that dyscalculia is receiving. It has become evident in recent years that dyscalculia and its symptoms are due to a core deficit in number processing systems (akin to the core deficit found in dyslexic individuals which is covered in more detail below), a finding supported by cognitive and neurosciences (Butterworth, Varma & Laurillard, 2011). The reason that this finding is so important in education is that it alters the fundamental perception that the child has of numbers and mathematics, as well as elements of spatial reasoning associated with the discipline. Butterworth, Varma & Laurillard (2011) cover some of the novel strategies that have been developed to help tackle this core deficit. One way in which technology can help avoid difficulties for these children is known as adaptive software, something which has been proven to assist dyscalculic children with their mathematical needs in the classroom. Butterworth (2010) covered this core deficit in more detail. Essentially, research supports the idea that dyscalculia is a very specific disorder which is based around an “inherited foundational capacity for numbers” (Butterworth, 2010, p534). This poses a challenge for educators as the fact that it is inherited means that it is inbuilt and therefore may not be as easily changed or avoided as something which has been acquired (). Butterworth (2010) outlines the hypothesis that numerical ability is linked to an individual’s ability to represent approximate numbers in a cognitive way. This system itself is also inherited, which could explain why dyscalculia is so often seen in families (). Deficits in this area cause problems because the brain is not able to mentally use number systems in the same way as found in those without dyscalculia, and therefore any system relying on these approximate number systems are affected. Again, this would provide evidence for the fact that many individuals with dyscalculia have issues with spatial arrangements and timekeeping (). Focusing on French children, Mussolin, Mejias & Noel (2010) studied the differences in symbolic and non-symbolic number ability in children between the ages of 10 and 11. In this study, a group of children were asked to compare quantity in two different formats. The first of these was symbolic (the use of normal numbers, words used to represent numbers or dots) whilst the second quantity was prevented in a non-symbolic way (random stick patterns, for example). The findings were that children with developmental dyscalculia showed evidence of a numerical distance effect. The numerical distance effect is based on a theory that it is more difficult to tell which of two quantities is larger (or smaller) when the difference between the number in the two groups is closer together. For example, it would be more difficult to tell which group of carrots was larger when presented with the quantities of five and six carrots to compare than if given two and twelve carrots (Opstal & Verguts, 2011). This difficulty is therefore magnified in those with developmental dyscalculia, which may provide hints as to the underlying nature of dyscalculia and the areas of the brain it affects. Additionally, it can give clues as to the types of classroom activity that may be more appropriate with children with dyscalculia and the ways in which numerical reasoning play a part in improving mathematical ability in this group. Rubinstein & Henik (2009) covered developmental dyscalculia from a neuroscientific perspective. There is evidence that elements of DD are due to abnormalities in the brain region known as the intraparietal sulcus. The fact that this disorder seems to affect only one brain area makes it complex to understand why comorbidity is so common, as that single brain area is not responsible for the symptoms of dyslexia, for example. Rubinstein & Henik (2009) also argue that elements of numerical processing are found in a variety of different brain areas, not just the intraparietal sulcus, and this goes against some research that suggests it is a neighbouring gyrus which is responsible for mathematical ability. The paper argues that developmental dyscalculia may be difficult to research further before these “conceptual” issues have been discussed further, as even the neurocognitive approach is limited by the reliance on “frameworks” rather than actual knowledge. 250 words Dyslexia & Dyscalculia Despite the fact that they both affect different learning systems, dyslexia and dyscalculia do appear to be comorbid in some indivudals. Good estimates are difficult to make about the true prevalence of both SpLDs in a comorbid capacity, as one diagnosis can outweigh another. However, estimates can range from 11% to over 56%, depending on the definition of both disorders that is used (). Whilst both SpLDs are described as having different “cognitive profiles” because they affect different brain modules and specific abilities, there are obvious similarities between them (Landerl, Fussenegger, Mol & Willburger, 2009). One of the most interesting findings about individuals that have both dyslexia and dyscalculia is that it provides an “additive effect”, in that there is a real and quantifiable difference and worsening of symptoms in those who have both disorders (Landerl et al, 2009)). The additive effect is interesting because it proves not only that they are separate disorders (and therefore dyscalculia should receive classroom attention in its own right), but that it is not merely an effect of bad education (Landerl et al, 2009). However, this does not mean that educators cannot do anything to help those with dyscalculia, dyslexia or both SpLDs, but the differences in learning style do need to be understood properly. Willburger, Fussenegger, Moll, Wood & Landerl (2008) conducted an interesting study of individuals with dyscalculia, dyslexia and those with a combination of the two SpLDs. In a group of 8 to 10 year olds, rapid automized naming (RAN) was found to be impaired in both dyslexic groups, which is in line with current understanding of the disorder. However, children with dyscalculia had a domain-specific deficit in the rapid naming of quantities that was found to be present in both dyscalculia groups. This provides information about the abilities of children with dyslexia, dysgraphia and the combination of the two SpLDs in a comorbid fashion which can be useful for those working in education. Education can therefore be targeted at avoiding rapid naming or rapid quantity naming dependent on the SpLD that the child has been diagnosed with. It also suggests that there are similarities between dyslexia and dyscalculia which could help the understanding of dyscalculia which has been less well studied. Additionally, it explains why there is an additive effect on the individual when both dyslexia and dyscalculia are present. Coch et al (2010) provide some more interesting information about the developments in dyscalculia understanding. Although dyslexia is a separate disorder affecting writing, Coch et al (2010) suggest that there are some similarities in the cognitive profiles as suggested above. This can be (and has been) used to make analogies between dyslexia and dyscalculia and has in some way sped up the understanding of the connections between the two disorders. One of the most interesting concepts in dyslexia research is that of the “core deficit”: essentially that the dyslexic individual has a core deficit in the phonological area of the brain. This theory has been transferred over to dyscalculia theory and suggestions have been made that dyscalculic individuals have a similar “core deficit” in the numerical processing areas (Coch et al, 2010). This has a number of implications. Firstly, it explains why so many individuals who are in education and may be receiving specialist help with their dyscalculia may not be showing improvement (). Additionally, if the “core deficit” in dyslexia and dyscalculia have a similar cause (be it environmental or genetic, for example), this would explain why the two conditions are so often comorbid. The cause may work in the same way but have a different pattern of affection in different individuals (Coch et al, 2010). Finally, the fact that each SpLD may just be based in one area of the brain and this can be identified scientifically proves that these individuals are not just “stupid” or “lazy” as perhaps previously accused (), and that specialist educational help needs to be provided to assist them in school and in further life. Some studies that have focused on the similarities between dyslexia and dyscalculia and attempted to find neurobiological reasons for their common comorbidity have provided some interesting ideas. If dyscalculia is similar to dyslexia in its causes and manifestations, there should be more similarities that help us to understand dyscalculia more thoroughly (). For example, there are individuals that have a type of dyscalculia that is not linked to development which is correctly termed acalculia to reflect its acquired nature (), similar to alexia (). This can give clues as to the causes and types of dyscalculia as it has with dyslexia (Coch et al, 2010). For example, there may be dyscalculia present in more than one form in the population, as there is with dyslexia. This evidently has important implications for the teaching of individuals with dyscalculia as their programmes will need to be tailored to their specific needs (). This should also include whether they have the signs of other SpLDs such as ADD/ADHD, dysgraphia or dyspraxia (covered briefly below) as well as take into account their use of working memory, for example (Coch et al, 2010). The so-called number sense form of dyscalculia may therefore be removed from the working memory form, as hypothesized for dyslexia (). It may also be possible that those with deficits in working memory are more likely to be comorbid for dyslexia and dyscalculia, as evidence shows a deficit in both disorders (Geary & Hoard, 2001). This is something that needs further research, but could have huge implications in the classroom for individuals with dyscalculia and dyscalculia/dyslexia comorbidity. Dysgraphia and Dyspraxia Like dyscalculia, there are other SpLDs with specific cognitive profiles, research into which is often overshadowed by dyslexia research (Coch et al, 2010). 500 words Conclusions 250 words References Butterworth, B. (2010). Foundational numerical capacities and the origins of dyscalculia. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(12), 534–541. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.09.007 Butterworth, B., Varma, S., & Laurillard, D. (2011). Dyscalculia: From Brain to Education. Science, 332(6033), 1049–1053. doi:10.1126/science.1201536 Coch, D., Dawson, G., & Fischer, K. W. (2010). Human Behavior, Learning, and the Developing Brain: Atypical development. Guilford Press. Geary, D. C., & Hoard, M. K. (2001). Numerical and arithmetical deficits in learning-disabled children: Relation to dyscalculia and dyslexia. Aphasiology, 15(7), 635–647. Mussolin, C., Mejias, S., & Noel, M.-P. (2010). Symbolic and nonsymbolic number comparison in children with and without dyscalculia. Cognition, 115(1), 10–25. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.10.006 Rubinsten, O., & Henik, A. (2009). Developmental Dyscalculia: heterogeneity might not mean different mechanisms. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(2), 92–99. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2008.11.002 Van Opstal, F., & Verguts, T. (2011). The origins of the numerical distance effect: The same–different task. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 23(1), 112–120. doi:10.1080/20445911.2011.466796 Willburger, E., Fussenegger, B., Moll, K., Wood, G., & Landerl, K. (2008). Naming speed in dyslexia and dyscalculia. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(2), 224–236. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2008.01.003 Read More