Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2005, 46, 157–167

Number-word sequence skill and arithmetic performance

Blackwell Publishing, Ltd.

BO S. JOHANSSON
Department of Teacher Education, University of Uppsala, Sweden

Johansson, B. S. (2005). Number-word sequence skill and arithmetic performance. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 46, 157–167.
In two studies, the role of the number-word sequence skill for arithmetic performance was investigated. In the first, children between 4 and 8
years of age were asked to count forward and backward on the number-word sequence and to solve arithmetic problems followed by post-
solution interviews about solution procedures. The results demonstrated that the number-word sequence skill predicted both number of prob-
lems solved and strategy to solve the problems. In Study 2 it was found that solving doubles (e.g., 2 + 2 = ?) problems served as a link between
the number-word sequence skill and the number of arithmetic problems solved. The findings suggest that counting on the number-word sequence
may be an early solution procedure and that, with increasing counting skill, the child may detect regularities in the number-word sequence
that can be used to form new and more accurate strategies for solving arithmetic problems.
Key words: Number-word sequence skill, arithmetic performance, solution procedure, counting.
Bo S. Johansson, Department of Teacher Education Box 3621 S- 750 02 Uppsala, Sweden . E-mail: Bo.Johansson@ilu.uu.se

& Huttenlocher, 1992) that young children find arithmetic

NUMBER-WORD SEQUENCE SKILL AND
ARITHMETIC PERFORMANCE
A recurrent finding has been that children’s skill in reciting
the number-word sequence is a strong predictor of perform-
ance on other numerical tasks. For example, a substantial
correlation between reciting the counting string and the
dividing of objects into equally numerous sets was found in
Pollio and Whitacre (1970). Secada, Fuson, and Hall (1983)
observed that the use of the counting-on procedure for
solving addition problems was related to the skill of count-
ing forward from an arbitrary point in the number-word
sequence. The same skill has also been found to strongly
predict performance on additive composition of number
problems (Martins-Mourao & Cowan, 1998). Ho and Fuson
(1998) reported a correlation between length of counting
forward sequences and understanding of teen quantities and
performance on simple addition problems. In a study of
school-beginners’ numerical abilities Wigforss (1946) found
that counting forward was the best predictor of perform-
ance on the other numerical tests. Wigforss’ conclusion
was “The little respect that many teachers seem to give to
the importance of the child’s ability to recite the number-
words is evidently unfounded” (Wigforss, 1946, p. 19, my
translation).
Countable unit items and the development of
the arithmetic skill
The above findings suggest that the number-word sequence
skill may play a central role in the development of the child’s
arithmetic performance. However, research (e.g., Wynn, 1998)
has shown that infants, months before saying their first word,
can solve easy numerical problems represented as sets of
physical objects. It has also been found (e.g., Levine, Jordan,
problems, with the addends represented by concrete objects,
easier than story problems as e.g., “Joe had 3 apples. He got
2 more. How many does he have now?” or number fact
problems, “How much is 3 and 2?”. Therefore, the number-
word sequence skill as such is not regarded as the root of the
arithmetic ability (e.g., Gelman & Gallistel, 1978; Steffe, von
Glasersfeld, Richards, & Cobb, 1983; Steffe, 2002). Rather,
availability of countable items has been considered an indis-
pensable prerequisite for the development of the number
concept. In a very influential paper Steffe et al. (1983)
argued that initially the number-word sequence is acquired
as a recitation skill independent of the ability to form count-
able units. The step from reciting to counting requires the
construction of countable unit items and that each unit item
is one-to-one coordinated with a number-word (Steffe et al.,
1983; Steffe & Cobb, 1988). The authors have described the
development of five countable unit items allowing increas-
ingly advanced procedures to solve arithmetic problems.
First, perceptual unit items are constructed, for example
perceiving marbles or checkers as a plurality of objects that
can be counted. At this level, a child can only count if per-
ceptual unit items are available. With no such units at hand,
“there is literally nothing for the child to count” (Steffe
et al., 1983, p. 47). Next, figural unit items are created, fol-
lowed by motor unit items, verbal unit items, and finally,
abstract unit items. Common for the first four unit items is
that each number-word needs some sort of perceptual sup-
port, whereas abstract unit items means that a given number
word “stands for a specific collection of individual unitary
items” (Steffe et al., 1983, p. 42), for example, the word
“seven” stands for seven marbles. Thus, according to this
theory – the counting types theory – the child solves
arithmetic problems by counting explicitly or implicitly con-
structed unit items.

© 2005 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations/Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington
Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. ISSN 0036-5564.
158 B. S. Johansson
The number-word sequence hypothesis
The hypothesis tested here is that counting on the number-
word sequence is an early, and increasingly efficient, proce-
dure to solve arithmetic problems. Initially, the child may
solve arithmetic problems using countable units to represent
the addends, but as the sequence skill develops, alternative
strategies based on counting on the number-word sequence
are assumed to emerge. It is further assumed that task char-
acteristics determine which solution procedure the child will
use. With objects present during testing, the child may use
them as solution aids; but with no physical props available,
the child may try to solve the problem by counting on the
number-word sequence (see also Carpenter & Moser, 1984).
For example, a child who can only count forward, starting
with the number word “one”, may try to solve the (three
apples and two apples) problem mentioned above by count-
ing “1, 2, 3; 4, 5” (the Sequence counting-all strategy). As
the child’s number-word sequence skill increases, the child
may find structures in the sequence that can be used to solve
the problems. A first step is assumed to be the ability to
break up the sequence and focus on individual number-
words. Mastering this, the child should be able to count for-
ward and backward, starting and ending the count at arbi-
trary number words, for example, counting from 7 to 3. This
acquisition should allow the child to solve the apples prob-
lem with the Sequence counting-on strategy, that is, starting
the count from the number-word “three”: “3; 4, 5” (Secada
et al., 1983). Finally, the child may detect regularities in the
sequence, such as the decade or the doubles (2 + 2 = 4, etc.)
regularity, which allows the child to solve the apples prob-
lem by jumping on the sequence: “2 and 2 makes 4, 1 more
– 5” (Carpenter & Moser, 1984).
Level of number-word sequence skill should determine the
ease with which the number-word sequence can be used as a
solution tool. Monitoring strategies, such as representing the
second addend by a finger pattern or by an image of objects
is assumed to be necessary with addends exceeding the
thoroughly learned portion of the sequence. Children at a
high level of number-word sequence skill, on the other hand,
should be able to represent the second addend by segment-
ing the number sequence. For example, children with an
incompletely elaborated sequence, when asked to solve the
“17 + 7” problem, may have to represent the number-word
7 by extending seven fingers, whereas children at a more
advanced level may decompose 7 into 3 and 4 and then jump
on the number row, first to 20 then to 24.
Thus, a first difference between the counting types theory
and the number-word sequence hypothesis is that the former
stipulates that initial solution procedures require countable
items, whereas the number-word sequence hypothesis identi-
fies an additional early solution procedure: counting on the
number-word sequence. It was decided to test these contrast-
ing hypotheses by asking children in the age interval 4–8
years to solve simple arithmetic problems with no mani-
© 2005 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations/Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Scand J Psychol 46 (2005)
pulatives available as solution aids. According to the counting
types theory, this should force children with a low level of
number skill to either construct countable items, e.g. make
use of the fingers to construct the addends and sum, or refrain
from solving the problems. The number-word sequence
hypothesis, on the other hand, predicts that with no concrete
objects at hand, the children may try to solve the problems
by counting on the number-word sequence.
A second difference is the role played by objects when
solving the problems. The counting types theory states that
the solution procedure rests on the construction of count-
able unit items. Initially perceptual unit items are con-
structed; later the child develops the capacity to construct
abstract unit items allowing internalized strategies. There-
fore, the counting types theory predicts that the use of
objects is related to level of number skill: object counting
strategies should decrease in frequency as the number skill
increases. According to the number-word sequence hypo-
thesis, objects have to be used to monitor the count if the
addends exceed the stable portion of the sequence. There-
fore, problem size should constitute the main factor deter-
mining the use of objects. Problems with addend size within
the stable portion of the sequence should be solvable by
counting on the number-word sequence, whereas when the
addends exceed the stable portion of the sequence it is
necessary to find a representation supporting the count.
Arithmetic solution procedures
The children’s procedures to solve arithmetic problems have
been the subject of extensive research (see, e.g., Gal’perin, 1970;
Svenson & Broquist, 1975; Svenson, Hedenborg, & Lingman,
1976; Carpenter & Moser, 1983; Steffe et al., 1983; Steffe
& Cobb, 1988). These procedures are usually grouped into
three developmental levels (e.g. Fuson, 1992) related to the
counting types theory. At the first level the child models
the addends with the help of objects. For example, to solve the
problem “Jim has four apples, then he gets three more. How
many apples does he have altogether?” the child first counts
out four objects, then three additional objects and finally,
joins the two sets to count the sum (the Concrete counting-
all strategy). A child at level two is assumed to be able to
solve the same problem by counting on representations of
the objects, for example, verbal unit items (Fuson, 1992). The
child may use the Sequence counting-on procedure, starting
with the number-word for the first addend (4; 5, 6, 7). Thus,
children at the first level need objects to represent the two
addends and the sum, whereas children at the second level
can use the number-words to represent the quantities
(Fuson, 1992). In the first level, the counting of the addends
is separated from the counting of the sum, whereas in the
second level the counting of the second addend is embedded
within the counting of the sum. Embedded counting requires
the child to be able to pair the number-words with some
kind of unit representing the second addend to keep track of
Scand J Psychol 46 (2005)
counting (Steffe et al., 1983; Fuson, 1992). In the third level,
the problems are solved by known facts and derived facts
procedures; for example, by doubles decompositions or
immediate retrieval “7, I know that 3 + 4 makes 7”. In the
present study these three levels were taken as the frame of
reference when categorizing the solution strategies used to
solve the arithmetic problems.
Level of elaboration of the number-word sequence and
arithmetic solution procedures
Fuson, Richards and Briars (1982) made an in-depth investi-
gation of the child’s acquisition and elaboration of the
number-word sequence. They found five levels in the elabo-
ration of the sequence and also described the number skills
at each level. In her 1992 paper, Fuson summarized these
results and also specified the arithmetic problem solution
procedures available at each elaboration level.
At the two first – the String and Unbreakable list levels –
the child can only produce the sequence by beginning with
the number-word “one”; the child has not yet acquired the
capacity to start counting from an arbitrary entry point.
With the Unbreakable list level emerges the capacity to
count a given number of objects to decide the cardinality of
the set, which, according to the counting types theory allows
the child to solve addition problems by counting perceptual
unit items. Not finding objects to represent the addends, the
problems should be unsolvable. According to the number-
word sequence hypothesis, children at this level should be
able to solve arithmetic problems using the number-word
sequence, given that the sizes of the addends do not exceed
the stable portion of the sequence. As children at this level
have to start counting by the number-word “one”, the preferred
solution procedure should be counting-all.
At the Breakable chain level, the children can produce
parts of the beginning sections of the sequence from arbi-
trary entry points. The skill of counting forward from three
to six or backward from five to one constitutes a first step
towards the counting-on strategy (Secada et al., 1983).
Fuson (1992) pointed out that this might be a transitional
stage; the children can use the counting-on method but
need objects to represent the second addend. According
to the number-word sequence hypothesis, these children
should be able to count on the number-word sequence on
problems with small addends, but should require objects
or images of objects to monitor the count in the case of
large addends.
For children at the Numerable chain level the number-
words have become countable units (Fuson et al., 1982),
which means that the addends can be represented by
number-words. Problems like “9 + 6 = ?” can be solved by
counting up 6 words from 9, and “15 − 4 = ?” by counting
down 4 words from 15. Here the counting types theory and
the number-word sequence hypothesis arrive at the same
predictions. With large addends, the child may still need
© 2005 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations/Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Sequence skill and arithmetic performance 159
objects or images to keep track of the number-words said for
the second addend.
Finally, the Bidirectional chain level is reached, at which
the child can count both forward and backward with ease,
accuracy and speed. New number skills are (Fuson, 1992)
the understanding of the inverse relation between addition
and subtraction and the ability to break down small num-
bers into addend pairs. According to the number-word
sequence hypothesis, children having reached this level
should be able to solve the problems by segmenting the
sequence. For example, they may use various decomposition
strategies, such as making use of tens complements (e.g. “16
+ 7 = 16 and 4 is 20, 3 more makes 23”), doubles decompo-
sitions (“7 − 3 = 4 because 3 + 3 = 6, 1 more makes 4”) or
immediate retrieval (Carpenter & Moser, 1984).
In sum, Fuson’s (1992) analysis of the relation between
elaboration level and arithmetic solution procedures offers
an experimental situation to test the two contrasting hypo-
theses presented above. In the present report this was made
by presenting the children with two number-word sequence
tests (counting forward and counting backward), followed
by a series of simple addition and subtraction tasks. Count-
ing forward and counting backward performance was used
to categorize the children with respect to level of elaboration
of the number-word sequence. Then, the relation between
level of number-word sequence skill and arithmetic perform-
ance was analyzed.
STUDY 1
The children were first given two number-word sequence tests,
followed by two arithmetic tests. The number-word sequence
tests were first used to investigate whether a precondition
for the subsequent analysis was met, namely that the elabo-
ration levels in Fuson et al. (1982) could be replicated. If
that was the case, the contrasting hypotheses stated above
were to be tested.
Method
Subjects. The subject pool consisted of 61 girls and 65 boys, aged
4 to 8 years (mean age = 6 years and 9 months) and living in
middle-class areas. Of these, 75 were in pre-school (in mixed-age
groups) and 51 attended first grade. Because testing was performed
in early spring, the 51 school children had already completed one
term of arithmetic teaching, with exercises on cardinal and ordinal
numbers, N + 1 / N − 1 and N + 2 / N − 2 practices, numeral writing
exercises, and the introduction of the plus, minus and equal signs.
In the pre-schools no formal arithmetic training was given. All
parents, altogether 131, in the selected pre-schools and schools, were
contacted and all but five responded favorably to the testing of their
child.
Tests. Two sequence skills tests were constructed: Forward count-
ing from a to b (e.g., from 8 to 12) and backward counting from b
to a (e.g., from 13 to 9). The counting forward problems were count-
ing from 3 to 7, 5 to 9, 8 to 12, 17 to 21, 28 to 32, 47 to 51, and 98
160 B. S. Johansson
to 102, with the first problem serving as a practice task. Seven
counting backward problems were constructed: counting from 5 to
1, 8 to 4, 13 to 9, 18 to 13, 23 to 18, 32 to 27, and 203 to 198, with
the first problem a practice task.
The arithmetic tasks were simple addition and subtraction prob-
lems of type Change 1 and Change 2 (see Riley, Greeno, & Heller,
1983). Four lists with six addition and six subtraction problems
each were constructed with the objectives to obtain a great variation
in problem difficulty and to stimulate different solution procedures.
Commutative pairs were not used to avoid problem recognition.
The problems, except the easiest ones, required counting beyond a
decade. The lists are given in the Appendix. Each child was testing
with one list made up by six addition and six subtraction problems.
The problems were given in order of difficulty. Testing started
with the two number-word sequence tests, counterbalanced for
order, followed by first the addition then the subtraction test.
Procedure. The children were tested individually in a separate
room, the sessions were video recorded using a Panasonic WP-G1
camera with a built-in timer to measure response times. The
sequence instructions were, “Can you count forward from a to b/
backward from b to a?” If necessary, the meaning of the terms was
explained, followed by a single practice trial. The instructions for
the addition problems were, “Imagine that you have 6 pears/crowns
(etc.) and then get 7 more. How many do you have altogether?”
Instructions for the subtraction problems were, “Imagine that you
have 13 pears/crowns (etc.) and then give away 7. How many do you
have left?” After the solution of each problem, the child was asked,
“How did you figure out the answer to this problem?” If the child’s
answer was unclear, the experimenter would pose follow-up ques-
tions. Testing was terminated when the child had failed on two
consecutive problems, or if the experimenters judged that the child’s
highest performance had been attained. The experimenters did their
best to create a supportive and relaxed atmosphere, which encour-
aged the children to try to solve many problems, even those beyond
their normal capacity.
Sequence skill. Correct responding was defined as beginning with
the first given number-word, counting in the conventional order,
and ending with the second number-word. Response time for all
correct responses was measured and standard deviations were
computed. Correct responses with a response time greater than
two standard deviations were coded as incorrect, to obtain that
extremely slow, but correct, solutions were not included.
Arithmetic solution codes. The distinctions between concrete
counting, verbal counting, and recalled or derived facts strategies
(e.g., Carpenter & Moser, 1984; Fuson, 1992) were used to define
the solution procedures on the addition and subtraction problems.
The addition strategies were:
• Concrete counting-all. Fingers or other countable objects were
counted out one by one to represent one of the addends followed
by a similar process for the other addend. Then, all the objects
or fingers were counted to determine the sum (see Baroody, 1987).
Also short-cut Concrete counting-all strategies (Baroody, 1987)
were included.
• Sequence counting-all. The child started with “one” and counted
up to the cardinal value of one of the addends. Then, the child
continued to count a number of steps equal to the other addend.
• Sequence counting-on. The child started with the cardinal value of
one of the addends and counted on from there while the other
addend was enumerated.
• Decomposition. The child decomposed the given numbers into
easier number combinations, using doubles or tens complements.
© 2005 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations/Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Scand J Psychol 46 (2005)
• Immediate recall. The child relied on facts recalled from memory,
with no signs of counting. To be defined as Immediate recall, the
response had to be given within about 3 sec.
• Not identifiable. Some children could not describe their solution
procedure, others said that they had guessed the answer or did not
complete the solution and some descriptions were too vague to be
categorized. All these responses were scored as Not identifiable.
• Not given. The problem was considered beyond the child’s current
performance level and was therefore not given.
On a few occasions the children modeled the second addend before
solving the problem, named CE strategy (Fuson, 1982; Baroody,
1987). For example, when given the problem “5 + 3 = ?”, the child
first counted out three fingers and then counted from 1 to 8.
Similarly for the problem “26 + 15 = ?”; a few children extended all
fingers on one hand three times (5 + 5 + 5) and then used Sequence
counting-on. The number of observed CE strategies was only seven;
therefore no such category was defined. Whether the children solved
the problems by counting from first or from larger addend was not
analyzed, because the problem list was not constructed to test this
effect.
The codes for the subtraction solution procedures were (illustrated
with 7 − 2 = ?):
• Take away. The child counted out the minuend on the fingers
(counting out 7 fingers), took away the given subtrahend entities
from the minuend (folding down 2 of the fingers), and left the
remaining extended fingers to be counted.
• Adding up to minuend. The child counted out the given subtrahend
(counted out 2 fingers); and then added on entities until the minuend
was reached (5 more fingers were counted out, separately form the
2 first). Finally the child counted the added-on entities.
• Sequence counting-down. The child started with the minuend (7)
and then counted down the number of words given by the subtra-
hend (6, 5).
• Sequence counting-up. The child began with the subtrahend (2)
and counted up to the minuend, counting the number of counts.
The categories of Decomposition, Immediate recall, Not identifiable
and problems Not given were defined as for addition.
Using the above definitions, a research assistant and the author
scored the interviews. The inter-rater reliability was 91%. Following
Siegler (1987), coding was based on overt behavior when that behavior
unambiguously indicated the strategy and on immediate, retrospect-
ive verbal reports when behavior was absent or ambiguous.
For the addition problems solved by Sequence counting-all and
Sequence counting-on, and the subtraction problems solved by Sequence
counting-up and Sequence counting-down, was noted whether the
fingers or other objects were used or reported as solutions aids.
Results
Sequence skill levels. The analysis focused on whether the
Fuson et al. (1982) elaboration levels could be found. The
counting backward data were taken as point of departure,
because advances in the ability to produce the number-
words in a backward order constitute a key factor in the
definition of these levels. The present counting backward
results indicated four distinct levels. The first consisted of
the 38 children with 0 correct. At the second were placed the
45 children solving 1 or 2 problems. The third comprised
the 24 children being able to solve 3 or 4 problems and the
Scand J Psychol 46 (2005)
Fig. 1. Performance on the counting forward problems as a func-
tion of number of correct on the backward counting problems.
fourth the remaining 19 children. To examine whether the
characteristics for these four levels agree with the Fuson
et al. (1982) elaboration levels, the counting forward perform-
ance for each level was analyzed (see Figure 1).
An analysis of variance was run on the correct response
data with level as a between-subjects variable. A significant,
F(3, 122) = 39,21, p < 0.0001, main effect was obtained, the
Tukey HSD procedure showed significant increases ( p <
0.05) from level 1 to 2 and from 2 to 3.
Mean forward counting time for the four levels were: 3.6,
3.7, 3.3 and 2.6 sec. An analysis of variance with level as a
between-subjects variable demonstrated a significant main
effect, F(3, 105) = 5.81, p < 0.0001. Tukey’s HSD indicated
that response time decreased ( p < 0.05) from level 2 to 3 and
from 3 to 4.
The above forward and backward counting results mean
that typical for the level 1 children were that they solved
none of the counting backward tasks and a mean of about
one and a half of the counting forward problems. This
agrees with performance at the String and Unbreakable list
levels (Fuson et al., 1982), in that children at these levels had
great difficulties starting the count with other number-words
than “one”. That is, asked to count from “3 to 7” or from
“5 to 3” the present children should, in both cases, start
counting with the number-word “one”. An error analysis
showed that the present children produced 51% of all such
“running start” errors observed. That correct responding
did not exceed 50% on any of the counting forward problem
(see Figure 1) further underlines that the ability to count
from an arbitrary number-word was very unstable.
The children at level 2 could solve 1 or 2 of the counting
backward and about 3 of the counting forward problems,
with a high score of correct responding on the two first
problems (see Figure 1). Evidently, the beginning sections of
the sequence were elaborated to the Breakable chain level.
The level 3 children could solve 3 or 4 of the counting
backward and about 5 of the counting forward problems. In
© 2005 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations/Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Sequence skill and arithmetic performance 161
addition, they counted faster than the level 1 and 2 children,
indicating a separate skill level.
The children categorized as level 4 solved about 5 on both
the counting forward and backward problems. The present
children differed from those at level 3, besides scoring higher
on the counting backward problems, in rate of counting. If
rate and correctness of counting is taken to indicate ease and
flexibility in producing the number-words, these children
had reached the Bidirectional chain level.
In sum, performance at levels 1, 2, and 4 closely resembles
performance at the String and Unbreakable list levels, the
Breakable list level and the Bidirectional chain level, respect-
ively. The response profile for the level 3 children could not
be directly related to the Numerable chain level because the
measures used to define that level in Fuson et al. (1982)
differ from those used here. However, considering that per-
formance is located between levels 2 and 4, it seems reason-
able to assume that level 3 approximates the Numerable
chain level. In conclusion, it was possible to categorize the
children according to the four main elaboration levels described
by Fuson et al. (1982). This provides a basis for the crucial
step in the analysis, that is, whether the arithmetic solution
procedures at each level could be predicted from the counting
types theory or from the number-word sequence hypothesis.
Level of number-word sequence skill and arithmetic performance.
To analyze the relation between level of number-word
sequence skill and arithmetic performance two measures
were analyzed: frequency of report of each strategy and
strategy accuracy. The results were summed over the six
problem sizes. In the analysis of report frequency, all reports
of a given strategy were scored as 1 and all other responses
as 0, and mean number of reports of that strategy were
computed for each child. These means were then subjected
to a one-way analysis of variance with level of number-word
sequence skill as a between-subjects variable (F-statistics, see
Table 1). In the analyses of accuracy, only the reports of a
given strategy were analyzed, using the same model of ana-
lysis of variance as above, with correct solutions scored as
1 and incorrect as 0. In Table 1 are given mean frequency of
report of each strategy and also mean accuracy (as proportions)
for each strategy.
First, the relation between number-word sequence skill
and overall accuracy was analyzed (see bottom lines for
addition and subtraction, respectively, in Table 1). For both
addition and subtraction, overall accuracy increased mono-
tonically with increasing level of number-word sequence skill,
as indicated by the significant correlations ( p < 0.001) for
both addition (0.64) and subtraction (0.66). Partialling
out age reduced the coefficients somewhat, but they were
still significant (0.49 and 0.53, respectively). Thus, level of
number-word sequence skill is a significant factor for accur-
acy on simple addition and subtraction problems. However,
this result may be explained in two ways: either there is a direct
relation between number-word sequence skill and accuracy,
162 B. S. Johansson Scand J Psychol 46 (2005)

Table 1. Mean report frequency (max = 6.0) and accuracy (proportion correct) for each response category. Addition and subtraction results are
presented separately

Expertise level F statistics

Response category 1 2 3 4 F-ratio d.f. Sig. level

Addition
Immediate retrieval
Response frequency 0.18 0.90 1.32 1.58 32.13 3,122 0.0001
Accuracy 0.86 1.0 0.98 1.0 – – –
Decomposition
Response frequency 0.05 0.64 1.21 1.63 10.88 3,122 0.0001
Accuracy 1.00 0.98 0.79 0.79 1.51 3,38 n.s.
Sequence counting-on
Response frequency 0.58 1.45 1.54 2.16 6.25 3,122 0.001
Accuracy 0.71 0.57 0.94 0.74 3.84 3,65 0.05
Sequence counting-all
Response frequency 1.18 0.69 0.41 0.16 2.96 3,122 0.05
Accuracy 0.40 0.61 0.58 0.50 0.63 3,32 n.s.
Concrete counting-all
Response frequency 0.11 0.09 0.00 0.00 – – –
Accuracy 0.00 0.33 – – – – –
Not identified
Response frequency 1.34 1.11 1.13 0.42 3.83 3,122 0.05
Accuracy 0.11 0.13 0.12 0.14 0.03 3,83 n.s.
Not given
Response frequency 2.55 1.11 0.38 0.05 27.12 3,122 0.0001
Accuracy – – – – – – –
Overall accuracy 0.23 0.50 0.72 0.78 32.00 3,122 0.0001
Subtraction
Immediate retrieval
Response frequency 0.16 0.67 1.29 1.37 18.38 3,122 0.0001
Accuracy 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 – – –
Decomposition
Response frequency 0.08 0.29 0.71 0.74 4.94 3,122 0.01
Accuracy 1.00 1.00 0.58 0.94 3.06 3,26 0.05
Sequence counting-down
Response frequency 0.34 0.93 1.62 2.53 13.16 3,122 0.0001
Accuracy 0.46 0.58 0.50 0.63 0.60 3,81 n.s.
Take away
Response frequency 0.58 0.60 0.13 0.00 3.66 3,122 0.05
Accuracy 0.42 0.72 0.67 – 1.75 2,27 n.s.
Adding up to minuend
Response frequency 0.08 0.07 0.00 0.00 – – –
Accuracy 0.25 0.67 – – – – –
Sequence counting-up
Response frequency 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.04 – – –
Accuracy 1.0 0 1.0 1.0 – – –
Not identified
Response frequency 1.76 1.31 1.29 0.95 3.11 3,122 0.05
Accuracy 0.13 0.15 0.28 0.38 2.57 3,95 n.s.
Not given
Response frequency 2.97 2.09 0.92 0.37 31.10 3,122 0.0001
Accuracy – – – – – – –
Overall accuracy 0.17 0.37 0.52 0.68 31.96 3,122 0.0001

or the result is due to a selection of progressively more effi-
cient solution procedures with increasing sequence skill. The
next series of analyses was run to test these two alternatives.
The data in Table 1 demonstrate a strong relation between
level of number-word sequence skill and frequency of strat-
egy report. For addition, the following strategies got signifi-
cantly more frequent with increasing number-word sequence
skill: Immediate retrieval, Decomposition and Sequence
counting-on, whereas Sequence counting-all, Concrete counting-
all and Not identified were reported in decreasing frequencies.
In addition, the response category Not given decreased strongly
with increasing sequence skill.

© 2005 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations/Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Scand J Psychol 46 (2005)
The response frequency data for subtraction present a similar
picture. Strategies that increased in frequency were: Immedi-
ate retrieval, Decomposition and Sequence counting-down,
whereas Take away and Not identified decreased. The strat-
egies Adding up-to-minuend and Sequence counting-up
appeared in too few numbers to permit statistical analysis.
These results allow two important conclusions. First, the
strategy reports were strongly related to level of number-word
sequence skill. Strategies increasing in frequency indicated
that the child had learned the number facts in the problem
(Immediate recall), could start counting from an arbitrary
number-word in the sequence (Sequence counting-on and
Sequence counting-down) or had acquired the ability to jump
on the numbers in the number-word sequence (Decomposi-
tion). Strategies decreasing in frequency indicate a low level
of mastery of the number-word sequence: The child had to
start counting from the number-word “one” with or without
relying on concrete counting (Sequence counting-all, Concrete
counting-all or Take-away), or the child produced an answer
to the problem without being able to describe the solution
procedure (Not identified).
A second conclusion is that the strategies Concrete counting-
all and Take away were very infrequent, probably because no
physical props were available during testing. The absence
of manipulatives did not prevent the children in the lowest
number-word sequence skill level from trying to solve the
problems, using all sorts of strategies. According to the counting-
types theory, children at this skill level should only be able
to solve the problems by counting on physical objects. How-
ever, the present results demonstrate that these children had
access to both object counting and number-word sequence
strategies.
The analysis of the accuracy data for the individual
strategies revealed very few significant results. No tests
were made of accuracy for Immediate recall because of ceiling
effects. For addition, accuracy varied with expertise level
for the strategy Sequence counting-on (a significant increase
from level 2 to level 3 according to the Tukey HSD test); for
subtraction, a similar finding was obtained for Decomposi-
tion (a significant decrease from level 2 to 3 according to the
Tukey HSD test). This allows the preliminary conclusion
that once a solution procedure has been found it can be used
at about a constant level of accuracy irrespective of level of
number-word sequence skill. To test the generality of this
conclusion, the two exceptions above were reanalyzed
including problem size in the analysis.
For Sequence counting-on there was a strong increase in
response frequency from level 1 to level 2 (significant at the
0.05 level in a Tukey HSD procedure). Analyzing the prob-
lem sizes on which Sequence counting-on was reported by
the level 1 children showed that about 50% of their reports
were given on the four most difficult problems, that is, prob-
lems with sum or minuend exceeding 10. In comparison,
about two-thirds of the Sequence counting-on reports by the
level 2 children were given on the problems with minuend or
© 2005 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations/Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Sequence skill and arithmetic performance 163
sum exceeding 10. Recalling that the forward and backward
counting results demonstrated that the level 2 children could
produce only the beginning sections of the sequence from
arbitrary entry points, it seems that the level 2 children tried
to use this strategy on problems exceeding the stable portion
of their sequences. In effect, level of accuracy on the two first
(below 10) arithmetic problems was about the same for both
level 2 (88%) and level 3 (100%) children, but differed
sharply on the four most difficult problems (43% and 92%,
respectively). Further support was obtained by an error
analysis, which showed that the level 2 children produced
82% of the erroneous responses under this strategy, but only
39% of the Sequence counting-on strategy reports. Thus, the
dip in accuracy for the level 2 children was due to an exten-
sion of the Sequence counting-on strategy to unstable
portions of the number-word sequence.
A similar explanation holds for the level 3 children’s
Decomposition reports under subtraction in that their accur-
acy on the three most difficult problems was exceptionally
low (0.50). In addition the level 3 subjects produced all erro-
neous responses given under this strategy. In sum, the above
results support the conclusion that once a strategy is found;
it can be used with about a constant level of accuracy,
independently of level of number-word sequence skill, given
that the strategy is not applied on unstable portions of the
number-word sequence. In other words, the data presented
indicate that the detection of new and more efficient solution
strategies is the main factor responsible for the overall
accuracy increase (see Table 1); the skill of applying a given
strategy seems to play a secondary role. The detection of new
strategies, finally, seems to be heavily related to an increased
number-word sequence skill, a finding difficult to explain in
terms of the counting types theory.
Finger counting with the Sequence counting-all, Sequence
counting-on and Sequence counting-down strategies. As stated
in the introduction, a significant feature distinguishing the
counting types theory from the number-word sequence
hypothesis is the role of objects. According to the former,
the child has to construct countable unit items in order to
solve arithmetic problems. In particular, counting on objects
should be the only possible solution procedure for children,
who only have elaborated the number-word sequence to the
String or Unbreakable list levels. The relative use of object
counting strategies, however, should decrease with the
elaboration of the number-word sequence (Fuson, 1992).
The number-word sequence hypothesis, in contrast, states
that children at a low elaboration level should be able to
solve arithmetic problems by counting on the number-word
sequence, as long as the addends do not exceed the stable
portions of the sequence. Counting on objects should be
advantageous mainly as a means to monitor the count in the
case of large addends. Therefore, the number-word sequence
hypothesis predicts that object counting should increase
with increasing addend size. To test this prediction problem
164 B. S. Johansson Scand J Psychol 46 (2005)

Table 2. Mean finger use (proportions) under the three strategies In sum, solution procedures with no signs of finger count-
Sequence counting-all, Sequence counting-on and Sequence count- ing were observed already for the level 1A children, contrary
down as a function of number-word sequence skill and problem size to what can be predicted from the counting types theory.
Furthermore, for both Sequence counting-on and Sequence
Strategy
Number-word sequence counting-down, finger use increased with increasing addend
skill and problem size SCA SCO SCD size, as predicted by the number-word sequence hypothesis.

Proportion of finger use

Level 1A Discussion
Size 1 0.56 0.17 0.50
Size 2 0.38 0.50 – The discussion will center on the arithmetic solution pro-
Level 1B cedures found at each number-word sequence skill level and
Size 1 0.56 0.20 0.40 on the transitions from less to more advanced solution pro-
Size 2 0.70 0.60 0.67 cedures. For level 1, Concrete counting-all was surprisingly
Level 2
infrequent, considering that the counting types theory pre-
Size 1 0.73 0.31 0.33
Size 2 0.82 0.37 0.71 dicts that this solution procedure should be the dominating
Level 3 and 4 alternative for children at a low level of number skill. The most
Size 1 0.83 0.09 0.36 frequent addition and subtraction strategies were Sequence
Size 2 1.00 0.52 0.63 counting-all and Take away, respectively, both strategies with
a low level of accuracy. Finally, the present children often used
Sequence counting-all with no signs of finger counting. That
size was included in the analysis. To obtain a sufficient Sequence counting-all was common on the addition problems
number of observations only two problem sizes were distin- is in agreement with the number-word sequence hypothesis.
guished: the two easiest problems with sum or minuend Their number-word sequence skill was in an initial stage;
below 10 (Size 1) versus the remaining four problems (Size they could solve 1 or 2 of the counting forward problems,
2), for the same reason performance was summed over levels none of the counting backward problems and often started
3 and 4. The analysis included only the strategies Sequence to count from the number-word “one”. Thus, their main
counting-all, Sequence counting-on and Sequence counting- method to solve the addition problems seems a straight-
down, because these strategies were the only ones, observed forward application of their number-word sequence skill. The
in sufficient numbers, under which the child may or may not use of Take away on subtraction problems, on the other
use finger counting. hand, agrees with the counting types theory in that minu-
To analyze initial finger use in detail the level 1 subjects end, subtrahend and result were represented by objects; in
were partitioned into subgroup 1A (n = 20), who did not the present case the fingers. In sum, the results indicate that
solve the practice problem “Count from 3 to 1” and sub- the children, already at this level of number-word sequence
group 1B (n = 18) who did. The data are given in Table 2. skill, have access to both object counting and number-word
The table presents mean proportion of finger use under each sequence strategies.
of the three strategies. Two-way analyses of variance were The main difference between the expertise level 1 and 2
run on each of the three strategy data series with problem children was a statistically reliable ( p < 0.05, Tukey HSD test)
size as a within-subjects variable and sequence skill level as increase in the use of Sequence counting-on and Sequence
a between-subjects variable. counting-down. Both the counting types theory and the number-
The analysis of the Sequence counting-all data showed that word sequence hypothesis predicts that development, because
finger use did not vary significantly with problem size, F(1, 54) it is not until level 2 that the children can count backward
= 1.05, p > 0.05, but increased with increasing sequence from a given to a given number-word.
skill, F(3, 32) = 15.47, p < 0.05, contrary to the counting A major advance from the two first to the third expertise
types theory. Levine et al. (1992) have also reported that level, as to sequence skill, was the ability to count backward
some children, at low expertise levels, can solve addition and from a number-word greater than ten, which indicates that
subtraction problems with no signs of concrete counting. the number-words in the initial sections of the sequence
For Sequence counting-on mean proportion of finger use are well differentiated. This agrees with the finding that
did not vary with number-word sequence skill, F(3, 65) = solving the problems by starting the count from the number-
0.19, p > 0.05, but was more frequent on the four largest word “one” (Sequence counting-all, Concrete counting-all
than on the two smallest problems, F(1, 96) = 6.95, p < 0.05. and Take away) almost disappeared. Instead Decom-
The same results were obtained for Sequence counting- position and Immediate retrieval strategies, in addition to
down, although with different F-values: F(3, 53) = 0.22, Sequence counting-on and Sequence counting-down,
p > 0.05 for sequence skill, and F(1, 74) = 6.40, p < 0.05 for started to appear in great numbers. These strategies certainly
problem size. In the latter analysis the level 1A data were deleted require a high skill of entering the sequence at arbitrary
because of lack of observations in the Size 2 condition. number-words.

© 2005 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations/Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Scand J Psychol 46 (2005)
Typical for the expertise level 4 children was that they
exhibited the ability to select the optimal strategy for each
problem. For example, they used Immediate recall on prob-
lems with small addends, decomposition by doubles when
the difference between the two addends (or minuend and
subtrahend) was small, and tens decomposition or Sequence
counting-on/Sequence counting-down in the case of problems
with large addends.
Some of the children combined the Sequence counting-
on/Sequence counting-down strategies with the Decomposi-
tion strategy. One example is the previously mentioned chil-
dren who extended the fingers on one hand three times (5 +
5 + 5) and then solved the 26 + 15 problem by counting-on.
Another example is a boy who formed dice patterns of the
smaller addend. When solving the 15 + 26 problem he imag-
ined 15 as two dice of 6 and one die of 3, using Sequence
counting-on to solve the problem. These transitional
solution procedures indicate how the Decomposition
strategy may develop out of the Sequence counting-on/
counting-down strategies.
Distinguishing the expertise level 1 and 2 children from
those at the two highest levels was that the former often
solved the problems by counting one-by-one on the number-
word sequence, for one or both addends, whereas the latter
could segment the sequence, as manifested by the decompo-
sition strategies. In particular, decompositions with doubles
increased from the former to the latter expertise levels; the
former group of children gave a total of 26 such strategy
reports, compared to 56 by the latter group. Therefore, the
discovery of the doubles regularity may be an important
step in the development of the decomposition strategies. If
this is the case, the ability to solve doubles problems should
contribute to the ability of solving arithmetic problems.
Experiment 2 was run as a preliminary test of that hypothesis.
STUDY 2
The purposes with Experiment 2 were to replicate the Study
1 results and to test the hypothesis that the skill of solving
doubles problems plays an important role in the develop-
ment of the arithmetic ability.
Method
Subjects. The subjects were 129 children: 93 were 5- and 6-year-old
pre-school children and 36 were 7-year-old school children. Because
testing was done in late autumn, the school children had only had a
few months of arithmetic teaching. In the pre-schools no formal
arithmetic training took place. Parental permission was asked for all
children in the selected pre-schools and schools; of 133 parents,
129 permitted the testing of their child.
Tests
• Counting forward. The child was asked to count forward until the
experimenter said, “Stop” (at number-word 45). Counting beyond
© 2005 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations/Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Sequence skill and arithmetic performance 165
the four first decades was taken to indicate a minimum grasp of
the decade structure. This test was considered an equivalent
though less time-consuming version of the counting forward test
in Experiment 1. The last number-word reported in correct order
served as the score given to the child.
• Counting backward. The counting backward problems were count-
ing from 3 to 1, 7 to 5, 13 to 8, and 22 to 16. Pilot tests indicated
that the present children would probably not solve the two most
difficult problems in the former experiment. The same criterion
for correct solutions as in Experiment 1 was used: flawless count-
ing from first to last given number-word. The sum score included
performance on the 3 − 1 problem.
• Doubles test. The experimenter introduced the word “doubles” by
the problems “1 + 1 = ?” and “2 + 2 = ?” solving them together
with the child. Next, the child was given: “3 + 3”, “4 + 4”, “5 +
5”, “6 + 6”, “7 + 7”, “8 + 8”, “9 + 9”, “12 + 12”, “13 + 13”, and
“17 + 17”, pausing after each problem for the child to respond.
Correct responding was defined as giving the correct answer
without using fingers or other objects as solution aids.
• Arithmetic tests. The same addition and subtraction word
problems were used as in Experiment 1. The problems were
presented verbally and no concrete objects or other solution aids
were allowed.
Procedure. The children were tested individually in a separate room
with the child’s response recorded in a booklet. No post-solution
strategy interviews were conducted. Testing was terminated when the
child had failed on two consecutive problems, or if the experimenter
judged that the child’s highest performance had been attained. The
experimenter exerted considerable effort to establish an atmosphere
without strain and anxiety. The order of the tests was randomized.
Results
LISREL (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993) was used to test the
hypothesis that the skill of solving doubles problems serves
as a link between the number-word sequence skill and the
ability to solve arithmetic problems. In the LISREL language
Sequence skill, Doubles and Arithmetic ability are latent
variables that cannot be observed directly. In this study,
the first was operationalized by the forward and backward
counting problems, the second by the doubles problems,
and the third by the addition and subtraction problems.
In all three cases performance was measured as number
of correct responses. This allowed the formulation of the
model in Figure 2 and the testing of whether this model
was consistent with the empirical data (Tuijnman &
Keeves, 1997).
LISREL provides a series of measures of the fit between
the theoretical model and the empirical data. The ones
recommended by Jöreskog and Sörbom (1993) indicate an
almost perfect fit between model and data: ( χ2 d.f. = 3) =
0.77, p = 0.86, root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) = 0.0, and p-value for test of close fit (RMSEA)
= 0.90.
This result replicates Study 1, providing strong support
for the hypothesis that the doubles regularity is a structural
feature that children can detect and use as a solution aid,
given that the number-word sequence skill has reached a
minimum level.
166 B. S. Johansson
Fig. 2. LISREL-analysis of the results in Study 2.
CONCLUDING DISCUSSION
In the present study the answers to two problems were
sought: Do the initial arithmetic solution procedures agree
with the counting types theory or with the number-word
sequence hypothesis, and do the children use objects to con-
struct the addends or do they mainly use objects to monitor
the count? The results demonstrated that already children at
a low level of numeral skill could use number-word sequence
procedures to solve arithmetic problems, a finding contrary
to the counting types theory. Furthermore, counting on
objects (in the present case, the fingers) mainly fulfilled the
role of monitoring the count. The Concrete counting-all and
the Take away strategies, which can be interpreted to mean
that the child makes use of objects to construct the addends,
occurred in too low frequencies to support the counting
types theory (Steffe et al., 1983).
Thus, the results support a dual representation theory
(e.g., Uttal et al., 1999). The child may represent the numbers
either by means of objects or by means of the number-word
sequence. The findings that representations by means of
objects were very infrequent and that the accuracy of object-
counting strategies was low support the arguments against
early mathematics education leaning heavily on the manipu-
lation of concrete materials. For example, evaluations (e.g.,
Resnick & Omanson, 1987) of the effects of having young
schoolchildren to solve mathematical problems with the help
of Dienes (1960) blocks give no evidence of transfer of
approaches learned when solving problems with manipulat-
ives to the solution of similar problems involving written
symbols.
The present results indicate a parallel phenomenon, in
that object counting does not seem to evolve into more
advanced strategies, whereas such transitions were identified
in the case of the number-word sequence strategies. For
example, the Sequence counting-on/counting-down strat-
egies require that the child can start counting, forward or
backward, from an arbitrary point in the sequence, and the
development from the Sequence counting-on/counting-
down strategies to Decomposition strategies seems to be
related to the ability to segment the sequence, with the
detection of the doubles regularity playing a significant
role. Thus, the findings point to a possible mechanism in
© 2005 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations/Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Scand J Psychol 46 (2005)
the discovery of more advanced strategies (e.g., Siegler,
1991), that is, the child detects a new structural feature in
the number-word sequence that can easily be used to solve
arithmetic problems in new and more efficient ways. In
conclusion, this line of reasoning is an argument for the
importance of number-word sequence exercises in introductory
mathematics education.
The weakest spot in the present paper is that the represen-
tational mechanism when counting on the number-word
sequence has not been specified. In comparison, the count-
ing types theory has a clear answer to the representational
question: The numbers are represented as objects or images
of objects. There is, of course, an obvious answer to this
criticism, namely representation by means of the numerals.
The empirical test of this speculation, however, will be the
subject of a separate study. In addition, it may be argued
that no control of potentially important contributing factors,
for example, phonological skills have been made. However,
the results presented here can easily be followed up by such
parametric investigations.
This research was supported by a grant from Humanistisk-
samhällsvetenskapliga forskningsrådet (Dnr F0579/2000).
REFERENCES
Baroody, A. J. (1987). The development of counting strategies for
single-digit addition. Journal for Research in Mathematics Edu-
cation, 18, 141–157.
Carpenter, T. P., & Moser, J. M. (1983). The acquisition of addition
and subtraction concepts. In R. Lesh & M. Landau (Eds.),
Acquisition of mathematics: Concepts and processes (pp. 7–44).
New York: Academic Press.
Carpenter, T. P., & Moser, J. M. (1984). The acquisition of addition
and subtraction concepts in grades one through three. Journal
for Research in Mathematics Education, 15, 179–202.
Dienes, Z. P. (1960). Building up mathematics. London: Hutchinson.
Fuson, K. (1982). An analysis of the counting-on solution pro-
cedure in addition. In T. P. Carpenter, J. M. Moser, & T. A.
Romberg (Eds.), Addition and subtraction: A cognitive perspective
(pp. 67–81). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fuson, K. C. (1992). Research on whole number addition and
subtraction. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on
mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 243–275). New York:
Macmillan.
Fuson, K. C., Richards, J., & Briars, D. J. (1982). The acquisition
and elaboration of the number word sequence. In C. J. Brainerd
Scand J Psychol 46 (2005) Sequence skill and arithmetic performance 167

(Ed.), Progress in cognitive development research : Vol. 1 . Svenson, O., & Broquist, S. (1975). Strategies for solving simple
Children’s logical and mathematical cognition (pp. 33–92). New addition problems: A comparison of normal and subnormal
York: Springer-Verlag. children. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 16, 143–151.
Gal’perin, P. Ia. (1970). An experimental study in the formation of Svenson, O., Hedenborg, M.-L., & Lingman, L. (1976). On children’s
mental actions. In E. Stones (Ed.), Readings in educational heuristics for solving simple additions. Scandinavian Journal of
psychology (pp. 142–154). London: Methuen & Co Ltd. Psychology, 20, 161–173.
Gelman, R., & Gallistel, C. R. (1978). The child’s understanding of Tuijnman, A. C., & Keeves, J. P. (1997). Path analysis and linear
number. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. structural relations analysis. In J. P. Keeves (Ed.), Educational
Ho, C. S.-H., & Fuson, K. C. (1998). Children’s knowledge of teen research, methodology, and measurement: An international hand-
quantities as tens and ones: Comparisons of Chinese, British, and book (pp. 621– 633). New York: Pergamon.
American Kindergartners. Journal of Educational Psychology, Uttal, D. H., Liu, L. L., & DeLoache, J. S. (1999) Taking a hard
90, 536–544. look at concreteness: Do concrete objects help young children
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equ- learn symbolic relations? In L. Balter & C. S. Tamis-LeMonda
ation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Hillsdale, (Eds.), Child psychology: A handbook of contemporary issues
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (pp. 177–192). Ann Arbor: Taylor and Francis.
Levine, S. C., Jordan, N. C., & Huttenlocher, J. (1992). Develop- Wigforss, F. (1946). Barnens färdighet i räkning vid skolgångens början
ment of calculation abilities in young children. Journal of Experi- [Children’s counting skills at school entrance]. Häfte 191, Pedago-
mental Psychology, 53, 72–103. giska skrifter utgivna av Sveriges allmänna folkskollärarförenings
Martins-Mourao, A., & Cowan, R. (1998). The emergence of litteratursällskap. Göteborg: Elanders.
additive composition of number. Educational Psychology, 18, Wynn, K. (1998). Numerical conpetence in infants. In C. Donlan (Ed.),
377–390. The development of mathematical skills ( pp. 3 –25). East Sussex:
Pollio, H. R., & Whitacre, J. D. (1970). Some observations on the Psychology Press.
use of natural numbers by preschool children. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 30, 167–174. Received 17 March 2003, accepted 3 October 2003
Resnick, J. B., & Omanson, S. F. (1987). Learning to understand
arithmetic. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psycho- APPENDIX A
logy (pp. 41–96). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Riley, M. S., Greeno, J. G., & Heller, J. I. (1983). Development of Table A1. Addition and subtraction problems
children’s problem solving ability in arithmetic. In H. Ginsburg
(Ed.), The development of mathematical thinking (pp. 153–196). Lists
New York: Academic Press.
Secada, W. G., Fuson, K. C., & Hall, J. W. (1983). The transition Problems 1 2 3 4
from counting-all to counting-on in addition. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 14, 47–57. Addition
Siegler, R. S. (1987). The perils of averaging data over strategies: 1. 1 + 4 4 + 1 2 + 3 3 + 2
An example from children’s addition. Journal of Experimental 2. 5 + 4 4 + 5 3 + 4 4 + 3
Psychology: General, 116, 250 –264. 3. 7 + 6 6 + 7 5 + 6 6 + 5
Siegler, R. S. (1991). Strategy choice and strategy discovery. Learning 4. 8 + 7 7 + 8 7 + 8 8 + 7
and instruction, 1, 89–102. 5. 6 + 18 18 + 6 6 + 17 7 + 16
Steffe, L. P. (2002). PSSM from a constructivist perspective. Paper 6. 15 + 26 26 + 15 13 + 28 14 + 27
presented at the Research Symposium Linking Research and the Subtraction
New Early Childhood Mathematics standards, held at the 2000 1. 5 − 2 5 − 4 5 − 1 5 − 3
NCTM Research Presession, Chicago IL. 2. 8 − 3 7 − 4 7 − 3 8 − 4
Steffe, L. P., & Cobb, P. (1988). Construction of arithmetical meanings 3. 12 − 5 12 − 7 13 − 6 13 − 6
and strategies. New York: Springer-Verlag. 4. 17 − 8 17 − 8 15 − 8 15 − 8
Steffe, L. P., von Glasersfeld, E., Richards, J., & Cobb, P. (1983). 5. 22 − 7 23 − 6 23 − 7 23 − 7
Children’s counting types: Philosophy, theory, and application. 6. 43 − 14 41 − 15 42 − 13 42 − 13
New York: Praeger Scientific.

© 2005 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations/Blackwell Publishing Ltd.