Making the invisible, visible: How Numicon can

improve learning outcomes in numeracy for children

with special educational needs.

A Specialist Study
By
Muireann Creamer B.Ed., SEN.Dip.
Introduction:

Mathematics is a creative and highly inter-connected discipline that is essential to everyday life. It
provides a foundation for understanding the world, an aptitude to reason and solve problems, the
capabilities to assess risk and make informed decisions and the facility to equip us with skills to
analyse and interpret information. Our rapidly changing world of technology requires a deeper level
of mathematical understanding for future generations. In order for children to become informed
and confident members of the technology age, they must be able to deal effectively with the various
transactions of everyday life and make sense of the masses of information and data available to
them. Our children need to be taught to think and communicate quantitatively and spatially, solve
problems and recognise situations where mathematics can be applied to solve those problems.

The current mathematics curriculum defines mathematics as ‘....the science of magnitude, number
shape, space and their relationships and also a universal language based on symbols and diagrams...’
(Mathematics Curriculum, pg. 2). It further emphasises how important mathematics is in order for
children to be able to explain, predict and record aspects of their physical environments and social
interactions. However, leading pedagogical experts agree, that within every classroom, between
five and ten per cent of students will experience difficulties in mathematics. The seriousness of
these difficulties can vary between temporary difficulties in one area of mathematics, to severe
learning disabilities affecting large areas of the mathematics curriculum.

Students with significant cognitive disabilities represent a population of students in need of

pervasive support and learning needs. They can include those with Down Syndrome, brain injuries,
Cerebral Palsy, Autistic Spectrum Disorders and other genetic and chromosomal disorders such as
Fragile X Syndrome and Fatal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders. The teaching of the mathematics
curriculum and the interventions needed for children with special educational needs (SEN) seem to
follow an ever changing pendulum of swings; from the computational versus the conceptual, facts
versus problem solving, procedure versus application and meaning, rote learning versus making
sense of knowledge, and structure versus abstract.

Proficiency in mathematics, however, requires, first and foremost, an understanding of non-concrete

concepts that often remain invisible for children with SEN. It is the very nature of these abstractions
in mathematics which prohibit children with SEN from accessing the mathematics curriculum.
Children with SEN need to ‘see’ the numerical relations upon which successful arithmetic depends.
A failure to visualise and memorise mathematical facts can prohibit these children from ever fully
understanding mathematical concepts or accessing the mathematics curriculum.

Special education mathematics instruction has, traditionally, focused on number theory. Yet,
proficiency in mathematics furthers requires an understanding of a mathematical language, an
awareness of number patterns and a perception of solving problems that require a logic and
memory function that children with SEN often do not possess. However, there is a new special
educational intervention programme, Numicon, that covers the five strands of mathematics;
algebra, data-analysis, geometry, measurement and number, in a broad, hands-on, concrete,
questioning, and engaging way.

The Numicon approach to teaching mathematics has revolutionised learning outcomes for children
in general, but children with SEN in particular. It is a multi-sensory approach to mathematics that
aims for children to learn mathematical ideas through seeing and feeling the imagery of number,
hearing and saying the connected mathematical language while simultaneously performing the
action of the immediate teaching activity.

Lane, M. (2008) discusses how the Numicon programme was developed and built upon the work of
Catherine Stern in the 1940’s, and Calab Cattegno in the 1950’s, both of whom advocated the use of
visual images in developing children’s understanding of number. The research into the promotion of
visual images which could be used to advance arithmetic capability was developed, initially, for
children with Down Syndrome. Between 1996 and 1998, Ruth Atkinson, Romey Tacon and Dr. Tony
Wing set out to establish whether using visual structured imagery would support children’s
arithmetic understanding. Through that research, a programme of teaching activities was devised
using ‘Numicon’ in multi-sensory way by following a series of structured lessons and using specific
resources that could easily be followed by teachers. Numicon aims to bring those abstract
combinations of number, number patterns and a mathematical language to a concrete level of
understanding for all children, but particularly those with SEN.

This study initially proposes to investigate the abstract concepts that make mathematics intangible
and how these abstractions affect the learning outcomes in mathematics for children with SEN.
Secondly, it seeks to explore the opinions and ideas of leading pedagogical experts into the
effectiveness of various teaching approaches and methodologies used in teaching mathematics to
children with SEN. Finally, it aims to investigate the Numicon approach to teaching mathematics and
considers how this approach can improve the learning outcomes for children with SEN in
mathematics.

What are the difficulties that children with Special Educational Need experience in Mathematics?

In order to identify the specific difficulties that children with SEN experience in mathematics we
must first look at the historical context of the research and instruction of mathematics for children
with special educational needs.

Historical Context:

Hachey, A. (2013) discusses the historical context for the teaching of mathematics and identifies that
in the early 20th century, young children were not considered capable of engaging in the type of
thinking needed to understand mathematics. Piaget’s research, however, presented young children
as mathematically curious and as actively constructing mathematical knowledge from an early age.
His work taught us that young children do not think logically in a way that most adults do and that
their gradual progress toward adult logical thinking is partly experiential and partly maturational. So
we, therefore, cannot expect young children to think like adults.
Modern thinking identifies that human brains are neutrally programmed for basic number sense
from birth and a common system of number representation is present and functional in 6 month old
infants.

Frazier, P. (2012) states that before the 1990’s, the bulk of mathematic instruction for children with
moderate to severe cognitive disabilities focused on number skills and was often limited to money
and telling time. She ascertains that the reason for this was the misconception that students with
disabilities lacked any ability to learn mathematical concepts. Specific mathematical interventions
and instruction for children with SEN was, at best, vague and sparse and, at worst, non-existent. She
discusses further how little research was carried out into the area of mathematics and the difficulties
that children with SEN encounter. Finally, she compares the emphasis of research on attainment in
literacy to the lack of research in numeracy in the area of children with SEN. She notes, however,
that between 2000 and 2011, there has been an increase in discussion, research and literature
regarding mathematical instruction for children with disabilities.

Teachers of students with SEN today strive to master the five content areas of mathematics;
algebra; the study of patterns, relations and functions; geometry; the study of spatial organization;
data analysis; the study of organising and interpreting facts and data; measurement; the study of
defining attributes in the standard format; and, number and operations; the study of quantity and
number. In order to ensure that students with SEN achieve success in mathematics to the best of
their abilities, we must recognise, discuss and identify the main obstacles they encounter on the
road to mathematical success. The first hurdle of difficulty they experience is the abstract nature of
number and number ideas.

‘Seeing’ the abstract mathematical concept concretely:

As adults, we see numbers all around us and they represent many different things – but to the child
with SEN, they are often abstract symbols without meaning. All leading pedagogical thinking
stresses that a failure to make connections between abstract number symbols and their
representations early, lead to future mathematical difficulties. Abstraction of mathematical
concepts is an on-going process and the progression of most mathematical topics requires the
development of thought from the concrete to the abstract. Children have to look for patterns in
situations and recognise them as something they are familiar with and that can be applied to other
situations. Children with SEN are often required to make the transition from the invisible abstract
concept they are learning, to knowing it concretely, and being able to write it down and record it,
without fully absorbing, understanding or internalising the concept.

Both, Van Luit, J. & Schopman, A. (2000) and Askew, M. (2000) identify the importance of a
knowledge of number bonds to provide a baseline of mathematical knowledge for children. They
identify that children with SEN who experience difficulties in understanding the abstract symbols of
mathematics by first class (6/7 years), will be low achievers of mathematics generally. They refer to
the Gestalt Theory, where incoming information is more than just a sum of the parts, and that the
connections must be made between the abstract and the concrete. In other words, that separate
parts of a mathematical concept are not seen as random single entities, but rather as a meaningful
whole.
Dowker, A. (2009) also stresses that those children who experience difficulties with mathematics
have failed to build up adequate representations of numbers and arithmetical operations in a verbal,
visual and abstract way.

Frazier, P. (2012) identifies that children with Down Syndrome experience an impenetrability into
the abstract area of number and number concepts and have severe difficulties in mastering basic
number skills without relying on concrete materials. Wing, T., & Tacon, R., (2007) discusses how
children need to make numbers real and need to look for patterns in situations and recognise them
as something they are familiar with.

Children with SEN, therefore, need to understand that numbers do not occur randomly but are part
of a highly organised system that is filled with patterns. A major stumbling block into the world of
number and number ideas for children with SEN is that movement from concrete to abstract, from
the visible to the invisible. We need to consider therefore, the cognitive functions of children with
SEN and the affect that this has on that mathematical transition.

Cognition:

Cognitive obstacles can combine to cause significant delays for students with SEN. Frazier, P. (2012)
defines cognitive processing as involving mental operations needed to obtain meaning or solve a
problem whether it is word or number based. Cognition is how we acquire, organise, represent and
process knowledge through reasoning. It is, essentially, our thinking and remembering. Children
who experience cognitive difficulties will encounter a delay in processing information and a difficulty
in remembering aspects of a mathematical situation.

Goethe, K., et al (2012), identify that most children with SEN show signs of an impaired working or
short term memory. Dowker, A., (2009) also notes that the working memory in children with SEN is
one of the main difficulties in storing and retrieving facts. These difficulties manifest themselves in
two ways; firstly, in the retrieval of number facts and knowledge and, secondly, in remembering the
steps needed to arrive at an answer. Van Luit, J., & Schopman, A., (2000) agree with this finding and
further note that connecting information with existing knowledge requires, for children with SEN,
an enormous effort of time spent on repeated information of small concepts, over and over again.

The Numicon Teaching Manual (2010) suggests that children are busy collecting impressions, ideas,
techniques, skills, associations and experiences which add up to idiosyncratic and continually
developing mental ‘concept images’ or collages for mathematical ideas. They define the concept
image as something that is non-verbal; a representation of a concept; a mental picture of a
mathematical idea. Developing a ‘concept image’ of number for children with SEN requires a
constant reminder to visualise that number. Children with SEN will require a constant concrete
visual image of that number in order to build up a ‘concept image’ of number and number ideas in
their long term memories.
Mathematical Language:

Experts agree that there is a significant mutual relationship between language acquisition and
numeracy development in children with SEN. Purpura, D., and Reid, E., (2015) note that there is
evidence that the language associated with numeracy is highly content-specific and that children’s
language skills and numeracy abilities are inter-related.

Conceptually, numeracy and language are linked in development because language skills are
believed to support numerical progress. Much of the terminology children need to understand and
to ‘do’ mathematics is highly-language based. Many children with SEN experience language
difficulties ranging from mild language difficulties to non-verbal expression. Others, children with
autism for example, experience a very literal meaning of language and encounter difficulty with
expressive language in general and mathematical language in particular. In the course of
mathematical lessons words, which are familiar outside the classroom, are used in unfamiliar
contexts and take on unfamiliar meanings. Confusion for children with SEN often arises where we
have different words for what seem to be similar things, or similar words for different things. The
child with autism, for example, may think that the word ‘take-away’ in a non-mathematical context,
describes a meal collected from a fast food outlet, whereas, in arithmetic, it describes a subtraction
structure.

Learning a precise mathematical language often presents difficulties. When children do not
understand aspects of early mathematical language, they will also experience difficulties in grasping
exact mathematical concepts. Dowker, A., (2009) submits that language difficulties affect the child’s
ability to understand and to make use of instruction and that their ability to encode and represent
mathematical information is dependent upon their abilities to verbalise. She further notes that
language difficulties will also affect their abilities to reflect on their own difficulties, work out useful
strategies, and ask for assistance if needed.

Visual, Auditory and Kinaesthetic Learners:

Children with SEN often experience difficulties in acquiring information through auditory and/or
visual means. Verbal short term memory tasks frequently involve auditory presentation of the items
to be remembered and clearly, if one has difficulty in hearing and identifying these items due to a
visual or auditory impairment, then the memorisation of them is likely to be severely reduced.

Wing, T., & Tacon, R. (2007) contend that children need to experience number and number concepts
in a multi-sensory way in order to make sense of arithmetic. The child needs to be able to ‘see’ the
numerical relations in order to build up a picture of the mathematical concepts being taught. They
argue that a multi-sensory approach to mathematics will offer children different routes to
understanding, rather than reliance upon one or other senses. Dowker, A. (2009) further comments
that children with SEN who experience difficulties in mathematics have usually failed to build up
verbal, visual, and abstract representations of number. Children with SEN, therefore, need to be
offered many different routes to understanding mathematics and an identification of the most
applicable learning strategy for each child needs to be identified.
Instruction of Mathematics:

The final area of difficulty experienced by children with SEN in accessing the mathematics curriculum
is that of mathematical instruction itself. Krosbergen, E., & Van Luit, J., (2003) state that direct
instruction is more effective than mediated, assisted, or self-instruction through ICT.

Westwood, P.,(2011) describes how the most effective teachers of mathematics provide a
systematic instruction in such a way that genuine understanding accompanies a mastery of number
skills and an acquisition of problem solving strategies. He contends that insufficient or inappropriate
instruction is one of the reasons that children with SEN experience learning difficulties in
mathematics. He further argues that coverage of the mathematics curriculum for lower-ability
students should be reduced as little as possible in order to maintain sufficient interest, challenge
and, more importantly, to preserve self-esteem.

Askew, M., et al (1997) however, identify that the strongest effect on students numeracy outcomes
is that of teachers’ implicit beliefs and a knowledge of the difficulties children with SEN experience
within the classroom setting. They identify ‘connectionist’ teaching strategies as being the most
effective and efficient for teaching mathematics to children with SEN. The connectionist teacher
believes that connections need to be established between numbers and methods and that being
numerate requires an awareness of different methods of calculation and the ability to choose an
appropriate method. They also note that a failure or lack of specific knowledge of the learning style
of the child with SEN by their teacher will result in poor learning outcomes in all areas of the
curriculum.

Dowker, A., (2009) makes a case that consideration should be given to the teacher training required
for teachers of children with SEN in the identification and use of appropriate interventions needed
to suit learning styles. Lack of teacher training, she identifies, promotes a lack of knowledge into the
strategies and interventions needed for the myriad of differences within a classroom. Indeed, many
newly qualified teachers today, struggle, with the wide and diverse nature of disabilities within any
one mainstream classroom. Hitherto, the remediation and supplementary teaching for children with
diverse needs, fell to the Resource or Learning Support teachers within a school. However, teachers
now realise, that the primary responsibility for ensuring that children with SEN are educated to best
of their capabilities, falls to the class teacher. Changes have started to appear, where class teachers
and resource teachers now collaborate to ensure the best outcomes for children with SEN.

Having, therefore, identified some of the challenges that children with SEN face when accessing the
mathematics curriculum, we need to identify the most effective strategies for teaching mathematics
as identified by leading pedagogical experts.
What are the leading expert pedagogical opinions on the various teaching approaches and
methodologies, and their effectiveness, in teaching mathematics to children with SEN?

Early Intervention:

The Guidelines for Primary Schools in Supporting Children with Special Educational Needs in
Mainstream Primary Schools (2017) states the importance of early intervention and prevention
programmes in numeracy. It suggests the deployment of additional teaching resources in junior
classes to strengthen station teaching approaches which target the promotion of numeracy skills. It
also notes that schools should have the flexibility to innovate by developing and trialling new
approaches and by using assessment data to evaluate the efficacy of these interventions.

Dowker, A. (2009) recommends that supports for children with SEN should take place, ideally, in the
early years of education firstly, because mathematics can affect performance in other areas of the
curriculum; and, secondly, because children who perceive themselves as failing in mathematics
early run the risk of developing negative attitudes and anxieties towards mathematics later on.
Schopman, A. & Van Luit, J., (1996) concur with this suggestion and provide evidence that children
with SEN enjoy more success and a better attitude toward mathematics when interventions take
place in the early years of education.

Kidd, J. et al. (2008), however, discuss the possibility that there is a tendency for schools to introduce
mathematical skills and concepts too early and that prematurely introducing these skills and
concepts, which are beyond children’s cognitive capabilities, have a negative effect on learning
outcomes. Westwood, P. (2011) concurs with this finding and further adds that abstract symbols
being introduced too early, in the absence of concrete materials to secure mental imagery of
understanding, can contribute to a feeling of helplessness, confusion and anxiety for children with
SEN when faced with mathematical ideas.

Therefore, it seems that ensuring children have concrete apparatus to explore mathematical
concepts at an early age, before moving to the abstract nature of symbols and figures, is essential.

Assessment:

The Guidelines for Primary School for Supporting Children with Special Educational Needs in
Mainstream Schools (2017) firmly insists that the identification of the educational needs of the
student and a continuum of assessment of the support networks in place for that child, are central
to supporting SEN children. ‘Some pupils with more complex and enduring needs may require
specific methodologies, teaching approaches, and/or learning activities. Such interventions should
be based on careful identification of strengths and needs, including multi-disciplinary assessment,
when necessary’ (pg. 13).
Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development Theory suggests that when a child is at the zone of
proximal development for a particular task, providing the appropriate assistance or ‘scaffolding’ will
give the student enough assistance to achieve the task. Van Luit, J., & Schopman, A., (2000) refer to
Vygotsky’s theory and its importance in evaluating the difference between the levels of performance
a child can achieve by working alone and that of working with assistance. By evaluating this
difference, they suggest, the teacher is provided with information on the efficiency with which the
child receives new skills. Once the student, with the scaffolding, masters the task, the scaffolding
can be removed and the student will then be able to complete the task again on their own.

Instructional scaffolding provides the student with sufficient support within the learning process
which can be gradually removed as students develop autonomous learning abilities. Westwood, P.,
(2011) indicates that in order for effective scaffolding of the student’s learning to take place, it is
first essential to establish exactly where the child’s zone of proximal development exists. The first
steps to intervention, therefore, should be a determination of exactly what the student can already
do, a location of any gaps in their knowledge which may exist, and then a decision of what should be
taught next. Assessment, he insists, is the key to identifying core information, concepts and skills
associated with the topic being taught.

While Dowker, A., (2009) agrees that intervention schemes for children with SEN should involve a
thorough assessment of children’s specific strengths and weaknesses, she contends that each
weakness can be specifically targeted and further suggests that the effectiveness of the intervention
should also be assessed to evaluate its efficacy. Frazier, P., (2012), concurs with this idea and
identifies, in depth, exactly what strengths and weaknesses should be assessed prior to intervention.
She proposes research into each student’s strengths and weaknesses in a number of areas; motor
skills, speech and language abilities, auditory processing, visual processing, and working memory
abilities. She maintains that in order to ascertain the zone of proximal development, a full
assessment in all these areas is vital.

Assessment, therefore, is clearly a vital strategy when deciding on interventions for children with
SEN in mathematics. In order to ascertain the zone of proximal development for the children with
SEN, a full assessment of their learning styles, strengths and weaknesses will be needed in order to
improve learning outcomes.

Peer Tutoring V Direct Teaching:

New guidelines for resource and support teachers in Irish primary schools have identified a policy of
inclusion for children with SEN. This policy notes the importance of children with special educational
needs being included, in as much as is possible, within the mainstream classroom.

Krosbergen, E., & Van Luit, J., (2003) argue that interventions using peer tutoring were considerably
less effective than those of direct instruction for children with SEN. Direct instruction, they argue,
ensures explicit instruction of a mathematical task and will make it is as overt and explicit as
possible. Peer tutoring, they claim, prohibits automaticity and problem-solving skills.
Dowker, A., (2009) sets out some intervention principles for children who experience mathematical
difficulties. She reports that the interventions should be individualised and that children who
experiences severe difficulties should receive intensive one-to-one intervention from a qualified
teacher. She qualifies her statement by suggesting that paired or small group work may be
appropriate in some cases. Children with less severe difficulties might benefit from working within
groups, but in a differentiated manner. Westwood, P. (2011) argues that effective programmes for
helping weaker students improve in mathematics includes individualising help to match the child’s
current level of understanding, while giving plenty of opportunities to achieve the mastery of
concepts by using concrete materials where necessary.

However, Askew, M., et al (1997) believe that the strongest effect in ensuring successful outcomes in
mathematics for children with SEN was that of teacher’s implicit or explicit beliefs and how that
shaped what happened within the classroom. In their study of effective teachers of numeracy, they
maintained that the most effective teachers of numeracy were those who had a strong connectionist
orientation. The primary belief for the connectionist teacher is based on the dialogue between
teacher and pupils, so that teachers better understand the pupils’ thinking and pupils’ can gain
access to the teachers’ mathematical knowledge.

Frazier, P., (2012) suggests that the most appropriate method of instructional technique for children
with SEN is that of systematic instruction. Systematic instruction is, as it suggests, a very specific
system of steps that insists on very careful planning and recording keeping. It defines skills, methods
and frequency of practice where the teacher firstly defines the skills to be acquired, defines the
methods to use, implements the plan and the frequency of the plan and reviews student progress to
modify instruction. This type of systematic instruction, she insists, is the overarching instructional
methodology with the strongest evidence of effectiveness. This kind of systematic instruction,
however, does not lend itself to inclusiveness for the children with SEN.

The recent Guidelines for Primary Schools from the Department of Education insist that teaching
approaches include a combination of team-teaching initiatives, co-operative teaching, early
intervention and small group or individual support. With this in mind, the dilemma and challenge for
Irish teachers must be how to effectively teach mathematics to a diverse group of students with
varying levels of ability and need, not to mention learning styles.

Appropriate Interventions:

Dowker, A., (2009) suggest that there is evidence that the use of structured apparatus and
multisensory teaching can be both helpful and effective in interventions in mathematics for children
with SEN. Learning tends to be more effective if it occurs in several different contexts and if children
can relate these contexts to each other. Otherwise, children may learn very efficiently in one
context but not apply it to others. She cautions, however, that children with SEN do not always
make connections from concrete to abstract and that it is important to investigate the best methods
of using mathematical apparatus.
Westwood, P., (2011) also agrees that using structural materials provides a bridge between the
concrete experience and the abstract. He supports the idea of the constructivist approach which is
based on the belief that learning occurs as learners are actively involved in a process of meaning and
knowledge as opposed to passively receiving information. In a constructivist classroom, the children
are the makers of meaning and knowledge, guided by the teacher. Therefore, the use of structured
apparatus will help children with SEN construct a deeper mathematical understanding. He also,
however, warns of difficulties where children simply play with the apparatus, or where they come to
rely on it too much and do not progress to the next level of processing number relationships
mentally.

Having described the difficulties experienced by children with SEN and the viewpoints for
interventions from the leading academic experts in this area, this study will, finally, examine the
Numicon approach to teaching mathematics and its implications for improved learning outcomes for
children with SEN.

How can the Numicon approach to teaching mathematics improve the learning outcomes for
children with SEN?

In order to examine the benefits of using the Numicon approach for children with special
educational needs in mathematics, it is important to address its effectiveness under the same
headings as used when identifying the difficulties children with SEN experience in mathematics and
the effective strategies noted by leading pedagogical experts.

Historical Context:

Lane, M., (2009) discusses how the Numicon programme was first established in 1996 and was,
initially, devised for the support of children with Down Syndrome. The focus of the inventors of the
programme, Ruth Atkinson, Romey Tacon and Dr. Tony Wing, was to construct a programme of
multi-sensory teaching activities to develop the mental arithmetic capability of children from early
childhood education through to age nine or ten. Their initial idea was to establish whether using
visual structured imagery would support children’s arithmetical understanding.

Tacon, R., et al (2004) state that the basis of the teaching approach devised involved the use of
structured imagery and apparatus within an image/symbolic rich classroom environment. Wing, T.,
& Tacon, R., (2007, pg. 1), state ‘...in Numicon activities, children can physically combine all patterns,
rods and everyday objects representing each other in order that their calculating is made ‘real..’.

The Numicon materials themselves are structured visual representations of number that are both
visual and tactile and make clear the stable order of the number system i.e. that the next number is
one more than the last. The materials include brightly coloured plastic shapes, pegs and
baseboards, which fit together and allow children to explore the relationships between numbers.
The shapes themselves represent numbers from one to ten; with each shape a different colour and a
clear representation of whether the number is odd or even. The Numicon shapes and number rods
are designed to represent the structure of number ideas and how this forms an important part of
children’s concept image of number ideas.
Underlying the activities in the Numicon approach are key mathematical concepts that children will
meet visually, discuss orally, develop and understand. The structured apparatus is supported by
clear teacher guidelines that give step by step directions for instruction and consolidation of the
Numicon approach.

‘Seeing’ the abstract mathematical concept concretely:

As previously discussed, leading pedagogical experts all concur that children with SEN experience
great difficulty in connecting the abstract number symbols and their representations to the concrete
concept of number. Van Luit, J., & Schopman, A., (2009) note that this difficulty alone is the root
cause of further mathematical difficulties for children with SEN.

Wing, T., & Tacon, R., (2007) note that number ideas are very abstract and children need to have
these presented to them in a wide variety of ways. The Numicon approach, they suggest, offers
children multi-sensory activities with patterned shapes, rods and number lines, together with a
broad range of everyday experiences and contexts so that their understanding of number ideas is
richly varied. By combining all the patterns, rods and everyday objects representing number with
each other, their calculating is made ‘real’. The Numicon teaching guide also refers to the child’s
‘concept image’ of number. It suggests that the concept image is something non-verbal that is
associated in the child’s mind with the concept name. The image can be a visual representation of
the concept or a collection of images and experiences. For example, it is actually impossible for a
child with Down Syndrome to define a concept image of ‘five’. Yet, because Down Syndrome
children are, primarily, visual learners; the Numicon approach can develop a rich concept image of
number and include within that concept image systematic visual patterns (Numicon images) which
will help them move from the abstract to the concrete.

The development of the child’s mental imagery of number is encouraged through the visual,
auditory and kinaesthetic routes offered towards learning and, thus, understanding. The regular
patterns of the Shapes help make them memorable and, from their first experiences with Numicon,
children start to form mental images of number and thus understand and remember number ideas
and patterns. As children’s understanding develops, they gradually cease to rely on the concrete
Numicon imagery and begin to rely on their own mental imagery of number and relationships
between numbers and number operations.

Cognition/Working Memory:

Children with SEN usually experience difficulties or delays in processing information and encounter
problems remembering aspects of mathematical functions and operations. As previously discussed,
Van Luit, J. & Schopman, A., (2000) noted that making connections to previously known number
facts require an enormous effort for children with SEN. Within the Numicon teaching approach,
children start to execute arithmetic as they arrange and combine the Numicon shapes and number
rods. The emphasis is mainly placed upon building up a concrete image of the abstract idea being
taught.
Nearly all the activities are designed as games, so there is lots of opportunity for touching and
feeling the apparatus, seeing the visual representation of the apparatus and noting the connections
of one piece of apparatus to another. Memory of number facts is an important factor in the
development of mathematical skills. Van Luit, J.,& Schopman, A., (2000) note that children with SEN
experience difficulties understanding mathematical concepts because of a difficulty in retrieving
number facts needed to progress. For example, unless a child remembers that five is two more than
seven, they cannot hope to solve the problem of how many more do I need to make seven if I have
five?

Dowker, A., (2009) in her evaluation of the Numicon approach as an intervention, noted the
improvement in children’s memorisation of number facts and a noticeable increase in the
application of number facts to solving problems. The teaching approach used by Numicon is both
cumulative and progressive where each step constructs, compounds and enriches the children’s
previous internalised knowledge. The Numicon imagery is constant throughout all teaching
activities, but as the children begin to understand the number operations, they start to make
connections to what they have already learned and can work out facts they do not yet know. When
children, then, have a repertoire of number facts and ideas which they can use with unconscious
competence, their working memory is freed to focus on solving the problem in hand. The images of
number, number relationships and number operations offered to learners throughout the Numicon
teaching programme supports both memory and understanding.

Wing, T., & Tacon, R., (2007) testify that their findings show striking evidence of children responding
positively to the visual structured images and the related programme of activities. Nye, J., et al
(2005) determined that groups of children who used Numicon recorded significant progress with
their number skills over time. Lane, M., (2009) also noted how the research findings showed striking
evidence of children responding positively to the visual structured images and the related
programme of activities. She felt that the teaching approach deliberately played to the children’s
learning strengths and that the imagery supported the children’s memory for number facts and their
understanding of number relationships.

Mathematical Language:

Experts agree that verbalisation abilities are crucial for the child to encode and represent
mathematical information. Learning a precise mathematical language for children with SEN,
therefore, presents teachers with a challenge. Children with SEN become confused when language
becomes foreign and unfamiliar in a mathematical context. The Numicon teaching guidelines (2010)
suggest that specific mathematical words can not only have different meanings for children with
SEN, but also cause confusion when several different words are used to mean, basically, the same
idea. For example, the word ‘subtract’ can be given a variety of terms; decrease, take-away, less
than, the difference between, etc. It is important that children with SEN learn to use and
understand this language so that they can explain their ideas appropriately.
In order to solve word problems, they need to understand the language attached to different
mathematical structures so that they can identify the appropriate mathematical operation.
Numicon imagery helps children to understand mathematical language in that it provides a constant
visual support. Children are helped to understand the mathematical language when the teacher
models the Numicon shapes because they hear the mathematical language while the imagery
supports their visual understanding of that language. In developing their own mental imagery of
number, children move from what they see to what they say, and from what they say, to what they
feel they know. The child’s ability to explain, therefore, what they are doing using appropriate
mathematical language, will show the teacher their level of understanding. Numicon also gives
children who are non-verbal, or who experience language difficulties, opportunities to show their
understanding in the way that they may arrange the Numicon apparatus.

Lane, M., (2009), found that the Numicon imagery provoked ideas for the children on position,
pattern, colour and shape, as well as the value of the numbers. In this context, she asserts, children
needed specific teaching of number language. She concurred that the depth of understanding of
concept image was increasing as a result of using the materials and that the materials were also
facilitating the development of mathematical language which provided the appropriate
mathematical information. Nye, J., et al (2005) also felt that children who had used the Numicon
approach, were more motivated and showed signs of improvement in self-esteem as they could
visually demonstrate their answers where previously they could not communicate mathematically at
all.

Visual, Auditory and Kinaesthetic Learners:

We have previously discussed the importance of offering children with SEN, alternative routes to
understanding mathematical concepts. The Numicon Teaching Guidelines (2010) stress the
importance of the multi-sensory approach to learning mathematics. It aims for children to learn
mathematics through seeing and feeling the Numicon apparatus, through hearing and saying the
connected mathematical language and performing the action of the immediate teaching activity.
Offering children these different paths to understanding will enable them to ‘see’ the regular
patterns of the number shapes and help to make them memorable.

Tacon, R., et al (2004) refers to the multi-sensory nature of instruction in assisting children to
develop their understanding of number when using the Numicon apparatus. For example, fitting
together the three and seven shapes provides a visual model of why the answer is ten and how it
also relates to two and eight, and, six and four. Children could then draw upon this understanding
when it came to solving new problems, instead of just applying learned procedures and falling back
on counting when they met something familiar.

Lane, M., (2009) discusses the multi-sensory approach of Numicon and notes how it supports
Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences of how people learn using their strongest form of
intelligence, albeit, visual, auditory or kinaesthetic. She also advised that the multi-sensory approach
can assist children who are struggling with number, irrespective of how old they are.
The Numicon Teaching Guidelines (2010) also note the importance of creating a working
environment to support effective teaching and learning of mathematics. They stress that creating a
visually rich mathematical environment gives children opportunities to learn about numbers and
how useful they are in daily life. Children then make connections between new things they see and
what they already understand.

Wing, T., & Tacon, R. (2007) also state that it is essential that children experience number in a wide
range of ways and situations because the wider their experience, the more they will be able to use
their understanding of that experience in new situations. They also feel that children can make
connections with their experiences and that this deepens their understanding greatly. Children with
Down Syndrome, for example, are relatively strong in their visual thinking and the Numicon
approach appeals to their strengths. On the other hand, children with visual impairments will need
to rely more on the tactile nature of the Numicon apparatus.

Instruction of Mathematics:

Westwood, P., noted how the most effective teaching strategies for children with SEN were those
which provided a methodical form of instruction and that for children with SEN he suggested that
mathematical concepts should be reduced as little as possible in order to maintain interest and self-
esteem.

The Numicon Teaching Guide (2010) discusses how the multi-sensory activities are always within the
meaningful context of the imagery and are enjoyable to do. The structure of the imagery allows
children to make informed predictions and within those activities, there are always opportunities for
self-correction, which reduces the risk for learners and helps them to remember. Because the
imagery is constant throughout the programme of teaching activities, all children use the same
apparatus and the self-esteem of children with lower abilities is protected because all children work
in a similar way. The Numicon teaching activities lend themselves to differentiated learning and
each activity can be broken down to small steps, allowing children with SEN the time to rely heavily
on the apparatus and practice those small steps often before moving on to the next step.

Askew, M., et al (1997) identified the belief systems of the teacher as being a major contributory
factor in teaching children with SEN mathematics. For example, if a teacher believes that the most
important factor in learning mathematics is the rote memorisation of routines, then pupil errors are
more likely to be interpreted as carelessness and inattention. On the other hand, a teacher who
believes that pupils are trying to make sense of the information they see and hear, may interpret
those same mistakes as arising from a misunderstanding of information. He suggests that teachers
who felt that each mathematical problem requires an awareness of different methods of calculation
and the ability to choose the most effective and appropriate method, enjoyed more success with
students those who believed in set procedures and routines for each calculation.
Wing, T., & Tacon, R., (2007) attest that children’s abilities to do arithmetic would amount to little
more than party tricks unless they were able to apply that knowledge to solve problems in everyday
life. Children, they suggest, have to work at applying their number knowledge and throughout the
Numicon programme, they are encouraged to make connections between classroom arithmetic and
arithmetic they experience in the real world. In this way, children then learn to interpret
mathematical language in word problems and recognise the number structures required to solve
them. Children who memorise number facts, without understanding, experience great difficulty in
applying their facts to solving mathematical problems.

Early Intervention:

All leading academic experts agree on the absolute necessity for children who experience
mathematical difficulties to receive early interventions. The Department of Education in Ireland also
pay respect to the need for early intervention and prevention programmes in primary schools. It
suggests that children in junior classes would benefit from extra resources being implemented in the
form of station teaching, co-teaching, team teaching, etc.

Numicon adapts easily to the numerous mathematical intervention programmes offered to junior
class children in primary schools in Ireland. Programmes such as Aistear, Mata sa Rang, Maths
Recovery, etc., can all incorporate the early learning Numicon activities easily. These early activities
are used to specifically represent numbers from one to ten giving children a concrete image of place
value. Although the Numicon shapes are designed primarily to help children to visualise and handle
number ideas, inevitably as they handle the pieces, turn them over, turn them around, join them
and move them from place to place, they are experiencing and learning about spatial ideas from the
Shape and Space strand of the Curriculum. A simple activity of filling the baseboard with Numicon
pieces will see them experimenting with reflections; as they turn them over, rotations; as they turn
them around, and translations; as they move them together. Fundamental mathematical ideas of
order and equivalence that young children need to understand in the world of numbers are, of
course, evident in the physical comparisons involved in combining and arranging the apparatus. The
Numicon approach stresses the need for teachers to encourage children’s spatial exploration in the
early years in order for them to make geometrical connections later on.

Assessment:

Assessment of the child’s starting point of knowledge is perhaps the most important element for
teaching mathematics. Van Luit, J. & Schopman, A., (2000) state that teachers must use Vygotsky’s
zone of proximal development to assess the disparity between the level of performance a child can
achieve by working independently and that of working with assistance. By evaluating this difference,
the teacher is provided with information on the competence with which the child receives new skills.
Once the zone of proximal development has been identified, Westwood, P. (2011) states that
instructional scaffolding of mathematics can begin. All academic readings attest to the importance
of establishing the child’s zone of proximal development in order to proceed with instruction and
interventions.
Dowker, A., (2009), however, also stressed the importance of documenting the child’s weaknesses
and strengths when assessing mathematics. Identifying the child’s learning strengths will enable the
teacher to provide the fastest and most efficient route to learning and understanding. Throughout
the Numicon teaching approach, children are introduced to new ideas practically and they are not
expected to write down or record their answers until they can explain their understanding and
demonstrate that understanding through placement of the Numicon apparatus. Assessment
opportunities lie in noting the children’s actions and their use of language. Both are key indicators
of their understanding. Where a child is deficient in language, the way they arrange the shapes and
rods will indicate their understanding. Even when they cannot explain their understanding is visible
in the arrangement of the Numicon shapes and rods. Tacon, R., et al (2004) stresses the importance
of exploring children’s reasoning through viewing the imagery of their ideas and listening to their
explanations of strategies used. The child’s verbal abilities to explain what they are doing in precise
and appropriate mathematical language will indicate their level of understanding and
misconceptions may be revealed. When children have misconceptions or learning difficulties, they
will benefit from the steps of each Numicon activity being taken as a separate teaching session, and
from having plenty of opportunities to practice, before moving on to the next step.

Peer Tutoring V Direct Teaching:

Circular 24/03 sets out clearly for teachers that instruction for children with SEN must be in line with
the principles of inclusion. Previous methods of withdrawal of children from classroom to receive
instruction on one-to-one or small group level, is now deemed to be a last resort in supplementary
teaching. While, many experts argued that peer-instruction was less effective for children with SEN
who were experiencing difficulties in mathematics, the Numicon approach to instruction of children
with SEN actively supports peer-related inclusive support within the classroom.

Because the Numicon system is both cumulative and progressive, where each step learned scaffolds
and consolidates the children’s previous number understanding, children can work within groups of
varying abilities without their self-esteem being compromised. Although they may be working on
activities from an earlier part of the teaching programme, their self-esteem is maintained as they all
work in exactly the same way, using the same apparatus. Children with SEN can also receive
opportunities in hearing and seeing other children’s opinions and ideas and relate these to their own
experiences.

The Numicon teaching guidelines suggests that children’s developing reasoning in mathematics
should always be shared, explored and reflected upon openly from their earliest experiences.
Although we are not expecting clear, logical arguments from children, we do want them to notice
that the way they think is important in all its diversity and that thinking is worth thinking about.
Central to the Numicon approach is the self-confidence that children can feel in their own
mathematical thinking and reasoning and teachers are encouraged to take every opportunity to
nurture this in a highly supportive atmosphere.

While Numicon is preferably used in a whole class situation, there are, however, plenty of
opportunities for the adaptation of teaching activities for one-to-one or small group teaching. The
Numicon approach also stresses the importance for children with SEN to have access to the Numicon
apparatus when working independently within the classroom. This will enable them to feel secure
as they can check their answers just by looking at the Numicon imagery.
Conclusion:

Leading pedagogical authorities are in agreement regarding the abstract nature of mathematics and
the difficulties that children with SEN experience in accessing the mathematics curriculum.
Mathematics requires an ability to spot patterns and make connections and generalisations. It
entails an understanding of number relationships that are difficult for children with SEN to identify in
an abstract way and involves connecting those number relationships to other number ideas and
concepts that they already know. The invisible nature of mathematics proves very difficult, very
early, for children with SEN and they can concede defeat when they perceive that the abstract
nature of the concepts being taught as too complex. Children with SEN then begin to lose
confidence in their own thinking and stop expecting to understand. When children stop expecting to
understand mathematics they resort to, at best, learning rules and trying to remember when to
apply them ,and at worst, admitting failure altogether.

Nye, J. et al (2005), in evaluating the Numicon system for teaching number skills to children with
special educational needs, recognises its effectiveness. Children who use the Numicon approach
understand that numbers do not occur randomly, but are part of a highly organised system that is
filled with many patterns. Numicon can then assist students to see the connections between
numbers and number ideas by manipulating the Numicon shapes and rods and thus, make
associations between those number concepts. The Numicon approach, therefore, facilitates
children’s understanding by using strong structured imagery that plays to their robust sense of
pattern and the concrete apparatus gives them objects to ‘think with’. It ensures that all children
with SEN can feel successful in mathematics. It embodies the aims of the mathematics curriculum
by developing fluency and mathematical reasoning and by using a spoken mathematical language to
explain, reason and justify. Talking is an essential part of all Numicon activities where points of view
are exchanged between teachers and children, and children with each other. This encourages
reflective thinking as children learn to discuss different points of view both with others and with
themselves and they learn to respect all viewpoints. It invites children to think systematically about
possibilities rather than guessing the answer.

The Department of Education and Skills has adapted a new inclusive style of education for the future
of our children with special needs. The Numicon approach seems to offer a route to learning
mathematics that can be effective for all students and that can include differentiated instruction for
children with special educational needs within the classroom setting. Lane, M. (2009) states that
Numicon not only changed the way children learned and understood number, but also changed the
way in which the teacher taught mathematics to children with SEN. Using the Numicon teaching
approach, children with SEN can be taught, within a whole class setting, without their confidence
being compromised and yet it can also challenge children of all abilities, while using the same
apparatus for every level. It enhances teacher knowledge and confidence in teaching mathematics
and provides a competent tool for assessment within all capabilities.
Westwood, P., (2011) suggests that children with special needs deserve the same level of instruction
and support as other children and that our expectations for their mathematical development should
not be diluted because of their needs. He applauds the use of concrete materials in the instruction
of children with SEN and notes its importance in enabling children to bring the abstract nature of
number ideas and concepts to life. Students with special needs, like all other students, should be
entitled to engage in an interesting, challenging, relevant and inclusive mathematics curriculum.
They need to be taught mathematical generalisations and techniques which they can apply in real
situations. By developing children’s resourcefulness in communicating their problems, they can be
prepared to solve routine and non-routine problems in everyday life. The Numicon approach can
provide them with a bridge to inclusiveness and understanding in a way that does not affect their
self-esteem or confidence and ensures their participation in just the same way as other learners.

The different elements of the Numicon approach together support the development of a positive
self-image in children and they can begin to see themselves as successful learners of arithmetic and
mathematics. Numicon allows children to notice observe, use, manipulate and explore number
patterns and relationships. The children combine the physical activity with the images by talking and
thus thinking about numbers; the symbolic representations appearing alongside the ongoing action.
Numicon offers a new and revolutionary pathway for students with SEN to craft the invisible and
abstract nature of mathematics into a visible world of number and number ideas and to discover
their own route into a hitherto imperceptible, impenetrable, and invisible number system.
Bibliography
Askew, M., Rhodes, V., Brown, M., Wiliam, D., & Johnson, D., (1997). 'Effective Teachers of
Numeracy', London: King's College..

Atkinson, R. &. Wing T., (2010). Numicon Teaching Guide. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
London.

Department of Education and Skills. (2011). Literacy and Numeracy for Learning and Life.
Government Publications Office, Dublin.

Department of Education and Skills. (2017). Guidelines for Primary Schools . Supporting Pupils with
Special Educational Needs in Mainstream Schools. Government Publications Office. Dublin

Department of Education And Science. (2000). Learning Support Guildelines. Kellyprint Ltd., Dublin

Dowker, A., (2009). What works for Children with Mathematical Difficulties. Oxford: Government UK
Publications.

Frazier, P. (2012). 'Mathematical Education for Students with Severe Cognitive Disabilities'. Science
and Mathematics Teaching Centre. Wyoming, University of Wyoming.

Goethe, K., Esser, G., Gendt, A., Kliegl, R., (2012). 'Working Memory in Children: Tracing Age
Differences and Special Educational Needs to Parameters of a Formal Model'. Developing
Psychology, 48(2), pp. 459-476.

Hachey, A., (2013). 'The Early Childhood Mathematics Revolution'. Early Education and
Development, Volume 24, pp. 420-430.

Krosbergen, E., & Van Luit, J. (2003). 'Mathematics Interventions for Children with Special
Educational Needs'. Remedial and Special Education, Volume 24 (2) pp. 97-114.

Lane, M., 2009. 'Exploring the Use of Numicon in a Mainstream Primary Classroom in the Repulic of
Ireland'. Dublin, Government Publications.

Nye, J., Buckley,S., & Bird, G. (2005). 'Evaluating the Numicon system as a tool for teaching number
skills to children with Down Syndrome'. Down Syndrom Education Online, pp. 1-15.

NCCA. (1999). Primary School Mathematics Curriculum. Government Publications Office. Dublin.

NCCA. (2001). Guidelines for Teachers of Students with Moderate Learning Disabilities. Government
Publications Office. Dublin

Purpura, A. &. R. E., (2016). 'Mathematics and Language: Individual and group differences in
Mathematical Language Skills in Young Children'. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Volume 36, pp.
259-268.

Tacon, R., & Wing, T., (2004). 'Learning about Numbers and Patterns'. Beam Education. London.
Toll, S. &. Van Luit, J., (2014). 'The Developmental Relationship between Language and Low Early
Numeracy Skills throughout Kindergarten'. Exceptional Children, 81(1), pp. 64-78.

Van Luit, J. &. Schopman, E., (2000). 'Improving Early Numeracy of Young Children with Special
Educational Needs'. Remedial and Special Education, January/February, 21(1), pp. 27-40.

Westwood, P., (2011). Commonsense Methods for Children with Special Educational Needs. Oxford:
Routledge.

Wing, T. &. Tacon, R., (2007). 'Teaching Number Skills and Concepts with Numicon Materials'. Down
Syndrome Education Online, Volume 10, pp. 1-6.

Yew Hoong, L., Weng Kin, H., & Lu Pen, C., (2015). 'Concrete-Pictorial-Abstract: Surveying its origins
and charting its future'. The Mathematics Educator, Volume 16(1). University of Singaore.

Zhang, X., (2016). 'Linking Language, Visual-Spatial, and Executive Function Skills to Number
Competence in very young Chinese Children'. Early Childhood Quarterly, Volume 36, pp. 178-189.