Use of dot patterns

Thanks for raising this. I hadn't consciously realised that there are different spot patterns and last night's conversation highlighted the problems of children learning different pattern systems initially.

I think having the numbers 1-6 being mostly similar to dice patterns is very useful because these are universally recognised almost as characters, and children will hopefully come across dice at school and at home. I don't think it matters too much whether it's a diagonal, horizontal or vertical line for 2 but as Linda says, the straight line three on a dice could be replaced with Steve's triangle 3. In some ways I prefer Steve's 3 because when added to the 5 to make 8, it gives something which feels more like 8 as the two missing from 10 are adjacent. I'm interested that Linda's students have varying opinions on 3.

I think Mahesh Sharma uses a vertical straight line for 3 but a slightly different triangle for 3 when it is in 7 & 8. I presume this means that he thinks children can easily learn both 3s. His patterns seem similar to Steve's. (Judy, did you get anywhere with asking him to send over some of the number cluster cards for us to buy?)


I hadn't come across Emerson's dot patterns so I've just looked them up. These seem to work more around doubles and near doubles. I prefer to link numbers to 5 and 10 because I think that relationship is so vital, and fits with fingers so well.

However, I then find that I'm contradicting myself with 6 as the dice 6 is very easy to recognise but 5+1 links better with fingers.

The advantage that Numicon has is that it shows odd and even numbers so clearly. If my student was from a Numicon school where that was the pattern system they were using at school, I think I would stick with that so that they can get really secure.

I think the important thing might be to be aware what one system shows well and what will need to be covered in another way.

Spot on with numbers has peg boards in the dice 5 shape. Their resources show the numbers between 5 & 10 made by putting two dice patterns together. However, the peg boards can be used to make numbers to match those of Steve or Mahesh. I don't see that they would work for Emerson's number 7. (https://cdn.website-editor.net/e3616c10198541bb81c2e4190290ee30/files/uploaded/Dyscalculia%2520dot%2520representations%2520v1.pdf) I imagine that if you started with Steve's or Mahesh's patterns, you could use the spot on peg boards to show other relationships easily e.g. 5+3=4+4.

Sorry if this is rather waffly as I've been thinking it through whilst writing it.

Thank you very much Judy for allowing us to continue the discussion and it is great to get more views on it from everyone.

Because I am focusing on patterns 1-6 initially, it's true that sometimes there is a little degree of familiarity (only a little!)initially, or at least the dots may appear to not be a totally abstract / alien concept. I am afraid I am very stuck on my 7, as the children seem to love it perhaps because I call it lollypop 7. Children building in two colours, can then 'describe' it to me well. This seems to me the 'stand out' number pattern for them and once they verbalise what they 'see in their head' they can usually tell me that 4+3 makes 7. 8 in the Yeo (calling them Emerson here too) pattern to me is very logical, as the four is relatively easy to remember. It uses the idea of two dice on top of each other too , as does the 9 and the 10 is then fairly obvious. The key to me is being really thorough on 1-6, making 8,9 and 10 'easy'.

Agree with the "doubles" aspect 2, 4 , 6 ,8 and 10 too. I think once the children 'get 3" vertically or on a slight slant, (but not horizontal), then yes, double 3 for 6 is taken care of more easily. I don't actually use dot/dice patterns explicitly for near doubles work at this stage usually (although I know Ronit Bird does explicitly build it in for example), tending to use cuisenaire and other things, and perhaps I will rethink this.

Sometimes  some children will automatically build a 5 with 2 red and 3 yellow, despite me modelling it the other way around and I must read up on this!
It's interesting isn't it?. The whole 'patterns as a visual hook' is just the starting point for everything. I've found that by getting a visual hook, a truly dyscalculic child (especially a younger pupil) can also experience a little bit of success early on, even if it is just 'seeing' and more importantly actually understanding 'why' 2 + 2 make 4 and 3 plus 2 is five. There are so many opportunities for language too during the concrete stage especially, one more, one less, take away, subtract, add, how many more, less etc as you move the counters around.

I know Carol from Spot on with Numbers and I saw some of her very early resources. I like them. To me they are like the Yeo patterns (other than the 7) and they obviously work extremely well with Steve's. My only reservation, is that for me, I am not sure about using so many colours, as I think it can a little confusing visually for some, but perhaps that is because I am stuck in working with two colours only, for the sake of simplicity and clear lines.   I am going to buy the 'bonds of 10" pack from Spot On though , as I like the look of it, and by the time we are at 10, if the other numbers/bonds are really known well, I think they could be useful  too.

Sami's points about Numicon were really well made. It is such a big system and I am sure it needs to be properly used and lots of schools do use it. I have bought bits of it for pupils very slightly 'further down the maths line".

I felt a little sad for my young and very definitely dyscalculic pupil and it was good to get feedback - thank you. Having hated anything to do with numbers, he was enjoying using his counters and the other materials, saying "I can do this maths' and saying cheerfully on zoom "I have my dots here" and settling into lessons happily.I think parents can panic understandably - his weren't wrong to try to teach him his bonds of 10 at home but suddenly introducing 'a bit of Numicon', and a bit of something else,  for this particular child just confused him (and writing the numbers on his cuisenaire rods) .The thing he felt he was starting to be successful at, building his patterns, describing them, (without the pattern in front of him too was good progress!) manipulating them, splitting and recombining,  drawing them, AND actually writing simple equations, he suddenly couldn't do beyond 4, or behaved as though he couldn't. To him Numicon was a 'whole' different way, a whole new set of 'things to learn' and made him insecure and 'avoidant' again. We will fix it though!

He has suddenly got doubles though, using what he learnt from dots and cusineaire rods but it struck a chord and made me consider how an inconsistency in approaches, at least at the very early stages with a dyscalculic pupil could be detrimental to progress.

Jenny, your post was not at all waffly, although is very hard to talk 'dots' without sounding waffly. A lot of what I have just written would look really odd indeed to anybody not interested in dots, dyscalculia and maths difficulties!