Post by Bernadette CS on Aug 15, 2020 14:16:44 GMT
I'm late to the party on this question, as I have only sorted my forum access out today (oops). I thought from the off that one pupil was dyscalculic and it was just confirmed (to me anyway) as we worked together. She had been referred to me by a school as they were worried that she just couldn't seem to learn new Bonds of 10 and was now in Year 3. How this child had managed up to that date I just don't know but needless to say she was expecting 'more of the same' from me, which happily, is not what she got!
When components of number were eventually secure we were extending the use of these through the decade numbers having worked on place value too. It was interesting to see that she was very surprised to see that she could now also use these known facts to add, say 24 +3, and 25 + 4. However, when we then looked at numbers in the 30's, she approached this like it was an impossible task!. Ok, she then saw that this could be done using the same knowledge, but when we moved on to the 40's, again, she approached it like an entirely new set of skills were required. No links were being made at all. She was really delighted that she could apply one 'set of knowledge' to another but it had to be very explicitly pointed that it wasn't actually 'harder' just because 98 is a 'bigger' number than 28. Interesting.
I think also, the difficulty with magnitude and subtilising is significant. On a more 'general' level, the 'wild' answers, that bear no relation to the question can be a clue too.
When components of number were eventually secure we were extending the use of these through the decade numbers having worked on place value too. It was interesting to see that she was very surprised to see that she could now also use these known facts to add, say 24 +3, and 25 + 4. However, when we then looked at numbers in the 30's, she approached this like it was an impossible task!. Ok, she then saw that this could be done using the same knowledge, but when we moved on to the 40's, again, she approached it like an entirely new set of skills were required. No links were being made at all. She was really delighted that she could apply one 'set of knowledge' to another but it had to be very explicitly pointed that it wasn't actually 'harder' just because 98 is a 'bigger' number than 28. Interesting.
I think also, the difficulty with magnitude and subtilising is significant. On a more 'general' level, the 'wild' answers, that bear no relation to the question can be a clue too.