Search

Because reading/writing is a fundamental tool for children's development, the main failure in its learning—developmental dyslexia—gives rise to many attempts to remediate. A recent remedy proposed by Mather (2022), published in Perceptual and Motor Skills [129(3), p. 468], is impressive through its radical nature and the extent of its consequences. It consists of delaying the teaching of writing to the age of 7–8 years, whereas, at present, most children in Western or comparable cultures learn to write even before compulsory school (generally at age six). In this article, I present a set of arguments whose addition and possible interaction lead, if not to reject, at least to restrict Mather's proposal. My arguments show both the inefficiency of Mather's proposal through two observational studies, its practical inapplicability in contemporary society, the importance of learning to write at least in the first year of elementary school, and the stinging past failure of a math reform of similar scope (i.e., learning to count). I also question the neurological theory underlying Mather's proposal, and, finally, I point out that, even if delaying learning to write were limited to students who Mather expects (at age six) to experience future dyslexia, this remedy would be inapplicable and probably ineffective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The mathematics achievement discrepancy between girls and boys, with its subsequent occupational consequences, is an issue that has received considerable attention in the literature. It is often referred to as the 'math‐gap' and favours boys. A major component of the explanation of this gap resides in determining its age of onset. We analyse here data from more than 10,000 (cross‐sectional study) and 2000 (longitudinal study) French students aged 4–7 years, tested in the framework of the Etude Longitudinale Française depuis l'Enfance (ELFE). The results allow to precisely determine the age of onset, since the gender difference, non‐existent (or even slightly in favour of girls) in kindergarten (4–5 years), is clearly in favour of boys in first grade (6–7 years). They could therefore provide an important element in the controversial debate on the origin of gender‐differentiated performance in mathematics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To date, few studies have investigated the evolution of problem solving and general numeracy abilities during adulthood: skills that have obvious social importance. In this research, evolutions in adults' mental arithmetic skills were investigated using data from the IVQ 2004 French national survey, which tested 9,185 adults aged between 18 and 65. Whereas some of our results confirm previous work, others are more surprising. For example, participants with higher levels of education achieved higher scores than did participants with lower levels of education, and this was true at all ages; however, improvements with age in performance only were found for participants with low levels of education (first grade or lower). For higher levels of education, performances were stable. Our results suggest that lifespan mental arithmetic, a domain not affected by the Flynn effect, relies mainly on pragmatic cognition, and develops as a result of everyday activities, as well as through initial instruction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]