Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 12(2), 191-213, 2014

Copyright @ by LDW 2014

Revisiting an Old Methodology for Teaching

Counting, Computation, and Place Value:
The Effectiveness of the Finger Calculation
Method for At-Risk Children
Kim Calder Stegemann
Thompson Rivers University, Canada

Matthias Grünke
University of Cologne, Germany

Number sense is critical to the development of higher order mathematic

abilities. However, some children have difficulty acquiring these funda-
mental skills and the knowledge base of effective interventions/remedi-
ation is relatively limited. Based on emerging neuro-scientific research
which has identified the association between finger movement/represen-
tation and numerical cognition, this one-year study examined the effec-
tiveness of a finger calculation program for at-risk and non-at-risk school
children. Specifically, the study sought to determine the impact of lear-
ning Chisanbop (Korean finger calculation method) on the number sense,
computational, quantitative concepts, and problem solving skills, as well
as attitudes towards mathematics, of children at the grade 2 and grade 5
levels. The findings indicate a significant impact on attitudes for math for
at-risk grade 2 students.
Keywords: dyscalculia, math learning-disabled, finger representa-
tion, finger calculation, math interventions

Introduction

Number Sense and Numerical Cognition

Number sense, including counting strategies, arithmetic facts, and combi-
nations, is fundamental to the development of more complex mathematical concepts
(Gersten & Chard, 1999). There is extensive research to indicate that children must
develop automaticity and accuracy of basic facts (Goldman, Pelligrino, & Mertz,
1988; Hasselbring, Goin, & Bransford, 1988), as well as effective computational stra-
tegies, before progressing to more advanced mathematical abilities. Girls and boys
who have difficulties with these basic skills are at-risk for future math failure (Jor-
dan, Kaplan, Olah, & Locuniak, 2006). There is a need to provide these children with
research-based intervention/remediation. However, there is a paucity of research in
the area of mathematics (Butterworth, Varma, & Laurillard, 2011; Gersten, Jordan, &
Flogo, 2005; Seethaler & Fuchs, 2005; Swain, Bertini, & Coffey, 2010), and in particu-
lar, focusing on place value and basic fact attainment (Gersten et al., 2005). Further,
the emerging evidence from the field of cognitive neuroscience which connects finger
representations and the development of numerical cognition has yet to be extensively

*Please send correspondence to: Kim Calder Stegemann, School of Education, Faculty of Human, Social, and
Educational Development, Thompson Rivers University, TRU, 900 McGill Road, Kamloops, BC, V2C 0N3,
Canada, [email protected].
Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 12(2), 191-213, 2014

applied to classroom instructional strategies (Butterworth et al., 2011; Geary, 2010;

Moeller, Martignon, Engel, & Nuerk, 2011).
Children with learning disabilities, and specifically developmental dyscal-
culia, are most likely to experience repeated failure at learning place value and ha-
ving automaticity of basic facts (Geary, Hoard, & Bailey, 2012; Maccini, Mulcahy, &
Wilson, 2007). The prevalence rates of children with dyscalculia in North America
is approximately 5-8% (Lerner & Johns, 2009; Shalev, 2004), which does not even
include the number of children who do not qualify for a clinical diagnosis, but for
whom arithmetic and mathematics are extremely challenging. Repeated difficulties
with basic math skills can lead to math anxiety, embarrassment over failure, and ne-
gative attitudes towards learning mathematics (Ahmed, Minnaert, Kuyper, & van der
Werf, 2012; Swaim Griggs, Rimm-Kaufman, Merritt, & Patton, 2013). It is troubling
to have students with an aversion to learning mathematics, as it is to have those with
weak math ability. Educators in both Canada and the United States have expressed
concern about the poor math performance on the Programme for International Stu-
dent Assessment  (PISA) (Froese-Germain, 2010; Peterson, Woessmann, Hanushek,
& Lastra-Anadón, 2011). The National Mathematics Advisory Panel Final Report
(2008) highlighted the need to focus on effective methods of instruction for children
who struggle with mathematics. Even beyond the school years, low numeracy skills
are a reason for concern, as Butterworth et al. (2011) point out, costing countries
reduced gross domestic product growth, totaling losses of over £2.4 billion in the
United Kingdom alone. Therefore, whether for the general school population, child-
ren with dyscalculia, or those at-risk for math failure, effective methods for teaching
basic and foundational math skills is paramount.

Remedial Strategies
Compared to the vast research and literature about children who have read-
ing and writing difficulties, the knowledge base for identifying and treating girls and
boys with math disorders is relatively limited (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Hollenbeck, 2007;
Gersten & Jordan, 2005). The last named group is characterized by a lack of un-
derstanding basic math concepts and by an inability to routinely perform additions,
subtractions, divisions, and multiplications at an age-appropriate level. Prevention/
intervention strategies for children who have difficulties calculating range from gen-
eral instructional principles such as comprehending math vocabulary (Bachor & Cre-
alock, 1986), using cues to discriminate computation signs (Saland, 1990), drawing
to represent numbers and operations (Wilson, 2012), direct instruction (Miller &
Hudson, 2007), strategy instruction (Hutchinson, 1993), to encouraging students to
set their own goals (Fuchs, Bahr, & Rieth, 1989), and the use of technologies (Mas-
tropieri & Scruggs, 1987). In some cases, instructional decisions are based on a „hit-
and-miss“ approach, where teachers keep trying new methods until the student real-
izes success.
However, a particular methodology to intervene or remediate math difficul-
ties should not be selected at random or justified by anecdotal evidence or personal
beliefs. Instead, decisions regarding the types of approaches to use with struggling
learners in order to meet their diverse needs have to be based on sound research
findings. Even though the number of studies providing evidence on how to success-

192
 Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 12(2), 191-213, 2014

fully teach reading or spelling outnumbers those studies dealing with effective math
instruction, we can still draw on a large body of research telling us what works in
helping children with learning problems acquire arithmetic skills. Several relevant
meta-analyses have identified key principles necessary for successfully teaching stu-
dents how to perform addition, subtraction, division, and multiplication (e. g. Ger-
sten, Chard, Jayanthi, Baker, Morphy, & Flojo, 2009; Kroesbergen & van Luit, 2003).
Based on the available information, Fuchs, Fuchs, Powell, Seethaler, Cirino,
and Fletcher (2008) list seven principles that need to be considered when providing
effective practice: (1) instructional explicitness, (2) instructional design to minimize
the learning challenge, (3) strong conceptual basis, (4) drill and practice, (5) cumu-
lative review, (6) motivation to help students regulate their attention and behavior
to work hard, as well as (7) ongoing progress monitoring. In order to apply these
principles in a constructive way, it is advisable to always consider the particular de-
velopmental level of a given child.
Mathematical competence is acquired in stages, from very basic precursor
skills to higher-order processing abilities. For example, monitoring the developmen-
tal phase in which students start to generate answers to subtraction problems in the
course of their elementary school career, one can observe that (a) children first rep-
resent the minuend with their fingers and then fold down the number of fingers
equal to the subtrahend, (b) they then match the number of fingers of the minuend
to the number of fingers of the subtrahend and derive the answer by counting the
unmatched fingers that remain, (c) they subsequently count upward from the subtra-
hend until they reach the minuend (the answer is the number of fingers in the count-
ing sequence) or they count backward from the minuend the number of times equal
to the value of the subtrahend (with the last number in the counting sequence being
the answer), and (d), in the last substage, they retrieve the answer from long term
memory (Jordan, Hanich, & Uberti, 2003). Facility with other essential arithmetic
operations is also acquired gradually and progressively, at certain times using the
fingers as calculators (ebd.). Thus, finger-counting is not an unwanted phenomenon
during the development of mathematical skills in children that parents and teachers
should suppress, but a normal and healthy intermediate step on the way to building
complex problem solving abilities.
It is not productive to overlook any of the different phases and try to teach
a certain skill that antecedes a competence level that a child has not yet sufficiently
mastered. Even though a girl or a boy might be able to produce correct responses to a
certain kind of math problem, she or he will lack an enhanced understanding of the
underlying operations, if the newly taught skill is not built on a solid foundation of
preceding concepts that she or he has already acquired. Consequently, math difficul-
ties do not decrease, but eventually intensify (Stein, Kinder, Silbert, & Carnine, 2006).

Finger Counting and Calculations

As indicated above, finger-counting plays a functional role in the acquisition
of arithmetic concepts during a certain stage of the development (Jordan, Hanich, &
Uberti, 2003). Butterworth (1999) has been a pioneer in studying the mathematical
brain, identifying regions of it that are associated with number sense, and visual,
as well as spatial representations. Since that time, other researchers have explored

193
Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 12(2), 191-213, 2014

the neuro-functional link between fingers and number processing (Andres, Seron,
and Oivier, 2007; Ansari, 2008; Dehaene & Cohen, 2007; Kaufmann, 2008; Lee &
Fong Ng, 2011; OECD, 2003; Penner-Wilger & Anderson, 2013). Andres, Di Luca,
and Pesenti (2008) argue that fingers may be the “missing link” in the development
of efficient numerical comprehension. Indeed, many elementary school teachers
would attest that young children use their fingers, almost instinctively, for counting
and computation.
One‘s fingers can furnish a natural and readily available way to represent
numerical information and reflect numerical concepts (Beller & Bender, 2011). They
can provide a permanent, visual depiction of the one-to-one principle, leading to the
attainment of concepts such as magnitude, interval, and ratio. Since on our hands we
represent numbers as a sum or a multiple of 10, our fingers can facilitate the under-
standing of the 10-base numerical system. Further, the permanency of the represen-
tations helps to reduce working memory load when performing numerical calcula-
tions. Finger representation becomes a type of “embodied cognition” that supports
the internalization of numerical information (Fischer & Brugger, 2011; Ifrah, 2000).
Therefore, a remedial approach which incorporates the systematic use of finger re-
presentations may prove to be effective for teaching basic number sense concepts
such as counting, computation, and place-value during a certain phase in the de-
velopment of arithmetic abilities.
The use of fingers to represent quantity may take many forms. For example,
finger counting may be as simple as raising a finger to represent a count of “1”, begin-
ning with the thumb and moving towards the outside of the hand. For some tribes in
New Guinea, counting involves the whole body beginning with the little finger of the
right hand and ending with the left little finger, touching wrist, elbow, shoulder, eyes,
nose, mouth, and ears (Ifrah, 2000).
The presumably best-known finger counting technique is called Chisanbop.
It is an approach developed in Korea in the 1940s and is based on the abacas (base-10
system) (see e. g. Benson, 1981; Knifong & Burton, 1979; Rumiati, & Wright, 2010).
The name Chisanbop is made up of the Korean words “chi” (for “finger”) and “san-
beop” (for “calculation”). Within this system, number values are assigned to each of
the fingers. The hands are held in a relaxed posture above a table (palms down). Each
finger of the right hand counts as one, except for the thumb, which represents the
value of five; each finger of the left hand counts as ten, except for the thumb, which
represents the value of fifty (see Figure 1).

194
 Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 12(2), 191-213, 2014

Figure 1. The fingers and their representing values of the left and the right hand

Counting is done by touching the table with the corresponding fingers,

starting with the right index finger. For example, the value of six is represented by
pressing the right thumb (for five) and the right index finger (for one) onto the table;
the value of 78 is represented by pressing the left thumb (for fifty), the left index
and middle finger (for twenty), the right thumb (for five), as well as the right index,
middle, and ring finger (for three) onto the table. For illustrative purposes, fingers
that touch the table are depicted black in Figure 2. In the first example, the value of
eleven is represented; in the second example, it is the value fourteen.

Figure 2. Two examples of fingers representing two different numbers (11 and 14)

a b

Using this finger counting system, all values between zero and ninety-nine
can be represented. With Chisanbop, addition is done by counting-on to the next
number. For example, to add 65 and 23, one has to touch the table with her or his left
thumb (for fifty) and left index finger (for ten), as well as with her or his right thumb
(for five). In a subsequent step, one must, in addition, press her or his left index and

195
Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 12(2), 191-213, 2014

middle finger (for twenty), as well as her or his right index, middle, and ring finger
(for three) onto the table. Subtractions are performed in a similar way: For example,
to subtract 5 from 38, one has to touch the table with her or his left index, middle,
and ring finger (for thirty), as well as with her or his right thumb (for five) plus her
or his right index, middle, and ring finger (for three). In a subsequent step, one must
lift up her or his right thumb (for five) and count the values of the remaining fingers
still touching the table. If the numbers exceed 99, one has to use paper and pencil and
apply a variation of the standard algorithm. It is beyond the scope of this paper to di-
scuss the exact way addition and subtraction problems with numbers beyond 99 are
performed by implementing Chisanbop. The same applies to the way, multiplication
and division problems are solved. We thus refer the reader to further literature on
Chisanbop (e. g. Gurau & Lieberthal, 1979; Lieberthal, 1979).
In most school subjects, students are required to retrieve different facts
from memory. They are asked to recall the different presidents of the United Sta-
tes of America, to name mandatory attributes of mammals, or to state the Spanish
word for “bread”. With math, it is different. Here, children have to solve problems by
using certain algorithms. Simply remembering facts is not sufficient. Rather, students
need to practically apply heuristics to novel problems (Campbell & Xue, 2001). Such
tasks usually strain one‘s working memory to a greater extent than retrieval tasks.
Our working memory is very susceptible to falter when we get anxious or nervous
(Ashcraft & Krause, 2007). Thus, math anxiety is a common phenomenon among
students, whereas “history anxiety” is unheard of. Chisanbop may be a good way to
provide remedy. Fingers are always available. Children can cling to the Chisanbop
system and are thus able to keep track of the number words uttered while reciting the
counting sequence. This reduces working memory overload. In consequence, being
nervous has less of an impact on a child’s performance and may influence her or his
attitude towards math in a positive way.
The research that does exist on finger calculation methods is limited and
dated from the 1980’s. Etlinger and Ogletree (1980) had success teaching finger coun-
ting to handicapped children, while Ogletree and Chavez (1981) used finger mathe-
matics with low SES (socio-economic status) grade 2 students and found significant
improvement in math achievement. Usnick and Engelhardt (1988) confirmed the use
of finger calculation for children at-risk for math failure, noting that it is consistent
with Piaget‘s theory of cognitive development. Though Chisanbop was introduced to
North America in the 1970’s, the research on effectiveness is also limited (Dougherty,
1981) and dated. However, existing findings indicate that this approach seems to be
beneficial in increasing number sense, basic fact, and place value skills in struggling
learners (see above).

Research Questions
In the present paper, we report on a study about the effects of a Chisan-
bop intervention. The experiment ran over the course of a whole school year (ten
months) and was part of a larger project within a specific school district in the pro-
vince of British Columbian (B.C.) in western Canada, involving 2nd grade and 5th
grade students. The group that we could draw our sample from thus consisted of
children who were in a developmental stage in which finger-counting is still very

196
 Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 12(2), 191-213, 2014

common and widespread (2nd graders), as well as of children who have largely moved
on to more abstract calculating abilities (5th graders). In addition, we had the chance
to involve students from both class levels that exhibited rather poor math skills and
were at-risk for school failure. As mentioned, the use of fingers as a tool to perform
arithmetics commonly happens during an early stage of a child’s elementary school
career. In later years, students might view such a procedure as embarrassing. As a
consequence, their attitudes towards math will probably not get influenced in the
same positive way as can be expected for their younger counterparts. Considering
the above elaborations on the presumed effects of the finger counting technique in
question, our research was guided by the following hypotheses:
1. The Chisanbop finger calculation method will result in significant in-
creases concerning number sense, basic fact, and place value skills for
2nd and 5th grade students.
2. Younger children and those at-risk for mathematical failure will especi-
ally benefit from this approach regarding the abilities just mentioned.
3. The Chisanbop finger calculation method will trigger a significant in-
crease in positive attitudes towards mathematics.
4. Younger children and those at-risk for mathematical failure will experi-
ence an especially large boost in attitudes.

Methods

Participants
We were able to recruit two 2nd and two 5th grade teachers to participate in
our study on the effectiveness of Chisanbop. All of them were involved in the afore-
mentioned larger project on professional development in a specific school district
in B. C. They agreed to involve the students in their classes as subjects of our experi-
ment. In the end, our sample consisted of 75 students; 37 attended one of two grade
two French Immersion classes (n = 20 and 17, respectively), 42 attended one of two
grade five English classes (n = 23 and 19, respectively). Age was similar between the
groups at the different grade levels. At the beginning of the study, the average age for
the grade two students was 6.85 and 6.93 years, and for the grade five students, it was
9.88 and 9.85 years. Gender was also relatively equally distributed at the grade two
level with 9 girls and 11 boys in the first, and 9 girls and 8 boys in the second class.
The first of the grade five classes consisted of 13 girls and 9 boys, the second of 8 girls
and 11 boys.
All classrooms were representative of both high and low SES areas. Both
grade two French Immersion classes were in middle SES communities and composed
of mainly Caucasian students. The first grade five class was situated within a low SES
community, with a high population of First Nations and East Indian children; the
second grade five class was also in a low SES community, in a school with a designated
focus on science and math, and had primarily Caucasian children. All teachers fol-
lowed the standard B. C. mathematics curriculum and used the same textbook series
which was prescribed by the school district. None of the teachers had previously uti-
lized a finger calculation instructional strategy.

197
Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 12(2), 191-213, 2014

To compare the impact on the children who struggle the most with arithme-
tic, we created ‘at-risk’ groups for each classroom (see below).

Design
Randomization into an experimental and a control group for each class level
was not possible. Thus, a quasi-experimental pre-post control group design was ap-
plied, with one experimental and one control group at each of grade two French Im-
mersion and grade five English classes. Dependent variables were measured shortly
prior and immediately after a 10-month period in which the two experimental classes
received instruction in Chisanbop.

Intervention
The two experimental group teachers, Fiona and Martin1, received training
in the Chisanbop method prior to, and during, the study. Training followed a standard
workshop procedure (see Appendix A), as presented by the first author on numerous
occasions in the past (based on Calder & Burchby, 1992, and Foothills Academy, n.d.).
The experimental teachers met formally twice over the 10-month period with the
first author and also corresponded occasionally via email to discuss implementation
of the Chisanbop method, ideas for games or review activities, and ways to logistically
set up the classroom to allow for individualized or small group instruction. In order
to enhance treatment fidelity, the first author provided two review sessions during
the study and also did two demonstration lessons in each experimental classroom to
model direct instruction, use of review activities/games, and workbook follow-up.
After the pre-testing phase, the children in the experimental group received
instruction in Chisanbop for approximately 20 minutes as part of their daily math les-
sons, following a format outlined in Calder and Burchby (1992). Each instructional
session included direct instruction or review, followed by a cooperative game and/
or worksheets designed to reinforce the skill just taught (see Appendix A). Fiona and
Martin made weekly journal entries about specific children who were experiencing
success or great difficulty with the Chisanbop method. During the period of exami-
nation, none of the participating students missed school more than 10% of the time.

Instruments
Number sense, basic fact, and place value skills of the children in all class-
rooms were assessed using three subtests from the Woodcock-Johnson (WJ) Achieve-
ment Test by Woodcock and Mather (1998): Computation (rtt = 0.86), Quantitative
Concepts (rtt = 0.91), and Applied Problem Solving (rtt = 0.93). The WJ is a widely-ac-
cepted and nationally normed instrument for determining educational progress in
students with mild to moderate cognitive disabilities. Subjects were also assessed for
attitudes about mathematics using the Attitudes Towards Math subtest (rtt = 0.80),
which is part of the Test of Mathematical Abilities (TOMA) by Brown and McEntire
(1984). The TOMA is an instrument that is applied to identify students who are above
or below age peers in five areas of math functioning. In the Attitudes Towards Math
subtest, children respond to 15 questions such as “It’s fun to work math problems” or
“My friends like math more than I do” on a four-point scale.
1 Names are pseudonyms.

198
 Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 12(2), 191-213, 2014

Various qualitative data were also collected. All joint meetings with Fiona
and Martin were audio-taped, and later transcribed. Artifacts included teacher jour-
nals, teacher emails, and summary notes of informal teacher meetings. A number of
methods were used to enhance the reliability of the findings. In order to triangulate
the data, multiple sources were included (such as teacher journal entries, transcripts,
student artifacts, and examiner notes made during the pre- and post-assessments).
As well, a trained research assistant administered all post-tests, to eliminate any ex-
aminer bias. Further, both the standardized assessment tools, WJ and TOMA, have
adequate reliability (r ≥.80). Finally, the research assistant reviewed qualitative data to
verify the themes and patterns generated by the first author. Validity of the findings is
enhanced by 1) the use of standardized tests which report adequate content validity
scores, 2) treatment within the authentic classroom context, and 3) relative equiva-
lency between mathematics programs at each grade level.

Data analysis
The quantitative data (WJ and TOMA test scores) were analyzed for diffe-
rences between experimental and control whole class groups, as well as the ‘at-risk’
groups. We converted all WJ raw scores to z-scores. A number of studies indicate
that attitudes towards math influence the long-term performance of children in this
subject to a crucial extent (e. g. Duerr, 2013; Rech, 2013). Without having a positive
stance in this regard, students are bound to eventually fail. In accordance with com-
mon practice in the local school district in which this study was conducted, we used
the TOMA test scores as the decisive factor for determining whether a girl or a boy
was considered to be at-risk for math failure. In order to also account for the actual
calculation skills at the time of our experiment, we added the Calculations z-scores to
the TOMA scores. Because the Calculations z-scores were all in all considerably lower
than the TOMA scores, attitudes were still the predominant factor in deciding which
students were in need of special support. The lowest 30% were considered to be in
danger of failing in math. There were more ‘at-risk’ students in the grade 2 experi-
mental classroom because three students tied for the last spot in the group.
Because the data does not follow a normal distribution, non-parametric sta-
tistical analyses were utilized (Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test and Mann Whitney U).
Qualitative evidence related to the research questions were highlighted in transcripts,
emails, research notes, and on the test protocols by the first author, following a pro-
cedure as outlined by Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña (2014). The purpose of this
approach was to identify certain recurring themes or patterns in the data that seem to
be representative of what the teachers thought and believed about the usefulness of
our finger counting technique, what they found instrumental, and what they strug-
gled with. A trained research assistant reviewed all data for confirming and disconfir-
ming evidence. Any disagreements concerning the data analysis were discussed by the
first author and the research assistant until consensus was reached.

199
 Table 1. Descriptive Statistics.

Not Not Not

At- At- Not
Class Class Class At-Risk At-Risk At- At- At-
Class n Risk Risk At-Risk
Min. Max. M (SD) Min M (SD) Risk Risk Risk
n Max. M (SD)
n Min. Max.
Experimental Grade 2
Age 20 6.10 7.09 6.85 (0.38) 8 6.10 7.05 6.91 (0.33) 12 6.10 7.09 6.80 (0.42)
Calculations (pre) 20 1.2 3.3 1.87 (0.53) 8 1.3 2.2 1.75 (0.30) 12 1.2 3.3 1.94 (0.64)
Applications (pre) 20 1.2 2.6 1.88 (0.42) 8 1.2 2.3 1.81 (0.41) 12 1.4 2.6 1.93 (0.44)
Quantitative Concepts (pre) 20 0.6 3.2 1.85 (0.72) 8 1.4 3.2 2.21 (0.67) 12 0.6 2.5 1.60 (0.66)
Attitude (pre) 19 3.0 14.0 8.63 (3.20) 7 3.0 7.0 5.43 (1.99) 12 7.0 14 10.50 (2.07)
Calculations (post) 19 1.0 4.0 2.58 (0.69) 7 2.0 4.0 2.56 (0.76) 12 1.0 4.0 2.59 (0.68)

200
Applications (post) 19 2.0 6.0 3.16 (1.06) 7 3.0 4.0 3.46 (0.63) 12 2.0 6.0 2.98 (1.24)
Quantitative Concepts (post) 19 2.0 4.0 2.61 (0.62) 7 2.0 4.0 2.77 (0.77) 12 2.0 3.0 2.52 (0.53)
Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 12(2), 191-213, 2014

Attitude (post) 19 4.0 15.0 10.05 (3.05) 7 4.0 12.0 8.29 (3.20) 12 6.0 15.0 11.08 (2.54)
Control Grade 2
Age 16 6.09 7.10 6.93 (0.33) 4 6.09 7.05 6.80 (0.47) 12 6.10 7.10 6.98 (0.28)
Calculations (pre) 17 1.0 3.8 1.87 (0.79) 5 1.2 1.9 1.44 (0.31) 12 1.0 3.8 2.04 (0.87)
Applications (pre) 17 0.5 4.4 1.97 (0.87) 5 0.5 1.8 1.30 (1.50) 12 1.5 4.4 2.25 (0.84)
Quantitative Concepts (pre) 17 0.6 3.4 1.82 (0.76) 5 0.9 1.7 1.26 (0.35) 12 0.6 3.4 2.06 (0.76)
Attitude (pre) 16 7.0 13.0 9.50 (1.83) 5 7.0 8.0 7.60 (0.55) 11 8.0 13 10.36 (1.50)
Calculations (post) 16 1.0 5.0 2.68 (0.85) 4 2.0 3.0 2.10 (0.62) 12 1.0 5.0 2.88 (0.85)
Applications (post) 16 1.0 6.0 3.71 (1.19) 4 1.0 4.0 2.75 (1.14) 12 3.0 6.0 4.02 (1.06)
Quantitative Concepts (post) 16 1.0 5.0 2.96 (1.04) 4 1.0 3.0 2.05 (0.64) 12 2.0 5.0 3.27 (0.98)
Attitude (post) 16 6.0 14.0 10.00 (2.13) 4 9.0 11.0 10.00 (0.82) 12 6.0 15.0 10.00 (2.45)
 Experimental Grade 5
Age 22 9.09 10.11 9.88 (0.38) 7 9.09 10.08 9.90 (0.36) 15 9.10 10.11 9.88 (0.40)
Calculations (pre) 22 2.2 5.2 3.99 (0.82) 7 2.2 5.0 3.71 (1.08) 15 2.8 5.2 4.11 (0.67)
Applications (pre) 23 2.0 8.0 3.70 (1.37) 7 2.0 4.8 3.57 (0.96) 16 2.0 8.0 3.76 (1.54)
Quantitative Concepts (pre) 23 2.3 5.5 3.71 (0.85) 7 2.7 4.7 3.71 (0.68) 16 2.3 5.5 3.71 (0.93)

Attitude (pre) 23 3.0 16.0 8.87 (2.91) 7 3.0 8.0 5.71 (1.60) 16 8.0 16.0
10.25 (2.18)
Calculations (post) 21 3.0 6.0 4.30 (0.82) 6 4.0 6.0 4.43 (0.71) 15 3.0 6.0 4.25 (0.87)
Applications (post) 21 2.0 10.0 4.56 (1.71) 6 4.0 5.0 4.58 (0.49) 15 2.0 10.0 4.55 (2.03)
Quantitative Concepts (post) 21 2.0 6.0 4.47 (0.97) 6 3.0 6.0 4.63 (0.83) 15 2.0 6.0 4.40 (1.05)
Attitude (post) 21 5.0 16.0 9.05 (2.44) 6 5.0 9.0 6.83 (1.47) 15 6.0 16.0 9.93 (2.19)
Control Grade 5
Age 19 9.11 10.11 9.85 (0.34) 6 9.11 10.09 9.88 (0.38) 13 9.11 10.4 9.84 (0.42)

201
Calculations (pre) 19 3.0 5.6 4.34 (0.83) 6 3.0 4.5 3.67 (0.52) 13 3.8 5.6 4.65 (0.78)
Applications (pre) 19 2.6 6.8 5.16 (1.22) 6 2.6 5.8 4.57 (1.30) 13 3.0 6.8 5.44 (1.12)
Quantitative Concepts (pre) 19 3.0 4.7 4.05 (0.49) 6 3.0 4.3 3.78 (0.58) 13 3.7 4.7 4.17 (0.40)
Attitude (pre) 19 7.0 15.0 10.42 (2.50) 6 7.0 9.0 8.00 (0.89) 13 8.0 15.0 11.54 (2.18)
Calculations (post) 19 1.0 6.0 4.92 (1.21) 6 5.0 5.0 4.75 (0.27) 13 1.0 6.0 5.00 (1.47)
Applications (post) 19 3.0 10.0 6.08 (1.61) 6 3.0 8.0 5.75 (1.80) 13 4.0 10.0 6.23 (1.57)
Quantitative Concepts (post) 19 3.0 8.0 5.28 (1.12) 6 4.0 6.0 4.87 (0.63) 13 3.0 8.0 5.47 (1.26)
Attitude (post) 19 6.0 16.0 10.89 (2.75) 6 6.0 10.0 8.50 (1.52) 13 9.0 16.0 12.00 (2.48)
Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 12(2), 191-213, 2014
Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 12(2), 191-213, 2014

Results

Quantitative Data
Table 1 presents some descriptive statistics on the pre- and post-test results
(z-scores or scaled scores) using the aforementioned subscales from the WJ and the
TOMA. Data for the entire classes are presented, as well as for the at-risk and remain-
ing non-at-risk groups.
Within group. As one would expect, there should be within-group growth
over the course of a school year. Both the experimental and the control grade 2 non
at-risk groups experienced significant changes from pre-to post-test on the three skill
subtests of the WJ (Calculations, Applied Problems, Quantitative Concepts) (Table 2).
The non at-risk experimental group also made a notable change in attitudes, nearing
statistical significance (Z = -0.590, p = .056). However, only the experimental at-risk
group demonstrated significant changes in Applied Problems (Z = -2.380, p = .018)
and attitudes for math (TOMA) (Z = -2.210, p = .027). The control at-risk group
made no statistically significant improvements in any area.
There were slightly different patterns of changes within group at the grade
5 level. The experimental non at-risk group made significant improvements in two
of the three skill areas (Applied Problems and Quantitative Concepts), but unlike the
grade 2 experimental class, this group did not have a significant change in attitudes
towards math (TOMA) (Z = .-0.450, p = .653). The only significant improvement
for the at-risk experimental group was in the Quantitative Concepts skill area (Z =
-1.990, p = .046). Similarly, the control non at-risk group also made significant im-
provements in two of the three skill areas (WJ), and did not improve significantly in
attitudes (Z = -0.540, p = .590). The at-risk control group made significant improve-
ments in all three skill areas (Calculations, Applied Problems, Quantitative Concepts),
but not in attitudes (Z = -0.740, p = .461).
Between group. Between group comparisons were done between whole
class control and experimental groups, and also between the at-risk and non at-risk
sub-groups which were created for each class.
Class to class. There were no statistically significant differences in gain
scores on any of the measures when comparing experimental to control grade 2
groups (Table 3). However, there were significant differences between the gain scores
for the grade 5 classes on the Calculations sub-test (U = 116.500, Z = -2.071, p = .038)
and on Quantitative Concepts (U = 113.000, Z = -2.355, p =.019). Analysis of the
raw data (Table 1) verifies that it was the grade 5 control group that made more sig-
nificant gains than the experimental group. We used a corrected effect size measure
as outlined by Masendorf (1997, p. 73) to quantify the differences between the two
treatment conditions (experimental group [eg] vs. control group [cg]):
This formula accounts for any differences between groups that might have
existed before the treatment was implemented.

Meg (post) – Mcg(post) Meg(pre) – Mcg(pre)

dcorrected =
SDcg(post) SDcg(pre)

202
 Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 12(2), 191-213, 2014

Table 2. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test Within Group - Pre-post Test Differences

Applied Quantitative
Calculations Attitude
Problems Concepts

Grade 2
Experimental
Non At-Risk Z -2.320 -2.940 -3.060 -0.590
Sig. (2-tailed) .021* .003** .002** .056
At-Risk Z -2.370 -2.380 -1.580 -2.210
Sig. (2-tailed) .018* .018* .114 .027*
Control
Non At-Risk Z -2.830 -0.306 -2.840 -0.300
Sig. (2-tailed) .005** .002** .005** .763
At-Risk Z -1.600 -1.830 -1.840 -1.890
Sig. (2-tailed) .109 .068 .066 .059
dcorr
Non At-Risk -0.26 -0.60 -1.37 0.35
At-Risk -0.23 0.28 -1.59 1.86
Grade 5
Experimental
Non At-Risk Z -1.230 -2.200 -3.240 -0.450
Sig. (2-tailed) .219 .028* .001*** .653
At-Risk Z -1.260 -1.790 -1.990 -0.680
Sig. (2-tailed) .207 .074 .046* .496
Control
Non At-Risk Z -1.970 -1.540 -2.750 -0.540
Sig. (2-tailed) .049* .123 .006** .590
At-Risk Z -2.230 -2.210 -2.210 -0.740
Sig. (2-tailed) .026* .027* .027* .461
dcorr
Non At-Risk 0.18 0.71 1.73 -0.24
At-Risk -1.26 0.12 -0.26 0.47

Note. All Z scores based on negative ranks.

* p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001

203
Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 12(2), 191-213, 2014

Table 3. Mann-Whitney Test Between Groups – Gain in Z-Scores

Applied Quantitative
Calculations Attitude
Problems Concepts

Grade 2
Mann-Whitney U 125.500 110.000 132.000 109.000
Z -0.881 -1.394 -0.665 -0.948
Sig. (2-tailed) .378 .163 .506 .343
dcorr -0.12 -0.36 -0.38 0.50
Grade 5
Mann-Whitney U 116.500 197.500 113.000 185.000
Z -2.071 -0.054 -2.355 -0.400
Sig. (2-tailed) .038* .957 .019* .689
dcorr -0.09 0.25 -0.03 -0.05

Note. * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001

Non at-risk to at-risk group. Although the grade 2 at-risk experimental stu-
dents made significant within group gains, they were not statistically significant when
compared to their non at-risk peers. (Table 4). Similarly, in the control grade 2 class-
room, at-risk students made no better gains than their non at-risk counterparts on
any of the measures, including attitudes towards math. This held true for the 5th grad-
ers, as well, where there were no significant differences in the gain scores of the at-risk
versus non at-risk peers within their respective classrooms, with the exception of the
control class on the Calculations sub-test. Reviewing the descriptive data reveals that
it was the at-risk group who made the stronger gains (U = 13.500, p = .022).

Qualitative Data
The qualitative data appear to confirm some of the findings from the quan-
titative data analysis. Fiona, the teacher of the grade two experimental group, noted
that in general, the children “showed a lot of interest and enthusiasm while practic-
ing their skills”, “felt proud of being the only students (at their school) learning this
method”, and “enjoyed using their fingers.” In addition, Fiona saw “huge” changes in
the attitudes of the lowest functioning students. All of the children were overt about
their finger tapping at the post-testing, and two of the at-risk children routinely used
Chisanbop during regular math class instruction. Fiona also noted that “some stu-
dents are more accurate using Chisanbop”, although the quantitative data does not
support this perspective.

204
 Table 4. Mann-Whitney Test Between Groups – Non At-Risk and At-Risk Gain Z-Scores

Calculations Applied Problems Quantitative Concepts Attitude

Grade 2 Experimental Mean Rank Sum of Rank Mean Rank Sum of Rank Mean Rank Sum of Rank Mean Rank Sum of Rank
Not At-Risk 10.35 134.50 8.46 110.00 10.27 133.50 8.38 109.00
At-Risk 9.25 55.50 13.33 80.00 9.42 56.50 12.40 62.00
Mann-Whitney U 34.500 19.000 35.500 18.000
Sig. (2-tailed) .692 .077 .757 .144
Control
Not at Risk 8.83 106.00 9.29 111.50 9.46 113.50 6.73 74.00
At-Risk 7.50 30.00 6.13 24.50 5.63 22.50 11.50 46.00
Mann-Whitney U 20.000 14.500 12.500 8.000

205
Sig. (2-tailed) .622 .248 .161 .064
Grade 5 Experimental
Not At-Risk 9.32 130.50 11.50 172.50 10.10 151.50 9.93 149.00
At-Risk 13.25 79.50 9.75 58.50 13.25 79.50 13.67 82.00
Mann-Whitney U 25.500 37.500 31.500 29.000
Sig. (2-tailed) .172 .557 .290 .204
Control
Not At-Risk 8.04 104.50 9.35 121.50 10.88 141.50 9.73 126.50
At-Risk 14.25 85.50 11.42 68.50 8.08 48.50 10.58 63.50
Mann-Whitney U 13.500 30.500 27.500 35.500
Sig. (2-tailed) .022* .467 .323 .765

Note. * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001
Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 12(2), 191-213, 2014
Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 12(2), 191-213, 2014

Martin, the teacher of the grade five experimental group, did not see a no-
table change in the skills or attitudes for the group as a whole, noting that there was
“some resistance with the older kids” and many students were capable of success-
fully doing the calculations “in their head just as quickly” and, therefore, did not
use Chisanbop. The quantitative data did, however, indicate a significant skill im-
provement in applied problems and quantitative concepts. What was noticeable were
the types of strategies that the students employed while solving math problems. The
lower functioning students used finger tapping covertly, keeping their hands close to
their bodies (sometime under the table), as if to hide the use of this strategy. However,
the finger tapping did not appear to be the Chisanbop method. Higher functioning
students used drawing, tally marks, or solved the problems in their heads. Martin
indicated that the students were overall more “entrenched” in the other strategies that
they had been taught since beginning school in grade one, and were reluctant to use
Chisanbop. This parallels the quantitative findings for the entire class which indicate
that students’ attitudes towards math did not change significantly.
Both teachers indicated that they experienced some difficulty incorporating
Chisanbop into their curriculum. Students did not always seem excited to fall back
on this approach (especially the 5th graders), and Fiona, as well as, Martin obviously
applied alternative methods at times, even though they were supposed to stick with
the finger counting technique.

Discussion

Main Findings
The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the effects of a finger cal-
culation method (Chisanbop) on the number sense, basic fact, and place value skills,
as well as on the attitudes towards math of 2nd and 5th graders. We expected the in-
tervention to have positive impacts on these dependent variables, especially with 2nd
graders, and particularly with children at-risk for mathematic failure, which was the
case for all but Quantitative Concepts. Of all groups, across all grades, only the grade
2 at-risk experimental group had significant improvements in attitudes. Growth in
skills and attitudes at the grade 5 level was inconsistent, within both at-risk and non
at-risk groups. But contrary to what we expected, the 5th graders in the at-risk control
group showed greater progress than the at-risk students in the experimental group
regarding their ability to perform calculations and applied problems.
The Chisanbop method seemed to spark a noteworthy change in attitude in
at-risk second graders. A calculation of a corrected effect size yielded a standardized
mean difference of 1.86. Such a value can be considered very large (Ellis, 2010). The
grade five experimental group did not make significant improvements in attitude,
however, and this may be because younger children are less embarrassed or self-con-
scious about trying a finger calculation method. In addition, younger children may
respond more positively because it appeals to their hands-on/physical learning style,
or because the use of “fingers” is not discouraged, as it is in the intermediate grades.
The quantitative and qualitative data indicate that the Chisanbop finger cal-
culation method was beneficial for the at-risk grade 2 children. The experimental at-
risk grade 2 children made changes in attitudes, while the control at-risk students did

206
 Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 12(2), 191-213, 2014

not. It may be that these children began to have success with calculations and applied
math problems, and this improved attitudes toward math.
There were gains in one skill area (Quantitative Concepts) for those children
in the lowest 30% of the grade 5 experimental class, but no change in attitudes toward
math. One explanation may be that attitudes at this level are harder to change. In ad-
dition, students may not have seen the connection between a new and useful method
and eventual skill improvement.

Limitations
The lack of significant changes in the experimental group when compared
to the control group regarding different aspects of math performance might at least
be, in part, due to problems with the implementation of Chisanbop. Both Fiona and
Martin struggled to incorporate this new methodology into their curriculum. Simi-
larly, the students were somewhat reluctant to use their fingers to represent numbers
or do basic calculations, and this was particularly true for the grade five students.
While efforts were made to heighten fidelity of treatment, more careful monitoring
of implementation is required. We have to suspect that the intervention was not al-
ways applied as intended. Implementing intensive remedial programs on a class-wide
basis (particularly at the intermediate level) over the course of a whole school year
entails serious problems. In our case, these challenges could have easily influenced
the results.
Another potential threat to the internal validity of our study is the fact that
we had to use existing classes as experimental and control groups. As mentioned
above, the students receiving the Chisanbop intervention showed some considerable
gains in their math skills. However, the gains in the control group students were also
remarkable. If teachers know that the performance development in their classes serv-
ing as a control group will be monitored and compared to the progress in parallel
classes receiving a special treatment, this will oftentimes motivate them to try es-
pecially hard when supporting their students to acquire certain skills or concepts.
A more selected group of participants (possibly just students who are experiencing
difficulty with basic math concepts) at the upper-grade levels is recommended.
In our experiment, we followed the common practice in the local school
district and used attitudes towards math as the main decisive factor for determining
whether a girl or a boy was at-risk for math failure. Even though a number of studies
support such an approach (see above), it could be argued that actual performance
data of the subjects on standardized math tests should have played a greater role in
labeling them as being at-risk.
Other limitations concern the small sample size, and in the case of the grade
five classes, the fact that the groups were not equivalent at the beginning of the inter-
vention. A larger and randomized controlled experiment could have provided more
valid results than the present study. The same would be true had we made provisions
for collecting some follow-up data. Another limitation pertains to the set of statisti-
cal inferences that we considered simultaneously. The more dependant variables one
compares, the more likely it becomes that the experimental and the control group
will appear to differ on at least one attribute by random chance alone (Leon, 2004).

207
Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 12(2), 191-213, 2014

Lastly, the inherent subjectivity of the qualitative data collection and analy-
sis needs to be acknowledged. We used the transcripts from the joint meetings with
Fiona and Martin, the teacher journals, the teacher emails, and the summary of notes
of informal teacher meetings as supplemental sources to help us to gain some insights
on why the intervention did or did not work. However, in order to draw even more
meaningful conclusions, we would have had to conduct the data collection and analy-
sis more systematically, and with more rigor.

Practical Implications and Future Research

The connection between finger representation and numerical comprehen-
sion is now undisputed. Quite a number of theories and empirical findings suggest
that an approach like Chisanbop holds the potential to help struggling learners acquire
basic math concepts. However, current arithmetic instructional practices do not, yet,
incorporate systematic finger counting and calculation strategies. Indeed, the focus of
mathematical instruction in the past two decades has not been on finger representa-
tion. Our study is the first in many years that evaluated the effects of Chisanbop. But
our experiment certainly has its flaws (see above). Consequently, further study in the
use of a finger calculation methodology is warranted for remedial purposes, particu-
larly at the elementary grade levels. In promoting such efforts in future experiments,
the aforementioned limitations (no randomized groups, no follow-up data, multiple
comparisons, …) need to be considered.
In addition, the differential effectiveness of Chisanbop has to be evaluated in
greater depth. Our work yielded some indications that the intervention is especially
useful for students struggling with basic math concepts. However, some more details
are required. As more children are included in general education classrooms, it is
important for teachers to have a wide array of research-based practices to address the
expanding learning needs of today’s classrooms. They have to be able to fall back on a
variety of different approaches that help different kinds of students. As we elaborated
on earlier, using fingers during a certain age while calculating is not an indication of
a child experiencing problems in math, but part of her or his normal development.
Helping a student to consolidate the concepts that she or he needs to learn during
that particular phase in order to later progress to higher-order abilities is certainly a
worthwhile endeavour. Even though our experiment did not yield impressive effects
that document the benefits of Chisanbop, it is surely not appropriate to throw out
the baby with the bath water. Too many reasons boost the notion that finger count-
ing techniques possess the potential to provide a certain kind of support that other
approaches cannot facilitate. Thus, the need for research-based instruction (and par-
ticularly for effective math interventions involving one’s fingers) is apparent. This
study gives rise to the hope that Chisanbop might be a helpful method for elementary
school children who are at-risk for math failure through changing their outlook on
calculating. In particular, with more positive attitudes towards mathematics, it may
be possible to also increase math performance and long-term success with numerical
comprehension.

208
 Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 12(2), 191-213, 2014

References
Ahmed, W., Minnaert, A., Kuyper, H., & van der Werf , G. (2012). Reciprocal relationships
between math self-concept and math anxiety. Learning and Individual Differences,
22, 385-389.
Andres, M., Di Luca, S., & Pesenti, M. (2008). Finger counting: The missing tool? Behavioral
and Brain Sciences, 31, 642-643.
Andres, M., Seron, X., & Olivier, E. (2007). Contribution of hand motor circuits to counting.
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 563 - 576.
Ansari, M. (2008). Effects of development and enculturation on number representation in the
brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9, 278-291.
Ashcroft, M. H. & Krause, J. (2007). Working memory, math performance, and math anxiety.
Psychometric Bulletin & Review, 14, 243-248.
Bachor, D. G., & Crealock, C. (1986). Instructional strategies for students with special needs.
Ontario, Canada: Prentice-Hall.
Beller, S., & Bender, A. (2011). Explicating numerical information: When and how fingers sup-
port (or hinder) number comprehension and handling. Frontiers in Psychology, 2.
Retrieved from http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00214/pdf
Benson, V. P. (1981). Chisanbop: Can students benefit from it? School Science and Mathematics,
81, 236-238.
Brown, V. L., & McEntire, E. (1984). Test of Mathematical Abilities. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Butterworth, B. (1999). The Mathematical brain. London, UK: Macmillan.
Butterworth, B., Varma, S., & Laurillard, D. (2011). Dyscalculia: From brain to education. Sci-
ence, 332, 1049-1053.
Calder, K., & Burchby, P. (1992). Chisanbop manual. Calgary, Canada: Foothills Academy.
Campbell, J. I. D. & Xue, Q. L. (2001). Cognitive arithmetic across cultures. Journal of Experi-
mental Psychology, 130, 299-315.
Crollen, V., Noel, M.-P., Seron, X., Mahau, P., Lepore, F., & Collignon, O. (2014). Visual experi-
ence influences the interactions between fingers and numbers. Cognition, 133, 91-96.
Dehaene, S. & Cohen, L. (2007). Cultural recycling of cortical maps. Neuron, 56, 384-398.
Dougherty, M. K. (1981). An annotated bibliography of the Chisanbop method of finger calcula-
tion. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED188906)
Duerr, S. R. (2013). Relationships between gender, socioeconomic status, math attitudes,a dn
math achievement: An international investigation (Doctoral dissertation, The Univer-
sity of Rhode Island). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cgi/viewcon-
tent.cgi?article=1102&context=oa_diss
Ellis, P. D. (2010). The essential guide to effect sizes: Statistical power, meta-analysis, and the in-
terpretation of research results. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Etlinger, L. D. & Ogletree, E. J. (1980). Teaching mathematics to handicapped children: The finger
math method. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 203574)
Fischer, M. H. & Brugger, P. (2011). When digits help digits: Spatial-numerical associations
point to finger counting as prime example of embodied cognition. Frontiers in Psy-
chology. Retrieved from journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00260/
pdf
Foothills Academy. (n.d.). Chisanbop finger math: An informational booklet. Calgary, Canada:
Foothills Academy.
Froese-Germain, B. (2010). The OECD, PISA and the impacts on educational policy. Ontario,
Canada: Canadian Teachers’ Federation.
Fuchs, L. S., Bahr, C. M., & Rieth, H. J. (1989). Effects of goal structures and performance con-
tingencies on the math performance of adolescents with learning disabilities. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 22, 554-560.

209
Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 12(2), 191-213, 2014

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Hollenbeck, K. (2007). Extending responsiveness to intervention to
mathematics in first and third grades. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22,
13-25.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Powell, S. R., Seethaler, P. M., Cirino, P. T., & Fletcher J. M. (2008). In-
tensive intervention for students with mathematics disabilities: Seven principles of
effective practice. Learning Disability Quartely, 31, 79-92.
Geary, D. C. (2010). Mathematical disabilities: Reflections on cognitive, neuropsychological,
and genetic components. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 130-133.
Geary, D. C., Hoard, M. K., & Bailey, D. H. (2012). Fact retrieval deficits in low achieving chil-
dren and children with mathematical learning disability. Journal of Learning Dis-
abilities, 45, 291-307.
Gersten, R., & Chard, D. (1999). Number sense: Rethinking arithmetic instruction for students
with mathematical disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 33, 18-28.
Gersten, R., Chard, D. J., Jayanthi, M., Baker, S. K., Morphy, P., & Flojo, J. (2009). Mathematics
instruction for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of instructional
components. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1202-1242.
Gersten, R., & Jordan, N. (2005). Early screening and intervention in mathematics difficulties:
The need for action. Introduction to the special series. Journal of Learning Disabili-
ties, 38, 291-292.
Gersten, R., Jordan, N. C., & Flojo, J. R. (2005). Early identification and interventions for stu-
dents with mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 293-304.
Goldman, S. R., Pellegrino, J. W., & Mertz, D. L. (1988). Extended practice of basic addition
facts: Strategy changes in learning disabled students. Cognition and Instruction, 5,
223-265.
Gurau, P., & Lieberthal, E. (1979). Fingermath. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hasselbring, T. S., Goin, L. I., & Bransford, J. D. (1988). Developing math automaticity in learn-
ing handicapped children: The role of computerized drill and practice. Focus on Ex-
ceptional Children, 20, 1-7.
Hutchinson, N. L., (1993). Effectives of cognitive strategy instruction on algebra problem solv-
ing of adolescents with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 34-63.
Ifrah, G. (2000). The universal history of numbers. London, UK: Harvill.
Jordan, N., Hanich, L. B., & Uberti, H. Z. (2003). Mathematical thinking and learning diffi-
culties. In A. J. Baroody & A. Dowker (eds.), Development of arithmetic concepts and
skills (pp. 361-384). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Jordan, N., Kaplan, D., Olah, L. N., & Locuniak, M. N. (2006). Number sense growth in kinder-
garten: A longitudinal investigation of children at risk for mathematics and difficul-
ties. Child Development, 77, 153-175.
Kaufmann, L. (2008). Dyscalculia: Neuroscience and education. Education Research, 50, 163-
175.
Knifong, J. D. & Burton, G. M. (1979). Chisanbop: Just another kind of finger reckoning? The
Arithmetic Teacher, 26, 14-17.
Kroesbergen, E. H. & van Luit, J. E. H. (2003). Mathematics interventions for children with
special educational needs. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 97-114
Lee, K. & Fong Ng, S. (2011). Neuroscience and the teaching of mathematics. Educational Phi-
losophy and Theory, 43, 81-86.
Leon, A. C. (2004). Multiplicity-adjusted sample size requirements: A strategy to maintain sta-
tistical power with Bonferroni adjustments. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 65, 1511-
1514.
Lerner, J., & Johns, B. (2009). Learning disabilities and related mild disabilities: Characteristics,
teaching strategies, and new directions (11th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Har-
court Publishing.

210
 Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 12(2), 191-213, 2014

Lieberthal, E. (1979). Chisanbop: Finger calculation method. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Maccini, P., Mulcahy, C., & Wilson, M. (2007). A follow-up of mathematics interventions
for secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 2, 58-74.
Masendorf, F. (1997). Das Erfassen von Lerngewinnen und Lernmaßen. In F. Masedorf (ed.),
Experimentelle Sonderpädagogik (pp. 71-75). Weinheim, Germany: Beltz.
Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1987). Effective instruction for special education. Boston,
MA: College-Hill.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Miller, S., & Hudson, P. (2007). Using evidence-based practices to build mathematics compe-
tence related to conceptual, procedural, and declarative knowledge. Learning Dis-
abilities Research & Practice, 22, 47-57.
Moeller, K., Martingnon, L., Engel, J., & Nuerk, H. C. (2011). Effects of finger counting on
numerical developing: The opposing views of neurocognition and mathematics ed-
ucation. Frontiers in Psychology. Retrieved from http://journal.frontiersin.org/Jour-
nal/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00108/pdf
National Mathematics Advisory Panel (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/about/
bdscomm/list/math panel/report/final -report.pdf
OECD, CERI. (2003, September). Brain Research and Learning Sciences, Mini-symposium on
the design of rehabilitation software for dyscalculia. Retrieved from http://education5.
net/a/a-report-of-the-brain-research-and-learning-sciences-mini-e1953
Ogletree, E. J., & Chavez, M. (1981). An experimental study of sensory (finger) math. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED211343)
Penner-Wilger, M., & Anderson, M. L. (2013). The relation between finger gnosis and math-
ematical ability: Why redeployment of neural circuits best explains the finding.
Frontiers in Psychology, 4. Retrieved from journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/
fpsyg.2013.00877/pdf
Peterson, P. E., Woessmann, L., Hanushek, E. A., & Lastra-Anadón, S. J. (2011). Globally chal-
lenged: Are U. S. students ready to compete? The latest on each state’s international
standing in math and reading. Boston, MA: Harvard University.
Rech, J. F. (2013). The relationships between mathematics attitude, self -concept, learning style,
socioeconomic status, gender, and mathematics achievement among fourth and eighth-
grade black students (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska). Retrieved from
http://aquila.usm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1162&context=honors_theses
Rumiati, R. & Wright, R. (2010). Assessing the number knowledge of children in the first and
second grade of an Indonesian school. In L. Sparrow, B. Kissane, & C. Hurst (eds.),
Shaping the future of mathematics education (pp. 493-500). Fremantle, Australia:
MERGA.
Salend, S. J. (1990). Effective mainstreaming. New York: Macmillan Press.
Seethaler, P. M., & Fuchs, L. S. (2005). A drop in the bucket: Randomized controlled trials
testing reading and math interventions. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20,
98-102.
Shalev, R. S. (2004). Developmental dyscalculia. Journal of Child Neurology, 19, 765-771.
Stein, M., Kinder, D., Silbert, J., & Carnine, D. W. (2006). Designing effective mathematics in-
struction: A direct instruction approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Swaim Griggs, M., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Merritt, E. G., & Patton, C. L. (2013). The Responsive
Classroom approach and fifth grade students’ math and science anxiety and self-
efficacy. School Psychology Quarterly, 28, 360-373.

211
Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 12(2), 191-213, 2014

Swain, K., Bertini, T., & Coffey, D. (2010). The effects of folding-in on basic mathematics fac-
tors for students with disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal,
16, 23-29.
Usnick, V., & Engelhardt, J. M. (1988). Basic facts, numeration concepts, and the learning of the
standard multidigit addition algorithm. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics,
10, 1-14.
Wilson, J. (2012). Show me a sign. Teaching Children Mathematics, 19, 82-89.
Woodcock, R. W., & Mather, N. (1998). Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery - Re-
vised. Itasca, IL: Riverside.

212
 Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 12(2), 191-213, 2014

Appendix A
Excerpt from Chisanbop finger math: An information booklet (p. 1)

213