In this article we suggest that, notwithstanding noted differences, one unmarked similarity across psychology and mathematics education is the continued dominance of the view that there is a 'normal' path of development. We focus particularly on the case of the early learning of number and point to evidence that puts into question the dominant narrative of how number sense develops through the concrete and the cardinal. Recent neuroscience findings have raised the potential significance of ordinal approaches to learning number, which in privileging the symbolic-and hence the abstract-reverse one aspect of the 'normal' development order. We draw on empirical evidence to suggest that what children can do, and in what order, is sensitive to, among other things, the curriculum approach-and also the tools they have at their disposition. We draw out implications from our work for curriculum organisation in the early years of schooling, to disrupt taken-forgranted paths.Keywords: early number, development, mathematics, teaching, technology
The Developmental Narrative in Psychology and
Learning NumberFollowing Piaget, it is perhaps an easy temptation to interpret sequences of child behaviour in terms of a developmental path both in general and, in our particular concern in this article, when considering the learning of number. Despite differences between the fields of psychology and mathematics education, we see one similarity (which perhaps goes unmarked) in the use of development or trajectory metaphors to explain behaviour. A good example of such logic is from the first volume of this journal: 'The results of the current study revealed a clear developmental pattern through which preschoolers traverse towards Arabic digit knowledge' (Knudsen et al., 2015, p. 21), a conclusion reached as a result of interpreting children's responses to a series of tasks. We can understand the interest that both cognitive scientists and mathematics educators might have in identifying developmental progressions, however, we would like to call into question the very notion of a 'natural' or 'normal' developmental sequence. We question, for example, whether tasks framed in a different manner might have 'revealed' different patterns of 'development' (Hughes & Donaldson, 1979). We also want to In the context of early childhood education, Fowler (2017) argues that tensions around the use of developmental theory arise in part from the different types of development in question. In the Piagetian approach, in which development drives learning, the focus is on development of "universals" such as object permanence and speech. In the Vygotskian approach, where learning drives development, the focus is on learning non-universals, such as reading and counting. In recommending that teachers adopt a multidimensional framework, in which they are aware of how the relationship varies between learning and development within the universal versus non-universal developmental sequence, Fowler does not disrupt the notion of a normal developmental path....