"Cracking Math and Science"

Why Students May Not Perform Well in Science and Math

Unfortunately, there is a reason learners may not progress in science and math as expected. Many do not have enough underlying memory capacity to learn the varied sequential information and then apply it logically.

Furthermore, assuming this, students are unable to understand and follow procedural instructions basic to conceptualizing mathematical and scientific information.

Why is this?

Numerical arithmetic is taught in grades one to three, and there is a major shift in the curriculum in grade four. Right-brain spatial numbers shift into left-brain sequencing with advanced concepts. National test scores show that math scores, including advanced concepts, drop off  beginning in grade four.

Understanding science requires not only doing simple experiments and reading scientific stories out of textbooks, but requires procedural, stepwise learning.

Procedural learning requires the mastery of learning step-wise procedures. Following directions is usually taught with simple question and answer digital question/answer assignments taught by animated characters that may speak and move too quickly for the necessary absorption needed.

Why do we fall behind other foreign countries -- how can these children encode-decode information while ours do not? Perhaps their students have more musical training and learn foreign languages that train auditory (listening) memory, critically needed for learning technical sequences.

What is missing?

Students may be unable to listen to complex instructions (teachers spend hours daily repeating directions continuously). Subsequently, students work in teams where one member does the application "thinking" and fills out the required responses on devices. Others work in small tutorial groups with simple assignments that can be below grade level work. These students may then "fall through the cracks" with their math instruction and output.

Every student processes information differently, with different learning styles and capacities. The missing link is teaching students how to encode and decode sequential information with "mental toughess training", and expand their visual and listening memories an underlying requirement for conceptualizing formulas and mathematical equations.

Yet, teachers do recognize each child's proficiency level in math and science. Unfortunately, completion demands may be placed upon students who naturally lack the necessary "brain-power" to sequence and code math and science instructions.

Yet, we need to understand and expand our technological capacities with performing students in science and math.

Parents can now help fill in this gap - the missing link. There soon will be more parent "how to" information readily accessible through digital learning. Applications will be pleasurable, scientifically tested, and learning will be fast.

The ability to encode/decode sequential information will be taught through specific, scientifically tested training regimens. It might be something for all of us to consider. Let's look to future, innovative possibilities to foster advanced learning in science and math.

"INTENSIVE SENSORY INTEGRATION INSTRUCTION TRANSFORMS HANDWRITING”

Pub. Special Education Advisor 10-17-10 http://www.specialeducationadvisor.com/intensive-sensory-integration-instruction-transforms-handwriting/

A recent Wall Street Journal article, “How Handwriting Trains the Brain” (Bounds, G.) could conversely be stated that “Brain Training Changes Handwriting.” Technically speaking, increased and retrained brain activity can transform handwriting following twenty hours of intensive multi-sensory integration instruction (Erland, 2000).

What is Multi-Sensory Integration? Sensory integration can be defined as a successful combination of the visual, auditory, and tactile input processes to the brain. Early pioneer researcher and occupational therapist, Anna Jean Ayres, (1920–1989) wrote several books on the topic describing how deficits in sensory perception blocked informational input to the brain inhibiting motor output (Ayres, 1972, and Wikipedia, Ayres, J.).

Her forward-thinking work stirred controversy for a number of years. She wrote, quoted in the 1980s, Wikipedia, “It has not been easy for the helping professions to conceive of human behavior as an express of the brain, and they are still struggling to do so.” Unfortunately, these brain-learning, theory-practice amalgams remain today.

Which Cognitive Abilities are Required for Handwriting and Written Communication? Handwriting requires right-brain visual closure and spatial perceptual ability, with left-brain sequencing of letters combined with fine motor coordination.(Reid & Hresko, 1981) The connection of visual (seeing) and auditory (listening) learning are required for understanding, or the “integration of information (Hessler, 1982).”

Was Penmanship Taught? It is important to note that penmanship was not trained in my classes; per se. Students were instructed to “Think, Say, Do,” following the renowned Bandura’s 1971, Social Learning Theory, and the Gillingham & Stillman early reading-phonics multi-sensory model, 1970, which later became the recognized Orton-Gillingham Dyslexia training program.

Can Visual and Auditory Abilities Be Reliably Measured through Formal and Informal Assessments? Recognized norm-referenced, valid and reliable cognitive skills test batteries readily measure these sensory processing areas, The Detroit Tests of Learning Aptitude (DTLA) v. 1, 2 Visual Closure, Letters Sequences,, Auditory Memory for Words, and Oral Directions subtests; v. 3, & 4 subtests came later (Hammill, 1985; Baker and Leland, 1967, 1935, Pro-Ed). Additionally, Visual and auditory memory subtests from the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery (1978) were also applied to obtain student baselines.

When I first began testing and retraining cognitive abilities in 1980,(Erland, 1980) it became an ongoing incubation project covering many years of test-teach-test-publish iterations applying my puppetry and choral speech methodology to these recognized research and practice models. The sensory integration interventions revealed pre-posttest training change on the visual closure and letter sequencing DTLA subtests, beginning in 1981 following my program instructional interventions.

Can Handwriting Change Reliably Indicate Changes in Learning Capability? Notable handwriting changes were consistently and immediately evident with a perceptual “turning point” after twenty hours of daily, intensive, multi-sensory training. Fourth and fifth grade students with additional adult pre-to-posttest handwriting and testing cumulative compilations exist, documenting perceptual and fine motor change. With school classroom 48-Day, 24-hours of prescribed sensory integration implementation, following the same twenty hours of media-based instruction, revealed improved perception, thought, handwriting, and test-taking (Special Education Advisor, 2010).

One experimental study evidenced posttest change with one-two-year marked longitudinal student improvement with two classrooms of low-achieving/low auditory processing fourth graders on the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills CogAT Quantitative (pretest 58%-posttest 71%; 2-yr. 70%) and Nonverbal (pretest 59%-posttest 72%; 2-yr. Long 76%) areas. (Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, CogAT and Erland, J. K. 2000, p.20). The CogAT test was externally administered by the school and scored by the Princeton Educational Testing Service (ETS). These results have a high correlation with reading comprehension and mathematical learning. Individual student three-year CogAT trending is on pp. 22-23 of this published report (Erland, 2000).

A sampling from the handwriting perceptual and sequencing change exhibits is available on: http://www.memspan.com/handwriting2.pdf

Early on, it was determined through continuous, in-depth assessment and monitoring of all levels of learners and ages; children, business adults, and college students, that most individuals have information processing weaknesses or cognitive gaps ranging from mild- to- moderate- to- severe. And, unidentified, they are forced to cope with them.

Seeing continuous formal assessment outcome success, the ongoing research was continuously documented (1989-2000) in a scientific publication, The Journal of Accelerated Learning and Teaching. Needing a nominal reference for this research intervention, the edutainment methodology of using puppetry and choral speech was given the name: The Bridge to Achievement® (The BTA). The accompanying continuous formal assessment regulated that trained students were not merely “motivated’, or thus transformed through positive thinking, but had outcomes of improved reading and math scores (Erland, 1994). Yet, this overt handwriting transformation also operated as positive personal feedback and as an incentive for learners to “keep trying.”

To eliminate the possible motivational contamination of using puppets as “novel stimuli,” an eleven classroom experimental study was conducted using an “alternate media activity” for the control groups (Erland, 1999).

Discovering Learning Issues: Problems in these cognitive and fine motor areas show up in the early grades when basic skills are initially taught, indicating visual perceptual difficulties or directed as ADHD. While many children are formally referred and tested for Special Education from classroom observations, many are not, and subsequently fall through the cracks, missing important inter-sensory training during the critical early years.

Parents should show advocacy and watch for faulty handwriting symptoms and seek professional guidance and direction. Ignoring these critical perceptual symptoms, leads to a life-time of potential auxiliary written communication set-backs and other social-educational learning issues.

Another recent Special Education Advisor article by Claire Nissenbaum, M.A. (2010), “Messy Handwriting is a Predictor of ADHD in Girls," also indicates perceptual-penmanship red flags, because boys have spatial and coordination advantage over girls, Durden-Smith and DeSimone, 1984. Yet, boys outnumber girls in Special Education referrals and many parents do not want labeling stigma, “Once In, Never Out.” p. 115 Turnbull, Stowe, Huerta, 2007.

The bottom line is that perceptual and fine motor skill problems, as evidenced in handwriting samples, can be retrained through cognitive skill sensory integration instruction. Many well-known programs have existed for some time that offers this type of training in varying methodology formats and time requirements, obtaining a range of outcome results.


Ayres, J. A. (1972). Sensory integration and learning disorders. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Corporation. Wikipedia: Anna Jean Ayres biography.

Baker, H. & Leland, B. (1967). Detroit Tests of Learning Aptitude - 1. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.

Bandura, A. K. (1971). Social learning theory. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press

Bounds, G. (October 5, 2010). How handwriting trains the brain. The Wall Street Journal. Health and Wellness.

Durden-Smith and DeSimone, D. (1984) Sex and the Brain. New York: Warner Books.

Erland, J. K. (Fall, 2000). Brain-Based accelerated learning longitudinal study revealed subsequent high academic achievement gain for low-achieving, low-cognitive skill fourth grade students. 25, (3&4).

Erland, J. K. (Fall, 1999). Brain-Based accelerated learning and cognitive skills training using interactive media expedites high academic achievement. Journal of Accelerative Learning and Teaching, 24, (3&4).

Erland, J. K. (1994). Video-taped instruction creates listening and visual memory integration for higher reading and math scores. Journal of the Society for Accelerative Learning and Teaching, 19, (2), 155-227.

Erland, J. K. (1980). Vicarious modeling using peers and puppets with learning disabled adolescents in following oral directions. Unpublished master's thesis. University of Kansas, Lawrence.

Gillingham, A., & Stillman, B. W. (1970). Remedial training for children with specific disability in reading, spelling, and penmanship. Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service, Inc.

Hammill, D. D. (1985). Detroit Tests of Learning Aptitude-2. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Hessler, G. (1982). Use and interpretation of the Woodcock-Johnson psycho-educational battery. Hingham, MA: Teaching Resources.

Nissenbaum, C. (September 30, 2010). “Messy Handwriting is a Predictor of ADHD in Girls,” Special Education Advisor; The IEP and Special Education Social Network.

Reid, D. K., & Hresko, W. P. (1981). A cognitive approach to learning disabilities. New York: McGraw Hill.pp.16-17.

Riverside 2000. (1994). Iowa Tests of Basic Skills Integrated Assessment Program, Technical Summary I. Chicago, IL: The Riverside Publishing Co.(a subsidiary of Houghton Mifflin Harcourt)

Turnbull, H.R., Stowe, M.J., and Huerta, N.E. (2007). Free Appropriate Public Education. Denver: Love Publishing.

Woodcock, R. W. (1978). Development and standardization of the Woodcock-Johnson psycho-educational battery. Higham, MA: Teaching Resources Corp.

"Cognitive Skills Training or Brain-Based Learning; Which Is It?"

Cognitive Skills training has a long history from the 1960s into the 1970s. Since it is a scientific, technical term, the average lay person is not sure as to what it really means. It can convey a detrimental underlying meaning that something mentally is wrong with the person.

This is not the case. Unless you understand the psychometric testing that measures the information processing and cognitive skill components, the subject becomes complicated. Unless one has advanced course work in this area, it is difficult to explain memory and cognitive processes in simple terms. Yet, we all have a particular cognitive profile, and most of us do not realize or know what it is.

For years, cognitive psychologists tested for problems, and gave medication or remediation. Little assistance was available for the average person. Teachers knew they had learning and behavioral difficulties in the classroom. Yet, it became too tedious and time consuming to complete full psychological batteries on the many children requiring identification. And, only the certified School Psychologist could administer the complex testing batteries. Yet, something had to be done.

In jumped "Brain-Based Learning" into the typical classroom. Many teachers and lay people came up with an irrational exuberance of solutions. The problem was that these techniques or methodologies were randomly implemented and not scientifically tested. It became a "hit and miss" proposition.

Interestingly, it requires minimally 12 hours of pre- and post-testing and a few more hours of evaluation to arrive at solid conclusions. This level of work becomes mind-boggling, and psychologists and specialists deservedly charge solid professional fees.

Since people are not willing to make large investments unless there is a real nagging necessity for it, subsequently the average person is not often, or ever, tested for cognitive skills weaknesses.

Yet, I conducted these exhaustive, comprehensive, standardized measurements and evaluations on thousands of high average, average, low average, and gifted individuals as part of the course pro bono because of my scientific curiosity. Each had a unique profile, which could be improved.

Importantly, I could see dramatic change with my intervention, although experienced at different time intervals by each individual. I knew how important it would be to document it completely.

Living in a university town, full professors and statisticians volunteered their services for this important analyses work, that entailed twenty years of publications and almost thirty of applied research practice. I had many scholarly advisors. As the work progressed through publications and peer review, additional psychology and education professors from different universities analyzed and followed the unique data compilations.

Scientific discovery was in process.

Today, there are programs that have statistical results, but few that have longitudinal findings. In other words, does the training intervention "last"? It takes years to collect this type of data, especially among various demographic groups. It is also difficult to locate the same individual years down the road for subsequent testing. Additionally, even if they are located, are clients willing to be retested years later?

Of my seven experiments, six studies, with a variety of ages and demographic groups, had 1-3 years longitudinal tracking with complete positive findings.

For further information, see the link "scholarly publications" on the nav bar. For comment, click on:" Respond Further on Jan's Blog."

"Multi-Sensory Training in the Traditional Classroom?"

Many schools today are embracing change to help learner's perform easier and at a faster rate. There are multitudes of commercial programs, yet few have in-depth scientific documentation. This is because it takes years and years of experimentation to obtain it.

Multi-sensory education has been around for many years, even before I applied it in 1980, nearly thirty years ago, having learned from the experts and textbooks of that time.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, there was a push for sensory integration through auditory-visual-motoric-kinesthetic applications, led by Jean Ayres, Chalfant and Scheffelin, and others. (in Lerner, J. W. 1976, 1971; Children with Learning Disabilities, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston p. 180). Inter-sensory exercises were emphasized during the 1970s, then they were abandoned. Other, often lesser effective, methods replaced them.

The missing link was the creative inter-sensory Accelerated Learning applications that could be applied to these theories. In 1980, I applied them with The Bridge To Achievement program, and it has taken me nearly thirty years to show documentation that they work. Traditionalists were skeptical and children , especially those with learning difficulties, often floundered, as they stayed within a narrow educational mindset.

Now, brain science is verifying the early works of the eminent professors and the practitioners, like myself. The last several issues of Brain in the News by the Dana Foundation, Washington DC, tout how Neuroaesthetics and Neuroeducation are moving forward together. They state that the elements of the theater through simultaneous use of several sensory inputs, work for activating the brain for learning (July 2009, p. 3).

The multitudes of published learning applications may very well move in this direction, because they do create the academic achievement change that is now not only necessary, but mandatory.