Correction: Oldrieve, R.M. Teaching K–3 Multi-Digit Arithmetic Computation to Students with Slow Language Processing. Computation 2024, 12, 128

Error in Figure/Table

In the original publication [1], there was a mistake concerning Figure 10 and Table 2. The corrected Figure 10 and

Table 2. PERCENT correct for students in Urban General Education (UGE)-Studies A and B, Suburban General Education (SGE)-Study A, and Urban Learning Disabilities (ULD)-Study A.

Class Type	Number Students	Mean	Median	Std Dev	Min	Max
UGE-A	88	56.17	57.14	33.17	7.14	100
UGE-B	38	58.59	66.67	34.38	2.38	100
SGE-A	55	89.70	95.24	17.88	19.05	100
ULD-A	27	88.62	92.86	12.20	42.86	100

appear below. The wrong Figure 10 was inserted during proofreading, resulting in the publication of an incorrect figure. For Table 2, the Suburban General Education students should have a MAX percentage of 100, not 30.

Text Correction

There was an error in the original publication. In the final sentence of Section “3.2. Population of Students in Study A”, second paragraph, the last seven words read: “at the end of four subsequent school years”. This has been corrected to “at the end of three subsequent school years”.

Corrected paragraph:

Since the class for students with learning disabilities that were using the Blended Arithmetic Curriculum was small to begin with, and not all of the students in the class for students with learning disabilities had Individualized Education Plans that mandated that they should be working on addition, only 7 students with learning disabilities participated in the assessment in the first year of Study A. To build up a statistical database for the urban students with learning disabilities, the same assessment using the same protocol was administered to the students working on addition at the end of three subsequent school years.

Two errors were found in the third paragraph of Section 4.2 Results of Study C. The third sentence reads with an incorrect percent in the first clause and a missing percent in the second clause: «On the other hand, 95% of the students in Suburban General Education classrooms in Study A (see Figure 7) and Urban Learning Disabilities in Study A (see Figure 8) completed the assessment in 10 min or less».

Corrected paragraph:

Similarly, Figure 10 shows that the students in Urban General Education in Study C took far less time to complete the worksheet than students in UGE classrooms in Study A (see Figure 5) and in Study B (see Figure 6). In fact, the bilateral nature of the curve is gone for these students in UGE classrooms in Study C, and 59% of them took 10 min or less to complete the worksheet compared to the students in UGE classrooms in Study A, where only 10% of the students completed the computation assessment in 10 min or less, and in Study B, where only a third of the students finished in 10 min or less. On the other hand, in Study A, 85% of the students in Suburban General Education classrooms (see Figure 7) and 93% of the students in the Urban Learning Disabilities classroom (see Figure 8) completed the assessment in 10 min or less. Thus, most of the students seem to be on their way to subitizing their math facts and are following a proper learning trajectory towards subtraction, multiplication, and division [1,28,29]. Nonetheless, even the improved results support Dr. Donald Scipione’s goal that including a computer/tablet-based program would allow for individualized instruction for those needing more practice repetitions on a given chapter of addition facts. Thus, students could be held back in order to achieve 85% accuracy in under 10 min before moving onto the next chapter. For example, the computer could help a student master 3’s addition before moving the student to 4’s addition.

Another two errors that are similar to the previous errors in Section 4.2 Results of Study C were found in the fourth paragraph of Section 5.3 Discussion of Study C. In the top paragraph, the sentence states that 95% of the students in SGE completed their addition computation in under 10 min. This contradicts the Figure 7 graph and the second paragraph of Section 5.1 on page 17, where the sentence correctly states that 85% of the students in SGE completed the addition computation in under ten min or less. Also missing in the second clause is the percentage of ULD students who completed the computation in 10 min or less.

Corrected Paragraph:

Similarly, Figure 10 shows that the students in Urban General Education using BAC in Study C took far less time to complete the worksheet than the students who did not use BAC in UGE classrooms in Study A (see Figure 5) and Study B (see Figure 6). In fact, the bilateral nature of the curve is gone for these students in UGE classrooms in Study C, and 59% of them took 10 min or less to complete the worksheet compared to the students in UGE classrooms in Study A, where only 10% of the students completed the computation assessment in 10 min or less, and in Study B, where only a third of the students finished in 10 min or less. On the other hand, in Study A, 85% of the students in Suburban General Education classrooms (see Figure 7) and 93% of the students in the Urban Learning Disabilities classroom (see Figure 8) completed the assessment in 10 min or less.

The author states that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.