A Technology-Driven Assistive Learning Tool and Framework for Personalized Dyscalculia Interventions
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Use DBNs for knowledge structuring within intelligent tutoring systems to improve arithmetic comprehension and performance in children with dyscalculia.
- Use gamification to improve learning outcomes and engagement.
- Ensure accurate evaluations through skill-refinement therapies using the Smartick Dyscalculia Assessment Tool, which was administered to 158 children between the ages of 6 and 10.
- Develop and test a web-based adaptive learning tool called Early Detection and Intervention for Insufficient Number Sense (EDSense).
- Innovative use of technology—This showcases the effective use of DBNs to create personalized learning experiences, tailoring interventions to meet the unique needs of each child.
- Engagement through gamification—The research introduces a gamified learning approach that makes mathematics more engaging and enjoyable for students with dyscalculia, helping to motivate them and improve their learning outcomes.
- Accurate skill assessment—By employing the Smartick Dyscalculia Assessment Tool, the research provides a reliable method to evaluate children’s arithmetic skills and identify areas needing improvement.
- Development of EDSense—The EDSense tool offers a practical solution for the early identification and support of children struggling with mathematics.
- Focus on individualized support—This research emphasizes the importance of personalized educational support, with the aim of helping children with dyscalculia realize their full potential in mathematics and other areas of learning.
2. Literature Review
- Limited empirical validation—While theoretical models and pilot studies suggest promising outcomes, large-scale empirical studies that validate the effectiveness of adaptive learning systems and Bayesian models in classroom settings in the real world are lacking.
- Longitudinal studies—There is a lack of longitudinal research tracking the long-term effectiveness of technological and pedagogical interventions in improving mathematical cognition, making it difficult to assess sustained impact.
- Personalized learning strategies—More studies are needed to refine how personalized feedback mechanisms can be optimized for different cognitive profiles of children with dyscalculia, ensuring tailored and effective learning experiences.
- Integration of multiple interventions—Research often focuses on isolated interventions (e.g., gamification, adaptive learning, and assistive technology) without examining their combined effects on children with dyscalculia, which could provide a more comprehensive support system.
- Equity and accessibility—The role of socioeconomic factors in accessing advanced educational technologies remains underexplored, limiting the broader applicability of existing interventions and potentially widening the educational gap.
3. Methodology
- Unobservable and evolving knowledge level—The level of knowledge of learners cannot be directly observed and is a continuous, evolving construct. Therefore, it is challenging to determine the appropriate learning path for the learner.
- Incorporating knowledge structure—Creating logical learning paths requires the incorporation of the knowledge structure of the learning items. The knowledge structure is an intricate network of concepts that makes it difficult to design appropriate learning paths, particularly for complex topics.
- Maximizing overall learning performance—A good recommendation of the learning path should maximize the overall gain throughout the learning trajectory, not just in a particular step. This requires careful consideration of the interconnection between learning objectives, which can be challenging to achieve due to the complexity of many learning environments.
3.1. Computational Knowledge Space
3.2. Student Model
- Student knowledge—Determining whether a student has acquired specific skills at a given time (t).
- Affective state—Assessing the student’s engagement level, such as attentiveness, boredom, or lack of concentration. Recognizing these states enables precise adaptation of training to individual needs.
- Student traits—Factors such as learning behavior and learner type significantly influence learning outcomes. For example, a student trait may indicate whether the student has a learning disability, which affects how the system tailors instruction.
3.3. Pedagogical Module
Algorithm 1 EDsense-Pedagogical module control algorithm | |
PLT—Posterior probability Lower Threshold | |
PUT—Posterior probability Upper Threshold | |
while do | |
▷ Play the current task and update it; | |
▷ Fetch posterior probabilities | |
if then | |
▷ Move to the successor task | |
else if then | |
▷ Decrease the upper threshold | |
else | |
▷ Increase the lower threshold | |
end if | |
▷ Update the number of samples | |
train(current_task, Training_level) | ▷ Perform training at the optimal level |
end while |
3.4. Design Module
4. Materials and Methods
4.1. Selection Criteria and Participants
4.2. Tools and Procedures
4.3. Analysis Plan
5. Results and Discussions
5.1. Participant Performance Overview
5.2. Speed and Accuracy Analysis
5.3. Response Time Evaluation
5.4. Dyscalculia-Related Challenges
5.5. Student Performance Trends
5.6. Speed-Accuracy Trade-Off in Mathematics Learning
5.7. Dyscalculia Considerations and Individualized Support
- Visual aids and step-by-step problem breakdowns.
- Reinforcement exercises for place value understanding.
- Error analysis interventions to correct conceptual misunderstandings.
- Multisensory learning techniques, such as using manipulatives and interactive tools (Butterworth, 2018).
- Adaptive digital learning environments that provide real-time feedback and scaffolding (Geary, 2013).
- Collaborative learning strategies that encourage peer support and discussion to build conceptual clarity (Ramaa, 2002).
5.8. EDSense in Mathematics Learning and Future Research
6. Conclusions
- Early, accurate, and multimodal screening tools that consider technological familiarity.
- Gamified frameworks that enhance motivation and cognitive engagement.
- Personalized interventions that adapt in real time to student performance.
- Accessible design choices to ensure that all learners can benefit from digital tools, regardless of physical or technological limitations.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, DSM-5 (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Publishing. [Google Scholar]
- Anderson, K. M. (2020). Inclusive education: Educator preparedness and student success [Ph.D. thesis, William Woods University]. [Google Scholar]
- Annadani, Y., Pawlowski, N., Jennings, J., Bauer, S., Zhang, C., & Gong, W. (2023). Bayesdag: Gradient-based posterior inference for causal discovery. arXiv, arXiv:2307.13917. [Google Scholar]
- Aravantinos, S., Lavidas, K., Voulgari, I., Papadakis, S., Karalis, T., & Komis, V. (2024). Educational approaches with ai in primary school settings: A systematic review of the literature available in scopus. Education Sciences, 14(7), 744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baker, R. S., Corbett, A. T., & Koedinger, K. R. (2004). Detecting student misuse of intelligent tutoring systems. In Intelligent tutoring systems: 7th international conference, ITS 2004, Maceió, Alagoas, Brazil, August 30–September 3 2004. Proceedings 7 (pp. 531–540). Springer. [Google Scholar]
- Baker, R. S. J. D., & Yacef, K. (2009). The state of educational data mining in 2009: A review and future visions. Journal of Educational Data Mining, 1(1), 3–17. [Google Scholar]
- Butterworth, B. (2018). Dyscalculia: From science to education. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
- Corbett, A. T., & Anderson, J. R. (1994). Knowledge tracing: Modeling the acquisition of procedural knowledge. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 4, 253–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cornue, J. W. (2018). Exploring dyscalculia and its effects on math students [Master’s thesis, Harvard Extension School]. [Google Scholar]
- De La Vara, J. L., & García-Serrano. (2014). Modelling skill dependencies in online programming labs with bayesian networks. Journal of Educational Data Mining, 6(2), 61–87. [Google Scholar]
- De Smedt, B., & Gilmore, C. K. (2011). Defective number module or impaired access? Numerical magnitude processing in first graders with mathematical difficulties. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108(2), 278–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El-Sabagh, H. (2021). Adaptive e-learning environment based on learning styles and its impact on development students’ engagement. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- First, M. B. (2010). Paradigm shifts and the development of the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: Past experiences and future aspirations. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 55(11), 692–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. (2018). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention. Guilford Publications. [Google Scholar]
- Geary, D. C. (2013). Dyscalculia at an early age: Characteristics and potential influences. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 2(2), 43–47. [Google Scholar]
- Geary, D. C., Bow-Thomas, C. C., & Yao, Y. (1992). Counting knowledge and skill in cognitive addition: A comparison of normal and mathematically disabled children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 54(3), 372–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jadhav, D., Chettri, S. K., Tripathy, A. K., Ghate, O., Chaudhari, R., & Avhad, S. (2023, October 6–7). Unlocking math potential: Edsense—A personalized intervention tool for children with dyscalculia. 2023 International Conference on Advanced Computing Technologies and Applications (ICACTA) (pp. 1–7), Mumbai, India. [Google Scholar]
- Kaufmann, L. (2008). Dyscalculia: Neuroscience and education. Educational Research, 50(2), 163–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Käser, T., Klingler, S., Schwing, A. G., & Gross, M. (2017). Dynamic bayesian networks for student modeling. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 10(4), 450–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, Y., Oh, S. J., & Lee, J. (2017). Bayesian network modeling of skill topologies for language learning analytics. Journal of Learning Analytics, 4(2), 47–74. [Google Scholar]
- Koumoula, A., Tsironi, V., Stamouli, V., Bardani, I., Siapati, S., & Annika, G. (2004). An epidemiological study of number processing and mental calculation in greek schoolchildren. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 377–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lewis, C., Hitch, G., & Walker, P. (1994). The prevalence of specific arithmetic difficulties and specific reading difficulties in 9- and 10-year old boys and girls. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 283–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Q., Tong, S., Liu, C., Zhao, H., Chen, E., Ma, H., & Wang, S. (2019, August 4–8). Exploiting cognitive structure for adaptive learning. 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining (pp. 627–635), Anchorage, AK, USA. [Google Scholar]
- Margaret, T., Hanumanthappa, H., & Sangamithra, A. (2019). Intelligent predicting learning disabilities in school going children using fuzzy logic k mean clustering in machine learning. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering, 8(4), 1694–1698. [Google Scholar]
- Mislevy, R. J. (2000). Bayes nets in educational assessment: Where do the numbers come from? (Technical Report 518). Graduate School of Education & Information Studies University of California. [Google Scholar]
- Norman, D. A. (2013). The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition. Basic Books. [Google Scholar]
- Ramaa, S. (2002). Dyscalculia and math learning difficulties. Educational Review, 54(2), 167–175. [Google Scholar]
- Sánchez-Cauce, R., París, I., & Díez, F. J. (2022). Sum-product networks: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 44(7), 3821–3839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shaban, A., & Pearson, E. (2019). A learning design framework to support children with learning disabilities incorporating gamification techniques. In Extended abstracts of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1–6). Association for Computing Machinery. [Google Scholar]
- Shalev, R. (2004). Developmental dyscalculia. Journal of Child Neurology, 19(10), 765–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shalev, R. S., Auerbach, J., Manor, O., & Gross-Tsur, V. (2000). Developmental dyscalculia: Prevalence and prognosis. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 9(Suppl. 2), II58–II64. [Google Scholar]
- Sharma, M. (2015). Maths learning difficulties, dyslexia and dyscalculia. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
- Siemens, G. (2013). Learning analytics: The emergence of a discipline. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(10), 1380–1400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smartick Method. (2022). How does the dyscalculia test work? Available online: https://www.smartick.com/dyscalculia.html (accessed on 8 May 2022).
- Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 261–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Textor, J., Hardt, J., & Knüppel, S. (2011). DAGitty: A graphical tool for analyzing causal diagrams. Epidemiology, 22(5), 745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Thompson, R., Bonilla, E. V., & Kohn, R. (2024). Prodag: Projection-induced variational inference for directed acyclic graphs. arXiv, arXiv:2405.15167. [Google Scholar]
- Williams, A. (2012). A teacher’s perspective of dyscalculia: Who counts? An interdisciplinary overview. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 18(1), 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woolf, B. P. (2010). Building intelligent tutoring systems: An overview. In S. D’Mello, R. A. Calvo, & A. Olney (Eds.), New perspectives on affect and learning technologies (pp. 1–27). Springer. [Google Scholar]
- Yell, M. L., & Drasgow, E. (2007). The individuals with disabilities education improvement act of 2004 and the 2006 regulations: Implications for assessment—Introduction to the special series. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32(4), 194–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zourmpakis, A. I., Kalogiannakis, M., & Papadakis, S. (2023). Adaptive gamification in science education: An analysis of the impact of implementation and adapted game elements on students’ motivation. Computers, 12(7), 143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Component | Description |
---|---|
Learner Space | The interactive environment where students engage with mathematical tasks and adaptive learning experiences. |
Gamified System | Integrates game-based elements to enhance motivation, engagement, and persistence in learning mathematics. |
Computational Knowledge Space | Student Model: Captures student knowledge, affective states, and personality traits to personalize learning. Pedagogical Module: Adapts learning paths based on student performance and cognitive needs. Domain Knowledge (Knowledge Engine): Stores structured mathematical concepts and learning hierarchies. |
Design Module | Foster Germane Load: Encourages deep learning and meaningful connections. Minimize Intrinsic Load: Simplifies complex concepts to enhance comprehension. Reduce Extraneous Load: Eliminates unnecessary distractions for efficient learning. Design Math Tasks: Creates tailored exercises aligned with cognitive principles. |
Data Analysis and Visualization | Processes learning data to provide insights, progress tracking, and personalized feedback. |
Evaluation | Assesses system effectiveness, student progress, and learning outcomes using various metrics. |
Expert Space | Domain Experts: Ensure accurate and structured mathematical content. Psychologists: Address cognitive and affective aspects of learning. Game Designers: Enhance engagement through game-based strategies. |
Aspect | Description |
---|---|
Adaptive Assessment | Dynamically adjusts question difficulty using Bayesian Knowledge Tracing based on learner responses. |
Gamified User Interface | Provides an interactive, user-friendly interface and rewards to boost motivation and engagement. |
Immediate Feedback | Delivers real-time visual feedback and hints for both correct and incorrect answers. |
Mathematical Concept Coverage | Includes Addition, Subtraction, and Multiplication with increasing levels of complexity. |
Performance Tracking | Monitors accuracy, response times, and progress over time to support learning diagnostics. |
Error Pattern Recognition | Detects and categorizes specific wrong answers to highlight specific learning difficulties. |
Progress Reports | Automatically generates analytical progress reports. |
MERN Stack Architecture | Built with MongoDB, Express.js, React, and Node.js for scalability, speed, and modularity. |
Skill Name | Speed | Accuracy | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Variance | SD | Variance | SD | |
dotComparison | 0.7153 | 0.8458 | 1081.714 | 32.8894 |
subitizing | 0.0286 | 0.169 | 1707.3046 | 41.3195 |
numberRecognition | 0.6335 | 0.796 | 1498.5401 | 38.711 |
numberComparison | 0.1417 | 0.3764 | 1723.6636 | 41.517 |
mentalNumberLine | 0.8028 | 0.896 | 882.3046 | 29.7036 |
numberLine | 0.4742 | 0.6886 | 622.0535 | 24.941 |
counting | 0.4281 | 0.6543 | 1519.2679 | 38.9778 |
numberSequence | 0.4347 | 0.6593 | 743.6749 | 27.2704 |
addition | 0.4045 | 0.636 | 1682.6616 | 41.0203 |
subtraction | 0.714 | 0.845 | 1320.8056 | 36.3429 |
multiplication | 0.5255 | 0.7249 | 940.8224 | 30.6728 |
Correlation Coefficient | Standard Error | |
---|---|---|
speed_and_accuracy_Variance | −0.5176 | 488.7471 |
speed_and_accuracy_SD | −0.5034 | 7.9930 |
Skill Name | Variance | SD |
---|---|---|
Addition | 4552.7869 | 67.4743 |
Subtraction | 2936.0731 | 54.1855 |
Multiplication | 3689.9371 | 60.7448 |
Operation | F-Statistic | p-Value | Conclusion |
---|---|---|---|
Addition | 11.890121 | <0.0001 | There is a significant difference in response times across levels, indicating that the complexity of the addition task increases as the difficulty level rises. |
Subtraction | 14.037830 | <0.0001 | A significant difference in response times is observed across levels. Higher difficulty levels lead to slower response times in subtraction tasks, suggesting a greater cognitive load. |
Multiplication | 13.733935 | <0.0001 | Significant differences in response times across levels suggest that task complexity increases with higher levels, impacting the multiplication task’s response times. |
Metric | Mean Value | Min Value | Max Value | No. of Entries |
---|---|---|---|---|
Correct_Answers_Level | 2.04 | 0.0 | 3.6 | 1819 |
Correct_Answers_Questions | 5.31 | 0.0 | 10.0 | 1819 |
Wrong_Answers_Level | 0.82 | 0.0 | 3.6 | 1826 |
Wrong_Answers_Questions | 2.17 | 0.0 | 10.0 | 1819 |
Specific_Wrong_Level | 1.57 | 1.1 | 2.6 | 64 |
Specific_Wrong_Questions | 4.94 | 1.0 | 10.0 | 64 |
Special_Case | 1.96 | 1.0 | 5.0 | 55 |
Aspect | Observation |
---|---|
General Trends | Response times vary by skill level and stage. Addition times are generally higher than Subtraction and Multiplication, especially at higher levels (Level 6+). |
Levels 1–3 | Lower response times across all stages, indicating manageable difficulty. Multiplication times are lowest, suggesting ease with basic tasks. |
Levels 4–6 | Noticeable increase in Addition and Subtraction times, especially at Level 5 and 6, likely due to increased complexity. Multiplication time peaks at Level 6. |
Levels 7–10 | Addition and Subtraction times increase sharply, suggesting more challenging problems or concepts introduced at these levels. |
Levels 11–17 | Addition and Subtraction remain high, with Subtraction times peaking at Levels 6 and 17, indicating difficulty or potential fatigue at advanced levels. |
Stage-Specific Trends | Addition: Shows a steady increase in response time, peaking around Level 13. Subtraction: High variability with sharp peaks at Levels 3, 6, and 17, suggesting specific difficulties at these points. Multiplication: Low response times at lower levels, reaching a peak at Level 6. |
Summary | Initial levels show lower times, indicating introductory complexity. Increasing response times at higher levels suggest a growing cognitive load and problem difficulty. |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Published by MDPI on behalf of the University Association of Education and Psychology. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Jadhav, D.; Chettri, S.K.; Tripathy, A.K.; Saikia, M.J. A Technology-Driven Assistive Learning Tool and Framework for Personalized Dyscalculia Interventions. Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2025, 15, 85. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe15050085
Jadhav D, Chettri SK, Tripathy AK, Saikia MJ. A Technology-Driven Assistive Learning Tool and Framework for Personalized Dyscalculia Interventions. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education. 2025; 15(5):85. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe15050085
Chicago/Turabian StyleJadhav, Dipti, Sarat Kumar Chettri, Amiya Kumar Tripathy, and Manob Jyoti Saikia. 2025. "A Technology-Driven Assistive Learning Tool and Framework for Personalized Dyscalculia Interventions" European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education 15, no. 5: 85. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe15050085
APA StyleJadhav, D., Chettri, S. K., Tripathy, A. K., & Saikia, M. J. (2025). A Technology-Driven Assistive Learning Tool and Framework for Personalized Dyscalculia Interventions. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 15(5), 85. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe15050085