Received: 18 February 2022      Accepted: 18 January 2023

DOI: 10.1111/bjep.12588

ARTICLE

Acquisition of new arithmetic skills based on prior

arithmetic skills: A cross-sectional study in primary
school from grade 2 to grade 5

Catherine Thevenot1 | Youssef Tazouti2 | Catherine Billard3 |

Jasinta Dewi1 | Michel Fayol4

1
Institut de Psychologie, Batiment Géopolis,
University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland Abstract
2
University of Lorraine (2LPN, EA 7489), Nancy Background: In several countries, children's math skills
Cedex, France have been declining at an alarming rate in recent years and
3
Centre de Référence sur les Troubles des decades, and one of the explanations for this alarming situa-
Apprentissages, Bicêtre Hospital, Le Kremlin-
Bicêtre, Paris, France tion is that children have difficulties in establishing the rela-
4
Université de Clermont Auvergne (LAPSCO, UMR tions between arithmetical operations.
6024 UCA-CNRS), Clermont-Ferrand, France Aim: In order to address this question, our goal was to
determine the predictive power of previously taught opera-
Correspondence tions on newly taught ones above general cognitive skills and
Catherine Thevenot, SSP, Institut de Psychologie, basic numerical skills.
Batiment Géopolis, Université de Lausanne, Bureau
4536, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland. Samples: More than one hundred children in each school
Email: [email protected] level from Grades 2 to 5 from various socio-cultural environ-
ments (N = 435, 229 girls) were tested.
Methods: Children were assessed on their abilities to solve
the four basic arithmetic operations. They were also tested on
their general cognitive abilities, including working memory,
executive functions (i.e., inhibition and flexibility), visual
attention and language. Finally, their basic numerical skills
were measured through a matching task between symbolic
and nonsymbolic numerosity representations. Additions and
subtractions were presented to children from Grade 2, multi-
plications from Grade 3 and divisions from Grade 4.
Results and Conclusions: We show that addition predicts
subtraction and multiplication performance in all grades.
Moreover, multiplication predicts division performance in
both Grades 4 and 5. Finally, addition predicts division in
Grade 4 but not in Grade 5 and subtraction and division
are not related whatever the school grade. These results are
examined considering the existing literature, and their impli-
cations in terms of instruction are discussed.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and
distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2023 The Authors. British Journal of Educational Psychology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Psychological Society.

Br J Educ Psychol. 2023;93:727–741. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/bjep 727

 20448279, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjep.12588 by National Institutes Of Health Malaysia, Wiley Online Library on [08/01/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
728 THEVENOT et al.

KEYWORDS
arithmetic, numerical cognition, operations

INTRODUCTION

In several countries, such as the United States, Australia or France, children's math skills have been declin-
ing at an alarming rate in recent years and decades (OCDE, 2019). Numerous explanations have been
provided, noticeably low investment in teachers' training (e.g., Luft & Cox, 2001) or teachers’ dislike for
mathematics (e.g., Ruffell et al., 1998). More specific explanations are also given and one of them is that
children have lost the “sense” of arithmetical operations (Villani et al., 2018). In some school system
such as the French one, this could be because the 4 operations are introduced one after the other in the
curriculum, whereas a simultaneous introduction in Grade 1 could allow children to better understand
the relation between them (Villani et al., 2018). The aim of the present paper is to address this question
and to determine the predictive power of previously taught operations on the acquisition of new ones.
This will be done using regression models in each of the Grades from 2 to 5. Because general cognitive
skills can be responsible for the dependence between academic skills (e.g., Tikhomirova et al., 2020), we
neutralized working memory capacities, executive function skills (i.e., a composite score of inhibition and
flexibility), visual attention and language abilities in our analyses. Performance on arithmetical tasks can
also be related to more basic skills in numeracy (Sasanguie et al., 2012) and this is the reason it was also
considered in our model.
The approach that we adopted was inspired by Geary et al. (2017) who sought to determine the vari-
ables influencing performance in mathematics. The authors followed 167 children from the first year of
primary school to the third year of secondary school. Children were subjected each year to two series of
tests assessing their general cognitive abilities and their specific numerical skills. The results showed that
the effect of general cognitive abilities, particularly that of working memory, was strong in the very early
stages of schooling, then lessened and stabilized. In contrast, mathematical performance in a given school
year became the best predictor of mathematical performance in the following years. Amongst mathemati-
cal skills, knowledge of numbers and arithmetic skills were the best predictors at all school levels, followed
by fraction processing in older pupils. A similar approach was also used by Lin (2021) in the domain of
arithmetic word problems. The author showed that language comprehension, working memory, attention,
mathematics vocabulary and mathematics computation were unique predictors of word-problem solving
in elementary school children.
As already stated, we adopted the same approach as Geary et al. (2017) or Lin (2021) in a cross-sectional
design involving children from Grades 2 to 5 and applied it to mental arithmetic and, more precisely,
addition and subtraction in the early school years, then multiplication and later division from the middle
of primary school. Our goal was to determine the role of prior arithmetic skills on children's acquisition
of new arithmetical skills once the effects of general cognitive abilities and basic numerical skills were
neutralized.

Continuities in arithmetical operation learning

Arithmetic skills develop throughout elementary school and beyond. This development depends on
several variables. First, cognitive maturation leads to an increase in general abilities such as attention,
memory and language, allowing children to process more and more complex operations. Second, pupils
formally learn arithmetic principles and procedures at school. They start with addition and subtraction,
followed by multiplication and lastly division. Numerous studies have been devoted to mental arithmetic,
but they rarely involve the four operations altogether and are rarely conducted over more than 2 years.
For example, Xu et al. (2021) examined the development of addition, subtraction and multiplication in
 20448279, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjep.12588 by National Institutes Of Health Malaysia, Wiley Online Library on [08/01/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ACQUISITION OF NEW ARITHMETIC SKILLS 729

a longitudinal study involving children in Grades 2 and Grade 3. Other studies have assessed the four
arithmetic operations together, but their goal was not to examine the relation between operations (e.g.,
Martens et al., 2011; Zhao et al., 2014).
Each of the four operations mobilizes three types of knowledge. Declarative knowledge corre-
sponds to chunks of specific content, such as numerical facts (e.g., 2 × 3 = 6 or 6 + 6 = 12), which are
stored in memory networks of associations between operands and answers (Ashcraft, 1992). Procedural
knowledge is general, abstract, modular, relatively immune to interference and activated by specific goals
(Anderson, 1993). For example, the process of decomposition into tens in order to add up numbers (e.g.,
46 + 23 is 40 + 20 and 6 + 3 = 60 + 9 = 69) is general because it can be applied to a large number of addi-
tions, is abstract because it contains variables that are instantiated by the values supplied by the operands,
is activated by a specific goal (i.e., solving the addition) and is modular because it is independent from
other procedures and is therefore relatively immune to interference (Roussel et al., 2002). Finally, concep-
tual knowledge refers to general properties of the operations (Crooks & Alibali, 2014) and “reflects the
understanding of why a procedure works” (Scheibling-Sève et al., 2020, p. 294). For example, solving
7 × 6 by retrieving the results of 6 × 7 requires the conceptual knowledge of commutative properties
(Baroody, 1999).
Learning arithmetic involves the progressive mastering of these three types of knowledge, which,
through practice, conduct to mutual enrichment. For example, declarative knowledge of arithmetic facts
could be created by repeated application of counting procedures to specific problems (e.g., Logan &
Klapp, 1991). Still, the concomitant and mutual progression of declarative, procedural and conceptual
knowledge as well as their relations is not yet well understood. It is nevertheless possible to evaluate their
respective contribution to the acquisition of new arithmetic knowledge by examining the contribution
of a specific arithmetic operation to the performance of operations subsequently learnt. The results of
earlier work show that acquired mathematical skills at any given point during schooling constitute the
best predictors of subsequent acquired learning and progress (Geary et al., 2017). This statement should
generalize to the evolution of performance in arithmetical operations but, as already stated, doubts are
expressed nowadays on children's abilities to articulate their knowledge and construct the sense of these
operations in light of one another (Villani et al., 2018). An investigation of these questions is therefore
needed.
Concerning addition, skill acquisition is initially based on counting (e.g., Bagnoud et al., 2021; Groen
& Parkman, 1972). More precisely, from the age of 3 to 4 years, children are able to determine the cardi-
nal of small quantities by subitizing (Benoit et al., 2004) and by counting one by one (Fuson, 1988).
They therefore use declarative knowledge, such as a still limited verbal chain (Van Rinsveld et al., 2020),
procedural knowledge, such as object pointing (Camos et al., 1999), and conceptual knowledge related
to counting principles (Briars & Siegler, 1984; Gelman & Gallistel, 1978). Children grasp very soon the
meaning of addition and subtraction as corresponding to increase and decrease of quantities, although in
a restricted range of problem situations (i.e., change problems; Riley et al., 1983). Performance in addi-
tion and subtraction do not initially differ and remain strongly correlated throughout schooling (about
r = .80 according to Dowker, 1998; see also Xu et al. (2021) for a study in Grade 2 and 3). As attested by
rare longitudinal studies, addition and subtraction procedures evolve in parallel with age and experience
(Artemenko et al., 2018; Carpenter et al., 1998). An important achievement occurs at the age of around 5
to 7 years when children understand the commutativity principle of addition and the inverse relationship
between addition and subtraction (Bryant et al., 1999). From that moment onwards, they can rely on addi-
tions to solve subtractions, for example using 3 + 4 = 7 to solve 7–3 = 4. Therefore, our first hypothesis
(H1) is that, from Grade 2, subtraction performance will heavily depend on addition performance. Stated
more operationally, performance on subtraction should be predicted by performance on addition, even
after general cognitive abilities and basic numerical skills are entered in the model. This hypothesis is
relevant in the educational context in which our research took place, that is in France before 2020. At that
time, subtraction was formally introduced in Grade 2 (MENJ, 2015) but situations where some objects are
removed or lost in contrast to situations where objects are added or earned had been already presented in
kindergarten (EDUSCOL, 2020).
 20448279, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjep.12588 by National Institutes Of Health Malaysia, Wiley Online Library on [08/01/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
730 THEVENOT et al.

Learning new operations results in new conceptual and declarative knowledge and new procedures.
There are both continuities and discontinuities between additions and subtractions on the one hand and
multiplications and divisions on the other hand but generally, reference to additions and subtractions
constitutes a basis to learn conceptual, declarative and procedural aspects of multiplication and division
(Cooney et al., 1988; Lemaire & Siegler, 1995). Although repeated addition is introduced in classrooms
as a procedure that can be used to solve multiplication problems (e.g., 5 × 4 can be solved by performing
5 + 5 + 5 + 5), teaching a conception of multiplication as a repeated addition is not necessarily the best
way to develop a deep understanding of the multiplication concept in children (Park & Nunes, 2001).
Indeed, Grade 2 children better grasp this concept when they are taught the scheme of correspondence
or, in other words, the fact that a multiplication is an invariant relation of correspondence between two
quantities. More precisely, children perform better when they have been trained with word problems such
as “Yesterday, Tom ate 2 fruits at each of the 3 meals. How many fruits did he eat yesterday?” (i.e., scheme
of correspondence) than with problems such as “Yesterday, Tom ate 2 fruits during breakfast, 2 fruits
during the lunch and 2 fruits during diner. How many fruits did he eat yesterday?” (i.e., repeated addition).
This conception of multiplication as a scheme of correspondence allows children to understand that it is
possible to multiply 4.3 by 2.1, for example, which would not make sense in a repeated addition concep-
tion (Larsson et al., 2017). For Piaget (1965) or Steffe (1988, 1992), overcoming the addition scheme addi-
tion to reach a higher level of abstraction is necessary to master multiplication. Clark and Kamii (1996)
showed that some children in Grade 2 already master such multiplicative thinking, but they also show that
this ability develops slowly. Even if children must construct their representation of multiplication out of
addition, it remains that when whole numbers are used in the text of a problem, repeated additions can
be used as a resolution procedure.
However, once the multiplication scheme is acquired by children, multiplication tables are often
learnt by heart in classrooms (Geary, 1994), and, by Grade 4, retrieval of the answers from memory is
the dominant strategy (Cooney et al., 1988). Memorization of new associations between operands and
results can create the emergence of interference, some specific to multiplications (Barrouillet et al., 1997;
De Visscher & Noël, 2014) and some others related to prior associations, particularly with addition facts
(Lemaire et al., 1994; Miller & Paredes, 1990). Therefore, negative side effects can arise from conflicts
between previous addition facts in memory and newly acquired associations. Still, either negative or posi-
tive, these effects would reflect the impact of operations previously learned on more recently acquired
ones. Therefore, our second hypothesis (H2) is that, in Grade 3, multiplication performance will depend
on addition performance but that this relation will disappear in Grades 4 or 5. This is because, as just
stated, retrieval, which is disconnected from addition procedures (e.g., Mathieu et al., 2016), becomes
the dominant strategy over development. Moreover, and as also explained above, as children grow older,
they depart progressively from the addition scheme to understand multiplicative structures (Clark &
Kamii, 1996). These hypotheses make sense in the educational context in which the study was conducted.
At that time in France, multiplication was introduced only at the end of Grade 2 and initially and uniquely
presented as a shortcut for repeated additions. It was only later that multiplication was presented as a
combination between variables. At a procedural level, multiplication tables are taught through rote learn-
ing in French schools and are expected to have been automatized by the end of Grade 3 up to the 9 times
table (MENJ, 2015).
Compared with other operations, studies related specifically to division processing are the least
advanced. This operation is taught at a later stage during schooling and is practised less frequently than
other operations. During Grade 4 children rely heavily on iterated addition (e.g., 20/5 is 5 + 5 + 5 + 5) and
sometimes, but rarely, on repeated subtractions (20/5 is 20–5 -5 -5 -5) (Mulligan & Mitchelmore, 1997).
During Grade 5, children move to the use of multiplication (48/6 is 6 x? = 48) but still rely infre-
quently on direct retrieval. In fact, the percentages of retrieval do not increase with age (Robinson,
Arbuthnott, et al., 2006). At a more conceptual level, children have difficulties in understanding the rela-
tions between division and multiplication (e.g., Robinson, Arbuthnott, et al., 2006; Robinson & LeFevre,
2012; Robinson, Ninowski, & Gray, 2006). More precisely, still 80% of children in Grade 8 do not apply
their knowledge that multiplying is the inverse of dividing when they solve problems involving several
 20448279, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjep.12588 by National Institutes Of Health Malaysia, Wiley Online Library on [08/01/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ACQUISITION OF NEW ARITHMETIC SKILLS 731

operations (Dubé & Robinson, 2018). In fact, this difficulty in grasping the relation between division
and multiplication is also observable in adults who have a better comprehension of the relation between
addition and subtraction (Robinson & Ninowski, 2003). As a consequence, performance in division could
benefit less, or at least could take longer than other operations to benefit, from the mastery of previously
learnt operations. At the same time, Parmar (2003) notes that other operations can be used as a basis for
learning division. Indeed, repeated subtraction may form the basis for understanding the quotitive schema
associated with division (i.e., how many groups of × objects can be formed from a specific amount?)
(Fischbein et al., 1985). Therefore, it is possible that addition, subtraction and multiplication perfor-
mances are related to division because they can be used as procedures to solve them. Nevertheless, we
have seen that subtraction is rarely used by children (e.g., Mulligan & Mitchelmore, 1997). Therefore, its
relation to division could be inexistent in both Grades 4 and 5 (H3). In contrast, addition is the dominant
strategy to solve division in Grade 4 and the relation between these two operations could therefore be
limited to this grade (H4). Indeed, in Grade 5, resort to the inverse multiplication becomes the dominant
strategy for division and our sixth hypothesis (H5) is that the relation between these two operations could
be limited to this grade. Theses hypotheses are based on previous literature showing that children struggle
in establishing the relation between multiplication and division, despite the facts that in France, in which
the research took place, division is sometimes presented as soon as Grade 2 in sharing situations or situ-
ations in which the number of times a number is comprised in a larger number has to be determined.
Division is then more formally introduced in Grade 4 (MENJ, 2015).

Operationalization of the present research

Then, with instruction and practice, conceptual, declarative and procedural knowledge play a growing role
on the acquisition of arithmetic skills (Geary et al., 2017). However, the acquisition, memorization and
implementation of knowledge and procedures might depend in turn on the cognitive abilities that control
their activation, use and checking (Archambeau & Gevers, 2018; Geary, 2011). This can be especially true
for division for which, as just stated, conceptual understanding could be particularly disconnected from
the knowledge of other operations (e.g., Dubé & Robinson, 2018).
To investigate this matter, we used a cross-sectional approach and examined pupils' performance on
different arithmetic operations adapted to their levels of schooling. This set of data was subjected to
regression analyses in which 3 categories of variables were successively introduced: (1) general cognitive
abilities (i.e., working memory, executive functions, visual attention and language) (2) basic numerical skills
and (3) previously learnt arithmetic operations. Our main goal was to assess the specific weight of this
last variable on children's performance for each arithmetic operation after the role of the other variables
had been taken into account.
As just stated, four general cognitive abilities were entered in the models. We entered a measure of
visual attention because performing calculations first requires the encoding of the problem operands
and arithmetic signs (Thevenot et al., 2011; Thevenot & Barrouillet, 2006, 2010). Children who are able
to deliberately focus their attention and to resist distraction are more efficient during this phase (Ortega
et al., 2020). More generally, attentive children are more successful than other children in processing
arithmetical operations (Aunola et al., 2004; Commodari & Di Blasi, 2014; Geary, 2013). This is the
reason why we also included two measures of executive functions that were combined, one related to
inhibition and the other to flexibility. A measure of working memory was also included because working
memory resources are mobilized to manage the calculation implementation process (Brysbaert, 2018).
Working memory integrates the outcomes of the encoding phase and the outcomes of the activation
of declarative and procedural knowledge in long-term memory. The management cost of such integra-
tion depends on pupils' level of mastery related to this knowledge. For example, early during schooling,
small additions impose a minimal processing demand on the cognitive system because they rely on auto-
matic processing corresponding either to memory retrieval or fast counting (e.g., Ashcraft, 1992; Ashcraft
& Battaglia, 1978; Fayol & Thevenot, 2012; Thevenot et al., 2016; Thevenot & Barrouillet, 2020). In
 20448279, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjep.12588 by National Institutes Of Health Malaysia, Wiley Online Library on [08/01/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
732 THEVENOT et al.

contrast, division requires a substantial level of cognitive control because it involves to-and-fro between
multiplication, addition and subtraction processing. Inhibition of interferences and updating of interme-
diate results are also needed to solve division (Raghubar et al., 2010; Swanson, 2011,) and this is the reason
why we entered a measure of executive functions in the models. Finally, language skills play an important
role in the development of arithmetical competencies (Brysbaert, 2018), and a measure combining lexical
skills and written language was also entered in the first step of the models. To sum up, working memory
capacities, executive function skills, visual attention and language abilities were independently entered in
Step 1 of our hierarchical regression models.
In order to assess the specific role of arithmetical skills in the acquisition of more and more complex
operations, it was important to ensure that the contribution of arithmetic was indeed specific and not
due to numerical skills in general. This is the reason why we measured children's basic numerical skills
through a classical matching task between symbolic and nonsymbolic numerosity representations (Billard
et al., 2021; Geary et al., 2009).
To test the 5 hypotheses formulated, we asked children in each school level from Grades 2 to 5 to
solve arithmetic operations. Additions and subtractions were presented to children from Grade 2, multi-
plications from Grade 3 and divisions from Grade 4.

METHOD

Participants

Our research included 435 children attending school in classrooms from Grades 2 to 5 (105 to 111 pupils
per school level) in a range of public and private schools all over the Paris region in France. Written
informed consent to participate was obtained from all the parents or legal tutors of the children involved.
All procedures performed in this study have been conducted in compliance with the recommendations
of the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Because only
behavioural data were collected in a nonvulnerable population of children, the official approval of a
committee of ethics was not required. Our research protocol was however accepted by inspectors of the
French National Education.
Table 1 shows the characteristics of the sample: gender, parents' socio-professional category (SPC,
following the recommendation of French national statistics office, the higher socio-professional category
between the two parents was retained to classify children in one of three SPC categories).

Material and procedure

The protocol was established on the basis of the BMT-i (Modulable Battery of Computerized Tests),
which assesses cognitive skills (Billard et al., 2021). Eight speech therapists and three neuropsycholo-
gists were in charge of the testing after having been trained to the test administration. The tests were

TA B L E 1 Socio-demographic characteristics of the sample.

Grade 2 3 4 5
Sample size (N) 109 111 110 105
Girls (N and %) 56 (51%) 53 (48%) 62 (56%) 58 (55%)
SPC (%)
1 = low 12% 34% 9% 16%
2 = middle 16% 18% 27% 25%
3 = high 72% 48% 64% 59%
 20448279, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjep.12588 by National Institutes Of Health Malaysia, Wiley Online Library on [08/01/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ACQUISITION OF NEW ARITHMETIC SKILLS 733

administered in one or two 45-minute sessions, at least 15 days apart, during school hours. Children were
first tested on language skills, then on numerical skills, then on working memory and finally on executive
functions and visual attention.
The tests were administered using a secure website using a Surface Pro3 tablet operating under
Windows 8. The items needed to be read out loud were recorded in advance and read out by the software.
Responses were either recorded automatically or noted by the examiner.

Tasks

Numerical skills

Arithmetic
Mental arithmetic fluency was evaluated using an adaptation of the Dutch Tempo-Test-Rekenen test
(TTR) (de Vos, 1992) in which children had to solve a maximum of 4 series of operations. Each of the
series corresponded to 40 problems related to a specific arithmetic operation (i.e., addition, subtraction,
multiplication and division). At all school level, children had to solve additions and subtractions, multi-
plications were added from Grade 3 and divisions were added from Grade 4 upwards. For each series,
children were given 1 minute to solve as many operations as possible. A 30-second pause was set up
between series. Children's scores were calculated for each operation and corresponded to the number of
correct answers out of 40.

Basic numerical skills

This task included in the BMT-i (Billard et al., 2021) assesses children's ability to match nonsymbolic
numerosities (i.e., dots) and numerical symbolic representations (i.e., Arabic digits). This type of tasks
is especially well suited for our purpose because it allows the detection of children with mathematics
difficulties or disabilities and therefore assesses the core knowledge of basic numerical representations
(Geary et al., 2009). Children were presented with 66 pairs of stimuli in rapid succession on a computer
screen and had to decide whether two stimuli of a pair represented the same numerosity. The pairs always
contained a set of dots and an Arabic digit ranging from 1 to 9, which were presented sequentially either
with the sets of dots or the Arabic digit presented first. The distance between the two quantities was
controlled and varied from 0 to 2. The rate of correct answers in the task was calculated for each child.

General cognitive abilities

General cognitive abilities were assessed through a battery of six subtests conceived to assess working
memory, executive functions (i.e., two subtests), visual attention and language (i.e., two subtests) (Iannuzzi
et al., 2019).

Working memory
In the working memory span test, children had to repeat series of 3 to 7 digits presented verbally through
the software at a fixed pace of one digit per second. Children had to repeat the numbers in the reverse
order (i.e., backward span), and a score was calculated by considering the maximum number of digits
correctly recalled.

Executive functions
Executive functions were assessed through a flexibility and an inhibition tasks. The inhibition task was a
simple “go/no-go”-type task. The child had to touch a circle as quickly as possible every time the word
“circle” was uttered by the software and had to stay still when another word was uttered. In the flexibility
task, the child had to shift between two types of instructions. The first instruction was to press a triangle
 20448279, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjep.12588 by National Institutes Of Health Malaysia, Wiley Online Library on [08/01/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
734 THEVENOT et al.

when the word triangle was uttered by the software. By contrast, following the second instruction, the
child had to press a circle when the word square was uttered. Children's executive function scores were
calculated by adding the number of correct responses across the two subtests.

Visual attention
Sustained visual attention was assessed using an adaptation of the Conners test (Conners et al., 2011).
During 15 minutes, children were presented with coloured circles and black circles. Following a go-no-go
task methodology, children had to react as quickly as possible to coloured circles and not to more seldom
black circles randomly intertwined. The ability to sustain attention was measured by the percentages of
missed targets.

Language
Written language Reading speed and accuracy were assessed through the processing of a text tailored to children's school level.
We calculated the number of words read correctly in one minute (NWRC/min), and this score was combined with the measures
collected in the following language test.

Lexical skills Two tests were used to assess children's lexical knowledge depending on school level, one for
Grades 2 to 4 and one for Grade 5. Lexical production was assessed through the naming of 40 pictures.
Lexical comprehension was assessed through the selection of the picture corresponding to the spoken
word uttered by the software amongst 5 pictures. A set of 32 words was used for Grades 2 to 4, and a
different set of 33 words was used for Grade 5.
The score corresponding to the language variable combined the previous NWRC/min score and the
scores obtained from children in the lexical production and comprehension tests.

RESULTS

Descriptive analyses

Table 2 presents the mean performance (and standard deviations) for each of the variables that we studied
across grades. The coefficients of asymmetry and flattening did not reveal any violation of the normality
of their distribution (Kline, 1998). The reliability of the scores for each of the operations, measured using
Cronbach's alpha, was very good (alpha between .82 and .92).

TA B L E 2 Children's performance in the different tasks.

2nd 3rd 4th 5th

Grades M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Mental arithmetic
Addition 11.88 (3.02) 13.66 (3.55) 16.56 (3.98) 18.95 (4.08)
Subtraction 9.23 (4.46) 11.46 (4.33) 15.07 (5.30) 17.87 (4.53)
Multiplication -- 10.26 (3.32) 14.19 (4.27) 16.64 (4.12)
Division -- -- 5.38 (4.05) 8.09 (4.66)
General cognitive abilities
Working memory 1.53 (1.17) 1.82 (1.39) 2.27 (1.24) 2.30 (1.29)
Executive functions 7.52 (2.65) 8.48 (2.27) 9.56 (1.99) 9.67 (2.24)
Visual attention .34 (.08) .36 (.06) .38 (.04) .39 (.05)
Language 33.63 (8.83) 41.07 (9.11) 47.94 (9.76) 60.27 (10.39)
Basic numerical skills .58 (.11) .63 (.13) .70 (.10) .72 (.09)
 20448279, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjep.12588 by National Institutes Of Health Malaysia, Wiley Online Library on [08/01/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ACQUISITION OF NEW ARITHMETIC SKILLS 735

Hierarchical regression models

To determine the main predictors of success in mental arithmetic amongst the variables we studied,
our data were processed through hierarchical regression analyses. In successive steps, we introduced our
different sets of variables.
Step 1: General cognitive abilities were introduced (i.e., working memory, executive functions, visual
attention and language): Model 1.
Step 2: Basic numerical skills (matching between nonsymbolic and symbolic numerosity representa-
tions) were introduced in addition to general cognitive abilities: Model 2.
Step 3: The variables concerning mental arithmetic were introduced at this stage in addition to general
cognitive abilities and basic numerical skills. We explored first the contribution of performance in addi-
tion to the explanation of performance in subtraction; then, the contribution of addition and subtraction
to multiplication; lastly, the contribution of addition, subtraction and multiplication to division: Model 3.
Ultimately, 9 models of three-stage hierarchical regression were tested (i.e., contribution of addition
on subtraction in Grades 2, 3, 4 and 5; contribution of addition and subtraction on multiplication in
Grades 3, 4 and 5 and contribution of addition, subtraction and multiplication on division in Grades 4
and 5) (Tables 3 to 5). Table 3 reports the results obtained for subtraction. As it can be seen, our first
hypothesis (H1) that addition will explain subtraction performance in all grades (i.e., from Grade 2 to
Grade 5) after cognitive and basic numerical skills are entered in the regression analyses was confirmed
(β = .585; .522; .682 and .630 for Model 3 in Grades 2, 3, 4 and 5, respectively).
Table 4 reports the results for multiplication. Contrary to our second hypothesis (H2), addition
predicted multiplication in all grades (β = .339; .277; .525 for Model 3 in Grades 3, 4 and 5, respectively)
and not only in Grades 3 or 4.
Finally, Table 5 reports the results for division. As expected (H3), above general cognitive and
basic numerical skills, subtraction did not explain division performance neither in Grade 4 nor Grade
5 (β = .137 and .194 for Model 3 in Grades 4 and 5, respectively). H4 was also confirmed because addi-
tion predicted division only in Grade 4 (β = .490 and .166 for Model 3 in Grades 4 and 5, respectively).
However, contrary to H5 according to which multiplication will predict division only in Grade 5, we can
see that multiplication predicted division in both Grades 4 and 5 (β = .353 and .235 for Model 3 in Grades
4 and 5, respectively).

DISCUSSION

In this study, we aimed at determining the impact of previously taught operations on performance in
subtraction, multiplication and division in children from Grade 2 to Grade 5 beyond general cognitive
abilities and basic numerical skills. We formulated 5 hypotheses concerning the possible relations between
operations. In accordance with our first hypothesis, we showed that addition predicts subtraction perfor-
mance in all school grades. This confirms previous observations that addition and subtraction perfor-
mances remain strongly correlated throughout schooling (Dowker, 1998; Xu et al., 2021). This result
strengthens the legitimacy of a pedagogical approach introducing addition and subtraction at the same
time in the first year of formal schooling (Villani et al., 2018).
Our second hypothesis that addition will predict multiplication performance only in early grades was
not confirmed because the relation was observed in all grades (i.e., 3, 4 and 5). Therefore, it is possible
that children do not depart as we should expect from the addition schema when they consolidate their
conception of multiplication. This interpretation relates to Post et al.'s (1985) observations that children
tend to inadequately extend their knowledge of addition when they encounter situations requiring multi-
plicative thinking, such as fraction problems (Tobias & Andreasen, 2013). This result supports Park and
Nunes’ (2001) proposition that addition should be introduced at school in relation to multiplication only
as a mean to solve the problems and not as a scheme to help children understanding the multiplication
concept. Alternatively, the result that addition predicts multiplication performance in all grades could be
 736

TA B L E 3 Hierarchical regression models for mental subtraction in Grades 2 to 5.

Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Independent variables β β β β β β β β β β β β
Step 1
Working memory .077 .074 .055 .175* .162* .162* .124 .115 .015 .050 .001 −.002
Executive functions .118 .091 .007 .114 .099 .077 .081 .073 .063 .036 −.033 −.057
Visual attention .005 −.007 .004 .219* .207* .096 .206* .132 −.003 .141 .090 .038
Language .291** .296** .169* .183* .181 .103 .216* .153 −.005 .230* .239* .065
2
R .14 .17 .15 .11
F(4, 103) = 3.981, p < .001 F(4, 110) = 5.518, p < .001 F(4, 104) = 4.329, p < .001 F(4, 98) = 2.764, p < .001
Step 2
Basic numerical skills .082 −.044 .095 −.011 .267** .151* .233* .028
2
ΔR .01 .01 .06 .04
R2 .15 .18 .21 .15
ΔF(5, 103) = 3.297, p < .001 ΔF(5, 110) = 4.628, p < .001 ΔF(5, 104) = 5.169, p < .001 ΔF(5, 98) = 3.193, p < .001
Step 3
Mental addition .585** .522** .682** .630**
ΔR 2 .28 23 .36 .29
R2 .43 .41 .57 .44
ΔF(6, 103) = 12.165, p < .001 ΔF(6, 110) = 12.085, p < .001 ΔF(6, 104) = 21.819, p < .001 ΔF(6, 98) = 12.233, p < .001
*, p < .01; **, p < .001.
THEVENOT et al.

20448279, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjep.12588 by National Institutes Of Health Malaysia, Wiley Online Library on [08/01/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
 20448279, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjep.12588 by National Institutes Of Health Malaysia, Wiley Online Library on [08/01/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ACQUISITION OF NEW ARITHMETIC SKILLS 737

TA B L E 4 Hierarchical regression models for mental multiplication in Grades 3 to 5.

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5

Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

Independent variables β β β β β β β β β
Step 1
Working memory .040 .003 −.044 .135 .130 .039 .125 .094 .092
Executive functions .062 .021 −.022 .093 .089 .053 .087 .044 .025
Visual attention .137 .104 −.028 .166 .129 .017 .159 .128 .084
Language .255** .250** .148 .150 .118 −.013 .273** .279** .131
R2 .12 .10 .19
F(4, 110) = 3.551, p < .001 F(4, 104) = 2.832, p < .001 F(4, 98) = 5.384, p < .001
Step 2
Basic numerical skills .261** .165* .133 −.030 .144 −.029
ΔR 2 .06 .02 .01
R2 .18 .12 .20
ΔF(5, 110) = 4.631, p < .001 ΔF(5, 104) = 2.612, p < .001 ΔF(5, 98) = 4.713, p < .001
Step 3
Mental addition .339** .277* .525**
Mental subtraction .288** .435** .010
ΔR 2 .25 .34 .21
R2 .43 .46 .41
ΔF(7, 110) = 11.194, p < .001 ΔF(7, 104) = 11.573, p < .001 ΔF(8, 98) = 9.169, p < .001
*, p < .01; **, p < .001.

due to the use of backup strategies relying on addition. Indeed, it has been shown that even adults’ resort
to decomposition strategies such as 7 × 6 = (6 × 6) + 6 when retrieval fails (LeFevre et al., 1996).
Concerning division, we showed that it was not predicted by subtraction performance. This result
confirmed our third hypothesis, which was based on previous observations that children only rarely resort
to the repeated subtraction procedure to solve division problems (e.g., 24 / 6 = 24–6 = 18–6 = 12–6 =
6–6 = 0 so 4) (Robinson, Arbuthnott, et al., 2006). Indeed, in Grade 4, children preferentially use the
iterated addition procedure (Mulligan & Mitchelmore, 1997). This is confirmed by our results because,
in accordance with our fourth hypothesis, addition predicts division only in Grade 4 but not in Grade 5,
where children preferentially solve division through retrieval of inverse multiplication facts (Mulligan &
Mitchelmore, 1997). Still, and contrary to our fifth hypothesis, multiplication was a significant predictor
of division in both Grades 4 and 5. This shows that conceptual understanding or procedural mastering
of multiplication must be associated with division as soon as this last operation is introduced. This result
strengthens the position that extra effort to link these two operations across instruction is primordial
(e.g., Mulligan & Mitchelmore, 1997; Nunes & Bryant, 1996). Such multiplicative thinking is also viewed
as essential for the development of concepts needed to be mastered by pupils in later grades, such as
ratio, proportion, area, volume or proportions (Mulligan & Watson, 1998). Teaching the relation between
multiplication and division early during school curriculum could be achieved by introducing multiplication
and division instruction at the same time in classrooms (Villani et al., 2018). One efficient way to promote
the understanding of this relation is the use of arrays or in other words of arrangements of objects in
columns and rows (Jacob & Mulligan, 2014). This tool helps children focus their attention on three quan-
tities that can be apprehended flexibly for the description of multiplication or division situations (i.e., 12
objects are divided into 4 lines of 3 objects and multiplying 3 objects by the number of lines give the total
amount of objects).
 20448279, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjep.12588 by National Institutes Of Health Malaysia, Wiley Online Library on [08/01/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
738 THEVENOT et al.

TA B L E 5 Hierarchical regression models for mental division in Grades 4 to 5.

Grade 4 Grade 5
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Independent variables β β β β β β
Step 1
Working memory .039 .033 −.069 .059 .005 −.017
Executive functions .208* .203* .174* .146 .072 .062
Visual attention .122 .079 −.045 .326** .270** .209*
Language .257* .220* .086 .099 .109 −.049
R 2
.18 .20
F(4, 104) = 5.424, p < .001 F(4, 98) = 5.937, p < .001
Step 2
Basic numerical skills .154 .061 .252* .119
2
ΔR .03 .05
R2 .20 .25
ΔF(5, 104) = 4.890, p < .001 ΔF(5, 98) = 6.191, p < .001
Step 3
Mental addition .490** .166
Mental subtraction −.137 .194
Mental multiplication .353** .235**
ΔR 2 .35 .18
R2 .55 .43
ΔF(8, 104) = 14.466, p < .001 ΔF(8, 98) = 8.536, p < .001
*, p < .01; **, p < .001.

To sum up and conclude, we have shown here that subtraction and multiplication performance capi-
talize on the acquisition of addition and that division performance capitalizes on multiplication perfor-
mance. We have discussed the fact that, therefore, mutual development and articulation of arithmetical
concepts must be given special attention from teachers and educators in arithmetic instruction. Stated
differently and in accordance with the conclusion of Xu et al. (2021), we show here that learning arithme-
tic is a hierarchical process. Thus, at the very least, ensuring that children master the operations that have
been taught before moving to the teaching of new operations is crucial.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Catherine Thevenot: Conceptualization; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing. Youssef
TAZOUTI: Data curation; formal analysis; visualization. Catherine Billard: Conceptualization; investi-
gation; methodology; software. Jasinta Dewi: Formal analysis; visualization. Michel Fayol: Conceptual-
ization; methodology; writing – original draft.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEME NT

The data set generated and analyzed for this research can be find here in a SPSS format: https://osf.io/
nw36h/?view_only=197929aac89440419beec0754952e60e.

ORCID
Catherine Thevenot https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4997-1882
 20448279, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjep.12588 by National Institutes Of Health Malaysia, Wiley Online Library on [08/01/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ACQUISITION OF NEW ARITHMETIC SKILLS 739

REFERENCES
Anderson, J. R. (1993). Rules of the mind. Erlbaum.
Archambeau, K., & Gevers, W. (2018). (How) are executive functions actually related to arithmetic abilities? In A. Henik & W. Fias
(Eds.), Heterogeneity of function in numerical cognition (pp. 337–357). Elsevier Academic Press.
Artemenko, C., Pixner, S., Moeller, K., & Nuerk, H.-C. (2018). Longitudinal development of subtraction performance in elementary
school. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 36(2), 188–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12215
Ashcraft, M. H. (1992). Cognitive arithmetic: A review of data and theory. Cognition, 44, 75–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/​
0010-0277(92)90051-I
Ashcraft, M. H., & Battaglia, J. (1978). Cognitive arithmetic: Evidence for retrieval and decision processes in mental addition. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 527–538.
Aunola, K., Leskinen, E., Lerkkanen, M.-K., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2004). Developmental dynamics of math performance from preschool
to grade 2. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 699–713. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.4.699
Bagnoud, J., Dewi, J., Castel, C., Mathieu, R., & Thevenot, C. (2021). Developmental changes in size effects for tie and non-tie
addition problems in 6- to 12-year-old-children and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 201, 104987. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jecp.2020.104987
Baroody, A. J. (1999). The roles of estimation and the commutativity principle in the development of third graders' mental multipli-
cation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74, 157–193. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1999.2524
Barrouillet, P., Fayol, M., & Lathulière, E. (1997). Selecting between competitors in multiplication tasks: An explanation of the errors
produced by adolescents with learning difficulties. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 21(2), 253–275. https://doi.
org/10.1080/016502597384857
Benoit, L., Lehalle, H., & Jouen, F. (2004). Do young children acquire number words through subitizing or counting? Cognitive Devel-
opment, 19, 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2004.03.005
Billard, C., Thiébaut, E., Gassama, S., Touzin, M., Thalabard, J. C., Mirassou, A., & Munnich, A. (2021). The computerized adaptable
test battery (BMT-i) for rapid assessment of children's academic skills and cognitive functions: A validation study. Frontiers in
Pediatrics, 9, 656180. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2021.656180
Briars, D., & Siegler, R. S. (1984). A featural analysis of preschoolers' counting knowledge. Developmental Psychology, 20(4), 607–618.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.20.4.607
Bryant, P., Christie, C., & Rendu, A. (1999). Children's understanding of the relation between addition and subtraction: Inversion,
identity, and decomposition. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 74(3), 194–212.
Brysbaert, M. (2018). Numbers and language: What's new in the past 25 years? In A. Henik & W. Fias (Eds.), Heterogeneity of function
in numerical cognition (pp. 3–26). Elsevier.
Camos, V., Fayol, M., & Barrouillet, P. (1999). L'activité de dénombrement chez l'enfant: Double tâche ou procédure? L'Année
Psychologique, 99(4), 623–645.
Carpenter, T. P., Franke, M. L., Jacobs, V. R., Fennema, E., & Empson, S. B. (1998). A longitudinal study of invention and under-
standing in children's multidigit addition and subtraction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(1), 3–20. https://doi.
org/10.2307/749715
Clark, F. B., & Kamii, C. (1996). Identification of multiplicative thinking in children in grades 1-5. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 27(1), 41–51. https://doi.org/10.2307/749196
Commodari, E., & Di Blasi, M. (2014). The role of different components of attention on calculation skill. Learning and Individual
Differences, 32, 225–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.03.005
Conners, C. K., Pitkanen, J., & Rzepa, S. R. (2011). Conners 3rd Edition (Conners 3; Conners 2008). In J. S. Kreutzer, J. DeLuca, &
B. Caplan (Eds.), Encyclopedia of clinical neuropsychology (pp. 675–678). Springer.
Cooney, J. B., Swanson, H. L., & Ladd, S. F. (1988). Acquisition of mental multiplication skill: Evidence for the transition between
counting and retrieval strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 5(4), 323–345. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0504_5
Crooks, N. M., & Alibali, M. W. (2014). Defining and measuring conceptual knowledge in mathematics. Developmental Review, 14,
344–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2014.10.001
De Visscher, A., & Noël, M. P. (2014). Arithmetic facts storage deficit: The hypersensitivity to interference in memory hypothesis.
Developmental Science, 17(3), 434–442. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12135
De Vos, T. (1992). Tempo Test Rekenen. Berkhout.
Dowker, A. (1998). Individual differences in normal arithmetical development. In C. Donlan (Ed.), The development of mathematical
skills (pp. 275–302). Psychology Press.
Dubé, A., & Robinson, K. M. (2018). Children's understanding of multiplication and division: Insights from a pooled analysis of
seven studies conducted across 7 years. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 36(2), 206–219.
EDUSCOL. (2020). Acquérir les premiers outils mathématiques. https://eduscol.education.fr/2819/acquerir-les-premiers-outils-​
math​ematiques?menu_id=3509
Fayol, M., & Thevenot, C. (2012). The use of procedural knowledge in simple addition and subtraction problems. Cognition, 123(3),
392–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.02.008
Fischbein, E., Deri, M., Nello, M. S., & Marino, M. S. (1985). The role of implicit models in solving verbal problems in multiplication
and division. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16, 3–17. https://doi.org/10.2307/748969
Fuson, K. C. (1988). Children's counting and concepts of number. Springer-Verlag.
 20448279, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjep.12588 by National Institutes Of Health Malaysia, Wiley Online Library on [08/01/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
740 THEVENOT et al.

Geary, D. C. (1994). Children's mathematical development: Research and practical applications. American Psychological Association. https://
doi.org/10.1037/10163-000
Geary, D. C. (2011). Cognitive predictors of achievement growth in mathematics: A 5-year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology,
47(6), 1539–1552. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025510
Geary, D. C. (2013). Early foundations for mathematics learning and their relations to learning disabilities. Current Directions in Psycho-
logical Science, 22(1), 23–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412469398
Geary, D. C., Bailey, D. H., & Hoard, M. K. (2009). Predicting mathematical achievement and mathematic learning disabil-
ity with a simple screening tool: The number sets test. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 27(3), 265–279. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0734282908330592
Geary, D. C., Nicholas, A., Li, Y., & Sun, J. (2017). Developmental changes in the influence of domain-general abilities and
domain-specific knowledge on mathematics achievement. An eight-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology,
109(5), 680–693. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000159
Gelman, R., & Gallistel, C. R. (1978). The child's understanding of number. Harvard University Press.
Groen, G. J., & Parkman, J. M. (1972). A chronometric analysis of simple addition. Psychological Review, 79(4), 329–343. https://doi.
org/10.1037/h0032950
Iannuzzi, S., Gérard, Y., Gassama, S., & Billard, C. (2019). Quatre épreuves pour une première évaluation de l'attention et des fonc-
tions exécutives. A.N.A.E., 161, 525–538.
Jacob, L., & Mulligan, J. (2014). Using arrays to build towards multiplicative thinking in the early years. Australian Primary Mathematics
Classroom, 19, 35–40.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Methodology in the social sciences. Guilford Press.
Larsson, K., Pettersson, K., & Andrews, P. (2017). Students’ conceptualisations of multiplication as repeated addition or equal
groups in relation to multi-digit and decimal numbers. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 48, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jmathb.2017.07.003
LeFevre, J.-A., Bisanz, J., Daley, K. E., Buffone, L., Greenham, S. L., & Sadesky, G. S. (1996). Multiple routes to solu-
tion of single-digit multiplication problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125(3), 284–306. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0096-3445.125.3.284
Lemaire, P., Barrett, S. E., Fayol, M., & Abdi, H. (1994). Automatic activation of addition and multiplication facts in elementary
school children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 57(2), 224–258. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1994.1011
Lemaire, P., & Siegler, R. S. (1995). Four aspects of strategic change: Contributions to children's learning of multiplication. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(1), 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.124.1.83
Lin, X. (2021). Investigating the unique predictors of word-problem solving using meta-analytic structural equation modeling.
Educational Psychology Review, 33(3), 1097–1124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09554-w
Logan, G. D., & Klapp, S. T. (1991). Automatizing alphabet arithmetic: I. is extended practice necessary to produce automaticity?
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 17(2), 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.17.2.179
Luft, J. A., & Cox, W. E. (2001). Investing in our future: A survey of support offered to beginning secondary science and math
teachers. Science Educator, 10, 1–9.
Martens, R., Hurks, P. P. M., Meijs, C., Wassenberg, R., & Jolles, J. (2011). Sex differences in arithmetical performance scores: Central
tendency and variability. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 549–554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.06.003
Mathieu, R., Gourjon, A., Couderc, A., Thevenot, C., & Prado, J. (2016). Running the number line: Rapid shifts of attention in
single-digit arithmetic. Cognition, 146, 229–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.10.002
MENJ (Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale et de la Jeunesse). (2015). Programmes d’enseignement du cycle des apprentissages
fondamentaux (Cycle 2), du cycle de consolidation (Cycle 3) et du cycle des approfondissements. Bulletin officiel spécial, 10.
Miller, K. F., & Paredes, D. R. (1990). Starting to add worse: Effects of learning to multiply on children's addition. Cognition, 37,
213–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(90)90046-M
Mulligan, J., & Watson, J. (1998). A developmental multimodal model for multiplication and division. Mathematics Education Research
Journal, 10(2), 61–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217343
Mulligan, J. T., & Mitchelmore, M. C. (1997). Young children's intuitive models of multiplication and division. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 28(3), 309–330. https://doi.org/10.2307/749783
Nunes, T., & Bryant, P. (1996). Children doing mathematics. Blackwel.
OCDE. (2019). PISA 2018 results (volume I): What students know and can do. PISA, OCDE Edition. https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en
Ortega, R., López, V., Carrasco, X., Escobar, M. J., García, A. M., Parra, M. A., & Aboitiz, F. (2020). Neurocognitive mechanisms
underlying working memory encoding and retrieval in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-64678-x
Park, J.-H., & Nunes, T. (2001). The development of the concept of multiplication. Cognitive Development, 16, 763–773. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0885-2014(01)00058-2
Parmar, R. S. (2003). Understanding the concept of “division” assessment considerations. Exceptionality, 11(3), 177–189. https://
doi.org/10.1207/S15327035EX1103_05
Piaget, J. (1965). Child's conception of number. W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Post, T. R., Wachsmuth, I., Lesh, R., & Behr, M. J. (1985). Order and equivalence of rational numbers: A cognitive analysis. Journal
for Research in Mathematics Education, 16, 18–36. https://doi.org/10.2307/748970
 20448279, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjep.12588 by National Institutes Of Health Malaysia, Wiley Online Library on [08/01/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ACQUISITION OF NEW ARITHMETIC SKILLS 741

Raghubar, K. P., Barnes, M. A., & Hecht, S. A. (2010). Working memory and mathematics: A review of developmental, indi-
vidual differences, and cognitive approaches. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 110–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
lindif.2009.10.005
Riley, M. S., Greeno, J. G., & Heller, J. I. (1983). Development of children's problem-solving ability in arithmetic. In H. Ginsburg
(Ed.), The development of mathematical thinking (pp. 153–200). Academic Press.
Robinson, K. M., Arbuthnott, K. D., Rose, D., McCarron, M. C., Globa, C. A., & Phonexay, S. D. (2006). Stability and change in
children's division strategies. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 93, 224–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2005.09.002
Robinson, K. M., & LeFevre, J.-A. (2012). The inverse relation between multiplication and division: Concepts, procedures, and a
cognitive framework. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79(3), 409–428. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41413121
Robinson, K. M., & Ninowski, J. E. (2003). Adults' understanding of inversion concepts: How does performance on addition and
subtraction inversion problems compare to performance on multiplication and division inversion problems? Canadian Journal
of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale, 57(4), 321–330. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087435
Robinson, K. M., Ninowski, J. E., & Gray, M. L. (2006). Children's understanding of the arithmetic concepts of inversion and asso-
ciativity. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 94(4), 349–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2006.03.004
Roussel, J.-L., Fayol, M., & Barrouillet, P. (2002). Procedural vs. direct retrieval strategies in arithmetic: A comparison
between additive and multiplicative problem solving. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 14(1), 61–104. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09541440042000115
Ruffell, M., Mason, J., & Allen, B. (1998). Studying attitude to mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 35, 1–18. https://doi.
org/10.1023/A:1003019020131
Sasanguie, D., De Smedt, B., Defever, E., & Reynvoet, B. (2012). Association between basic numerical abilities and mathematics
achievement. The British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 30, 344–357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835X.2011.02048.x
Scheibling-Sève, C., Pasquinelli, E., & Sander, E. (2020). Assessing conceptual knowledge through solving arithmetic word prob-
lems. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 103(3), 293–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-020-09938-3
Steffe, L. (1988). Children's construction of number sequences and multiplying schemes. In J. Hiebert & M. Behr (Eds.), Number
concepts and operations in the middle grades (Vol. 2, pp. 119–140). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Steffe, L. (1992). Schemes of action and operation involving composite units. Learning and Individual Differences, 4, 259–309.
Swanson, H. L. (2011). Working memory, attention, and mathematical problem solving: A longitudinal study of elementary school
children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(4), 821–837. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025114
Thevenot, C., & Barrouillet, P. (2006). Encoding numbers: Behavioral evidence for processing-specific representations. Memory &
Cognition, 34(4), 938–948. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193439
Thevenot, C., & Barrouillet, P. (2010). Children's number processing is context dependent. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,
22(3), 348–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440903130743
Thevenot, C., & Barrouillet, P. (2020). Are small additions solved by direct retrieval from memory or automated counting proce-
dures? A rejoinder to Chen and Campbell (2018). Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 27(6), 1416–1418. https://doi.org/10.3758/
s13423-020-01818-4
Thevenot, C., Barrouillet, P., Castel, C., & Jimenez, S. (2011). Better elementary number processing in higher skilled arithmetic
problem solvers: Evidence from the encoding step. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 2110–2124. https://doi.org/
10.1080/17470218.2011.582129
Thevenot, C., Barrouillet, P., Castel, C., & Uittenhove, K. (2016). Ten-year-old children strategies in mental addition: A counting
model account. Cognition, 146, 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.09.003
Tikhomirova, T., Malykh, A., & Malykh, S. (2020). Predicting academic achievement with cognitive abilities: Cross-sectional study
across school education. Behavioral Sciences, 10(10), 158. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs10100158
Tobias, J., & Andreasen, J. (2013). Developing multiplicative thinking from additive reasoning. Teaching Children Mathematics, 20,
102–109. https://doi.org/10.5951/teacchilmath.20.2.0102
Van Rinsveld, A., Majerus, S., Schiltz, C., & Fayol, M. (2020). When one-two-three beats two-one-three: Tracking the acquisition
of the verbal number sequence. Psychological Bulletin and Review, 27, 122–129. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01704-8
Villani, C., Torossian, C., & Dias, T. (2018). 21 mesures pour l'enseignement des mathématiques. Ministère de l'Education Nationale (France).
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12162/1695
Xu, C., LeFevre, J. A., Skwarchuk, S. L., Di Lonardo Burr, S., Lafay, A., Wylie, J., Osana, H. P., Douglas, H., Maloney, E. A., &
Simms, V. (2021). Individual differences in the development of children's arithmetic fluency from grades 2 to 3. Developmental
Psychology, 57(7), 1067–1079. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001220
Zhao, N., Valcke, M., Desoete, A., Burny, E., & Imbo, I. (2014). Differences between Flemish and Chinese primary students' mastery
of basic arithmetic operations. Educational Psychology, 34(7), 818–837. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2013.832150

How to cite this article: Thevenot, C., Tazouti, Y., Billard, C., Dewi, J., & Fayol, M. (2023).
Acquisition of new arithmetic skills based on prior arithmetic skills: A cross-sectional study
in primary school from grade 2 to grade 5. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 727–741.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12588