Explicit, instructional home numeracy activities acted as protective (not promotive) factors for 1st–2nd grade math performance in Torppa (2025)¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · theoreticalr3·q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · checked against its sources 2026-10-23 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? Certain home numeracy environment activities (e.g., counting objects, printing numbers) only benefitted children at higher risk for weaker math performance, contributing to a gap-closing effect, with main effects not significant. → Slomowitz R. F. 2025
Evidence¶
Slomowitz R. F. 2025¶
Slomowitz R. F., Narayan A. J., & McGrath L. M. (2025). Resilience research in learning disabilities: Guiding principles from developmental psychopathology. Learning and Instruction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2025.102090
q2 · i? · theoretical · r3
This paper reports, citing Torppa (2025) from the same special issue, a study where risk was based on parental math skills and potential resilience factors were home numeracy environment (HNE) types. The paper states the protective HNE types were not also promotive (main effects not significant) and some protective effects were developmentally sensitive.
"Torppa (2025) identified that certain types of HNE activities (i.e., explicit, instructional math-related activities, such as counting objects, printing numbers, etc.) served as protective factors for math performance in 1st-2nd grade."
Discussion¶
Learner Variables¶
- Home Learning Environment — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes
Related Claims¶
- Emerging reading and math resilience literatures suggest candidate resilience factors across cognitive, emotion/motivation, social/environmental, and neural levels, most not yet classified as promotive or protective — related
- Formal math activities in the home environment mitigated the risk of parental math difficulties for children's math development (reported by the editors, citing Torppa et al.) — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
- Promotive factors are associated with positive outcomes equally in low- and high-risk contexts, producing gap-maintaining effects identified via main effects — related
- Vocabulary was a promotive but not protective factor for word reading: its interaction with phonological awareness was skill-enhancing, benefiting the lower-risk group — related
- Formal home math environment moderates the effect of parental math skills on children's arithmetic skills, showing a protective (gap-closing) effect for higher-risk children — related
- None of the HME measures served as a significant promotive factor; the only significant correlation between children's skills and HME factors was negative (Grade 1 HME-formal) — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
home-numeracy-protective-math-torppa |
title |
Explicit, instructional home numeracy activities acted as protective (not promotive) factors for 1st–2nd grade math performance in Torppa (2025) |
description |
Explicit, instructional home numeracy activities acted as protective (not promotive) factors for 1st–2nd grade math performance in Torppa (2025) |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2025 |
source_checked |
2026-10-23 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-23 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — slomowitz-r-f-2025 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.