Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 200 (2020) 104965

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Experimental Child

Psychology
journal homepage: [Link]/locate/jecp

Finding patterns in objects and numbers:

Repeating patterning in pre-K predicts
kindergarten mathematics knowledge
Erica L. Zippert ⇑, Ashli-Ann Douglas, Bethany Rittle-Johnson
Department of Psychology and Human Development, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37203, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Both recent evidence and research-based early mathematics cur-
Received 22 November 2019 ricula indicate that repeating patterns—predictable sequences that
Revised 14 July 2020 follow a rule—are a topic of major importance for mathematics
Available online 1 September 2020
development. The purpose of the current study was to help build
a theory for how early repeating patterning knowledge contributes
Keywords:
to early math development, focusing on development in children
Repeating patterning knowledge
Mathematical development
aged 4–6 years. The current study examined the relation between
Numeracy knowledge 65 preschool children’s repeating patterning knowledge (via a fast,
Counting teacher-friendly measure) and their end-of-kindergarten broad
Successor principle math and numeracy knowledge, controlling for verbal and visual-
Working memory spatial working memory (WM) skills as well as end-of-pre-K
Pre-kindergarten (pre-kindergarten) broad math knowledge. Relations were also
Kindergarten examined between repeating patterning and specific aspects of
numeracy knowledge—knowledge of the count sequence to 100
and the successor principle. Children’s repeating patterning knowl-
edge was significantly predictive of their broad math and general
numeracy knowledge, as well as one specific aspect of their numer-
acy knowledge (counting to 100), even after controlling for verbal
and visual-spatial WM skills. Further, repeating patterning knowl-
edge remained a unique predictor of general numeracy knowledge
and counting to 100 after controlling for end-of-pre-K broad math
knowledge. The relation between repeating patterning and mathe-
matics may be explained by the central role that identifying pre-
dictable sequences based on underlying rules plays in both.

⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [Link]@[Link] (E.L. Zippert).

[Link]
0022-0965/Ó 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
2 E.L. Zippert et al. / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 200 (2020) 104965

Theories of math development and early math instruction stan-

dards should thus give even greater attention to the role of chil-
dren’s repeating patterning knowledge.
Ó 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Both recent evidence and research-based early mathematics curricula suggest that repeating pat-
terns—sequences that follow a rule that one part repeats over and over—are a topic of major impor-
tance for mathematics development. Repeating patterns range from alternating sequences of
objects such as shapes and sounds to the repeating structure of the base-10 numeration system
(e.g., the ones digits repeat in each decade). Thus, repeating pattern instruction can be introduced
at various stages of mathematical development. Recent evidence indicates that repeating patterning
knowledge in preschool predicts math knowledge concurrently and months later as well as in first,
fourth, fifth, and sixth grades (Fyfe, Rittle-Johnson, & Farran, 2019; Nguyen et al., 2016; Rittle-
Johnson, Fyfe, Hofer, & Farran, 2017; Rittle-Johnson, Zippert, & Boice, 2019; Zippert, Clayback, &
Rittle-Johnson, 2019). Furthermore, improving children’s repeating patterning knowledge can
improve their math knowledge in preschoolers (Papic, Mulligan, & Mitchelmore, 2011) and in first-
graders with low patterning knowledge (Kidd et al., 2013, 2014). However, recommendations from
the National Mathematics Advisory Panel (2008) led to the removal of repeating patterning from
the Common Core State Standards (2010) as a math content standard in the early primary school
grades. This was likely due to a paucity of evidence at the time when the suggestions were made;
however, it means that early childhood teachers are left unclear about whether and how to use repeat-
ing patterning to facilitate mathematics instruction (Raber, Thayer, Cox, Hebbeler, & Kutaka, 2017).
To make the case for emphasizing repeating patterning in regular mathematics instruction in the
early grades (e.g., kindergarten), we must better understand how repeating patterning knowledge
contributes to math development. The purpose of the current study was to help build a theory for
how early repeating patterning knowledge contributes to early math development, focusing on devel-
opment in children aged 4–6 years.

Developing a theory for how early repeating patterning supports early math knowledge

Young children, teachers, and parents all regularly work with repeating patterns (Economopoulos,
1998; Ginsburg, Lin, Ness, & Seo, 2003; Rittle-Johnson, Fyfe, Loehr, & Miller, 2015; Zippert & Rittle-
Johnson, 2018). By 3 years of age, children notice and fill in simple alternating AB repeating patterns
(e.g., a red and green striped shirt) and notice repeating patterns in songs (Sarama & Clements, 2009).
From 4 to 7 years of age, children expand their knowledge of repeating patterns to include increasingly
complex core units (e.g., ABB, AABB, ABC) and increasingly demanding repeating patterning tasks
(Papic et al., 2011; Rittle-Johnson, Fyfe, McLean, & McEldoon, 2013; Sarama & Clements, 2009;
Starkey, Klein, & Wakeley, 2004). By the end of preschool, many children can complete (identify the
missing item in a repeating pattern), duplicate (make an exact replica of a model repeating pattern),
and extend (continue an existing repeating pattern by at least one unit of repeat) repeating patterns
(Papic et al., 2011; Rittle-Johnson et al., 2015; Sarama & Clements, 2009). Eventually, children learn
to abstract repeating patterns (create the same type of repeating patterns using new materials) and
to identify the core unit of repeating patterns (Clements & Sarama, 2014; Rittle-Johnson et al., 2015).
Like repeating patterning, math inherently involves identifying, extending, and describing pre-
dictable sequences in objects and numbers (Charles, 2005; Sarama & Clements, 2004; Steen, 1988).
For example, Charles (2005) proposed one big idea in mathematics as follows: ‘‘Patterns: Relationships
can be described and generalizations made for mathematical situations that have numbers or objects
that repeat in predictable ways” (p. 17). Examples for number patterns include skip counting on a
 E.L. Zippert et al. / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 200 (2020) 104965 3

number line, the structure of the base-10 numeration system (e.g., the ones digits repeat in each dec-
ade), multiplying or dividing whole numbers and decimals by powers of 10, and sequences in which
numbers or their ratios differ by a constant (Charles, 2005). Similarly, we propose the ‘‘big idea” for
early mathematics: ‘‘Numbers follow rules just like repeating patterns follow rules. When we find a
pattern, we can create and use rules that underlie our number system.” In line with this claim, the
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM, 2006) focal points for instruction included this
standard for kindergarten: ‘‘Children identify, duplicate, and extend simple number patterns and
sequential [repeating] and growing patterns (e.g., patterns made with shapes) as preparation for cre-
ating rules that describe relationships” (p. 12).
Indeed, recent evidence indicates that repeating patterning knowledge is predictive of future
numeracy knowledge. Numeracy knowledge encompasses children’s understanding of whole num-
bers and number relations, including counting (knowledge of the number–word sequence and apply-
ing count words to quantify objects) and symbol–magnitude mappings (mapping written numerals
and their number names to their respective nonsymbolic quantities). Numeracy is often considered
the foundation of early math knowledge (Jordan, Kaplan, Nabors Olah, & Locuniak, 2006; National
Research Council, 2009; Purpura, Baroody, & Lonigan, 2013). Children’s repeating patterning knowl-
edge at the beginning of preschool was predictive of their general numeracy knowledge concurrently
and at the end of preschool (Rittle-Johnson et al., 2019; Zippert et al., 2019). In addition, their repeat-
ing patterning knowledge at the end of pre-K (pre-kindergarten) predicted numeracy knowledge at
the end of first grade (Rittle-Johnson, Fyfe, Hofer, & Farran, 2017).
To guide our theory, we examined particular aspects of early numeracy knowledge that may serve
as pathways through which repeating patterning knowledge supports numeracy knowledge. In partic-
ular, we propose that repeating patterning knowledge should help children to learn (a) the verbal and
written numeration system and (b) the successor principle, each of which is important for mathemat-
ical thinking (see our conceptual model in Fig. 1). We define and discuss the importance of repeating
patterning knowledge for both aspects of numeracy knowledge below.
Repeating patterning knowledge may be important for learning about counting through the verbal
and written numeration system. This is because recognizing that the ones digits repeat in each decade
greatly simplifies the task, and a core repeating pattern in the base-10 numeration system is that the
ones digits repeat in each decade, leading to a predictable count word sequence (>20 in English) and to
a predictable written numeral system. Noticing and using these repeating patterns greatly reduces
what children need to memorize and can help them to predict what number comes next in the count-
ing sequence.
A second core pattern is captured in the successor principle, or the knowledge that the cardinality
for each count word is the cardinality of the previous count word plus one. This concept is a founda-
tional aspect of numeracy knowledge because it reflects a key conceptual insight about counting, inte-
gers, and arithmetic, including how numerals represent the natural numbers (Gelman & Gallistel,

Repeating
Patterning
Knowledge
Numeracy Knowledge Mathematics
-e.g., Successor Principle Knowledge
Knowledge
-e.g., Oral Count Sequence

Working
Memory

Fig. 1. Conceptual model of hypothesized pathways through which repeating pattern knowledge and working memory at the
end of pre-K support early numeracy and mathematics knowledge in kindergarten.
4 E.L. Zippert et al. / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 200 (2020) 104965

1978; Sarnecka & Carey, 2008). Repeating patterning might be important if learning the successor
principle involves the generalization of a pattern in the relation between the order of the count words
and set size (Carey, 2004; Cheung, Rubenson, & Barner, 2017).

Distinguishing the effect of repeating patterning and working memory on math knowledge

There are concerns that repeating patterning knowledge may be a proxy for other cognitive skills in
terms of how it relates to math knowledge (Burgoyne, Witteveen, Tolan, Malone, & Hulme, 2017). In
particular, working memory (WM), or the ability to actively maintain and regulate a limited amount of
task-relevant information (Baddeley & Logie, 1999), is related to early math (Bull, Espy, & Wiebe,
2008; Geary, 2011) and to repeating patterning knowledge (Miller, Rittle-Johnson, Loehr, & Fyfe,
2016; Rittle-Johnson et al., 2015, 2019; Zippert et al., 2019). Verbal WM and visual-spatial WM are
the strongest and most consistent predictors of later math performance and are thought to support
processing of information when solving math problems (Bull et al., 2008; Geary, 2011). Similarly, ver-
bal WM ability and visual-spatial WM ability are related to repeating patterning task performance,
more so than short-term memory, inhibitory control, or cognitive flexibility (Collins & Laski, 2015;
Miller et al., 2016). Verbal WM ability also predicts growth in repeating patterning knowledge from
instruction (Miller et al., 2016). Verbal and visual-spatial WM may support identifying and applying
relations between pattern elements to re-create the core unit using the same or new materials. Given
the demands of repeating patterning and math tasks on WM, controlling for individual differences in
verbal and visual-spatial WM ability is important in evaluating how repeating patterning predicts
later mathematics knowledge. Measures of WM were not available in several previous studies indicat-
ing that early repeating patterning knowledge predicted later math knowledge (Fyfe et al., 2019;
Nguyen et al., 2016; Rittle-Johnson et al., 2017).
Only one previous study has considered the relation between repeating patterning knowledge and
later math knowledge after controlling for WM abilities (Rittle-Johnson et al., 2019). In this study,
repeating patterning knowledge at the beginning of pre-K (4 and 5 years of age) predicted math
knowledge at the end of the school year beyond verbal and visual-spatial WM, spatial visualization,
form perception, and verbal ability. Furthermore, neither spatial visualization, nor form perception,
nor verbal ability was a unique predictor of later math knowledge beyond WM ability, although
visual-spatial WM ability was marginally significant (Rittle-Johnson et al., 2019). In addition, two
recent single-time-point studies in pre-K provide promising evidence that the repeating patterning–
numeracy relation exists beyond both visual-spatial WM and spatial visualization (Wijns, Torbeyns,
Bakker, De Smedt, & Verschaffel, 2019; Zippert et al., 2019). Whether this relation holds after formal
mathematics instruction begins in kindergarten is unknown. Formal instruction may reduce or elim-
inate the impact of preschool repeating patterning knowledge on school-age math knowledge after
accounting for WM ability. Overall, understanding the relation between repeating patterning and
math knowledge requires confirmation that it is not driven by their shared reliance on verbal and
visual-spatial WM ability.

The current study

The current study extends past research by evaluating the relations between repeating patterning
knowledge at the end of pre-K and math knowledge at the end of kindergarten, including several mea-
sures of numeracy knowledge. This included two types of pattern-intensive aspects of numeracy
knowledge: the count sequence to 100 and the successor principle. We considered both verbal and
visual-spatial WM so that the unique predictive value of repeating patterning knowledge could be iso-
lated. We also aimed to establish the reliability and validity of a fast, teacher-friendly repeating pat-
terning measure at the end of preschool (Rittle-Johnson et al., 2019). This measure captures early
developing repeating patterning skills, is aligned with common classroom activities, and could easily
and quickly be implemented by teachers.
We hypothesized that repeating patterning knowledge at the end of pre-K would predict math
knowledge 1 year later above and beyond verbal and visual-spatial WM abilities. We predicted that
this would be true for numeracy knowledge, specifically knowledge of the count sequence to 100
 E.L. Zippert et al. / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 200 (2020) 104965 5

and the successor principle. We also expected strong reliability (e.g., internal consistency) and validity
for our end-of-pre-K teacher-friendly repeating patterning measure.

Method

Participants

Participants were 65 children who were recruited from six preschool programs (three public, one
Head Start center, and two private). Of the original 79 children with parental consent, 2 children
would not assent to participate in the study, 1 child was withdrawn from the study because of other
commitments, and 11 children had incomplete data on multiple measures. In the final sample of 65
children (51% female), the average age was 6.14 years (SD = 0.29, range = 5.55–6.72) at the end of
kindergarten. Based on parent report, 46% of children were Black, 39% were White non-Hispanic, 6%
were biracial, 3% were Hispanic or Latino, 3% were Asian or Pacific Islander, and 3% were another race
(Middle Eastern, Kurdish, or Ethiopian). Most children (86%) spoke only English at home. The majority
of families received either some (17%) or full (39%) financial aid for tuition to attend their preschool
program, and only 8% of children were receiving special education services while in preschool. Public
preschools used a sliding scale for tuition payment, with some families paying nothing, some paying
partial tuition, and some paying full tuition. Children attended kindergarten at 24 different schools,
with 92% attending public kindergarten programs. Past research has reported large effect sizes for
the predictive relation between pre-K repeating patterning knowledge and later mathematics knowl-
edge (Rittle-Johnson et al., 2017), but we considered a more conservative range of estimates effect
sizes because we included WM as a control variable in this study. A G*Power a priori power analysis
(Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007) suggested that a sample size of 55 was sufficient to detect a
medium effect size of f2 = .15 (corresponding increase in R2 = .13), a = .05, with power of .80, via a lin-
ear multiple regression analysis with one tested predictor (four total). An a priori power analysis for
the logistic regression analyses suggested that a sample size of 34 was sufficient to detect a medium
effect size of f2 = .15 (corresponding increase in R2 = .13), a = .05, with power of .80, an odds ratio of
4.06, probability (y = 1 | x = 1) of .70, and a normally distributed predictor (lx = 0, rx = 1).

Procedure

During the final quarter of their pre-K year, children were assessed individually in two 20-min ses-
sions. They were given a verbal WM and math assessment (which included a number knowledge com-
ponent) in one 20-min session and then were given a repeating patterning and visual-spatial WM
measure in a second 20-min session. During the final quarter of their kindergarten year, children were
individually given the same math and repeating patterning measures administered at the end of pre-K
and two specific numeracy tasks in a single 30-min session. The average delay between the two time
points was 373.71 days (SD = 17.72). Institutional review board approval was obtained.

Measures

Math and numeracy knowledge

Broad math and general numeracy knowledge. The Research-based Early Mathematics Assessment
(REMA) Short Form, comprising 19 items (13 measuring numeracy knowledge and 6 measuring shape
knowledge), was used to assess children’s broad math knowledge (Weiland et al., 2012). Numeracy
items included rote counting to 5, nonsymbolic and number word magnitude comparison, enumerat-
ing, object counting, set size production, nonsymbolic addition and subtraction, and numeral to non-
symbolic quantity matching. A stop criterion suggested and validated by past work was implemented
(Rittle-Johnson et al., 2019; Weiland et al., 2012). Items were scored according to the authors’ speci-
fication, although scores on the four polytomous items were collapsed into fewer categories due to the
low incidence of some values. Item response theory (IRT) ability estimates were generated using a par-
tial credit model. We constrained the item parameters to improve the precision of ability estimates
6 E.L. Zippert et al. / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 200 (2020) 104965

given our sample size by doing empirical Bayes estimation (Baker & Kim, 2004) using WinBUGS 1.4.3
(Spiegelhalter, Thomas, Best, & Lunn, 2003). The informative prior distribution on the item difficulty
parameters and the sum-to-zero constraints on the item location and threshold parameters were cho-
sen based on results reported in Weiland et al. (2012). Internal consistency in our sample at the end of
kindergarten was good (qXX0 = .74). Considering the two sections separately, internal consistency was
acceptable for the numeracy section (qXX0 =.71) but unacceptable for the shape section (qXX0 = .45).
Separate IRT ability estimates for the numeracy section were used as a measure of children’s general
numeracy knowledge.

Count to 100. The rote counting item on the REMA Short Form was used to measure children’s ability
to count to 100. Children were asked to count as high as they could starting with 1 and were prompted
to continue counting if they stopped after counting correctly as many times as necessary to reach 100
or until a counting error was made. On average, children counted to 88 without error (M = 88.06,
SD = 22.39, range = 29–100), with the majority of children (75%) successfully counting to 100 without
error.

Successor principle. The successor principle task with a fish pond theme was created by Barner and col-
leagues (based on Cheung et al., 2017). Children were quickly shown an initial number of fish before
the fish were hidden behind a cutout lily pad, and then one new cutout picture of a fish was shown.
Children were asked, ‘‘[n] fish are swimming under the lily pad. Now watch . . . another fish swims in!
Now are there n + 1 or n + 2 fish?” with the position of the correct response counterbalanced across
trials (first or second). There were 10 items with numbers ranging from 15 to 116 (ns = 15, 20, 34, 46,
51, 62, 73, 95, 107, and 116). Internal consistency was strong (a = .83). Children solved 9 items cor-
rectly on average (M = 8.71, SD = 2.12, range = 2–10), with the majority of children (59%) solving
all items correctly.

Repeating patterning skill. The Teacher-based Repeating Patterning Assessment, described and vali-
dated with younger preschoolers in previous studies (Rittle-Johnson et al., 2019), was used to measure
children’s knowledge of repeating patterns. The 10-item assessment tested children’s ability to com-
plete, extend, and match patterns of pictures with various units (i.e., AB, ABB, ABC, and AABB pattern
units). See Table 1 for a list of items, including the difficulty of the pattern unit as well as item-level
statistics. See Fig. 2 for example items. The assessment took approximately 6 min to administer. Chil-
dren earned 1 point for each item answered correctly, and internal consistency in our sample using IRT
scores was high (qXX0 = .90), suggesting good measure reliability. We generated ability estimates for
children using a Rasch model with a Laplace approximation and empirical Bayesian prediction method
that has been shown to be stable for sample sizes around 50 (Cho & Rabe-Hesketh, 2011). Laplace
approximation was implemented in R ([Link] using the glmer function of the
lme4 package (Bates, Maechler, & Dai, 2008).

Table 1
Descriptive statistics for items on teacher-based repeating patterning assessment at end of Pre-K.

Item number, type, and pattern unit Proportion correct (SD) Item–total correlation Item difficulty (SE)
9. Abstract AB .74 (.44) .52 .65 (.29)
1. What’s Next AB .71 (.45) .65 .51 (.29)
6. Extend AB .70 (.46) .78 .44 (.28)
3. Missing AB .68 (.46) .73 .37 (.28)
5. Missing ABB .59 (.49) .43 .09 (.28)
7. Extend AABB .58 (.49) .83 .15 (.28)
10. Abstract ABBB .56 (.50) .62 .22 (.28)
2. What’s Next ABC .49 (.50) .66 .53 (.27)
4. Missing ABC .48 (.50) .51 .59 (.27)
8. Extend ABC .47 (.49) .64 .65 (.27)

Note. Items are listed in order of observed difficulty, and item number indicates order in which item was administered. Negative
item difficulty values indicate easier items.
 E.L. Zippert et al. / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 200 (2020) 104965 7

What Comes Next Pattern ABC Missing Item Pattern AB

“Find the missing bead [experimenter gestures

“What comes next in the pattern? Use one of to picture cutout response options below] to
these.” [Experimenter gestures to picture cutout
complete the pattern [experimenter gestures
response options below.] across pattern].”

Extend Pattern ABC

“Can you complete the pattern?” [Experimenter

gestures to circles on the right of the pattern.]
Fig. 2. Sample items from the teacher-based patterning assessment. [From ‘‘Not just IQ: Patterning predicts preschoolers’ math
knowledge beyond fluid reasoning,” by E. L. Zippert, K. Clayback, & B. Rittle-Johnson, 2019, Journal of Cognition and Development,
Vol. 20, p. 759. Copyright 2019 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. Reprinted with permission.]

Working memory
Verbal WM. We administered the forward and backward digit span tasks from the Wechsler Intelli-
gence Scale for Children (Wechsler, 2003). Children were first trained on the task to ensure their com-
prehension (see Miller et al., 2016). The backward digit span was used as our measure of verbal WM,
calculated by summing the number of total backward trials answered correctly. Some children were
unable to complete any backward trials correctly (n = 24, 37% of sample), but internal consistency in
our sample was acceptable (a = .71).

Visual-spatial WM. The Corsi Block task was used to measure children’s visual-spatial WM. Children
completed a 3-min task using the PathSpan program, an iPad version of the Corsi Block task appropri-
ate for young children (available at [Link] and used in prior studies
(LeFevre et al., 2010; Rittle-Johnson et al., 2019; Xu & LeFevre, 2016). Nine green circles in fixed posi-
tions were presented to children as lily pads. Children watched as a frog ‘‘jumped” to different lily pads
and needed to touch the same lily pads in the same order. First the experimenter demonstrated the
task on one trial, and then children practiced on two trials with feedback. The number of lily pads
to which the frog jumped started at two and increased to a maximum of eight, with two trials for each
span length. Testing discontinued when both trials within a given span length were completed incor-
rectly. Two additional two-span trials were provided if children failed the first two trials to give them
adequate practice with the task. Internal consistency within our sample was high and acceptable
(a = .73).

Data preparation and screening

The verbal and visual-spatial WM measures were highly correlated with each other, r(64) = .69,
p < .001, so we created a composite measure of WM by standardizing and averaging children’s scores
on these measures. All measures were screened for skew and kurtosis. The two specific measures of
numeracy knowledge were highly skewed due to ceiling effects, so we dichotomized performance
on each as mastery (count correctly to 100; answer all successor principle items correctly) or
nonmastery.
8 E.L. Zippert et al. / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 200 (2020) 104965

We tested for nonindependence in math scores that might arise from children being nested within
different schools, controlling for general cognitive skills, but intraclass correlations were near 0, indi-
cating that ordinary least squares (OLS) regression analyses were appropriate.
We tested for multicollinearity by estimating variance inflation factor (VIF) scores for all indepen-
dent variables, and all VIF scores for independent variables were less than 3, indicating that multi-
collinearity was not biasing the results. We also tested whether children’s broad math, general
numeracy, and specific aspects of their numeracy knowledge differed by demographic factors (i.e.,
sex, financial assistance, and race; see Table S1 in the online supplementary material). Children’s
specific numeracy skills were not associated with their demographic factors; however, children’s
broad math knowledge and general numeracy knowledge at the end of kindergarten were associated
with their race (white vs. non-white). Specifically, children who were identified as white had signif-
icantly better broad math skills (M = 1.69, SD = 0.66) and general numeracy skills (M = 3.45,
SD = 1.18) than their peers of other races and ethnicities (Mmath = 1.23, SD = 0.88, and Mnumeracy = 2.39,
SD = 1.48), tmath(63) = 2.20, p < .05, d = 0.59, and tnumeracy(63) = 3.04, p < .01, d = 0.79; however, chil-
dren’s race was not predictive of their broad math or general numeracy knowledge after controlling
for their age and WM, so it was not included in the final models. Data and study measure materials
are available at [Link]/ekpux/.

Results

Relations among variables

Descriptive statistics and correlations among key variables are presented in Table 2. Significant
positive zero-order correlations were found among all continuous variables (rs = .40–.92). These sig-
nificant positive relations between target variables held after controlling for age (prs = .30–.91).
Next, we considered relations among repeating patterning, broad math, and numeracy knowledge
to inform future regression models and to provide evidence of validity for our teacher-friendly repeat-
ing patterning measure. Repeating patterning at the end of preschool moderately correlated with
broad math and numeracy knowledge at the end of kindergarten even after controlling for age, prs
(62) = .47 and .49, ps < .01 (see Table 2). Furthermore, children who could count to 100 at the end
of kindergarten had higher repeating patterning knowledge at the end of pre-K (M = 0.32,
SD = 1.24) than children who could not (M =  1.25, SD = 1.13), t(63) = 4.50, p < .01, d = 1.32; however,
children who mastered the successor principle at the end of kindergarten did not differ significantly in
their repeating patterning knowledge at the end of pre-K (M = 0.10, SD = 1.25) from children who did
not (M =  0.30, SD = 1.55), t(63) = 1.15, p < .26, d = 0.28. Overall, repeating patterning knowledge was
moderately related to future math knowledge, including numeracy and rote counting knowledge, but

Table 2
Descriptive statistics and correlations of end-of-pre-K WM and patterning knowledge and end of kindergarten math and
numeracy.

Variable Raw score [M (SD)] Correlations

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Age at end of kindergarten 6.14 (0.29) – .48* .40* .48* .44* .45* .40*
2. Verbal WM 1.60 (1.51) – .69* .92* .70* .55* .59*
3. Visual-spatial WM 2.83 (2.05) .62* – .92* .69* .46* .41*
4. WM compositea 0.02 (0.91) .89* .91* – .76* .55* .54*
5. Patterning 0.06 (1.39) .63* .62* .69* – .57* .58*
6. Math 1.41 (0.83) .42* .34* .42* .47* – .87*
7. Numeracy 2.80 (1.46) .49* .30* .43* .49* .84* –

Note. Values above the diagonal are raw correlations (df = 63). Values below the diagonal are partial correlations after con-
trolling for age (in months) at end of kindergarten (df = 62). Working memory (WM) measures and patterning knowledge were
assessed at the end of pre-K.
*
p < .05.
a
WM composite represents averaged standardized scores on the verbal and visual-spatial WM tasks.
 E.L. Zippert et al. / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 200 (2020) 104965 9

not our measure of successor principle knowledge. Correlations between our repeating patterning
assessment and similar constructs (e.g., math, numeracy) provided evidence of convergent validity
of the measure.
Next, consider relations between WM and our target variables (see Table 2). Repeating patterning
knowledge was strongly related to the verbal and visual-spatial WM composite after controlling for
age, prs(62) = .69, p < .01, providing additional evidence of convergent validity for our repeating pat-
terning measure. Similarly, broad math knowledge and general numeracy knowledge were moder-
ately correlated with the WM composite after controlling for age, prmath(62) = .42, p < .01, and
prnumeracy(62) = .43, p < .01. Children who could count to 100 at the end of kindergarten had higher
verbal and visual-spatial WM at the end of pre-K (M = 0.20, SD = 0.87) than children who could not
(M = 0.53, SD = 0.82), t(63) = 2.91, p < .01, d = 0.86. However, children who mastered the successor
principle by the end of kindergarten did not differ in verbal and visual-spatial WM at the end of pre-K
(M = 0.12, SD = 0.88) from children who did not (M =  0.13, SD = 0.95), t(63) = 1.08, p < .29, d = 0.27.
Overall, repeating patterning and math measures both related to verbal and visual-spatial WM, indi-
cating the importance of controlling for both types of WM in assessing the relations between repeat-
ing patterning and math.

Predictors of math knowledge

To determine the predictive relations between repeating patterning knowledge at the end of pre-K
and later math knowledge, linear and logistic regression analyses were performed with the four math
knowledge measures at the end of kindergarten as the dependent variable in each model. The first
regression block included age at the end of kindergarten and WM at the end of pre-K to control for
general cognitive ability. Then, repeating patterning at the end of pre-K was entered into the second
regression block to test our hypothesis that repeating patterning would be a unique predictor of end-
of-kindergarten math knowledge on each outcome. Finally, we added broad math knowledge at the
end of pre-K in the third block to examine whether repeating patterning remained a unique predictor
of math knowledge at the end of kindergarten after controlling for previous math knowledge on the
same measure. This is a very stringent test given that previous performance on a measure is a very
strong predictor of future performance on that measure. Results are presented in Tables 3 and 4
and are discussed below.
For broad math knowledge, repeating patterning was a unique predictor over and above age and
verbal and visual-spatial WM (b = .33, p < .04) (see Table 3) and explained an additional 5% of the vari-
ance in children’s broad math knowledge when added to the model including age and WM. Repeating
patterning knowledge also remained a marginal unique predictor of broad math knowledge when
controlling for previous broad math knowledge (b = .26, p < .08). In predicting general numeracy
knowledge, repeating patterning was a unique predictor over and above age and WM (b = .37,
p < .05), explaining an additional 6% of the variance in children’s general numeracy knowledge when
added to the model. Repeating patterning remained a unique predictor of general numeracy knowl-
edge when also controlling for previous broad math knowledge (b = .30, p < .05).
Results were similar for predicting children’s success in counting to 100. The odds ratio for repeat-
ing patterning indicates that when holding age and WM constant, children with higher repeating pat-
terning scores at the end of pre-K were 4.27 times more likely to successfully count to 100 at the end
of kindergarten, Wald v2(1, N = 65) = 6.87, p < .01 (see Table 4). In addition, repeating patterning
knowledge accounted for an additional 20% of the variance in children’s success in counting to 100,
v2(1, N = 65) = 10.60, p < .01, once added to the model. Furthermore, with the inclusion of repeating
patterning, our model was able to correctly classify children’s count to 100 mastery 80% of the time.
Repeating patterning remained a reliable and unique predictor of children’s success in counting to
100, even when previous broad math knowledge was included in the model, Wald v2(1, N = 65) = 7
.08, p < .01. In contrast, repeating patterning was not a significant predictor of mastery of the successor
principle when controlling for age and the WM composite, Wald v2(1, N = 65) = 0.28, p < .60, or when
controlling for previous broad math knowledge along with age and WM, Wald v2(1, N = 65) = 0.18,
p < .67.
10 E.L. Zippert et al. / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 200 (2020) 104965

Table 3
Linear regression predicting end-of-kindergarten broad math and general numeracy skills.

Model variable B (SE) b t R2

Broad math
Step 1a .34
Age .68 (.33) .24 2.05* .04
WM .40 (.11) .43 3.69** .14
Step 2b .39
Age .59 (.33) .21 1.81y .03
WM .18 (.14) .20 1.27 .02
Patterning .20 (.09) .33 2.13* .05
Step 3c .46
Age .33 (.32) .12 1.02 .01
WM .02 (.15) .02 0.15 .00
Patterning .16 (.09) .26 1.79y .03
Broad math (end of pre-K) .35 (.12) .40 2.89** .08

General numeracy
Step 1a .32
Age .89 (.60) .18 1.48 .02
WM .73 (.19) .45 3.79** .16
Step 2b .37
Age .71 (.59) .14 1.21 .02
WM .31 (.26) .20 1.22 .02
Patterning .39 (.17) .37 2.34* .06
Step 3c .45
Age .23 (.58) .05 0.40 .00
WM .02 (.26) .01 0.08 .00
Patterning .32 (.16) .30 2.01* .04
Broad math (end of pre-K) .63 (.21) .41 2.95** .08

Note. Age represents children’s age (in months) at the end of kindergarten. Working memory (WM) represents a composite of
standardized scores on the visual-spatial and verbal WM tasks. WM and patterning knowledge were assessed at the end of pre-
K. R2 values for each predictor variable represent squared semipartial correlations.
y
p < .10.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
a
df = (2, 62).
b
df = (3, 61).
c
df = (4, 60).

Discussion

Children’s repeating patterning knowledge at the end of pre-K uniquely predicted children’s math
knowledge 1 year later at the end of kindergarten for broad math knowledge, general numeracy
knowledge, and the specific aspect of numeracy knowledge of counting to 100. Furthermore, repeating
patterning remained a significant predictor of kindergarten general numeracy knowledge as well as
counting to 100 beyond pre-K broad math knowledge, and the relation was marginal for broad math
knowledge. In addition, the contribution of repeating patterning knowledge was separable from verbal
and visual-spatial WM and age. However, repeating patterning did not predict mastery of the succes-
sor principle. We discuss the implications of these findings for how repeating patterning knowledge
might contribute to early mathematics development.
First, repeating patterning knowledge does not seem to simply be a proxy for other cognitive skills,
particularly verbal and visual-spatial WM. WM has been proposed as a potential third variable under-
lying the relation between repeating patterning and math knowledge (Burgoyne et al., 2017). In par-
ticular, WM was related to math knowledge and to repeating patterning knowledge in past studies
(Bull et al., 2008; Collins & Laski, 2015; Geary, 2011; Rittle-Johnson et al., 2019), and this was true
in the current study as well. Verbal and visual-spatial WM should support identifying and applying
relations between pattern elements to recreate the pattern using the same or new materials, with
 E.L. Zippert et al. / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 200 (2020) 104965 11

Table 4
Logistic regressions predicting mastery of specific numeracy skills at the end of kindergarten.

Model variable B (SE) Odds ratio Wald v2 Nagelkerke R2

Count to 100 mastery
Step 1a .19
Age 0.37 (1.23) 0.69 0.09 .02
WM 1.16 (0.45) 3.20 6.56* .17
Step 2b .39
Age 2.05 (1.63) 0.13 1.58 .02
WM 0.19 (0.67) 0.83 0.08 .17
Patterning 1.45 (0.55) 4.27 6.87** .20
Step 3c .39
Age 1.64 (1.73) 0.19 0.90 .02
WM 0.03 (0.73) 1.03 0.00 .17
Patterning 1.58 (0.59) 4.86 7.08** .20
Broad math (end of pre-K) 0.53 (0.73) 0.59 0.53 .00
Successor principle mastery
Step 1a .03
Age 0.21 (1.01) 0.81 0.05 .00
WM 0.34 (0.33) 1.41 1.11 .03
Step 2b .03
Age 0.30 (1.02) 0.74 0.08 .00
WM 0.18 (0.45) 1.20 0.16 .03
Patterning 0.15 (0.29) 1.16 0.28 .00
Step 3c .04
Age 0.49 (1.08) 0.62 0.20 .00
WM 0.08 (0.49) 1.08 0.03 .03
Patterning 0.13 (0.29) 1.13 0.18 .00
Broad math (end of pre-K) 0.24 (0.40) 1.27 0.36 .01

Note. Age represents children’s age (in months) at the end of kindergarten. Working memory (WM) represents a composite of
standardized scores on the visual-spatial and verbal WM tasks. WM and patterning knowledge were assessed at the end of pre-
K. Nagelkerke R2 values for each predictor variable represent the difference between the model R2 for each step when each
variable is included and excluded from the model.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
a
df = (2, 62).
b
df = (3, 61).
c
df = (4, 60).

visual-spatial WM being especially important when working with visual patterns. Given the demands
of repeating patterning and math tasks on WM, it is important to control for individual differences in
this general cognitive skill when evaluating the predictive power of repeating patterning for later
mathematics knowledge. The current study extends a previous finding that repeating patterning
knowledge at the beginning of the pre-K year predicted math knowledge at the end of the school year
over and above the influence of verbal and visual-spatial WM (Rittle-Johnson et al., 2019). It indicates
that repeating patterning knowledge in preschool can predict math knowledge at the end of kinder-
garten, after children have received formal math instruction, over and above the influence of verbal
and visual-spatial WM. It could be that children’s patterning knowledge helps them to learn from
mathematics instruction, although this requires further empirical support. We acknowledge that
accounting for WM in our models may have reduced the size of our effect in relation to past work that
did not consider these skills in their model (Rittle-Johnson et al., 2017).
Second, repeating patterning knowledge at the end of pre-K was predictive of children’s future
numeracy knowledge at the end of kindergarten. The current study supports our conjecture that a
‘‘big idea” for early mathematics is as follows: ‘‘Numbers follow rules just like repeating patterns fol-
low rules. When we find a pattern, we can create and use rules that underlie our number system.” It
converges with past research that children’s repeating patterning knowledge at the beginning of the
final year of preschool was predictive of their numeracy knowledge at the end of preschool (Rittle-
Johnson et al., 2019) and that repeating patterning knowledge at the end of preschool was predictive
12 E.L. Zippert et al. / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 200 (2020) 104965

of knowledge of two numeracy topics at the end of first grade (i.e., their knowledge of the mappings
between symbolic numerals, their number names, and their magnitudes as well as their calculation
knowledge; Rittle-Johnson et al., 2017). Only the first study also controlled for verbal and visual-
spatial WM. Because we also controlled for WM, we may have found lower effect sizes than in previ-
ous work (Rittle-Johnson et al., 2017). The current study was also the first to consider later specific
pattern-intensive numeracy skills and found that repeating patterning knowledge was predictive of
children’s ability to count to 100, but not their successor principle knowledge.
These findings contribute to a much-needed theory for how early repeating patterning knowledge
supports future math knowledge. They provide clues to potential pathways through which repeating
patterning knowledge supports early numeracy development (see Fig. 1). We specifically argue that
repeating patterning knowledge may help children to learn the numeration system, likely by helping
children to better detect the patterns in numbers and thus extending their counting range. A core pat-
tern in the base-10 numeration system is that the ones digits repeat in each decade (and the tens place
in each decade increases by 1), leading to a predictable count word sequence (beyond 20 in English).
Interestingly, children who can independently reach 20–99 when counting aloud can often reproduce
the pattern of the ones digits in decades beyond their counting range after being given the first few
count words of an unfamiliar decade (e.g., a child who can reach only 30 when counting independently
can count to 49 when provided with 41, 42, and 43; Siegler & Robinson, 1982). A small percentage of
these children can even continue counting into the next decade without additional assistance. This
may be because children in this stage of counting no longer view the count string as a single discon-
nected string, but rather increasingly understand the patterned relationships between adjacent count
words, increasing the likelihood of being able to reproduce different parts of the count string in iso-
lation of the entire sequence (Fuson, Richards, & Briars, 1982). Noticing and using these repeating pat-
terns likely also greatly reduces what children need to memorize. Other research indicates that
preschool children are also noticing the structure of multidigit verbal and written numerals even
though they have not linked them to specific quantities (Mix, Smith, Stockton, Cheng, & Barterian,
2017). It may be that children’s repeating patterning knowledge helps children to notice the underly-
ing base-10 structure of multidigit verbal and written numerals.
We also proposed that repeating patterning knowledge might help children to learn another foun-
dational aspect of numeracy, the successor principle, or knowledge that the cardinality for a given
count word is the cardinality of the previous count word plus one. Researchers have suggested that
children may acquire this concept by detecting a pattern in the relation between the order of the count
words and their set size (Carey, 2004; Cheung et al., 2017; Gelman & Gallistel, 1978; Sarnecka & Carey,
2008). However, we did not find evidence that repeating patterning knowledge was predictive of later
successor principle knowledge. Learning this concept may require direct instruction, or exposure to
conceptually aligned experiences, as opposed to indirect acquisition through exposure to repeating
patterns (Baroody, Clements, & Sarama, 2019). Alternatively, a ceiling effect on our successor principle
knowledge measure could have limited our ability to detect a relation to repeating patterning. Fur-
thermore, our study may have been underpowered to detect an effect after controlling for WM and
analyzing it as a categorical variable.
Future research should expand on our proposed conceptual model to continue to explore how the
development of numeracy knowledge might be supported by repeating patterning knowledge. This
model is likely one of several potential theoretical models, and thus research using more sophisticated
designs is needed to rule out possible alternatives and to refine and expand it. For example, patterning
knowledge is concurrently and longitudinally related to verbal and nonsymbolic calculation knowl-
edge in preschool (Rittle-Johnson et al., 2017; Zippert et al., 2019), and Arabic numeral calculation
knowledge in early primary school (Fyfe, Evans, Matz, Hunt, & Alibali, 2017; MacKay & De Smedt,
2019). This may arise in part because noticing the pattern that the order of the addends does not affect
the result (i.e., the commutative property) greatly reduces the number of calculation facts to learn.
Similarly, noticing that adding one results in the next number in the count sequence simplifies calcu-
lation (Baroody et al., 2019). Furthermore, repeating patterning knowledge is predictive of symbolic
number knowledge, including symbolic magnitude comparison knowledge in preschool (Zippert
et al., 2019) and the mapping of Arabic digits and verbal number names to quantities in first grade
(Rittle-Johnson et al., 2017). This may be in part because symbolic number knowledge requires under-
 E.L. Zippert et al. / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 200 (2020) 104965 13

standing the rule that numbers appearing later in the count sequence are also larger in magnitude.
More generally, additional research is needed to explore whether and how repeating patterning
knowledge supports understanding of whole numbers and whether it extends to supporting under-
standing of rational numbers. Given the underlying structure of our number system (Siegler &
Lortie-Forgues, 2014), noticing patterns should support aspects of numerical development that are
facilitated by helping us to create rules to describe patterns and using those rules when working with
numbers.
We also might expect the repeating pattern–numeracy link to be bidirectional. Numeracy knowl-
edge might support performance on repeating pattern items by facilitating children’s awareness of the
number of items in a pattern unit and the number of times the unit repeats. This knowledge allows for
accurate pattern duplication and unit identification. Furthermore, understanding that a number name
or symbol can represent a specific set of objects (e.g., cardinality and mapping numerals to quantities
via symbolic mapping) might allow children to apply abstract labels to describe repeating pattern
items (describing a blue-blue-red-red block pattern as A-A-B-B or 1-1-2-2). Abstract labeling in par-
ticular has been shown to help preschool children detect the underlying structure of patterns and
reproduce them with different materials (e.g., a green-green-yellow-yellow block pattern; Flynn,
Guba, & Fyfe, 2020; Fyfe, McNeil, & Rittle-Johnson, 2015). Preliminary empirical evidence supports this
link. Specifically, nonsymbolic quantity knowledge and verbal and object counting knowledge in pre-
school predict repeating patterning knowledge in first grade (Rittle-Johnson et al., 2017). However,
more longitudinal and experimental work is needed to better understand the bidirectionality of the
relations between repeating pattern and numeracy knowledge.

Implications for education

Rather than removing repeating patterning from early math content standards, as was done in the
Common Core State Standards (2010), the current study adds to growing evidence that we should
encourage high-quality instruction on repeating patterning. Such instruction would address the Com-
mon Core mathematical practice of ‘‘look for and make use of structure,” especially for numbers.
Improving rather than reducing attention to repeating patterns in early education also makes sense
because repeating patterning is popular among preschool children, their teachers, and their parents
(Ginsburg et al., 2003; Rittle-Johnson et al., 2015; Zippert, Douglas, Smith, & Rittle-Johnson, 2020;
Zippert & Rittle-Johnson, 2018).
However, there are concerns that teachers often do not attend to looking for and making use of
structure in repeating patterns (Economopoulos, 1998). Moving beyond simply copying repeating pat-
terns to having children extend patterns by a full pattern unit and abstracting patterns using new
materials should help (Clements & Sarama, 2014). Talking about patterns, including asking children
to explain their thinking (Rittle-Johnson, Saylor, & Swygert, 2008) and referring to patterns using
abstract labels (e.g., ‘‘this is an ABB pattern”; Fyfe et al., 2015), could help children to learn about
and use patterns. Emphasizing structure in repeating patterns could also help children to notice pat-
terns in our verbal and written number systems.
Finally, our repeating patterning measure showed good evidence of reliability and validity. Specif-
ically, the measure had strong internal consistency and showed both convergent validity (e.g., corre-
lating with similar constructs such as math and numeracy knowledge and WM) and construct validity
(e.g., producing comparable item difficulties in relation to previously proposed construct maps with
preschoolers) (Rittle-Johnson et al., 2015). The quality of measurement instruments is particularly
important because both researchers and teachers need access to valid and reliable tools to assess stu-
dents’ learning (Purpura & Lonigan, 2015). Thus, the current findings allow us to recommend our
teacher-friendly repeating patterning measure for use in both research and instructional contexts.

Conclusion

Repeating patterning knowledge at the end of preschool predicted children’s broad math and
numeracy knowledge, including their ability to count to 100, at the end of kindergarten. It remained
a unique predictor of general numeracy knowledge and counting to 100 after controlling for end-of-
14 E.L. Zippert et al. / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 200 (2020) 104965

pre-K broad math knowledge. This predictive value was separable from that of verbal and visual-
spatial WM. Theories of math development and early math instruction standards thus should thus
give more attention to the role of children’s repeating patterning knowledge.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a Heising–Simons Foundation, United States grant (2016-093) to B.
R-J. and E.Z. and by an Institute of Education Sciences grant (R305A160132) to B.R-J. The authors thank
Danielle Bice, Katherine Gross, Haley Rushing, and Joyce Hwang for their assistance with data collec-
tion and coding as well as the staff, teachers, and children at A.Z. Kelley Elementary, Shayne Elemen-
tary, McNeilly Center for Children, Holly Street Daycare, Hull Jackson Montessori School, Blakemore
Children’s Center, Bellshire Elementary Design Center, Eakin Elementary, East End Prep, Explore! Com-
munity School, Harpeth Valley Elementary, Lockeland Elementary, Sylvan Park Elementary, Waverly
Belmont Elementary, Hickman Elementary, McGavock Elementary, Mount View Elementary, Univer-
sity School of Nashville, St. Bernard Academy, and Lighthouse Christian School for participating in this
research.

Appendix A. Supplementary material

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at [Link]

104965.

References

Baddeley, A. D., & Logie, R. H. (1999). Working memory: The multiple-component model. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of
working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 28–61). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Baker, F. B., & Kim, S. H. (2004). Item response theory parameter estimation techniques (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Baroody, A. J., Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2019). Teaching and learning mathematics in early childhood programs. In C. P.
Brown, M. Benson McMullen, & N. File (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of early childhood care and education (pp. 329–353).
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Dai, B. (2008). The lme4 package version 0. 999375-26. Retrieved from [Link]
web/packages/lme4/[Link]/.
Bull, R., Espy, K. A., & Wiebe, S. A. (2008). Short-term memory, working memory, and executive functioning in preschoolers:
Longitudinal predictors of mathematical achievement at age 7 years. Developmental Neuropsychology, 33, 205–228.
Burgoyne, K., Witteveen, K., Tolan, A., Malone, S., & Hulme, C. (2017). Pattern understanding: Relationships with arithmetic and
reading development. Child Development Perspectives, 11, 239–244.
Carey, S. (2004). Bootstrapping and the origin of concepts. Daedalus, 133, 59–68.
Charles, R. (2005). Big ideas and understandings as the foundation for elementary and middle school mathematics. Journal of
Mathematics Educational Leadership, 73, 9–24.
Cheung, P., Rubenson, M., & Barner, D. (2017). To infinity and beyond: Children generalize the successor function to all possible
numbers years after learning to count. Cognitive Psychology, 92, 22–36.
Cho, S.-J., & Rabe-Hesketh, S. (2011). Alternating imputation posterior estimation of models with crossed random effects.
Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 55, 12–25.
Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2014). Learning and teaching early math: The learning trajectories approach (2nd ed.). New York:
Routledge.
Collins, M. A., & Laski, E. V. (2015). Preschoolers’ strategies for solving visual pattern tasks. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 32,
204–214.
Common Core State Standards (2010). Math standards Available at: [Link]
Economopoulos, K. (1998). What comes next? The mathematics of pattern in kindergarten. Teaching Children Mathematics, 5,
230–233.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social,
behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.
Flynn, M. E., Guba, T. P., & Fyfe, E. R. (2020). ABBABB or 1212: Abstract language facilitates children’s early patterning skills.
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 193 104791.
Fuson, K. C., Richards, J., & Briars, D. J. (1982). The acquisition and elaboration of the number word sequence. In C. J. Brainerd
(Ed.), Children’s logical and mathematical cognition: Progress in cognitive development research (pp. 33–92). New York:
Springer.
Fyfe, E. R., Evans, J. L., Matz, L. E., Hunt, K. M., & Alibali, M. W. (2017). Relations between patterning skill and differing aspects of
early mathematics knowledge. Cognitive Development, 44, 1–11.
Fyfe, E. R., McNeil, N. M., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2015). Easy as ABCABC: Abstract language facilitates performance on a concrete
patterning task. Child Development, 86, 927–935.
 E.L. Zippert et al. / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 200 (2020) 104965 15

Fyfe, E. R., Rittle-Johnson, B., & Farran, D. C. (2019). Predicting success on high-stakes math tests from preschool math measures
among children from low-income homes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111, 402–413.
Geary, D. C. (2011). Cognitive predictors of achievement growth in mathematics: A 5-year longitudinal study. Developmental
Psychology, 47, 1539–1552.
Gelman, R., & Gallistel, C. R. (1978). The child’s understanding of number. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ginsburg, H. P., Lin, C., Ness, D., & Seo, K.-H. (2003). Young American and Chinese children’s everyday mathematical activity.
Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 5, 235–258.
Jordan, N. C., Kaplan, D., Nabors Olah, L., & Locuniak, M. N. (2006). Number sense growth in kindergarten: A longitudinal
investigation of children at risk for mathematics difficulties. Child Development, 77, 153–175.
Kidd, J. K., Carlson, A. G., Gadzichowski, K. M., Boyer, C. E., Gallington, D. A., & Pasnak, R. (2013). Effects of patterning instruction
on the academic achievement of 1st-grade children. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 27, 224–238.
Kidd, J. K., Pasnak, R., Gadzichowski, K. M., Gallington, D. A., McKnight, P., Boyer, C. E., & Carlson, A. (2014). Instructing first-grade
children on patterning improves reading and mathematics. Early Education and Development, 25, 134–151.
LeFevre, J.-A., Fast, L., Skwarchuk, S.-L., Smith-Chant, B. L., Bisanz, J., Kamawar, D., & Penner-Wilger, M. (2010). Pathways to
mathematics: Longitudinal predictors of performance. Child Development, 81, 1753–1767.
MacKay, K. J., & De Smedt, B. (2019). Patterning counts: Individual differences in children’s calculation are uniquely predicted by
sequence patterning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 177, 152–165.
Miller, M. R., Rittle-Johnson, B., Loehr, A. M., & Fyfe, E. R. (2016). The influence of relational knowledge and executive function on
preschoolers’ repeating pattern knowledge. Journal of Cognition and Development, 17, 85–104.
Mix, K. S., Smith, L. B., Stockton, J. D., Cheng, Y.-L., & Barterian, J. A. (2017). Grounding the symbols for place value: Evidence from
training and long-term exposure to base-10 models. Journal of Cognition and Development, 18, 129–151.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2006). Curriculum focal points for prekindergarten through Grade 8 mathematics.
Reston, VA: Author.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel
Available at:. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Research Council (2009). Mathematics learning in early childhood: Paths toward excellence and equity. Washington, DC:
National Academies Press.
Nguyen, T., Watts, T. W., Duncan, G. J., Clements, D. H., Sarama, J. S., Wolfe, C., & Spitler, M. E. (2016). Which preschool
mathematics competencies are most predictive of fifth grade achievement? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 36, 550–560.
Papic, M. M., Mulligan, J. T., & Mitchelmore, M. C. (2011). Assessing the development of preschoolers’ mathematical patterning.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 42, 237–269.
Purpura, D. J., Baroody, A. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (2013). The transition from informal to formal mathematical knowledge: Mediation
by numeral knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 453–464.
Purpura, D. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (2015). Early numeracy assessment: The development of the preschool early numeracy scales.
Early Education and Development, 26, 286–313.
Raber, S., Thayer, S., Cox, M., Hebbeler, K., & Kutaka, T. (2017). K-3 Formative Assessment Enhanced Assessment Grant: Final project
report. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Rittle-Johnson, B., Fyfe, E. R., Hofer, K. G., & Farran, D. C. (2017). Early math trajectories: Low-income children’s mathematics
knowledge from ages 4 to 11. Child Development, 88, 1727–1742.
Rittle-Johnson, B., Fyfe, E. R., Loehr, A. M., & Miller, M. R. (2015). Beyond numeracy in preschool: Adding patterns to the
equation. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 31, 101–112.
Rittle-Johnson, B., Fyfe, E. R., McLean, L. E., & McEldoon, K. L. (2013). Emerging understanding of patterning in 4-year-olds.
Journal of Cognition and Development, 14, 376–396.
Rittle-Johnson, B., Saylor, M., & Swygert, K. E. (2008). Learning from explaining: Does it matter if mom is listening? Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 100, 215–224.
Rittle-Johnson, B., Zippert, E., & Boice, K. L. (2019). The roles of patterning and spatial skills in early mathematics development.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 46, 166–178.
Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2004). Building blocks for early childhood mathematics. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19,
181–189.
Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2009). Early childhood mathematics education research: Learning trajectories for young children. New
York: Routledge.
Sarnecka, B. W., & Carey, S. (2008). How counting represents number: What children must learn and when they learn it.
Cognition, 108, 662–674.
Siegler, R. S., & Lortie-Forgues, H. (2014). An integrative theory of numerical development. Child Development Perspectives, 8,
144–150.
Siegler, R. S., & Robinson, M. (1982). The development of numerical understandings. In H. W. Reese & L. P. Lipsitt (Eds.).
Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 16, pp. 241–312). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Spiegelhalter, D., Thomas, A., Best, N., & Lunn, D. (2003). WinBUGS user manual. Cambridge, UK: MRC Biostatistics Unit.
Starkey, P., Klein, A., & Wakeley, A. (2004). Enhancing young children’s mathematical knowledge through a pre-kindergarten
mathematics intervention. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 99–120.
Steen, L. A. (1988). The science of patterns. Science, 240, 611–616.
Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler intelligence scale for children (4th ed.). San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.
Weiland, C., Wolfe, C. B., Hurwitz, M. D., Clements, D. H., Sarama, J. H., & Yoshikawa, H. (2012). Early mathematics assessment:
Validation of the short form of a prekindergarten and kindergarten mathematics measure. Educational Psychology, 32,
311–333.
Wijns, N., Torbeyns, J., Bakker, M., De Smedt, B., & Verschaffel, L. (2019). Four-year olds’ understanding of repeating and growing
patterns and its association with early numerical ability. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 49, 152–163.
Xu, C., & LeFevre, J.-A. (2016). Training young children on sequential relations among numbers and spatial decomposition:
Differential transfer to number line and mental transformation tasks. Developmental Psychology, 52, 854–866.
16 E.L. Zippert et al. / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 200 (2020) 104965

Zippert, E., Clayback, K., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2019). Not just IQ: Patterning predicts preschoolers’ math knowledge beyond fluid
reasoning. Journal of Cognition and Development, 20, 752–771.
Zippert, E., Douglas, A.-A., Smith, M. R., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2020). Preschoolers’ broad mathematics experiences with parents
during play. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 192 104757.
Zippert, E., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2018). The home math environment: More than numeracy. Early Childhood Research Quarterly.
[Link] Advance online publication.