Attending the Mathematics in early years MathEd Forum in November 2025 at the Fields Institute for the first time was both a professional privilege and an intellectually enriching experience for me. As someone situated at the intersection of learning sciences, K-12 math cognition, and educational technology, I found the event deeply resonant with my ongoing thinking about how early mathematics learning is shaped conceptually, instructionally, and systemically. The Forum brought together researchers, educators, system-leaders, and practitioners who engaged with the complexities of early numeracy through diverse lenses, but with a shared commitment to strengthening K–2 mathematics across Canadian contexts. The day unfolded through five presentations and a culminating workshop, each adding a distinct but complementary perspective that enriched participants' understanding of learning trajectories, curriculum coherence, instructional decision-making, and the realities of classroom practice.

The day began with Ashley Kozak’s presentation on the Early Math Skills Program (EMP) in the Upper Grand District School Board. Her talk highlighted a systematic, explicit instructional model for strengthening foundational number sense skills delivered through small-group targeted sessions. Ashley’s work represents an essential collaboration between educators and researchers. Through a partnership with Carleton University, EMP was evaluated using a rigorous experimental design, supported by the EMA@School screener, which provided reliable diagnostic evidence, i.e., students receiving the intervention demonstrated significantly stronger gains in foundational number skills than matched control students. From my perspective as a learning scientist, this talk clarified how explicit instruction, developmental awareness, and screening tools complement each other. Ashley’s focus on foundational number sense showed how instructional strategies can directly address early numeracy gaps. Her presentation also set up the afternoon workshop beautifully: participants could mirror elements of EMP, i.e., screening, targeted intervention, progress monitoring, when identifying their own Problems of Practice. Her concrete examples helped me think about how boards might structure early identification, intervention pathways, and instructional supports.

The second speaker, Brad Digweed, shifted the focus from number sense to spatial and proportional reasoning, which he positioned as foundational cognitive resources that meaningfully support mathematical understanding across strands. His discussion of spatial visualization (i.e., the ability to mentally represent and manipulate objects) was especially compelling. He demonstrated how spatial tasks allow young learners to build flexible conceptual reasoning in ways that symbolic tasks alone cannot. Brad also offered a strong system-leadership lens, illustrating how the District School Board of Niagara supports spatial reasoning across K–2 through intentional professional learning structures, leadership development, and aligned instructional resources. His presentation helped the participants see how spatial reasoning a set of isolated activities is not merely, but a system-supported focus that requires coherence, training, and resource alignment. This message broadened my framework for thinking about the design of math learning tools: spatial reasoning must be integrated, not incidental. For the workshop, Brad’s talk provided insights on bridging instructional practice with system-level responsibility.

The third speaker, Matthew Oldridge’s presentation served as the conceptual backbone of the day. As a Mathematics Educator, he framed early number learning as a developmental pathway, emphasizing that early mathematics is not a collection of discrete grade-level expectations, but a continuum of connected concepts, such as counting principles, number sequence knowledge, additive reasoning, and eventually multiplicative thinking. Matthew’s examples illuminated how students’ misunderstandings often reflect missing or fragile developmental steps rather than surface-level mistakes. His framing directly supported the Problems of Practice workshop, where participants needed to determine where the breakdown in learning occurs. Matthew’s explanation helped me and many others think diagnostically: What conceptual step is missing? What developmental expectation precedes the observed difficulty? His talk brought coherence to how we analyze student evidence and instructional needs. 

Following that Dr. Sandy Spasov-Youmans (Assistant Professor, Queen’s University), during her focused session, provided a research-grounded lens that connected cognitive science to classroom practice. Her session offered a clear and well-structured lens on foundational numeracy development from the integrative model of number understanding, to counting principles, mapping, and early place value. The way she connected these elements to the broader rationale for structured early-numeracy approaches was particularly impactful, especially for participants who are navigating very different provincial and board-level realities. Sandy’s framing around why we need principled, structured teaching approaches, and her emphasis on the role of high-quality early numeracy resources resonated strongly in the afternoon discussions. A major takeaway for me was Sandy’s explanation of how structured routines and deliberate practice help students internalize early numeracy skills. Overall, her emphasis on cognitive foundations deepened the scientific grounding of the day, reminding us that early math learning is not just a curriculum issue, but also a cognitive one.

The final presentation by Dr. Akihiko Takahashi (Professor Emeritus, DePaul University) introduced an international perspective on structured problem-solving and lesson design. His discussion of mathematical storytelling, productive struggle, and precise lesson structure broadened my view of what rigorous mathematics can look like even in the early grades. He reminded us that conceptual rigor is not incompatible with young learners; rather, it requires intentional design and thoughtful facilitation.

The afternoon workshop, which followed the five presentations, served as a powerful bridge between the conceptual insights offered by the speakers and the lived realities of classroom practice. Designed as a brainstorming and collaborative inquiry session, it began by inviting participants to surface the most persistent issues and gaps they encounter in K–2 mathematics education. A wide range of concerns emerged from the lack of accessible teacher PD resources to questions around how to cultivate learning environments where students feel comfortable engaging in creative exploration and productive struggle, to growing interest in AI integration, and considerations around balancing socio-emotional development with early mathematical learning. Dr. Sandy Youmans, who facilitated the consultancy protocol, furthermore, identified two core strands for deeper exploration based on the majority's interest: students’ exploration on problem-solving activities, and teacher professional development (PD) and resource gaps. Participants were then organized into two groups, each engaging in focused dialogue around one of these themes. A central message that emerged from the session was the reaffirmation of teacher professional judgment as a cornerstone of early math education. Tools, frameworks, and digital systems can support instructional decisions, but they cannot replace the nuanced interpretations educators make when responding to student thinking. Any effective early-numeracy system whether curricular, technological, or assessment-based must therefore be designed with teacher agency, flexibility, and practical realities at its core.

As I left the Forum, I felt a renewed sense of clarity about the direction of early numeracy research and practice in Canada. The event reinforced that the future of early mathematics lies not in isolated programs, but in integrated systems grounded in developmental science, responsive pedagogy, and collaborative design. For me personally, the Forum offered conceptual grounding, practical insight, and intellectual motivation to continue refining the ways we can support early mathematics learning through research, through design, and through partnerships with the educators who do this work every day. To stay connected with future MathEd Forum events whether as a participant, speaker, or partner and to receive notifications about upcoming sessions, people may register using the following link.

About the Author

Dr. Sabrina Shajeen Alam is a Learning Scientist whose expertise lies at the intersection of learning sciences, educational technology, and assessment design, particularly within early-years mathematics. At Vretta, She serves as a Research Specialist on the Innovation Team, where she works on the design of early-years curriculum frameworks for a math application that supports students’ math cognition grounded on sciences of learning.

Sabrina has authored more than ten peer-reviewed journal articles, two book chapters, and over twenty-five presentations at international conferences. Prior to joining Vretta, she completed a Postdoctoral Associate position at the University of Western Ontario and earned her Ph.D. in Educational Psychology (Learning Sciences) from McGill University, funded by the prestigious FRQSC Doctoral Fellowship. Sabrina has led and contributed to interdisciplinary collaborations with cognitive scientists, researchers, software developers, and school partners to translate research into practical, classroom-ready tools. 

Beyond her work at Vretta, she continues to advance research. She is also a committed advocate for diversity, mentorship, and equitable access to academic pathways. In this capacity, she solely founded and leads a mentorship initiative, MPUPS (https://mpups.netlify.app), which supports underrepresented scholars pursuing graduate studies around the world. 

---