Based on Common Core Standards (2010), mathematics interventions should emphasize conceptual understanding of numbers and operations as well as fluency. For students at risk for failure, the concrete–representational–abstract (CRA) sequence and the Strategic Instruction Model (SIM) have been shown effective in teaching computation with an emphasis on conceptual understanding. No studies have investigated the effects of CRA and SIM for teaching multiplication with regrouping. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to replicate and extend the literature, teaching subtraction and multiplication with regrouping using CRA and SIM. Three students receiving tier three mathematics interventions participated. A multiple–probe across behaviors design was used to show a functional relation. All of the students demonstrated increases in fluency across all regrouping tasks.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrunerJ., & KenneyH. J. (1965). Representation and mathematics learning. Monographs for Research and Development, 30(1), 50–59.
2.
CooperJ. O., HeronT. E., & HewardW. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
3.
DeshlerD. D., & SchumakerJ. B. (1993). Strategy mastery by at–risk student: Not a simple matter. Elementary School Journal, 94, 153–167.
4.
FloresM. M. (2010). Using the concrete–representational–abstract sequence to teach subtraction with regrouping to students at risk for failure. Remedial and Special Education, 31(3), 195–207.
5.
FloresM. M. (2009). Teaching subtraction with regrouping to students experiencing difficulty in mathematics. Preventing School Failure, 53(3), 145–152.
6.
FuchsL. S., FuchsD., & ComptonD. L. (2012). The early prevention of mathematics difficulty: Its power and limitations. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 257–269.
7.
HarrisC. A., MillerS. P., & MercerC. D. (1995). The initial multiplication skills to students with disabilities in general education classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 10(3), 180–195.
8.
HospM. K., HospJ. L., & HowellK. W. (2007). The ABCs of CBM: A practical guide to curriculum–based measurement. New York: Guilford.
9.
LynnM. R. (1976). Determination and qualification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35, 382–385.
10.
LyonG. R., FletcherJ. M., ShaywitzS. E., ShaywitsB. A., TorgesenJ. K., WoodF. B. et al. (2001) Rethinking learning disabilities. In FinnC. E.Jr., RotherhamR. A., & HokansonC. R.Jr. (Eds), Rethinking special education for a new century (pp. 259–287). Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and Progressive Policy Institute.
11.
ManclD. B., MillerS. P., & KennedyM. (2012). Using the concrete–representational–abstract sequence with integrated strategy instruction to teach subtraction with regrouping to students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 27(4), 152–166.
12.
MercerC. D., & MillerS. P. (1992). Teaching students with learning problems in math to acquire, understand, and apply basic math facts. Remedial and Special Education, 13, 19–35.
13.
MillerS. P., & KaffarB. J. (2011). Developing addition with regrouping competence among second graders with mathematics difficulties. Investigations in Mathematics Learning, 4(1), 24–49.
14.
MorinV. A., & MillerS. P. (1998). Teaching multiplication to middle school students with mental retardation. Treatment of Children, 21(1), 22–36.
15.
National Center on Response to Intervention (2010). Essential components of RTI: A closer look at response to intervention. Washington, DC: Author.
16.
National Council for Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
17.
National Governors Associate Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core state standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: Author.
18.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundational for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
19.
ParkerR. I., VannestK. J., DavisJ. L., & SauberS. B. (2011). Combining nonoverlap and trend for single–case research: Tau–U. Behavior Therapy, 42, 284–299.
20.
PetersonS. K., MercerC.D., & O'SheaL. (1988). Teaching learning disabled children place value using the concrete to abstract sequence. Learning Disabilities Research, 4, 52–56.
21.
PolitD. F., & BeckC. T. (2006). The content validity index: Are you sure you know what's being reported? Critiques and recommendations. Research in Nursing and Health, 29, 489–497.
22.
PolitD. F., BeckC. T., & OwenS. V. (2007). Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Research in Nursing and Health, 30, 459–467.
23.
Rittle–JohnsonB., SieglerR. S., & AlibaliM. W. (2001). Developing conceptual understanding and procedural skill in mathematics: An iterative process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 346–362.
