The study examined the use of a conceptual and procedural framework for identifying math deficits and delivering appropriate interventions. Participants were two first–grade students and one third–grade student, who were identified as struggling with the grade–appropriate content in math. The first–grade students focused on addition and the third–grade student focused on multiplication. Each student's conceptual understanding was assessed, and students who lacked conceptual understanding received an intervention that addressed underlying concepts. Students with acceptable understanding of the underlying concepts received an intervention that focused on the procedure. The study used a single–case, multiple–baseline design, but the contra–indicated intervention was administered for the first 2 weeks following baseline, with the prescribed intervention for the final 2 weeks. Each student showed more growth during the prescribed intervention phase when compared to the contra–indicated phase.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BakerS., GerstenR., & LeeD. S. (2002). A synthesis of empirical research on teaching mathematics to low–achieving students. Elementary School Journal, 103, 51–73.
2.
BeattyR., & MossJ. (2007). Teaching the meaning of the equal sign to children with learning disabilities: Moving from concrete to abstractions. In: MartinW. G. & StrutchensM. E. (Eds.), The learning of mathematics: Sixty–ninth yearbook (pp. 27–41). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
BriarsD. J., & SieglerR. S. (1984). A featural analysis of preschoolers’ counting knowledge. Developmental Psychology, 20, 607–618.
5.
BurnsM. K. (2004). Empirical analysis of drill ratio research: Refining the instructional level for drill tasks. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 167–175.
6.
BurnsM. K. (2005). Using incremental rehearsal to practice multiplication facts with children identified as learning disabled in mathematics computation. Education and Treatment of Children, 28, 237–249.
7.
BurnsM. K. (2011). Matching math interventions to students’ skill deficits. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 36, 210–218.
8.
BurnsM. K., CoddingR. S., BoiceC. H., & LukitoG. (2010). Meta–analysis of acquisition and fluency math interventions with instructional and frustration level skills: Evidence for a skill by treatment interaction. School Psychology Review, 39, 69–83.
9.
BurnsM. K., & KlingbeilD. A. (2010). Assessment of academic skills in math within a problem solving model. In ErvinR., GimpelG., DalyE.III, & MerrellK. (Eds.), Practical handbook of school psychology (pp. 86–98). New York, NY: Guilford.
10.
BurnsM. K., VanDerHeydenA. M., & JibanC. (2006). Assessing the instructional level for mathematics: A comparison of methods. School Psychology Review, 35, 401–418.
11.
ByrnesJ. P., & WasikB. A. (1991). Role of conceptual knowledge in mathematical procedural learning. Developmental Psychology, 27, 777–786.
12.
CanobiK. H. (2004). Individual differences in children's addition and subtraction knowledge. Cognitive Development, 19, 81–93.
13.
CanobiK. H. (2009). Concept–procedure interactions in children's addition and subtraction. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 102, 131–149.
14.
CanobiK. H., ReeveR. A., & PattisonP. E. (1998). The role of conceptual understanding in children's addition problem solving. Developmental Psychology, 34, 882–891.
15.
CoddingR. S., ArcherJ., & ConnellJ. (2010). A systematic replication and extension of using incremental rehearsal to improve multiplication skills: An investigation of generalization. Journal of Behavioral Education, 19, 93–105.
16.
DuncanG. J., DowsettC. J., ClaessensA., MagnusonK., HustonA.C., KlebanovP., et al. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1428–1446.
17.
FoegenA., OlsonJ. R., & Impecoven–LindL. (2008). Developing progress monitoring measures for secondary mathematics: An illustration in algebra. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33, 240–249.
18.
GearyD. C. (1993). Mathematical disabilities: Cognitive, neuropsychological, and genetic components. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 345–362.
19.
GearyD. C. (2006). Development of mathematical understanding. In KuhlD. & SieglerR. S. (Eds.), Cognition, perception, and language (Vol 2, pp. 777–810). DamonW. (Gen. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
20.
GearyD. C. (2013). Learning disabilities in mathematics: Recent advances. In SwansonH. L., HarrisK. R., & GrahamS. (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 239–255). New York: Guilford.
21.
GearyD. C., HoardM. K., Byrd–CravenJ., NugentL., & NumteeC. (2007). Cognitive mechanisms underlying achievement deficits in children with mathematical learning disability. Child Development, 78, 1343–1359.
22.
GerstenR., ChardD. J., JayanthiM., BakerS., MorphyP., & FlojoJ. (2009). Mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities: A meta–analysis of instructional components. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1202–1242.
23.
GerstenR., JordanN. C., & FlojoJ. R. (2005). Early identification and intervention for students with mathematical difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 293–304.
HelwigR., AndersonL., & TindalG. (2002). Using a concept–grounded curriculum–based measure in mathematics to predict statewide test scores for middle school students with LD. The Journal of Special Education, 36, 102–112.
26.
HiebertJ., & LefevreP. (1986). Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics: An introductory analysis. In HiebertJ. (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics (pp. 1–28). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
27.
KennedyC. H. (2005). Single–case designs for educational research. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
28.
Ketterlin–GellerL. R., ChardD. J., & FienH. (2008). Making connections in mathematics. Remedial and Special Education, 29, 33–45.
29.
KettlerR. J., & AlbersC. A. (2013). Predictive validity of curriculum–based measurement and teacher ratings of academic achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 499–515.
30.
KilpatrickJ., SwaffordJ., & FinellB. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
31.
KratochwillT. R., HitchcockJ., HornerR. H., LevinJ. R., OdomS. L., RindskopfD. M., et al. (2010). Single–case designs technical documentation. Retrieved from What Works Clearinghouse website: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/wwc_scd.pdf.
32.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
33.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel (NMAP). (2008). Foundations for success: Final report of the national math advisory panel. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
34.
Northwest Evaluation Association. (2003). Measures of academic progress for math. Portland, OR: Author.
35.
Rittle–JohnsonR., & SieglerR. S. (1998). The relations between conceptual and procedural knowledge in learning mathematics: A review. In DonlanC. (Ed.), The development of mathematical skill (pp. 75–110). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
36.
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.
37.
SchneiderM., & SternE. (2010). The developmental relations between conceptual and procedural knowledge: A multimethod approach. Developmental Psychology, 46, 178–192.
38.
TuckerJ. A. (1989). Basic flashcard technique when vocabulary is the goal. Unpublished teaching materials, School of Education, University of Chattanooga. Chattanooga, TN: Author.
39.
VanDeWalleJ. A., & LovinL. H. (2006). Teaching student–centered mathematics grades k–3. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
40.
VanDeWalleJ. A., KarpK. S., & Bay–WilliamsJ. M. (2012). Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
41.
WoodwardJ. (2006). Developing automaticity in multiplication facts: Integrating strategy instruction with timed practice drills. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29, 269–289.
42.
ZamarianL., Lopez–RolonA., & DelazerM. (2007). Neuropsychological case studies on arithmetic processing. In BerchD. B. & MazzoccoM. M. M. (Eds.), Why is math so hard for some children? The nature and origins of mathematical learning difficulties and disabilities (pp. 245–264). Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.
43.
ZaslofskyA. F., & BurnsM. K. (2014). Synthesis of how conceptual understanding is assessed in mathematics intervention research. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.
