Enhancing Mathematical Problem Solving for Secondary Students with or at Risk of Learning Disabilities: A Literature Review

Abstract

Requirements for reasoning, explaining, and generalizing mathematical concepts increase as students advance through the educational system; hence, improving overall mathematical proficiency is critical. Mathematical proficiency requires students to interpret quantities and their corresponding relationships during problem–solving tasks as well as generalizing to different contexts; both requirements are particularly challenging for many students with learning disabilities. An in–depth review of research was completed to (1) demonstrate how interventions targeting mathematical problem solving are categorized into heuristic, semantic, or authentic approaches; (2) explore the degree to which generalization is presented in each approach; and (3) determine the efficacy of each intervention approach. Experimental studies (n = 17) demonstrating the effects of interventions designed to enhance mathematical problem solving for secondary students with or at risk of learning disabilities were analyzed. Findings indicate that the efficacy of the three intervention approaches varies, and that the real–world connections differ. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abd–El–Wahed

W. F.

, Mousa

A. A.

, & El–Shorbagy

M. A.

(2011). Integrating particle swarm optimization with genetic algorithms for solving nonlinear optimization problems. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 235(5), 1446–1453. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2010.08.030

Adler

, Hossain

, Stevenson

, Clarke

, Archer

, & Grantham

(2014). Mathematics for teaching and deep subject knowledge: Voices of Mathematics Enhancement Course students in England. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 17(2), 129–148. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10857–013–9259–y

Archer

A. L.

, & Hughes

C. A.

(2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. New York: Guilford.

Bottge

B. A.

(1999). Effects of contextualized math instruction on problem solving of average and below–average achieving students. The Journal of Special Education, 33(2), 81–92. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002246699903300202

Bottge

B. A.

, & Hasselbring

(1993). A comparison of two approaches for teaching complex, authentic mathematics problems to adolescents in remedial math classes. Exceptional Children, 59(6), 556–566.

Bottge

B. A.

, Heinrichs

, Chan

S. Y.

, & Serlin

R. C.

(2001). Anchoring adolescents’ understanding of math concepts in rich problem–solving environments. Remedial and Special Education, 22(5), 299–314. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/074193250102200505

Bottge

B. A.

, Heinrichs

, Mehta

Z. D.

, & Hung

Y.–H.

(2002). Weighing the benefits of anchored math instruction for students with disabilities in general education classes. The Journal of Special Education, 35(4), 186–200. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002246690203500401

Bottge

B. A.

, Rueda

, Grant

T. S.

, Stephens

A. C.

, & Laroque

P. T.

(2010). Anchoring problem–solving and computation instruction in context–rich learning environments. Exceptional Children, 76(4), 417–437. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001440291007600403

Bottge

B. A.

, Rueda

, LaRoque

P. T.

, Serlin

R. C.

, & Kwon

(2007). Integrating reform–oriented math instruction in special education settings. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22(2), 96–109. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540–5826.2007.00234.x

10.

Bottge

B. A.

, Rueda

, Serlin

R. C.

, Hung

Y. H.

, & Kwon

J. M.

(2007). Shrinking achievement differences with anchored math problems challenges and possibilities. The Journal of Special Education, 41(1), 31–49. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00224669070410010301

11.

Case

L. P.

, Harris

K. R.

, & Graham

(1992). Improving the mathematical problem–solving skills of students with learning disabilities: Self–regulated strategy development. The Journal of Special Education, 26(1), 1–19. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002246699202600101

12.

Chen

(1999). Schema induction in children's analogical problem–solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 703–715.

13.

Common Core State Standard Initiative (CCSS) (2012). Common Core Standards for Mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Practice/.

14.

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (CTGV) (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19(6), 2–10.

15.

Fraivillig

J. L.

, Murphy

L. A.

, Fuson

K. C.

(1999). Advancing children's mathematical thinking in everyday mathematics classrooms. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(2), 148–170.

16.

Fuchs

L. S.

, Powell

S. R.

, Cirino

P. T.

, Schumacher

R. F.

, Marrin

, Hamlett

C. L.

, et al. (2014). Does calculation or word–problem instruction provide a stronger route to prealgebraic knowledge? Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(4), 990–1006. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036793

17.

Fuchs

L. S.

, Seethaler

P. M.

, Powell

S. R.

, Fuchs

, Hamlett

C. L.

, & Fletcher

J. M.

(2008). Effects of preventative tutoring on the mathematical problem solving of third–grade students with math and reading difficulties. Exceptional Children, 74(2), 155–173. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001440290807400202

18.

Fuchs

L. S.

, Zumeta

R. O.

, Schumacher

R. F.

, Powell

S. R.

, Seethaler

P. M.

, Hamlett

C. L.

, & Fuchs

(2010). The effects of schema–broadening instruction on second graders’ word–problem performance and their ability to represent word problems with algebraic equations: A randomized control study. The Elementary School Journal, 110(4), 446–463.

19.

Galbraith

P. L.

, & Clatworthy

N. J.

(1990). Beyond standard models—meeting the challenge of modelling. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 21(2), 137–163.

20.

Geary

D. C.

(2004). Mathematics and learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(1), 4–15. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00222194040370010201

21.

Geary

D. C.

(2011). Cognitive predictors of individual differences in achievement growth mathematics: A five year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1539–1552.

22.

Hedges

L. V.

, & Olkin

(1985). Statistical methods for meta–analysis. London: Academic Press.

23.

Hiebert

(Ed.). (2013). Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics. New York: Routledge.

24.

Horner

R. H.

, Carr

E. G.

, Halle

, McGee

, Odom

, & Wolery

(2005). The use of single–case research to identify evidence–based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 165–179.

25.

Hunt

J. H.

, & Vasquez

III (2014). Effects of ratio strategies intervention on knowledge of ratio equivalence for students with learning disability. Journal of Special Education, 48, 180–190. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022466912474102

26.

Hutchinson

N. L.

(1993). Effects of cognitive strategy instruction on algebra problem–solving of adolescents with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16(1), 34–63. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1511158

27.

Janvier

(1987). Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

28.

Jitendra

A. K.

, & Star

J. R.

(2011). Meeting the needs of students with learning disabilities in inclusive mathematics classrooms: The role of schema–based instruction on mathematical problem–solving. Theory Into Practice, 50(1), 12–19. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2011.534912

29.

Jitendra

A. K.

, Star

J. R.

, Dupuis

D. N.

, & Rodriguez

M. C.

(2013). Effectiveness of schema–based instruction for improving seventh–grade students’ proportional reasoning: A randomized experiment. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 6(2), 114–136.

30.

Jitendra

A. K.

, Star

J. R.

, Starosta

, Leh

J. M.

, Sood

, Caskie

, Hughes

C. L.

, & Mack

T. R.

(2009). Improving seventh grade students’ learning of ratio and proportion: The role of schema–based instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(3), 250–264. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.06.001

31.

Jitendra

, DiPipi

C. M.

, & Perron–Jones

(2002). An exploratory study of schema–based word–problem–solving instruction for middle school students with learning disabilities: An emphasis on conceptual and procedural understanding. The Journal of Special Education, 36(1), 22–38. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00224669020360010301

32.

Jitendra

, Hoff

, & Beck

M. M.

(1999). Teaching middle school students with learning disabilities to solve word problems using a schema–based approach. Remedial and Special Education, 20(1), 50–64. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/074193259902000108

33.

Kortering

L. J.

, DeBettencourt

L. U.

, Braziel

(2005). Improving performance in high school algebra: What students with learning disabilities are saying. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 191–203. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1593658

34.

Lesh

, & Harel

(2003). Problem–solving, modeling, and local conceptual development. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 5(2–3), 157–189. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2003.9679998

35.

Maccini

, & Hughes

C. A.

(2000). Effects of a problem–solving strategy on the introductory algebra performance of secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15(1), 10–21. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/SLDRP1501_2

36.

Maccini

, Mulcahy

C. A.

, & Wilson

M. G.

(2007). A follow–up of mathematics interventions for secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22(1), 58–74. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540–5826.2007.00231.x

37.

Maccini

, & Ruhl

K. L.

(2000). Effects of a graduated instructional sequence on the algebraic subtraction of integers by secondary students with learning disabilities. Education & Treatment of Children, 23(4), 465–489.

38.

Marshall

S. P.

(1995). Schemas in problem–solving. New York: Cambridge University Press.

39.

Mayer

R. E.

(1987). Learnable aspects of problem–solving: Some examples. In Berger

D. E.

, Pezdek

, & Banks

(Eds.), Applications of cognitive psychology: Problem–solving, education, and computing (pp. 109–122). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

40.

Mayer

R. E.

(1998). Cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational aspects of problem–solving. Instructional Science, 26, 49–63. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978–94–017–2243–8_5

41.

Montague

(1992). The effects of cognitive and metacognitive strategy instruction on the mathematical problem–solving of middle school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(4), 230–248. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002221949202500404

42.

Montague

, Enders

, & Dietz

(2011). Effects of cognitive strategy instruction on math problem–solving of middle school students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34(4), 262–272.

43.

Montague

, Warger

, & Morgan

T. H.

(2000). Solve it! Strategy instruction to improve mathematical problem–solving. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15(2), 110–116. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/SLDRP1502_7

44.

Morgan

P. L.

, Farkas

, & Wu

(2009). Five–year growth trajectories of kindergarten children with learning difficulties in mathematics. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(4), 306–321. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022219408331037

45.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2013). The nation's report card: A first look: 2013 Mathematics and Reading (NCES 2014–451). Washington, D.C.: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

46.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM, 2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. Reston, VA: Author.

47.

National Council for Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM, 2008). Homepage. Retrieved from www.nctm.org.

48.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers (2010). Common core state standards mathematics. Washington, D.C.: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers.

49.

National Mathematics Advisory Panel (NMAP, 2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

50.

Parker

R. I.

, Hagan–Burke

, & Vannest

K. J.

(2007) Percent of all non–overlapping data (PAND): An alternative to PND. Journal of Special Education, 40, 194–204.

51.

Parmar

R. S.

, Cawley

J. F.

, & Miller

J. H.

(1994). Differences in mathematics performance between students with learning disabilities and students with mild retardation. Exceptional Children, 60(6), 549–563.

52.

Patton

J. R.

, Cronin

M. E.

, Bassett

D. S.

, & Koppel

A. E.

(1997). A life skills approach to mathematics instruction preparing students with learning disabilities for the real–life math demands of adulthood. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(2), 178–187. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002221949703000205

53.

Polya

(1990). How to solve it. London: Penguin (Original work published 1945).

54.

Riccomini

P. J.

, & Witzel

B. S.

(2010). Response to intervention in math. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452219356

55.

Rittle–Johnson

, & Alibali

M.W.

(1999). Conceptual and procedural knowledge of mathematics: Does one lead to the other? Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 175–189. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022–0663.91.1.175

56.

Scruggs

T. E.

, & Mastropieri

M. A.

(1998). Summarizing single–case research: Issues and applications. Behavior Modification, 22, 221–242.

57.

Scruggs

T. E.

, Mastropieri

M. A.

, & Casto

(1987). The quantitative synthesis of single–case research methodology and validation. Remedial and Special Education, 8(2), 24–33.

58.

Swanson

H. L.

(2011). Working memory, attention, and mathematical problem–solving: A longitudinal study of elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(4), 821–837. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025114

59.

Swanson

H. L.

, & Sachse–Lee

(2001). Mathematical problem–solving and working memory in children with learning disabilities: Both executive and phonological processes are important. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 79(3), 294–321. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jecp.2000.2587

60.

Sweller

, Chandler

, Tierney

, Cooper

(1990). Cognitive load as a factor in the structuring of technical material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 176–192. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096–3445.119.2.176

61.

Szekely

(2014). Unlocking young children's potential: Governors’ role in strengthening early mathematics learning. Washington, D.C.: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. Retrieved from: http://www.nga.org/files/live/sites/NGA/files/pdf/2014/1410UnlockingYoungChildrensPotential.pdf

62.

Trainin

, & Swanson

H. L.

(2005). Cognition, metacognition, and achievement of college students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28(4), 261–272. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4126965

63.

U.S. Department of Education. (2014). Science, technology, engineering and math: Education for global leadership. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from: www.ed.gov/STEM/

64.

van Garderen

(2007). Teaching students with LD to use diagrams to solve mathematical word problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(6), 540–553. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00222194070400060501

65.

Wei

, Lenz

K. B.

, & Blackorby

(2013). Math growth trajectories of students with disabilities: Disability category, gender, racial, and socioeconomic status differences from ages 7 to 17. Remedial and Special Education, 34(3), 154–165.

66.

Woodward

, & Montague

(2002). Meeting the challenge of mathematics reform for students with LD. The Journal of Special Education, 36(2), 89–101. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00224669020360020401

67.

Xin

Y. P.

, & Jitendra

A. K.

(1999). The Effects of instruction in solving mathematical word problems for students with learning problems: A meta–analysis. The Journal of Special Education, 32(4), 207–225.

68.

Xin

Y. P.

, Jitendra

A. K.

, & Deatline–Buchman

(2005). Effects of mathematical word problem–solving instruction on middle school students with learning problems. The Journal of Special Education, 39(3), 181–192.

69.

Zbiek

R. M.

, & Conner

(2006). Beyond motivation: Exploring mathematical modeling as a context for deepening students’ understandings of curricular mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 63(1), 89–112. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10649–005–9002–4

70.

Zheng

, Swanson

H. L.

, & Marcoulides

G. A.

(2011). Working memory components as predictors of children's mathematical word problem–solving. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 110(4), 481–98.