This exploratory study determined the relationship between math instructional activities in Wave (year) 1 and English language learner (ELL) children's math problem–solving performance in Wave (year) 2. The math performance of ELL children (N = 291) in Grades 1, 2, and 3 was tested in two testing waves. Two major findings emerged. First, strategy instruction, peer interaction, and explicit instruction in Wave 1 uniquely predicted English problem–solving scores in Wave 2 independent of grade level, vocabulary, calculation, and problem–solving at Wave 1. Second, the frequency of explicit instruction and peer interactions was significantly related to the odds of predicting ELL children at risk for math disabilities. The results are discussed within the context–specific instructional activities that were positively related to later math outcomes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbediJ. (2002). Standardized achievement tests and English language learners: Psychometrics issues. Educational Assessment, 8(3), 231–257. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326977EA0803_02
2.
ArizmendiG. D., LiJ., Van HornM. L., PetcuS. D., & SwansonH. L. (2021). Language–focused interventions on math performance for English learners: A selective meta–analysis of the literature. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 36(1), 56–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12239
3.
BakerS., GerstenR., & LeeD. (2002). A synthesis of empirical research on teaching mathematics to low–achieving students. Elementary School Journal, 103(1), 51–73. https://doi.org/10.1086/499715
4.
BarbuO. C., & BealC. R. (2010). Effects of linguistic complexity and math difficulty on word problem–solving by English learners. International Journal of Education, 2(2), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.5296/ije.v2i2.508
5.
BellB. A., MorganG. B., SchoenebergerJ. A., KromreyJ. D., & FerronJ. M. (2014). How low can you go? An investigation of the influence of sample size and model complexity on point and interval estimates in two–level linear models. Methodology: European Journal of Research Method for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 10(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614–2241/a000062
6.
BumgarnerE., MartinA., & Brooks–GunnJ. (2013). Approaches to learning and Hispanic children's math scores: The moderating role of English proficiency. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 35(2), 241–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986312473580
7.
Carhill–PozaA. (2015). Opportunities and outcomes: The role of peers in developing the oral academic English proficiency of adolescent English learners. Modern Language Journal, 99, 678–695. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12271
8.
ChiuM. M. (2008). Flowing toward correct contributions during groups’ mathematics problem–solving: A statistical discourse analysis. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17, 415–463. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400802224830
9.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.
10.
ColeM. W. (2014). Speaking to read: Meta–analysis of peer–mediated learning for English language learners. Journal of Literacy Research, 46(3), 358–382. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296/14552179
11.
de AraujoZ., RobertsS. A., WilleyC., & ZahnerW. (2018). English learners in K–12 mathematics education: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 88(6), 879–919.
12.
de WinterJ.C.F., DodouD., & WieringaP. A. (2009). Exploratory factor analysis with small sample sizes. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 44(2), 147–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170902794206
13.
DoablerC. T., ClarkeB., KostyD. B., BakerS. K., SmolkowskiK., & FienH. (2016). Effects of a core kindergarten mathematics curriculum on the mathematics achievement of Spanish–speaking English learners. School Psychology Review, 45, 343–361. 10.17105/SPR45–3.343–361
14.
DoablerC. T., ClarkeB., KostyD. B., SmolkowskiK., Kurtz–NelsonE., FienH., & BakerS. K. (2019). Building number sense among English learners: A multisite randomized controlled trial of a tier 2 kindergarten mathematics intervention. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 47, 432–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.08.004
15.
DriverM. K., & PowellS. R. (2017). Culturally and linguistically responsive schema intervention: Improving word problem–solving for English language learners with mathematics difficulty. Learning Disability Quarterly, 40(1), 41–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948716646730
16.
DunnL. M., & DunnL. M. (2007). The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test4. Pearson.
17.
DunnL. M., LugoD. E., PadillaE. R., & DunnL. M. (1986). Test de Vocabulario Imágenes Peabody. American Guidance Service.
18.
FosterM. E., AnthonyJ. L., ClementsD. H., SaramaJ., & WilliamsJ. J. (2018). Hispanic dual language learning kindergarten students’ response to a numeracy intervention: A randomized control trial. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 43, 83–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.01.009
19.
FuchsL. S., FuchsD., ComptonD. L., PowellS. R., SeethalerP. M., CapizziA. M., SchatschneiderC., & FletcherJ. M. (2006). The cognitive correlates of third–grade skill in arithmetic, algorithmic computation, and arithmetic word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–0663.98.1.29
20.
GearyD. C., HoardM. K., NugentL., & BaileyD. H. (2012). Mathematical cognition deficits in children with learning disabilities and persistent low achievement: A five–year prospective study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 206–223. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025398
21.
GerstenR., & BakerS. (2000). What we know about effective instructional practices for English–language learners. Exceptional Children, 66(4), 454–470.
22.
GerstenR., ChardD. J., JayanthiM., BakerS. K., MorphyP., & FlojoJ. (2009). Mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities: A meta–analysis of instructional components. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1202–1242. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309334431
23.
GoodrichJ. M., & NamkungJ. M. (2019). Correlates of reading comprehension and word–problem–solving skills of Spanish–speaking dual language learners. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 48, 256–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2019.04.006
24.
HemphillF. C., & VannemanA. (2011). Achievement gaps: How Hispanic and White students in public schools perform in mathematics and reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NCES 2011–459). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences.
JordanN. C., HanichL. B., & KaplanD. (2003). A longitudinal study of mathematical competencies in children with specific mathematics difficulties versus children with comorbid mathematics and reading difficulties. Child Development, 74, 834–850. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467–8624.00571
28.
KleemansT., & SegersE. (2020). Linguistic precursors of advanced math growth in first–language and second–language learners. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 103, 10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2020.103661
29.
KongJ. E., & OroscoM. J. (2016). Word–problem–solving strategy for minority students at risk for math difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 39(3), 171–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948715607347
30.
KongJ. E., & SwansonH. L. (2019). The effects of a paraphrasing intervention on word problem–solving accuracy of English learners at risk of mathematic disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 42(2), 92–104.
31.
KongJ. E., YanC., SercekiA. & SwansonH. L. (2021). Word–problem solving interventions for elementary students with learning disabilities: A selective meta–analysis of the literature. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 44, 248–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948721994843
32.
KroesbergenE. H., & Van LuitJ.E.H. (2003). Mathematics interventions for children with special educational needs: A meta–analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 24(2), 97–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325030240020501
33.
LeiQ., MasonR. A., XinY. P., DavisJ. L., DavidM., & LoryC. (2020a). A meta–analysis of single–case research on mathematics word problem–solving interventions for English learners with learning disabilities and mathematics difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 201–217. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12233
34.
LeiQ., XinY. P., Morita–MullaneyT., & TzurR. (2020b). Instructional scaffolds in mathematics instruction for English learners with learning disabilities: An exploratory case study. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 18(1), 123–144.
35.
LeinA. E., JitendraA. K., & HarwellM. R. (2020). Effectiveness of mathematical word problem solving interventions for students with learning disabilities and/or mathematics difficulties: A meta–analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(7), 1388–1408. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000453
36.
LiljequistD., ElfvingB., & SkavbergR. K. (2019) Intraclass correlation – A discussion and demonstration of basic features. PLoS One14(7):e0219854. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219854
37.
Martin–BeltránM., Montoya–ÁvilaA., GarcíaA. A., PeercyM. M., & SilvermanR. (2019). “Time for una pregunta”: Understanding Spanish use and interlocutor response among young English learners in cross–age peer interactions while reading and discussing text. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22, 17–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1515176
38.
MazzoccoM.M.M. (2007). Defining and differentiating mathematical learning disabilities and difficulties. 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. 29–47). Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
39.
MazzoccoM.M.M., FeigensonL., & HalberdaJ. (2011). Impaired acuity of the approximate number system underlies mathematical learning disability (dyscalculia). Child Development, 82(4), 1224–1237. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082–989X.7.1.19
MartinielloM. (2009). Linguistic complexity, schematic representations, and differential item functioning for English language learners in math tests. Educational Assessment, 14(3–4), 160–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627190903422906
42.
McGrawK. O., & WongS. P. (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 30–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082–989X.1.1.30
43.
MercerN. (2008). Talk and the development of reasoning and understanding. Human Development, 51, 90–100. https://doi.org/10.1159/000113158
44.
MillerE. B. (2017). Spanish instruction in head start and dual language learners’ academic achievement. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 52, 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2017.07.008
45.
Muñoz–SandovalA. F., WoodcockR. W., McGrewK. S., & MatherN. (2005). Bateria III Woodcock–Muñoz. Riverside.
46.
MurphyM. M., MazzoccoM.M.M., HanichL. B., & EarlyM. C. (2007). Cognitive characteristics of children with mathematics learning disability (LDM) vary as a function of the cutoff criterion used to define LDM. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(5), 458–478.
47.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2011). Achievement gap: How Hispanics and White students in public schools perform in mathematics and reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. U.S. Department of Education.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2020). Common core of data (CCD): Local Education Agency Universe Survey. U.S. Department of Education.
50.
NunnallyJ. C., & BernsteinI. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw–Hill.
51.
OckeyG. J. (2007). Investigating the validity of math word problems for English language learners with DIF. Language Assessment Quarterly, 4(2), 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434300701375717
52.
OroscoM. J. (2014). A math intervention for third grade Latino English language learners at risk for math disabilities. Exceptionality, 22, 205–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2013.865535
53.
OroscoM. J., SwansonH. L., O'ConnorR., & LussierC. (2013). The effects of dynamic strategic math on English language learners’ word problem–solving. Journal of Special Education, 47(2), 96–107.
54.
PowellS. R., BerryK. A., & TranL. M. (2020). Performance differences on a measure of mathematics vocabulary for English learners and non–English learners with and without mathematics difficulty. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 36(2), 124–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2019.1677538
55.
PowellS. R., DriverM. K., RobertsG., & FallA.M. (2017). An analysis of the mathematics vocabulary knowledge of third– and fifth–grade students: Connections to general vocabulary and mathematics computation. Learning and Individual Differences, 57, 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.05.011
56.
PowellS. R., & FuchsL. S. (2015). Intensive intervention in mathematics. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 30, 182–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12087
57.
PreacherK. J., & MacCallumR. C. (2003). Repairing Tom Swift's electric factor analysis machine. Understanding Statistics, 2(1), 13–43. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328031US0201_02
58.
RabornD. T. (1995). Mathematics for students with learning disabilities from language–minority background: Recommendations for teaching. New York State Association for Bilingual Education Journal, 10, 25–33.
59.
RavenJ. C. (1976). Colored progressive matrices. H. K. Lewis & Co. Ltd.
60.
RetnowatiE., AyresP., & SwellerJ. (2017). Can collaborative learning improve the effectiveness of worked examples in learning mathematics?Journal of Educational Psychology, 109, 666–679. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000167
61.
Richards–TutorC., BakerD. L., GerstenR., & SmithJ. M. (2015). The effectiveness of reading interventions for English learners: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, date is 2016, 82(2), 144–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915585483
62.
Rivera–BatizF. L. (1992). Quantitative literacy and the likelihood of employment among young adults in the United States. Journal of Human Resources, 27(2), 313–328.
63.
RobertsG., & BryantD. (2011). Early mathematics achievement trajectories: English–language learner and native English–speaker estimates, using the Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey. Developmental Psychology, 47, 916–930. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023865
64.
SáenzL. M., FuchsL. S., & FuchsD. (2005). Peer–assisted learning strategies for English language learners with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71, 231–247.
65.
SAS Institute. (2014). SAS/STAT software: Changes and enhancements through release 9.4.
66.
SchrankF. A., McGrewK. S., RuefM. L., AlvaradoC. G., Muñoz–SandovalA. F., & WoodcockR. W. (2005). Overview and technical supplement (Batería III Woodcock–Muñoz assessment service bulletin No. 1). Riverside Publishing.
67.
ShapkaJ. D., DomeneJ. F., & KeatingD. P. (2006). Trajectories of career aspirations through adolescence and young adulthood: Early math achievement as a critical filter. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(4), 347–358.
68.
ShroutP. E. & FleissJ. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420–480.
69.
SiegelL. S., & RyanE. B. (1989). The development of working memory in normally achieving and subtypes of learning disabled children. Child Development, 60(4), 973980. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131037
70.
SnijdersT., & BoskerR. (1999). Multilevel modeling: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Sage Publications.
71.
SnijdersT.A.B., & BoskerR. J. (2003). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Sage Publications.
72.
SwansonH. L. (2008) Science supported math instruction for children with math difficulties: Converting a meta–analysis to practice. In RosenfieldS. & BerningerV. (Eds.), Translating science–supported instruction into evidence–based practices: Understanding and applying implementation processes (pp. 85–106). Oxford University Press.
73.
SwansonH. L., ArizmendiG. D., & LiJ. (2020). Working memory growth predicts mathematical problem–solving growth among emergent bilingual children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 201, 33https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2020.104988
74.
SwansonH. L., & JermanO. (2006). Math disabilities: A selective meta–analysis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 76(2), 249–274. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076002249
75.
SwansonH. L., KongJ. E., & PetcuS. D. (2019). Individual differences in math problem solving and executive processing among emerging bilingual children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 187, 25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2019.06.006
76.
SwansonH. L., OlideA. F., & KongJ. E. (2018). Latent class analysis of children with math difficulties and/or math learning disabilities: Are there cognitive differences?Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(7), 931–951. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000252
77.
SwansonH. L., OroscoM. J., & KudoM. F. (2017). Do specific classroom reading activities predict English language learners’ later reading achievement?Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 33(3), 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2016.1145563
78.
WoodcockR W., McGrewK.S. & MatherN (2001). Woodcock–Johnson Tests of Achievement. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing.
79.
WoodcockR. W., McGrewK. S., SchrankF. A., & MatherN. (2007). Technical manual. Woodcock–Johnson III normative update. Riverside Publishing.
80.
ZhengX., FlynnL. J., & SwansonH. L. (2013). Experimental intervention studies on word problem–solving and math disabilities: A selective analysis of the literature. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 36, 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948712444277
