This article describes a follow-up analysis of findings from a randomized study that tested the efficacy of a blended version of Enhanced Anchored Instruction (EAI) designed to improve both the computation and problem-solving performances of middle school students with disabilities. The goals of the secondary analysis were to track overall error patterns of students in computing with fractions and to compare the effects of EAI and Business As Usual (BAU) on making these errors. Results showed that students taught with EAI reduced their errors compared to students in BAU classrooms and that reducing the one common error led to improved performance. Error pattern analysis provided clues about how to modify instructional materials for improving computation with fractions.
BehrM.HarelG.PostT.LeshR. (1992). Rational number, ratio, and proportion. In GrouwsD. A. (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 296–333). New York, NY: Macmillan.
3.
BehrM. J.LeshR.PostT. R.SilverE. A. (1983). Rational number concepts. In LeshR.LandauM. (Eds.), Acquisition of mathematical concepts and processes (pp. 91–126). New York, NY: Academic Press.
4.
BehrM. J.WachsmuthI.PostT. R. (1985). Construct a sum: A measure of children's understanding of fraction size. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16, 120–131.
5.
BottgeB. A.HeinrichsM.MehtaZ.HungY. (2002). Weighing the benefits of anchored math instruction for students with disabilities in general education classes. The Journal of Special Education, 35, 186–200. doi:10.177/002246690203500401.
6.
BottgeB. A.MaX.GassawayL.TolandM. D.ButlerM.ChoS-J. (in press). Effects of blended instructional models on math performance. Exceptional Children.
7.
BottgeB. A.RuedaE.GrantT. S.StephensA. C.LaRoqueP. T. (2010). Anchoring problem-solving and computation instruction in context-rich learning environments. Exceptional Children, 76, 417–437.
8.
BottgeB. A.RuedaE.SerlinR. C.HungY.KwonJ. (2007). Shrinking achievement differences with anchored math problems: Challenges and possibilities. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 31–49. doi:10.177/0022466907041001031.
9.
ButlerF. M.MillerS. P.CrehanK.BabbittB.PierceT. (2003). Fraction instruction for students with mathematics disabilities: Comparing two teaching sequences. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 99–111. doi:10.111/1540-5826.00066.
10.
CalhoonM. B.EmersonR. W.FloresM.HouchinsD. E. (2007). Computational fluency performance profile of high school students with mathematics disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 28, 292–303. doi:10.177/07419325070280050401.
11.
CeciS. J.RoazziA. (1994). The effects of context on cognition: Postcards from Brazil. In SternbergR. J.WagnerR. K. (Eds.), Mind in context: Interactionist perspectives on human intelligence (pp. 74–101). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
12.
Center for Applied Special Technology. (2011). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.0. Wakefield, MA: Author.
13.
ChandlerP.SwellerJ. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293–332. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci080 4_2.
14.
CharalambousC. Y.Pitta-PantaziD. (2007). Drawing on a theoretical model to study students' understandings of fractions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 64, 293–316. doi:10.1007/s10649-006-9036-2.
15.
ClarkeD. M.RocheA. (2009). Students' fraction comparison strategies as a window into robust understanding and possible pointers for instruction. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72, 127–138. doi: 10.1007/s10649-009-9198-9.
16.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, DC.
17.
CrawfordD. B. (2002). Mastering math facts in your classroom. Eau Claire, WI: Otter Creek Institute.
18.
DunbarS. B.HooverH. D.FrisbieD. A.MenglingM. A.BrayG. B.NaylorR. J.OrdmanV. L. (2008). Iowa tests of basic skills/core battery: 2005 norms and score conversions, student norms and school average norms. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.
19.
EmpsonS. B. (2003). Low-performing students and teaching fractions for understanding: An interactional analysis. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34, 305–343. doi:10.2307/30034786.
20.
FazioL.SieglerR. (2011). Teaching fractions. Vol. 22 of Educational practices series, Geneva: International Academy of Educational-International Bureau of Education.
21.
FileMaker Pro 10. (2009). FileMaker Incorporated. Santa Clara, CA.
22.
GillespieJ.KanterP. F. (2000). Every day counts calendar math. Wilmington, MA: Great Source Education.
23.
HiebertJ.CarpenterT. P. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In GrouwsD. A. (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 65–97). New York, NY: Macmillan.
24.
HutchinsonN. L. (1993). Effects of cognitive strategy instruction on algebraic problem solving of adolescents with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 34–63. doi:10.2307/1511158.
25.
IdrisN.NarayananL. M. (2011). Error patterns in addition and subtraction of fractions among form two students. Journal of Mathematics Education, 4 (2), 35–54.
26.
JitendraA.DiPipiC. M.Perron-JonesN. (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, 23–38. doi:10.1177/0022466902036 0010301.
27.
JitendraA. K.HoffK.BeckM. M. (1999). Teaching middle school students with learning disabilities to solve word problems using a schema-based approach. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 50–64. doi:10.1177/074193259902000108.
28.
JudgeS.WatsonS. M. R. (2011). Longitudinal outcomes for mathematics achievement for students with learning disabilities. The Journal of Educational Research, 104, 147–157. doi:10.1080/0022067100363 6729.
29.
KierenT. E. (1980). Knowing rational numbers: Ideas and symbols. In LindquistM. (Ed.), Selected issues in mathematics education (pp. 69–81). Berkeley, CA: Mc-Cutchan.
30.
MaL. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers' understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
31.
MacciniP.HughesC. A. (2000). Effects of a problem-solving strategy on the introductory algebra performance of secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15, 10–21. doi:10.1207/SLDRP1501_2.
32.
MackN. K. (1993). Learning rational numbers with understanding: The case of informal knowledge. In CarpenterT. P.FennemaE.RombergT. A. (Eds.), Rational numbers: An integration of the research (pp. 85–105). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
33.
MayerR. E.MorenoR. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38 (1), 43–52. doi:10.1207/S153 26985EP3801_6.
34.
MisquittaR. (2011). A review of the literature: Fraction instruction for struggling learners in mathematics. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26, 109–119. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2011.00330.x.
35.
MontagueM.DietzS. (2009). Evaluating the evidence base for cognitive strategy instruction and mathematical problem solving. Exceptional Children, 75, 285–302.
36.
MossJ.CaseR. (1999). Developing children's understanding of the rational numbers: A new model and experimental curriculum. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 122–147. doi:10.2307/749607.
37.
MousaviS. Y.LowR.SwellerJ. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 319–334. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.87.2.319.
38.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). The Nation's Report Card Mathematics 2011 (NCES 2012–458). Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education: Washington, DC.
39.
National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
40.
NiY.ZhouY. (2005). Teaching and learning fractions and rational numbers: The origins and implications of whole number bias. Educational Psychologist, 40, 27–52. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4001_3.
41.
PashlerH.BainP.BottgeB.GraesserA.KoedingerK.McDanielM.MetcalfeJ. (2007). Organizing instruction and study to improve student learning (NCER 2007–2004). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
42.
PitkethlyA.HuntingR. (1996). A review of recent research in the area of initial fraction concepts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 30, 5–38. doi:10.1007 BF00163751.
43.
PostT.HarelG.BehrM.LeshR. (1991). Intermediate teachers' knowledge of rational number concepts. In FennemaE.CarpenterT. P.LamonS. J. (Eds.), Integrating research on teaching and learning mathematics (pp. 177–198). New York, NY: State University of New York Press.
44.
RadatzH. (1979). Error analysis in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 10 (3), 163–172. doi:10.2307/748804.
45.
ScheuermannA. M.DeshlerD. D.SchumakerJ. B. (2009). The effects of the explicit inquiry routine on the performance of students with learning disabilities on one-variable equations. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32, 103–120.
46.
SeethalerP. M.FuchsL. S.StarJ. R.BryantJ. (2011). The cognitive predictors of competition on skill with whole versus rational numbers: An exploratory study. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 536–542.
47.
SilverE. A.KenneyP. A. (2000). Results from the seventh mathematics assessment of the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
48.
StarJ. R. (2005). Reconceptualizing procedural knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36, 404–411.
49.
SwellerJ. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4.
50.
TabbersH. K.MartensR. L.van MerrienboerJ. J. G. (2004). Multimedia instructions and cognitive load theory: Effects of modality and cueing. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 71–81. doi: 10.1348/00709904322848824.
51.
University of Iowa. (2008). The Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS, Form C). Itasca, IL: Riverside.
52.
WilsonJ. S. (2009). Elementary school mathematics priorities. AASA Journal of Scholarship & Practice, 6, 40–49.
53.
WitzelB. S.MercerC. D.MillerM. D. (2003). Teaching algebra to students with learning difficulties: An investigation of an explicit instruction model. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 121–131. doi:10.1111/1540-5826.00068.
54.
WoodwardJ.BaxterJ.RobinsonR. (1999). Rules and reasons: Decimal instruction for academically low achieving students. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14, 15–24. doi:10.1207/sldrp1401_2.
55.
XinY. P.JitendraA. K.Deatline-BuchmanA. (2005). Effects of mathematical word problem-solving instruction on middle school students with learning problems. The Journal of Special Education, 39, 181–192.
