Mathematical problem solving has been identified as one foundational area of mathematics for all students but is an area of weakness for students with disabilities. This investigation sought to determine the effects of peer-delivered schema-based instruction on the mathematical problem solving of the change problem type with four middle school students with extensive support needs using a single-case multiple-probe-across-participants design. We also wanted to determine if same-age peer tutors who received behavior skills training could deliver the academic instruction with fidelity. Students and peer tutors were representative of diverse backgrounds. Results showed a functional relation between peer-delivered modified schema-based instruction and students’ acquisition and maintenance of mathematical word problem–solving skills, and strong effect sizes were found. Peer tutors were able to provide instruction with high levels of fidelity across the study. Social validity data showed that all participants benefited from the peer-delivered instruction.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AgranM.JacksonL.KurthJ. A.RyndakD.BurnetteK.JamesonM.ZagonaA.FitzpatrickH.WehmeyerM. (2020). Why aren’t students with severe disabilities being placed in general education classrooms: Examining the relations among classroom placement, learner outcomes, and other factors. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 45(1), 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796919878134.
2.
BillingsleyF. F.WhiteO. R.MunsonR. (1980). Procedural reliability: A rationale and an example. Behavioral Assessment, 2(2), 2–4.
3.
BiggsE. E.CarterE. W.GustafsonJ. (2017). Efficacy of peer support arrangements to increase peer interaction and AAC use. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 122(1), 25–48. https://doi.org/10.1352/1944-7558-122.1.25
4.
BrockM. E.HuberH. B. (2017). Are peer support arrangements an evidence-based practice? A systematic review. The Journal of Special Education, 51(3), 150–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466917708184
5.
BrowderD. M.SpoonerF.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.HarrisA.WakemanS. (2008). A meta-analysis on teaching mathematics to students with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74(4), 407–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290807400401
6.
BrowderD.SpoonerF.CourtadeG. (Eds.). (2020). Teaching students with moderate and severe disabilities. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
7.
BrowderD. M.SpoonerF.LoY.SaundersA. F.RootJ. R.Ley DavisL.BroshC. R. (2018). Teaching students with moderate intellectual disability to solve word problems. Journal of Special Education, 51(4), 222–235. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.memphis.edu/10.1177/0022466917721236
8.
CarterE. W.KennedyC. H. (2006). Promoting access to the general curriculum using peer support strategies. Research & Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 31(4), 284–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/154079690603100402
9.
CarterE. W.HughesC. (2006). Including high school students with severe disabilities in general education classes: Perspectives of general and special Educators, paraprofessionals, and administrators. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31(2), 174–185. https://doiorg.ezproxy.memphis.edu/10.1177/154079690603100209
10.
ClausenA. M.TappM. C.PenningtonR. C.SpoonerF.TeasdellA. (2021). A systematic review of modified schema-based instruction for teaching students with moderate and severe disabilities to solve mathematical word problems. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 46(2), 94–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/15407969211007561
11.
CookS. C.CollinsL. W.MorinL. L.RiccominiP. J. (2020). Schema-based instruction for mathematical word problem solving: An evidence-based review for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 43(2), 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948718823080
CushingL. S.KennedyC. H. (1997). Academic effects of providing peer support in general education classrooms on students without disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30(1), 139--151. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1997.30-139
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.ComptonD. L.HamlettC. L.WangA. Y. (2015). Is word-problem solving a form of text comprehension?Scientific Studies of Reading, 19(3), 204--223. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2015.1005745
16.
FuchsL. S.SeethalerP. M.PowellS. R.FuchsD.HamlettC. L.FletcherJ. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290807400202
17.
GreenwoodC. R.CartaJ. J.HallR. V. (1988). The use of peer tutoring strategies in classroom management and educational instruction. School Psychology Review, 17(2), 258–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.1988.12085342
18.
HedgesL. V.PutsejovskyJ. E.SadishW. R. (2012). A standardized mean difference effect size for single case designs. Research Synthesis Methods, 3(3), 224–239. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1052
19.
HeinrichS.CollinsB. C.KnightV.SpriggsA. D. (2016). Embedded simultaneous prompting procedure to teach STEM content to high school students with moderate disabilities in an inclusive setting. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 51(1), 41–54. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26420363.
20.
HornerR. D.BaerD. M. (1978). Multiple-probe technique: A variation of the multiple baselines. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11(1), 189–196. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1978.11-189
21.
HudsonM. E.BrowderD. M.JimenezB. A. (2014). Effects of a peer-delivered system of least prompts intervention and adapted science read-alouds on listening comprehension for participants with moderate intellectual disability. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 49(1), 60–77. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23880655
22.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments (IDEA) of 1997, PL 105-17, 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) of 2004, 20 U.S. C. §1400, H. R. 1350.
23.
JimenezB. A.BrowderD. M.SpoonerF.DiBiaseW. (2012). Inclusive inquiry science using peer-mediated embedded instruction for students with moderate intellectual disability. Exceptional Children, 78(3), 301–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291207800303
24.
JitendraA. K.Peterson-BrownS.LeinA. E.ZaslofskyA. F.KunkelA. K.JungP.-G.EganA. M. (2015). Teaching mathematical word problem solving: The quality of evidence for strategy instruction priming the problem structure. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(1), 51–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413487408
25.
KleinertH.Towles-ReevesE.QuenemoenR., ThurlowM., FlueggeL., WesemanL., & KerbelA. (2015). Where students with the most significant cognitive disabilities are taught. Exceptional Children, 81(3), 312–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914563697
26.
KratochwillT. R.HitchcockJ. H.HornerR. H.LevinJ. R.OdomS. L.RindskopfD. M.ShadishW. R. (2013). Single-case intervention research design standards. Remedial and Special Education, 34(1), 26–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932512452794
27.
KretlowA. G.BartholomewC. C. (2010). Using coaching to improve the fidelity of evidence-based practices: A review of studies. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33(4), 279–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406410371643
28.
KuntzE. M.CarterE. W. (2019). Review of interventions supporting secondary students with intellectual disability in general education classes. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 44(2), 103–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796919847483
29.
KurthJ. A.RupparA. L.ToewsS. G.McCabeK. M.McQuestionJ. A.JohnstonR. (2019). Considerations in placement decisions for students with extensive support needs: An analysis of LRE statements. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 44(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796918825479
30.
LedfordJ. R.GastD. L. (Eds.). (2018). Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315150666
31.
MazzottiV. L.RoweD. A.KwiatekS.VoggtA.ChangW.-H.FowlerC. H.PoppenM.SinclairJ.TestD. W. (2021). Secondary transition predictors of postschool success: An update to the research base. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 44(1), 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143420959793
32.
McCallumR. S. (2003). The Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT). In The handbook of nonverbal assessment. Springer Publishing.
33.
MiltenbergerR. G. (2015). Behavior modification: Principles and procedures. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
34.
MoeyaertM.ZimmermanK. N.LedfordJ. R. (2018). Synthesis and meta-analysis of single case research. In Ledford, J. R., & GastD. L. (Eds.), Single case research methodology pp. 393–416. New York, NY: Routledge.
35.
N2y. (2015). Unique learning system.
36.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author
37.
National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. KilpatrickJ.SwaffordJ.FindellB. (Eds.). Mathematics Learning Study Committee, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
38.
OdomS. L.BartonE. E.ReichowB.SwaminathanH.PustejovskyJ. E. (2018). Between-case standardized effect size analysis of single case designs: Examination of the two methods. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 79(1), 88–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2018.05.009
39.
ParkerR. IVannestK. JDavisJ. L. (2011a). Effect size in single-case research: a review of nine nonoverlap techniques. Behavior Modification, 35(4), 303–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445511399147
40.
PustejovskyJ. E.ChenM.HamiltonB. (2021). scdhlm: A web-based calculator for between-case standardized mean differences (Version 0.5.2) [Web application]. https://jepusto.shinyapps.io/scdhlm
41.
RockwellS. B.GriffinC. C.JonesH. A. (2011). Schema-based strategy instruction in mathematics and the word problem-solving performance of a student with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 26(2), 87–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/10883576611405039
42.
RohrbeckC. A.Ginsburg-BlockM. D.FantuzzoJ. W.MillerT. R. (2003). Peer-assisted learning interventions with elementary school students: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 240–257. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.240
43.
RootJ. R.BrowderD. M.SaundersA. F.LoY.-Y. (2017). Schema-based instruction with concrete and virtual manipulatives to teach problem solving to students with autism. Remedial and Special Education, 38(1), 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932516643592
44.
RootJ. R.CoxS. K.GonzalezS. (2019). Using modified schema-based instruction with technology-based supports to teach data analysis. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 44(1), 53–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796919833915
45.
RootJ. R.CoxS. K.HammonsN.SaundersA. F.GilleyD. (2018). Contextualizing mathematics: teaching problem solving to secondary students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 56(6), 442–457. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-56.6.442
46.
SaundersA. F. (2014). Effects of schema-based instruction delivered through computer-based video instruction on mathematical word problem solving of students with autism spectrum disorder and moderate intellectual disability [Doctoral dissertation]. University of North Carolina at Charlotte. https://repository.charlotte.edu//islandora/object/etd:888
47.
SaundersA. F.WakemanS.CerratoB.JohnsonH. (2021). Professional development with ongoing coaching: A model for improving educators’ implementation of evidence-based practices. TEACHING Exceptional Children. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00400599211049821
48.
ShepleyC.LaneJ. D.AultM. J. (2019). A Review and Critical Examination of the System of Least Prompts. Remedial and Special Education, 40(5), 313–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932517751213
49.
SpoonerF.KnightV. F.BrowderD. M.SmithB. R. (2012). Evidence-based practices for teaching academic skills to students with severe developmental disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 33(6), 374–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932511421634
50.
SpoonerF.SaundersA. F.RootJ. R.BroshC. (2017). Promoting access to common core mathematics for students with severe disabilities through mathematical problem solving. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 42(3), 171–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796917697119
51.
StokesT. F.BaerD. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of applied behavior analysis, 10(2), 349--367.
52.
TaubD. A.McCordJ. A.RyndakD. (2017). Opportunities to learn for students with extensive support needs: A context of research supported practices for all in general education classes. The Journal of Special Education, 51(3), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466917696263
53.
TestD. W.MazzottiV. L.MustianA. L.FowlerC. H.KorteringL.KohlerP. (2009). Evidence-based secondary transition predictors for improving postschool outcomes for students with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32(3), 160–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885728809346960
54.
ValentineJ. C.Tanner-SmithE. E.PustejovskyJ. E.LauT. S. (2016). Between-case standardized mean difference effect sizes for single-case designs: a primer and tutorial using the scdhlm web application. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 12(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.4073/cmdp.2016.1
55.
Van de WalleJ. A. (2004). Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally (5th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
56.
Van de WalleJ. A.KarpK. S.Bay-WilliamsJ. M. (2010). Elementary and middle school mathematics (7th ed.). New York, NY, Pearson.
WolfM. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement of how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11(2), 203–214. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1978.11-203
59.
WoodcockR. W., McGrewK. S., & MatherN. (2007). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
