The Differential Effects of Teaching Addition Through Strategy Instruction Versus Drill and Practice to Students With and Without Learning Disabilities
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online September, 2003
The Differential Effects of Teaching Addition Through Strategy Instruction Versus Drill and Practice to Students With and Without Learning Disabilities
Forty-two second-grade general education students and 42 students with learning disabilities (LD) were taught basic, one-digit addition facts (e.g., 5 + 3 = __). Students received instruction via (a) a minimum addend strategy, (b) drill and practice, or (c) control. The effectiveness of the two methods was measured through students' accuracy and latency scores on a posttest and a transfer task (e.g., 5 + 3 + 7 = __). Students with LD improved significantly only in the strategy condition, as compared to drill-and-practice and control conditions, whereas general education students improved significantly both in the strategy and the drill-and-practice conditions as compared to the control condition. However, in the transfer task, students from all groups became significantly more accurate only in the strategy condition, while all students were significantly faster than their control group peers regardless of teaching method. The implications for teachers' differential choices of methods of instruction for students with different learning characteristics are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ackerman, P.T., Anhalt, J.M., & Dykman, R.A. (1986). Arithmetic automatization failure in children with attention and reading disorders: Associations and sequence. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 222—232.
2.
Alcalde, C., Navarro, J.I., Marchena, E., & Ruiz, G. (1998). Acquisition of basic concepts by children with intellectual disabilities using a computer-assisted learning approach. Psychological Reports, 82, 1051—1057.
3.
Ashcraft, M.H. (1987). Children's knowledge of simple arithmetic: A developmental model and simulation. In J. Bisanz, C. Brainerd, & R. Kaile (Eds.), Formal methods of developmental psychology (pp. 302—338). New York: Springer Verlag.
4.
Ashlock, R.B., & Washbon, C.A. (1978). Games: Practice activities for the basic facts . In M. Suydam (Ed.), Yearbook of theNational Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
5.
Belmont, J.M., & Butterfield, E.C. (1977). The instructional approach to developmental cognitive research. In R. V. Kail, Jr., & J. W. Hagen (Eds.), Perspectives on the development of memory and cognition (pp. 437—481). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6.
Brigance, A.H. (1983). Brigance Diagnostic Inventory of Early Development examiner's manual. MA: Curriculum Associates.
7.
Brownell, W.A. (1928). The development of children's number ideas in the primary grades (Supplementary Educational Monograph 35). Chicago: University of Chicago.
8.
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press .
9.
Fleischner, J.E., Garnett, K., & Shepherd, M.J. (1982). Proficiency in arithmetic basic fact computation by learning disabled and nondisabled children. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 4(2), 47—55.
10.
Gagne, R.M. (1983). Some issues in the psychology of mathematics instruction . Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 14, 7—18.
11.
Garnett, K., & Fleischner, J.E. (1983). Automatization and basic fact performance of normal and learning disabled children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 223—230.
12.
Gersten, R., & Chard, D. (1999). Number sense: Rethinking arithmetic instruction for students with mathematical disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 33, 18—28.
13.
Goldman, S.R., Mertz, D.L., & Pellegrino, J.W. (1986). Microcomputer delivery of addition drill and practice to math-learners: Interim report II (Technical Report No. 26). Santa Barbara: University of California, Project TEECh.
14.
Goldman, S.R., Mertz, D.L., & Pellegrino, J.W. (1989). Individual differences in extended practice functions and solutions strategies for basic addition facts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 481—496.
15.
Goldman, S.R., & Pellegrino, J.W. (1987). Information processing and educational microcomputer technology: where do we go from here?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 144—154.
16.
Goldman, S.R., Pellegrino, J.W., & Mertz, D.L. (1985). Microcomputer delivery of addition drill and practice to math-learners: Interim report I (Technical Report No. 25). Santa Barbara: University of California, Project TEECh .
17.
Harris, K.R. (1986). The effects of cognitive-behavior modification on private speech and task performance during problem solving among learning-disabled and normally achieving children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 14, 62—76.
18.
Hopkins, W.G. (2002). The new view of statistics. Retrieved October 28, 2002, from http://www.sportscsi.org/resource/stats/effectmag.html
19.
Isaacs, A.C., & Carroll, W.M. (1999). Strategies for basic-fact instruction. Teaching Children Mathematics, 5, 508—515.
20.
Marzola, E.S. (1987, April). An arithmetic verbal problem model for learning disabled students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.
21.
McKinney, J.D., & Feagans, L. (1981). Learning disabilities in the classroom. Final project report. Chapel Hill: Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center of the University of North Carolina.
22.
Montague, M. (1997). Cognitive strategy instruction in mathematics for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 164—177.
23.
Morin, V.A., & Miller, S.P. (1998). Teaching multiplication to middle school students with mental retardation. Education and Treatment of Children , 21, 22—36.
24.
Myers, A.C., & Thornton, C.A. (1977). The learning disabled child learning the basic facts. Arithmetic Teacher, 24, 46—50.
25.
Nesher, P. (1986). Learning mathematics: A cognitive perspective . American Psychologist, 41, 1114—1122.
26.
Perkins, D.N., & Salomon, G. (1988). Teaching for transfer. Educational Leadership, 46(1), 22—32.
27.
Resnick, L.B. (1983). A developmental theory of number understanding. In H. P. Ginsburg (Ed.), The development of mathematical thinking (pp. 109—151). New York: Academic Press.
28.
Riptoes, J. (1995). Good schools. National Review , 47(18), 56—58.
29.
Ross, P.A., & Braden, J.P. (1991). The effects of token reinforcement versus cognitive behavior modification on learning-disabled students' math skills. Psychology in the Schools, 28, 247—256.
30.
Siegler, R.S. (1987). The perils of averaging data over strategies: An example from children's addition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116, 250—264.
31.
Siegler, R. (1988). Individual differences in strategy choices: Good students, not-so-good students, and perfectionists. Child Development, 59, 833—851.
32.
Siegler, R.S., & Jenkins, E. (1989). How children discover strategies. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
33.
Siegler, R.S., & Shrager, J. (1984). Strategy choices in addition and subtraction: How do children know what to do? In C. Sophian (Ed.), Origins of cognitive skills (pp. 229—293). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
34.
Silbert, J., Carnine, D., & Stein, M. (1981). Direct instruction in mathematics. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
35.
Steinberg, R.M. (1985). Instruction on derived facts strategies in addition and subtraction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education , 16, 337—355.
36.
Suppes, P., & Groen, G. (1967). Some counting models for first grade performance data on simple addition facts. In J. M. Scanduva (Ed.), Research in mathematics education (pp. 35—44). Washington, DC: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics .
37.
Suydam, M.N., & Dessart, D.J. (1976). Classroom ideas from research on computational arithmetic. Boston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
38.
Swanson, H.L. (1990). Instruction derived from the strategy deficit model: Overview of principles and procedures. In T. Scruggs & B. Wong (Eds.), Intervention research in learning disabilities (pp. 34—65). New York: Springer Verlag.
39.
Thornton, C.A. (1978). Emphasizing thinking strategies in basic fact instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education , 9, 214—227.
40.
Van Houten, R. (1993). Rote vs. rules: A comparison of teaching and correction strategies for teaching basic subtraction facts. Education and Treatment of Children, 16, 147—159.
41.
Woodcock, R.W., & Mather, N. (1990). Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement— Revised examiner's manual. Allen, TX: DLM Teaching Resources.
