This study examined the effect of schema-based instruction (SBI) on the proportional problem-solving performance of students with mathematics difficulties only (MD) and students with mathematics and reading difficulties (MDRD). Specifically, we examined the responsiveness of 260 seventh grade students identified as MD or MDRD to a 6-week treatment (SBI) on measures of proportional problem solving. Results indicated that students in the SBI condition significantly outperformed students in the control condition on a measure of proportional problem solving administered at posttest (g = 0.40) and again 6 weeks later (g = 0.42). The interaction between treatment group and students’ difficulty status was not significant, which indicates that SBI was equally effective for both students with MD and those with MDRD. Further analyses revealed that SBI was particularly effective at improving students’ performance on items related to percents. Finally, students with MD significantly outperformed students with MDRD on all measures of proportional problem solving. These findings suggest that interventions designed to include effective instructional features (e.g., SBI) promote student understanding of mathematical ideas.
AdjiageR.PluvinageF. (2007). An experiment in teaching ratio and proportion. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 65, 149–175.
2.
BaroodyA.FeilY.JohnsonA. R. (2007). An alternative reconceptualization of procedural and conceptual knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38, 115–131.
3.
BerendsI. E.van LieshoutE. M. (2009). The effect of illustrations in arithmetic problem-solving: Effects of increased cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 19, 345–353.
4.
BillsteinR.WilliamsonJ. (2008). Math Thematics book 2. Evanston, IL: McDougal Littell.
5.
BoyerT. W.LevineS. C.HuttenlocherJ. (2008). Development of proportional reasoning: Where young children go wrong. Developmental Psychology, 44, 1478–1490.
6.
CoyneM. D.LittleM.RawlinsonD.SimmonsD.KwokO.KimM. . . . CivetelliC. (2013). Replicating the impact of a supplemental beginning reading intervention: The role of instructional context. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 6, 1–23.
7.
DayR.FreyP.HowardA. C. (2009). Math Connects Course 3. New York, NY: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.
8.
DunnT. J.BaguleyT.BrunsdenV. (2014). From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology, 105, 399–412.
9.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.PrenticeK. (2004). Responsiveness to mathematical problem-solving instruction: Comparing students at risk of mathematics disability with and without risk of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 293–306.
10.
FujimuraN. (2001). Facilitating children’s proportional reasoning: A model of reasoning processes and effects of intervention on strategy change. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 589–603.
11.
HanichL. B.JordanN. C.KaplanD.DickJ. (2001). Performance across different areas of mathematical cognition in children with learning disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 615–626.
12.
HegartyM.MayerR. E.MonkC. A. (1995). Comprehension of arithmetic word problems: A comparison of successful and unsuccessful problem solvers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 18–32.
13.
JitendraA. K.StarJ. R. (2012). An exploratory study contrasting high- and low-achieving students’ percent word problem solving. Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 151–158.
14.
JitendraA. K.StarJ. R.DupuisD. N.RodriguezM. (2013). Effectiveness of schema-based instruction for improving seventh-grade students’ proportional reasoning: A randomized experiment. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 6, 114–136.
15.
JitendraA. K.StarJ.StarostaK.LehJ.SoodS.CaskieG.MackT. R. (2009). Improving students’ learning of ratio and proportion problem solving: The role of schema-based instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 250–264.
16.
JitendraA. K.WoodwardJ.StarJ. R. (2011). Middle school students’ thinking about ratios and proportions. In GerstenR.Newman-GoncharR. (Eds.), Understanding RTI in mathematics: Proven methods and applications (pp. 127–150). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
17.
JordanN. C.HanichL. B. (2000). Mathematical thinking in second-grade children with different forms of LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 567–578.
18.
KilpatrickJ.SwaffordJ.FindellB. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
19.
LamonS. J. (2007). Rational numbers and proportional reasoning: Toward a theoretical framework for research. In LesterF. K. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 629–667). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
20.
LarsonR.BoswellL.KanoldT. D.StiffL. (2007). Math Course 2. Evanston, IL: McDougal Littell.
21.
LeeK.NgE.NgS. (2009). The contributions of working memory and executive functioning to problem representation and solution generation in algebraic word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 373–387.
22.
LembkeL. O.ReysB. J. (1994). The development of, and interaction between, intuitive, and school-taught ideas about percent. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25, 237–259.
23.
LeshR.PostT.BehrM. (1988). Proportional reasoning. In HiebertJ.BehrM. (Eds.), Number concepts and operations in the middle grades (pp. 93–118). Reston, VA: Lawrence Erlbaum and National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
24.
LobatoJ.EllisA. B.CharlesR. I.ZbiekR. M. (2010). Developing essential understanding of ratios, proportions & proportional reasoning. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
25.
MiyakawaT.WinslowC. (2009). Didactical designs for students’ proportional reasoning: An open approach lesson and a fundamental situation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72, 199–218.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
28.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: Authors.
29.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
30.
National Research Council (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. (KilpatrickJ.SwaffordJ.FindellB., Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
31.
MooreL. J.CarnineD. (1989). Evaluating curriculum design in the context of active teaching. Remedial and Special Education, 10, 28–37.
32.
ParkerM.LeinhardtG. (1995). Percent: A privileged proportion. Review of Educational Research, 65, 421–481. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1170703
33.
ReedS. (1999). Word problems: Research and curriculum reform. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
34.
SlavinR. E. (2008). Perspectives on evidence-based research in education—What works? Issues in synthesizing educational program evaluations. Educational Researcher, 37, 5–14.
35.
StarJ. R. (2005). Reconceptualizing procedural knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36, 404–411.
36.
StarJ. R. (2007). Foregrounding procedural knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38, 132–135.
37.
ThorndikeR. M. (1977). Measurement and evaluation in psychology and education (6th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice Hall.
38.
TourniaireF.PulosS. (1985). Proportional reasoning: A review of the literature. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 16, 181–204.
39.
WagnerM.NewmanL.CametoR.LevineP.GarzaN. (2006). The academic achievement and functional performance of youth with disabilities. A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study–2 (NLTS2) (NCSER 2006-3000). Menlo Park, CA: SRI.
40.
WeinbergS. L. (2002). Proportional reasoning: One problem, many solutions! In LitwillerB. (Ed.), Making sense of fractions, ratios, and proportions: 2002 yearbook (pp. 138–144). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
WoodwardJ.BeckmannS.DriscollM.FrankeM.HerzigP.JitendraA. . . . OgbuehiP. (2012). Improving mathematical problem solving in grades 4 through 8: A practice guide (NCEE 2012–4055). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide.aspx?sid=16
43.
XinY. P.JitendraA. K. (1999). The effects of instruction in solving mathematical word problems for students with learning problems: A meta-analysis. Journal of Special Education, 32, 207–225.
44.
XinY. P.JitendraA. K.Deatline-BuchmanA. (2005). Effects of mathematical word problem solving instruction on students with learning problems. Journal of Special Education, 39, 181–192.
45.
XinY. P.ZhangD.ParkJ. Y.TomK.WhippleA.SiL. (2011). A comparison of two mathematics problem-solving strategies: Facilitate algebra-readiness. Journal of Educational Research, 104, 381–395.
46.
ZhangD.XinY. P. (2012). A follow-up meta-analysis for word-problem-solving interventions for students with mathematics difficulties. Journal of Educational Research, 105, 303–318.
47.
ZhengX.FlynnL. J.SwansonH. L. (2012). Experimental intervention studies on word problem solving and math disabilities: A selective analysis of the literature. Learning Disability Quarterly, 36, 97–111.
