This review investigates effective interventions for teaching algebra to students with learning disabilities and evaluates the complexity and alignment of skills with the Common Core State Standards in math. The review includes the results of 10 experimental and 5 single-subject designs (N = 15) producing a moderate overall effect size (g = 0.48). A total of five interventions were identified and analyzed across the studies using effect size data.
BorensteinM.HedgesL.HigginsJ.RothsteinH. (2005). Comprehensive meta-analysis version 2. Englewood, NJ: Biostat.
2.
BottgeB. A. (1999). Effects of contextualized math instruction on problem solving of average and below-average achieving students. Journal of Special Education, 33, 81–92. doi:10.1177/002245599903300202
3.
*BottgeB. A.HeinrichsM.ChanS. Y.SerlinR. C. (2001). Anchoring adolescents’ understanding of math concepts in rich problem-solving environments. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 299–314. doi:10.1177/074193250102200505
4.
*BottgeB. A.RuedaE.SerlinR. C.HungY. H.KwonJ. M. (2007). Shrinking achievement differences with anchored math problems challenges and possibilities. Journal of Special Education, 41, 31–49.
5.
*CalhoonM. B.FuchsL. S. (2003). The effects of peer-assisted learning strategies and curriculum-based measurement on the mathematics performance of secondary students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 235–245. doi:10.1177/07419325030240040601
6.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
CohenR. J.SwerdlikM. E. (2005). Psychological testing and measurement: An introduction to tests and measurement. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
8.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/
9.
*FuchsL. S.PowellS. R.SeethalerP. M.CirinoP. T.FletcherJ. M.FuchsD.ZumetaR. O. (2009). Remediating number combination and word problem deficits among students with mathematics difficulties: A randomized control trial. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 561–576. doi:10.1037/a0014701
10.
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, 1202–1242.
11.
GonzalezH. B.KuenziJ. J. (2012). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: A primer. Washington, DC: Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service.
12.
HedgesL. V. (1982). Fitting continuous models to effect size data. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 7, 245–270.
13.
HuntingtonD. J. (1994). Instruction in concrete, semi-concrete, and abstract learning disabilities (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Georgia, Athens.
14.
HutchinsonN. L. (1989). Strategies for teaching learning disabled adolescents algebraic problems. Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities, 24, 292–303.
15.
HutchinsonN. L. (1993). Effects of cognitive strategy instruction on algebra problem solving of adolescents with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 34–63. doi:10.2307/1511158
16.
HutchinsonN.HemingwayP. (1987). Teaching representation and solution of algebraic word problems to learning disabled adolescents. Retrieved from ERIC.
17.
*IvesB. (2007). Graphic organizers applied to secondary algebra instruction for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 110–118.
18.
KendallJ. S. (2011). Understanding common core state standards. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
19.
KitzW. R.ThorpeH. W. (1995). A comparison of the effectiveness of videodisc and traditional algebra instruction for college-age students with learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 16, 295–306. doi:10.1177/074193259501600506
20.
MacciniP. (1998). Effects of an instructional strategy incorporating concrete problem representation on the introductory algebra performance of secondary students with learning disabilities (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Pennsylvania State University, University Park.
21.
*MacciniP.HughesC. A. (2000). Effects of a problem-solving strategy on the introductory algebra performance of secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 10–21. doi:10.1207/SLDRP1501_2
22.
MacciniP.McNaughtonD.RuhlK. L. (1999). Algebra instruction for students with learning disabilities: Implications from a research review. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 113–126. doi:10.2307/1511270
23.
MacciniP.MulcahyC. A.WilsonM. G. (2007). A follow-up of mathematics interventions for secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 58–74.
24.
*MacciniP.RuhlK. L. (2000). Effects of a graduated instructional sequence on the algebraic subtraction of integers by secondary students with learning disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 23, 465–489.
25.
McLaughlinM.OverturfB. J. (2012). The common core: Insights into the K–5 standards. Reading Teacher, 66, 153–164.
26.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
27.
OdomS. L.BrantlingerE.GerstenR.HornerR. H.ThompsonB.HarrisK. R. (2005). Research in special education: Scientific methods and evidence-based practices. Exceptional Children, 71, 137–148.
28.
ParkerR. I.VannestK. J.DavisJ. L.SauberS. B. (2011). Combining nonoverlap and trend for single case research: Tau-U. Behavior Therapy, 42, 287–299.
29.
RosmanN. J. S. (1994). Effects of varying the special educator’s role within an algebra class on math attitude and achievement. Retrieved from ERIC.
30.
*ScheuermannA. M.DeschlerD. 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.
31.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A. (2013). PND at 25: Past, present, and future trends in summarizing single-subject research. Remedial and Special Education, 34, 9–19.
32.
ShimabukuroS.PraterM.JenkinsA.Edelen-SmithP. (1999). The effects of self-monitoring of academic performance on students with learning disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 22, 397–414.
33.
*StricklandT. K.MacciniP. (2013). The effects of the concrete-representational-abstract integration strategy on the ability of students with learning disabilities to multiply linear expressions within area problems. Remedial and Special Education, 34, 142–153. doi:10.1177/0741932512441712
34.
*WitzelB. S. (2005). Using CRA to teach algebra to students with math difficulties in inclusive settings. Learning Disabilities—A Contemporary Journal, 3, 49–60.
35.
*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
36.
WitzelB. S.RiccominiP. J.SchneiderE. (2008). Implementing CRA with secondary students with learning disabilities in mathematics. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43, 270–276.
37.
WoodwardJ. (2006). Developing automaticity in multiplication facts: Integrating strategy instruction with timed practice drills. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29, 269–289.
38.
*XinY. P.WilesB.LinY. Y. (2008). Teaching conceptual model-based word problem story grammar to enhance mathematics problem solving. Journal of Special Education, 42, 163–178.
39.
*XinY.ZhangD.ParkJ.TomK.WhippleA.SiL. (2011). A comparison of two mathematics problem-solving strategies: Facilitate algebra-readiness. Journal of Educational Research, 104, 381–395. doi:10.1080/00220671.2010.487080
40.
ZawaizaT. R. W.GerberM. M. (1993). Effects of explicit instruction on math word-problem solving by community college students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 64–79. doi:10.2307/1511159
