Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2017-7
Modifying a Research-Based Problem-Solving Intervention to Improve the Problem-Solving Performance of Fifth and Sixth Graders With and Without Learning Disabilities
The purpose of the present study was to test the efficacy of a modified cognitive strategy instructional intervention originally developed to improve the mathematical problem solving of middle and high school students with learning disabilities (LD). Fifth and sixth grade general education mathematics teachers and their students of varying ability (i.e., average-achieving [AA] students, low-achieving [LA] students, and students with LD) participated in the research study. Several features of the intervention were modified, including (a) explicitness of instruction, (b) emphasis on meta-cognition, (c) focus on problem-solving prerequisites, (d) extended duration of initial intervention, and (e) addition of visual supports. General education math teachers taught all instructional sessions to their inclusive classrooms. Curriculum-based measures (CBMs) of math problem solving were administered five times over the course of the year. A multilevel model (repeated measures nested within students and students nested within schools) was used to analyze student progress on CBMs. Though CBM scores in the intervention group were initially lower than that of the comparison group, intervention students improved significantly more in the first phase, with no differences in the second phase. Implications for instruction are discussed as well as directions for future research.
Berardi-ColettaB.BuyerL. S.DominowskiR. L.RellingerE. R. (1995). Metacognition and problem solving: A process-oriented approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 21, 205–223. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.21.1.205
2.
BottgeB. A.ChoS.-J. (2013). Effects of enhanced anchored instruction on skills aligned to Common Core Math Standards. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 19, 73–83.
3.
BrowneM. W.CudeckR. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In BollenK. A.LongJ. S. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4.
BryantD. P.BryantB. R.WilliamsJ.KimS.ShinM. (2013). Instructional practices for improving student outcomes in solving arithmetic combinations. In ChardD.CookB.TankersleyM. (Eds.), Research-based strategies for improving outcomes in academics (pp. 58–69). Boston: Pearson.
5.
CarterS. L. (2010). The social validity manual: A guide to subjective evaluation of behavior interventions in applied behavior analysis. Boston: Elsevier.
6.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
EndersC. K.TofighiD. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12, 121–138. doi:10.1037/1082-989x.12.2.121
9.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2002). Mathematical problem-solving profiles of students with mathematics disabilities with and without comorbid reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 564–574. doi:10.1177/00222194020350060701
10.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2007). Mathematical problem solving: Instructional intervention. In BerchD. B.MazzoccoM. M. (Eds.), Why is math so hard for some children? The nature and origins of mathematical learning difficulties and disabilities (pp. 397–414). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
11.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.SchumacherR. F.SeethalerP. M. (2013). Instructional intervention for students with mathematics learning disabilities. In SwansonH. L.HarrisK. R.GrahamS. (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 388–404). New York: Guilford.
12.
GriffinC. C.JitendraA. K. (2009). Word problem-solving instruction in inclusive third grade mathematics classrooms. Journal of Special Education, 102, 187–201.
13.
GrouwsD. (1992). Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. New York: MacMillan.
14.
HegartyM.KozhevnikovM. (1999). Types of visual-spatial representations and mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 684–689. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.91.4.684
15.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
16.
JitendraA. K.DupuisD. N.StarJ. R.RodriguezM. C. (2014). The effects of schema-based instruction on the proportional thinking of students with mathematics difficulties with and without reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 87, 18–32. doi:10.1177/0022219414554228
17.
JitendraA. K.GriffinC. C.Deatline-BuchmanA.SczesniakE. (2007). Mathematical word problem solving in third-grade classrooms. The Journal of Educational Research, 100, 283–302. doi:10.3200/joer.100.5.283-302
18.
JitendraA. K.GriffinC. C.McGoeyK.GardillM. C.BhatP.RileyT. (1998). Effects of mathematical word problem solving by students at risk or with mild disabilities. The Journal of Educational Research, 91, 345–355. doi:10.1080/00220679809597564
19.
JitendraA. K.StarJ. R.StarostaK.LehJ. M.SoodS.CaskieG.… MackT. R. (2009). Improving seventh grade students’ learning of ratio and proportion: The role of schema-based instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 250–264. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.06.001
20.
JitendraA. K.XinY. P. (1997). Mathematical word-problem-solving instruction for students with mild disabilities and students at risk for math failure: A research synthesis. The Journal of Special Education, 30, 412–4383. doi:10.1177/002246699703000404
21.
KassC. E.MadduxC. D. (2005). A human development view of learning disabilities: From theory to practice. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
22.
KrawecJ. (2014). Problem representation and mathematical problem solving of students of varying math ability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47, 1030–1115. doi:10.1177/0022219412436976
23.
KrawecJ. (2015). [Identifying process improvement through error analysis of math word problem solving: The impact of a cognitive strategy intervention.] Unpublished raw data.
24.
KrawecJ.WargerC. (2015). Solve it! Teaching mathematical problem solving in inclusive classrooms–Grades 5-6. Reston, VA: Exceptional Innovations, Inc.
25.
LemonsC. J.FuchsD.GilbertJ. K.FuchsL. S. (2014). Evidence-based practices in a changing world: Reconsidering the counterfactual in education research. Educational Researcher, 43, 242–252. doi:10.3102/0013189x14539189
26.
MontagueM. (1992). The effects of cognitive and metacognitive strategy instruction on mathematical problem solving of middle school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 230–248.
MontagueM.ApplegateB. (1993). Mathematical problem-solving characteristics of middle school students with learning disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 27, 175–201.
29.
MontagueM.BosC. (1986). The effect of cognitive strategy training on verbal math problem solving performance of learning disabled adolescents. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 26–33.
30.
MontagueM.EndersC.DietzS. (2009). The effects of Solve It! on middle school students’ math problem solving and math self-efficacy. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Teaching and Learning, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida.
31.
MontagueM.EndersC.DietzS. (2011). Effects of cognitive strategy instruction on math problem solving of middle school students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 34, 262–272. doi:10.1177/0731948711421762
32.
MontagueM.KrawecJ.EndersC.DietzS. (2013). The effects of cognitive strategy instruction on math problem solving of seventh-grade students of varying ability. Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/a0035176
33.
MontagueM.PenfieldR. D.EndersC.HuangJ. (2010). Curriculum-based measurement of math problem solving: A methodology and rational for establishing equivalence of scores. Journal of School Psychology, 48, 39–52. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2009.083.002
34.
MontagueM.WargerC.MorganH. (2000). Solve it! Strategy instruction to improve mathematical problem solving. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15, 110–116.
35.
MuthénB.MuthénL. K. (2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.
36.
MuthénB.MuthénL. K. (2014). Mplus 7.3 (Computer program). Los Angeles, CA: Author.
37.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2013). PISA 2012 assessment and analytical framework: Mathematics, reading, science, problem solving and financial literacy. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264190511-en
38.
OwenR. L.FuchsL. S. (2002). Mathematical problem-solving strategy instruction for third-grade students with learning disabilities. Remedial & Special Education, 23, 268–278. doi:10.1177/07419325020230050201
39.
PaulF. G. (2005). Grouping within Algebra I: A structural sieve with powerful effects for low-income, minority, and immigrant students. Educational Policy, 19, 262–282. doi:10.1177/0895904804274056
40.
PowellS.FuchsL. S. (2010). Contribution of equal-sign instruction beyond word-problem tutoring for third-grade students with mathematics difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 10, 381–394. doi:10.1037/a0018447
41.
PressleyM.HildenK. (2006). Cognitive strategies. In KuhnD.SieglerR. S.DamonW.LernerR. M. (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 2. Cognition, perception, and language (6th ed., pp. 511–556). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
42.
SwansonH. L.HoskynM.LeeC. (1999). Interventions for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. New York: Guilford.
43.
SwansonH. L.MoranA. S.BocianK.LussierC.ZhengX. (2013). Generative strategies, working memory, and word problem solving accuracy in children at risk for math disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 36, 203–214. doi:10.1177/0731948712464034
44.
van GarderenD. (2006). Spatial visualization, visual imagery, and mathematical problem solving of students with varying abilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 496–506. doi:10.1177/00222194060390060201
45.
XinY. P.JitendraA. K.Deatline-BuchmanA. (2005). Effects on mathematical word problem-solving instruction on middle school students with learning problems. The Journal of Special Education, 39, 181–192. doi:10.1177/00224669050390030501
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.
