Developing both conceptual and procedural knowledge is important for students’ mathematics competence. This study examined whether U.S. Grade 9 general education mathematics teachers’ self-reported use of concept-focused instruction (CFI) and procedure-focused instruction (PFI) were associated differently with ninth graders’ algebra achievement after 2.5 years, depending on students’ mathematics difficulty (MD) status. Data for this study were drawn from the High School Longitudinal Study for the years 2009–2010 and 2011–2012 (N = 19,104). Multiple regression analyses indicated that students with MD who participated in Grade 9 mathematics classrooms where teachers self-reported the use of less CFI and more PFI were more positively associated with having higher algebra achievement after 2.5 years. Conversely, students without MD in classrooms where mathematics teachers self-reported the use of more CFI and less PFI were positively associated with having higher algebra achievement after 2.5 years. However, this study’s findings do not suggest that teachers should disregard CFI and provide only PFI when teaching students with MD. Because the data set did not include any variable to discover whether teachers provided sufficient support (i.e., evidence-based practices) for students with MD, who have more constraints in their cognitive skills compared to students without MD, to benefit from CFI, the findings of this study should be interpreted cautiously. Directions for future research and practical implications are discussed.
AkramM.ZepedaS. J. (2015). Development and validation of a teacher self-assessment instrument. Journal of Research and Reflections in Education, 9(2), 134–148. https://www.ue.edu.pk/jrre/articles/92005.pdf
2.
AnthonyA.MichaelE.VictoriaO. (2012). Effect of self-instruction strategy on the achievement in algebra of students with learning difficulty in mathematics. US-China Education Review, 12, 1006–1021. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED539351.pdf
3.
AzzoneG.SoncinM. (2020). Factors driving university choice: A principal component analysis on Italian institutions. Studies in Higher Education, 45(12), 2426–2438. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1612354
4.
BartholomewD. J.SteeleF.MoustakiI.GalbraithJ. (2008). Analysis of multivariate social science data (2nd ed.). CRC Press.
5.
BlazarD.ArcherC. (2020). Teaching to support students with diverse academic needs. Educational Researcher, 49(5), 297–311. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20931226
6.
BlöteA. W.Van der BurgE.KleinA. S. (2001). Students’ flexibility in solving two-digit addition and subtraction problems: Instruction effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 627–638. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.3.627
7.
BraunH.JenkinsF.GriggW. (2006). Comparing private schools and public schools using hierarchical linear modeling (NCES 2006-461). U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED492570.pdf
8.
BryantD. P. (2005). Commentary on early identification and intervention for students with mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(4), 340–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194050380041001
9.
BryantD. P.BryantB. R.DoughertyB.RobertsG.PfannenstielK. H.LeeJ. (2020). Mathematics performance on integers of students with mathematics difficulties. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 58, 100776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2020.100776
10.
Buhl-WiggersJ.JonesS.ThorntonR. (2021). Boys lagging behind: Unpacking gender differences in academic achievement across East Africa. International Journal of Educational Development, 83, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2021.102382
11.
BurroughsN.GardnerJ.LeeY.GuoS.TouitouI.JansenK.SchmidtW. (2019). Teaching for excellence and equity: Analyzing teacher characteristics, behaviors and student outcomes with TIMSS. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16151-4_2
CohenR.KellyA. M. (2020). Mathematics as a factor in community college STEM performance, persistence, and degree attainment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(2), 279–307. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21594
14.
CooperG.ThomasD. P.PrainV.FraserS. (2022). Associations between Australian students’ literacy achievement in early secondary school and senior secondary participation in science: Accessing cultural and science capital. International Journal of Science Education, 44(10), 1549–1564. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2086317
ErsanO.RodriguezM. C. (2020). Socioeconomic status and beyond: A multilevel analysis of TIMSS mathematics achievement given student and school context in Turkey. Large-Scale Assessments in Education, 8, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-020-00093-y
17.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.MaloneA. S. (2017). The taxonomy of intervention intensity. Teaching Exceptional Children, 50(4), 192–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059917703962
18.
GearyD. C. (2013). Early foundations for mathematics learning and their relations to learning disabilities. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(1), 23–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412469398
19.
GearyD. C.HoardM. K.NugentL.BaileyD. H. (2012). Mathematical cognition deficits in children with learning disabilities and persistent low achievement: A five-year prospective study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 206–223. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025398
20.
GerstenR.ChardD. J.JayanthiM.BakerS. K.MorphyP.FlojoJ. (2008). Mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities or difficulty learning mathematics: A synthesis of the intervention research. RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED521890.pdf
21.
GoniM. D.NaingN. N.HasanH.Wan-ArfahN.DerisZ. Z.ArifinW. N.HussinT. M. A. R.AbdulrahmanA. S.BaabaA. A.ArshadM. R. (2020). Development and validation of knowledge, attitude, and practice questionnaire for prevention of respiratory tract infections among Malaysian Hajj pilgrims. BMC Public Health, 20(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-8269-9
GriffinM. M.SteinbrecherT. D. (2013). Large-scale datasets in special education research. International Review of Research in Developmental Disabilities, 45, 155–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-407760-7.00004-9
HallettD.NunesT.BryantP. (2010). Individual differences in conceptual and procedural knowledge when learning fractions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 395–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017486
26.
HechtS. A.VagiK. J. (2010). Sources of group and individual differences in emerging fraction skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 843–859. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019824
27.
HuangF. L. (2016). Alternatives to multilevel modeling for the analysis of clustered data. The Journal of Experimental Education, 84, 175–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2014.952397
IngelsS. J.HergetD.PrattD. J.DeverJ.CopelloE.LeinwandS. (2010). High school longitudinal study of 2009 (HSLS:09): Base-year field test report (NCES 2011–01). National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED512407.pdf
30.
IngelsS. J.PrattD. J.HergetD.BryanM.FritchL. B.OttemR.RogersJ. E.WilsonD. (2015). High school longitudinal study of 2009 (HSLS:09): 2013 Update and high school transcript data file documentation (NCES 2015-036). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch
31.
IngelsS. J.PrattD. J.HergetD. R.BurnsL. J.DeverJ. A.OttemR.RogersJ. E.JinY.LeinwandS. (2011). High school longitudinal study of 2009 (HSLS:09): Base-year data file documentation (NCES 2011–328). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED566098.pdf
32.
InnabiH.DodeenH. (2018). Gender differences in mathematics achievement in Jordan: A differential item functioning analysis of the 2015 TIMSS. School Science and Mathematics, 118(3–4), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12269
33.
IrvinM.ByunS. Y.SmileyW. S.HutchinsB. C. (2017). Relation of opportunity to learn advanced math to the educational attainment of rural youth. American Journal of Education, 123(3), 475–510. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/691231
34.
JitendraA. K. (2013). Understanding and accessing standards-based mathematics for students with mathematics difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 36(1), 4–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948712455337
35.
JitendraA. K.DupuisD. N.StarJ. R.RodriguezM. C. (2016). The effects of schema-based instruction on the proportional thinking of students with mathematics difficulties with and without reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49(4), 354–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219414554228
36.
JordanN. C.HanichL. B.KaplanD. (2003). A longitudinal study of mathematical competencies in children with specific mathematics difficulties versus children with comorbid mathematics and reading difficulties. Child Development, 74(3), 834–850. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00571
37.
KirayS. A.GokB.BozkirA. S. (2015). Identifying the factors affecting science and mathematics achievement using data mining methods. Journal of Education in Science Environment and Health, 1(1), 28–48. https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.41216
38.
KroesbergenE. H.Van LuitJ. E. (2003). Mathematics interventions for children with special educational needs: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 24(2), 97–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325030240020501
39.
KroesbergenE. H.Van LuitJ. E.MaasC. J. (2004). Effectiveness of explicit and constructivist mathematics instruction for low-achieving students in the Netherlands. The Elementary School Journal, 104(3), 233–251. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/499751
40.
KuhfeldM.GershoffE.PaschallK. (2018). The development of racial/ethnic and socioeconomic achievement gaps during the school years. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 57, 62–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2018.07.001
41.
LeeJ.BryantD. P.OkM. W.ShinM. (2020). A systematic review of interventions for algebraic concepts and skills of secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 35(2), 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12217
42.
LeeS. W.MaoX. (2021). Algebra by the eighth grade: The association between early study of algebra I and students’ academic success. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 19, 1271–1289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10116-3
43.
LitkeE. (2020). Instructional practice in algebra: Building on existing features of instruction to inform an incremental improvement approach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 91, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103030
44.
LubienskiS. T.LubienskiC. (2005). A new look at public and private schools: Student background and mathematics achievement. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(9), 696–699. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170508600914
45.
MansourniaM. A.NazemipourM.NaimiA. I.CollinsG. S.CampbellM. J. (2021). Reflection on modern methods: Demystifying robust standard errors for epidemiologists. International Journal of Epidemiology, 50(1), 346–351. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyaa260
46.
MaxwellL. E. (2016). School building condition, social climate, student attendance and academic achievement: A mediation model. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 46, 206–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.04.009
47.
McClellandM. M.CameronC. E.ConnorC. M.FarrisC. L.JewkesA. M.MorrisonF. J. (2007). Links between behavioral regulation and preschoolers’ literacy, vocabulary, and math skills. Developmental Psychology, 43(4), 947–959. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.4.947
48.
McNeilN. M.FyfeE. R.DunwiddieA. E. (2015). Arithmetic practice can be modified to promote understanding of mathematical equivalence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(2), 423–436. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037687
49.
MooiE.SarstedtM.Mooi-ReciI. (2017). Market research: The process, data, and methods using Stata. Springer.
50.
MorganP. L.FarkasG.MaczugaS. (2015). Which instructional practices most help first-grade students with and without mathematics difficulties?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(2), 184–205. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373714536608
51.
Moser OpitzE.FreesemannO.PredigerS.GrobU.MatullI.HußmannS. (2017). Remediation for students with mathematics difficulties: An intervention study in middle schools. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50(6), 724–736. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219416668323
52.
MyersJ. A.WitzelB. S.PowellS. R.LiH.PigottT. D.XinY. P.HughesE. M. (2022). A meta-analysis of mathematics word-problem solving interventions for elementary students who evidence mathematics difficulties. Review of Educational Research, 92(5), 695–742. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211070049
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics.
56.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all.
57.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics.
58.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Reports of the task groups and subcommittees.
59.
National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. National Academies Press.
60.
NeildR. C.Farley-RippleE. N.ByrnesV. (2009). The effect of teacher certification on middle grades achievement in an urban district. Educational Policy, 23(5), 732–760. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904808320675
61.
NelsonG.PowellS. R. (2018). Computation error analysis: Students with mathematics difficulty compared to typically achieving students. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 43(3), 144–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508417745627
OlsenA. A.HuangF. L. (2021). The association between student socioeconomic status and student-teacher relationships on math achievement. School Psychology, 36(6), 464–474. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000455
64.
ParcelT. L.DufurM. (2009). Family and school capital explaining regional variation in math and reading achievement. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 27(3), 157–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2009.04.003
65.
PengP.LinX.ÜnalZ. E.LeeK.NamkungJ.ChowJ.SalesA. (2020). Examining the mutual relations between language and mathematics: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(7), 595–634. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000231
66.
PetersL.de BeeckH. O.De SmedtB. (2020). Cognitive correlates of dyslexia, dyscalculia, and comorbid dyslexia/dyscalculia: Effects of numerical magnitude processing and phonological processing. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 107, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2020.103806
67.
PowellS. R.DriverM. K.JulianT. E. (2015). The effect of tutoring with nonstandard equations for students with mathematics difficulty. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(5), 523–534. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413512613
68.
PowellS. R.FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2013). Reaching the mountaintop: Addressing the common core standards in mathematics for students with mathematics difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28(1), 38–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12001
69.
PrimoD. M.JacobsmeierM. L.MilyoJ. (2007). Estimating the impact of state policies and institutions with mixed-level data. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 7(4), 446–459. https://doi.org/10.1177/153244000700700405
70.
ReardonS. F.FahleE. M.KalogridesD.PodolskyA.ZárateR. C. (2019). Gender achievement gaps in U.S. school districts. American Educational Research Journal, 56(6), 2474–2508. https://www.jstor.org/stable/45220715
71.
Rittle-JohnsonB. (2019). Iterative development of conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics learning and instruction. In DunloskyJ.RawsonK. A. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of cognition and education (pp. 124–147). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108235631.007
72.
Rittle-JohnsonB.SchneiderM.StarJ. R. (2015). Not a one-way street: Bidirectional relations between procedural and conceptual knowledge of mathematics. Educational Psychology Review, 27, 587–597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9302-x
73.
RussoJ.HopkinsS. (2018). Measuring mental computational fluency with addition: A novel approach. In HunterJ.PergerP.DarraghL. (Eds.), Making waves, opening spaces. Proceedings of the 41st annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 661–668). MERGA. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED592499.pdf
SieglerR. S.DuncanG. J.Davis-KeanP. E.DuckworthK.ClaessensA.EngelM.SusperreguyM. I.ChenM. (2012). Early predictors of high school mathematics achievement. Psychological Science, 23(7), 691–697. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612440101
76.
StevensJ. J.SchulteA. C.ElliottS. N.NeseJ. F.TindalG. (2015). Growth and gaps in mathematics achievement of students with and without disabilities on a statewide achievement test. Journal of School Psychology, 53(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2014.11.001
77.
SwansonE.SolisM.CiulloS.McKennaJ. W. (2012). Special education teachers’ perceptions and instructional practices in response to intervention implementation. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35(2), 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948711432510
78.
TrakulphadetkraiN. V.CourtneyL.ClentonJ.Treffers-DallerJ.TsakalakiA. (2020). The contribution of general language ability, reading comprehension and working memory to mathematics achievement among children with English as additional language (EAL): An exploratory study. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(4), 473–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1373742
79.
WalstonJ.McCarrollJ. C. (2010). Eighth-grade algebra: Findings from the eighth-grade round of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-99 (ECLS-K). National Center for Education Statistics. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED512148.pdf
80.
WitzelB. S. (2005). Using CRA to teach algebra to students with math difficulties in inclusive settings. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 3(2), 49–60. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ797683.pdf
81.
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(2), 121–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5826.00068
82.
YuR.SinghK. (2018). Teacher support, instructional practices, student motivation, and mathematics achievement in high school. The Journal of Educational Research, 111(1), 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2016.1204260
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.
