Rate of change (i.e., slope) is a critical mathematics concept for success in everyday life, academics, and professional careers. Students with or at risk of learning disabilities struggle with solving rate-of-change problems, especially word problems. Interventions that incorporate representations and problem-solving strategies are effective for improving the word problem-solving performance of students with disabilities. This multiple-probe, multiple-baseline, single-case design study evaluated the effects of an intervention that included an integrated, concrete-representational-abstract teaching framework with an embedded problem-solving strategy (POD Check) on students’ rate-of-change word problem-solving performance. The intervention was delivered virtually via video conferencing technology. Four middle- and high-school students with or at risk of mathematics learning disabilities in the U.S. Intermountain West region participated in the intervention. Results indicate evidence of a functional relation between the intervention and students’ word problem-solving performance, and effects were maintained 2–4 weeks after the intervention. The findings of this study provide implications for mathematics intervention research and practice for students with learning disabilities.
ArraC. T.BahrM. W. (2005). Teachers’ and students’ preferences for mathematics interventions: Implications for teacher acceptability in consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 16(3), 157–174. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532768xjepc1603_2
2.
BezuidenhoutJ. (1998). First-year university students’ understanding of rate of change. International Journal of Math Education Science and Technology, 29(3), 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739980290309
3.
BundockK.CallanG. L.LonghurstD.RolfK. R.BenneyC. M.McClainM. B. (2021). Mathematics intervention for college students with learning disabilities: A pilot study targeting rate of change. Insights into Learning Disabilities, 18(1), 1–28. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1295246
4.
BundockK.HawkenL. S.KiuharaS. A.O’KeeffeB.O’NeillR.CummingsM. (2021). Teaching rate of change to students with disabilities: A concrete-representational-abstract + writing approach. Learning Disability Quarterly, 44(1), 35–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948719887341
5.
ButlerF. M.MillerS. P.CrehanK.BabbitB.PierceT. (2003). Fraction instruction for students with mathematics disabilities: Comparing two teaching sequences. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(2), 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5826.00066
6.
GerstenR.BeckmannS.ClarkeB.FoegenA.MarshL.StarJ. R.WitzelB. (2009). Assisting students struggling with mathematics: Response to intervention (RtI) for elementary and middle schools (NCEE 2009-4060). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/WWC/PracticeGuide/2
7.
HackerD. J.KiuharaS. A.LevinJ. R. (2019). A metacognitive intervention for teaching fractions to students with or at-risk for learning disabilities in mathematics. Special issue on metacognition in mathematics education. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 51(4), 601–612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01040-0
8.
HattikudorS.AlibaliM. W.PratherR. W.KnuthE. J.AsquithP.NathanM. (2012). Constructing graphical representations: Middle schoolers’ intuitions and developing knowledge about slope and y-intercept. School Science and Mathematics, 112(4), 230–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2012.00138.x
9.
HerbertS.PierceR. (2012). Revealing educationally critical aspects of rate. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 81, 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-011-9368-4
10.
HughesE. M.WitzelB. S.RiccominiR. J.FriesK. M.KanyongoG. Y. (2014). A meta-analysis of algebra interventions for learners with disabilities and struggling learners. The Journal of the International Association of Special Education, 15(1), 36–47. https://doi-org.dist.lib.usu.edu/https://www.iase.org/?journal,7
11.
HwangJ.RiccominiP. J. (2016). Enhancing mathematical problem solving for secondary students with or at risk of learning disabilities: A literature review. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 31(3), 169–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12105
12.
JitendraA. K.DupuisD. N.RodriguezM. C.ZaslofskyA. F.SlaterS.Cozine-CorroyK.ChurchC. (2013). A randomized controlled trial of the impact of schema-based instruction on mathematical outcomes for third-grade students with mathematics difficulties. The Elementary School Journal, 114(2), 252–276. https://doi.org/10.1086/673199
13.
JitendraA. K.HarwellM. R.ImS.KarlS. R.SlaterS. C. (2019). Improving student learning of ratio, proportion, and percent: A replication study of schema-based instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(6), 1045–1062. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000335
14.
JitendraA. K.NelsonG.PullesS. M.KissA. J.HouseworthJ. (2016). Is mathematical representation of problems an evidence-based strategy for students with mathematics difficulties?Exceptional Children, 83(1), 8–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915625062
15.
JohnstonS. M. (2011). Multiple baseline and multiple assessment designs. In O’NeillR. E.McDonnellJ. J.BillingsleyF. F.JensonW. R. (Eds.), Single case designs in educational and community settings (pp. 99–116). Pearson.
16.
KiuharaS. A.Gillespie RouseA.DaiT.WitzelB.MorphyP.UnkerB. (2020). Constructing written arguments to develop fraction knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(3), 584–607. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000391
17.
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
18.
MaritaS.HordC. (2017). Review of mathematics interventions for secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 40(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948716657495
19.
MoranoS.FloresM. M.HintonV.MeyerJ. (2020). A comparison of concrete-representational-abstract and concrete-representational-abstract-integrated fraction interventions for students with disabilities. Exceptionality, 28(2), 77–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2020.1727328
20.
MyersJ. A.WangJ.BrownellM. T.GagnonJ. C. (2015). Mathematics interventions for students with learning disabilities (LD) in secondary school: A review of the literature. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 13, 207–235. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1085228.pdf
ParkerR. I.VannestK. (2009). An improved effect size for single-case research: Nonoverlap of all pairs. Behavior Therapy, 40, 357–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2008.10.006
24.
PustejovskyJ. E. (2018). Using response ratios for meta-analyzing single-case designs with behavioral outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 68, 99–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2018.02.003
PustejovskyJ. E.ChenM.HamiltonB.GrekovP. (2023). Scdhlm: A web-based calculator for between-case standardized mean differences (Version 0.7.2) [Web application]. https://jepusto.shinyapps.io/scdhlm
27.
SchrankF. A.MatherN.McGrewK. S. (2014). Woodcock-Johnson IV tests of achievement. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33(4), 391–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282915569447
28.
SlocumT. A.PinkelmanS. E.JoslynP. R.NicholsB. (2022). Threats to internal validity in multiple-baseline design variations. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 45, 619–638. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-022-00351-0
29.
StricklandT. K.MacciniP. (2012). 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(3), 142–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932512441712
30.
TeuscherD.ReysR. E. (2012). Rate of change: AP calculus students’ understandings and misconceptions after completing different curricular paths. School Science and Mathematics, 112(6), 359–376. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2012.00150.x
31.
TeuscherD.ReysR. E.EvittsT. A.HeinzK. (2010). Slope, rate of change, and steepness: Do students understand these concepts?The Mathematics Teacher, 103(7), 519–524. https://doi.org/10.5951/MT.103.7.0519
32.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2020). What Works Clearinghouse standards handbook, Version 4.1. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/handbooks
33.
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
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.
