This study investigated the efficacy of a Tier 2 multiplicative reasoning (MR) intervention designed to help third-grade students at risk for mathematics difficulties (MD) develop conceptual understanding of MR. The MR intervention included opportunities for students to engage in critical thinking as they generalized big ideas, participated in classroom discourse, and modeled multiplicative relationships with multiple representations. Sixteen elementary teachers from a southwestern U.S. school district were randomly assigned to a treatment or control (business-as-usual, BAU) condition. Participants included 86 third-grade students who demonstrated MD. Data analyzed after 6 weeks of instruction revealed statistically significant and nonnegligible differences between conditions on a researcher-developed MR assessment, with posttest differences favoring treatment classrooms. However, treatment was not a significant predictor of the Group Mathematics Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation posttest scores. Results demonstrated that the MR intervention was on average more effective than the BAU approach in improving students’ ability to reason with multiplicative concepts and procedures.
Acadience Learning Inc. (2019). Acadience Math Concepts and Applications. Grade 3 Benchmark Assessment 1. https://acadiencelearning.org/
2.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing.
3.
BakerS.LesauxN.JayanthiM.DiminoJ.ProctorC. P.MorrisJ.GerstenR.HaymondK.KiefferM. J.Linan-ThompsonS.Newman-GoncharR. (2014). Teaching academic content and literacy to English learners in elementary and middle school (NCEE 2014-4012). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications_reviews.aspx
4.
BerkeleyS.ScanlonD.BaileyT. R.SuttonJ. C.SaccoD. M. (2020). A snapshot of RTI implementation a decade later: New picture, same story. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53(5), 332–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219420915867
5.
BoyerT. W.LevineS. C. (2012). Child proportional scaling: Is 1/3 = 2/6 = 3/9 = 4/12. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 111(3), 516–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2011.11.001
6.
CallinghamR.SiemonD. (2021). Connecting multiplicative thinking and mathematical reasoning in the middle years. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 61, 100837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2020.100837
7.
CarrierJ. (2014). Student strategies suggesting emergence of mental structures supporting logical and abstract thinking: Multiplicative reasoning. School Science & Mathematics, 114, 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12053
8.
ClarkF. B.KamiiC. (1996). Identification of multiplicative thinking in children in grades 1–5. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 41–51. https://doi.org/10.2307/749196
9.
DingM.LiX.CapraroM. M. (2013). Preservice elementary teachers’ knowledge for teaching the associative property of multiplication: A preliminary analysis. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32(1), 36–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2012.09.002
10.
DoughertyB.BryantD. P.BryantB. R.ShinM. (2016). Helping students with mathematics difficulties understand ratios and proportions. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 49(2), 96–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059916674897
11.
DoughertyB.SimonM. (2014). Elkonin and Davydov curriculum in mathematics education. In LermanS. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education (pp. 204–207). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4978-8_56
12.
DowntonA.GiumelliK.McHughB.RoosenT.MeredithN.CaletaG.StenningP. (2018). Pilot study on the impact of in situ spaced professional learning on teachers’ mathematical knowledge of multiplicative thinking. In HunterJ.DarraghL.PergerP. (Eds.), Making waves, opening spaces: Proceedings of the 41st annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 274–281). Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (MERGA).
13.
DowntonA.SullivanP. (2017). Posing complex problems requiring multiplicative thinking prompts students to use sophisticated strategies and build mathematical connections. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 95, 303–328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-017-9751-x
FuchsL. S.Newman-GoncharR.SchumacherR.DoughertyB.BuckaN.KarpK. S.WoodwardJ.ClarkeB.JordanN. C.GerstenR.JayanthiM.KeatingB.MorganS. (2021). Assisting students struggling with mathematics: Intervention in the elementary grades (WWC 2021006). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
16.
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(3), 1202–1242. http://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309334431
17.
GötzeD.BaikerA. (2023). Enhancing language-responsive meaning-making processes as an epistemic catalyst for developing multiplicative reasoning in young children. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 70, 101034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2023.101034
18.
HackenbergA. J.TillemaE. S. (2009). Students’ whole number multiplicative concepts: A critical constructive resource for fraction composition schemes. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 28(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2009.04.004
19.
HughesC. A.MorrisJ. R.TherrienW. J.BensonS. K. (2017). Explicit instruction: Historical and contemporary contexts. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 32(3), 140–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12142
20.
HuntJ. H. (2015). Notions of equivalence through ratios: Students with and without learning disabilities. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 37, 94–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2014.12.002
21.
HurstC. (2017). Children have the capacity to think multiplicatively, as long as . . .. European Journal of STEM Education, 2(3), 07. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/78169
22.
IBM Corp. (2021). IBM SPSS statistics for windows (Version 28.0) [Computer software].
23.
JitendraA. K.AlghamdiA.EdmundsR.McKevettN. M.MouanoutouaJ.RoessleinR. (2021). The effects of Tier 2 mathematics interventions for students with mathematics difficulties: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 87(3), 307–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402920969187
24.
JitendraA. K.DoughertyB.SanchezV.HarwellM.HarbourS. (2023). Building conceptual understanding of multiplicative reasoning content in third graders struggling to learn mathematics. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 38(4), 285–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12322
25.
JitendraA. K.DoughertyB.SanchezV.SuchiltL. (2022, August4). Using multiple representations to foster multiplicative reasoning in students with mathematics learning disabilities. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 57(2), 116–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/00400599221115627
26.
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
27.
KoponenT.AroM.PoikkeusA.-M.NiemiP.LerkkanenM.-K.AhonenT.NurmiJ.-E. (2018). Comorbid fluency difficulties in reading and math: Longitudinal stability across early grades. Exceptional Children, 84(3), 298–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918756269
28.
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). Information Age Publishing.
29.
LymanF. (1981). The responsive classroom discussion. In AndersonA. S. (Ed.), Mainstreaming digest (pp. 109–113). University of Maryland College of Education.
30.
MartinR. B.CirinoP. T.BarnesM. A.Ewing-CobbsL.FuchsL. S.StuebingK. K.FletcherJ. M. (2013). Prediction and stability of mathematics skill and difficulty. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46(5), 428–443. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411436214
31.
Mata-PereiraJ.da PonteJ. P. (2017). Enhancing students’ mathematical reasoning in the classroom: Teacher actions facilitating generalization and justification. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 96, 169–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-017-9773-4
32.
MazzoccoM. M. M. (2007). Defining and differentiating mathematical learning disabilities and difficulties. In BerchD. B.MazzoccoM. M. M. (Eds.), Why is math so hard for some children? The nature and origins of mathematical learning difficulties and disabilities (pp. 29–47). Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
33.
McNeishD. M.StapletonL. M. (2016). The effect of small sample size on two-level model estimates: A review and illustration. Educational Psychology Review, 28(2), 295–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9287-x
34.
MillerM. C. (1966). Simultaneous statistical inference. McGraw-Hill.
35.
MossJ.McNabL. S. (2011). An approach to geometric and numeric patterning that fosters second grade students’ reasoning and generalizing about functions and co-variation. In CaiJ.KnuthE. (Eds.), Early algebraization: A global dialogue from multiple perspectives (pp. 277–301). Springer.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics.
39.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all.
40.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics.
41.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. U.S. Department of Education.
42.
NelsonG.PowellS. R. (2018). A systematic review of longitudinal studies of mathematics difficulty. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51(6), 523–539. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219417714773
43.
NunesT.DornelesB. V.LinP. J.Rathgeb-SchniererE. (2016). Teaching and learning about whole numbers in primary school (ICME-13 Topical Surveys). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45113-8_1
44.
O’SheaA.BoothJ. L.BarbieriC.McGinnK. M.YoungL. K.OyerM. H. (2017). Algebra performance and motivation differences for students with learning disabilities and students of varying achievement levels. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 50, 80–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.03.003
Pearson. (2003). Stanford Achievement Test Series, Tenth Edition [SAT10].
47.
Pearson. (2004). Group Mathematics Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation [GMADE] (Level 3, Form A).
48.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Sage.
49.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S.CheongY. F.CongdonR.du ToitM. (2019). HLM 8.02: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling [Computer software]. Scientific Software International.
50.
SiemonD. (2019). Knowing and building on what students know: The case of multiplicative thinking. In SiemonD.BarkatsasT.SeahR. (Eds.), Researching and using progressions (trajectories) in mathematics education (Vol. 3, Ser. Global Education in the 21st Century, pp. 6–31). Brill Sense.
51.
SiemonD.BreedM.VirgonaJ. (2005). From additive to multiplicative thinking. In MousleyJ.BraggL.CampbellC. (Eds.), Mathematics —celebrating achievement: Proceedings of the 42nd conference of the Mathematical Association of Victoria, Melbourne. Mathematical Association of Victoria.
52.
StockP.DesoeteA.RoeyersH. (2010). Detecting children with arithmetic disabilities from kindergarten: Evidence from a 3-year longitudinal study on the role of preparatory arithmetic abilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(3), 250–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219409345011
53.
SupovitzJ. A.EbbyC. B.RemillardJ. T.NathensonR. (2021). Experimental impacts of learning trajectory-oriented formative assessment on student problem-solving accuracy and strategy sophistication. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 52(4), 444–475. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc-2021-0032
TolarT. D.FuchsL.FletcherJ. M.FuchsD.HamlettC. L. (2016). Cognitive profiles of mathematical problem solving learning disability for different definitions of disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49(3), 240–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219414538520
56.
The University of Iowa. (2001). Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS). Riverside Publishing.
57.
Van DoorenW.De BockD.VerschaffelL. (2010). From addition to multiplication. . . and back: The development of students’ additive and multiplicative reasoning skills. Cognition and Instruction, 28, 360–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2010.488306
58.
WarshauerH. K. (2014). Productive struggle in teaching and learning middle school mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Education, 17(4), 3–28. http://hdl.handle.net/2152/ETD-UT-2011-12-4527
59.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2022). What works clearinghouse procedures and standards handbook, version 5.0. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE). https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Handbooks
60.
WoodwardJ.BeckmannS.DriscollM.FrankeM.HerzigP.JitendraA.KoedingerK. R.OgbuehiP. (2012). Improving mathematical problem solving in grades 4 through 8: A practice guide (NCEE 2012-4055). Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide.aspx?sid=16
61.
XinY. P.ParkJ. Y.TzurR.SiL. (2020). The impact of a conceptual model-based mathematics computer tutor on multiplicative reasoning and problem-solving of students with learning disabilities. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 58, 100762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2020.100762
62.
XinY. P.ZhangD.ParkJ. Y.TomK.WhippleA.SiL. (2011). A comparison of two mathematics problem-solving strategies: Facilitate algebra-readiness. The Journal of Educational Research, 104(6), 381–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2010.487080
63.
ZeljićM.BoričićM. D.ĐokićO. (2019). Multiplication strategies: Progressive development and (or) systematic teaching. In NovotnáJ.MoraováH. (Eds.), Opportunities in learning and teaching elementary mathematics [Symposium]. International Symposium Elementary Mathematics Teaching, Prague, Czech Republic.
64.
ZhangD.XinY. P.SiL. (2013). Transition from intuitive to advanced strategies in multiplicative reasoning for students with math difficulties. The Journal of Special Education, 47(1), 50–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466911399098
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.
