This study explored how a teaching experiment, which taught double counting with a constructive task assignment according to an ongoing assessment, helped students with mathematics difficulties develop their multiplicative reasoning skills. The participants were two fifth graders with math learning disabilities and one at risk. A micro-genetic approach with a single-participant design was used. Investigators coded and analyzed four strategies the children used. Results showed that unitary counting was dominant during the baseline sessions. During the teaching experiment, a great increase in the use of double counting and an obvious decrease in the use of unitary counting was observed. The participants’ improvement in problem-solving accuracy on the posttest validated their strategic development. Implications are discussed in the context of employing strategic changes as a measure for assessing students’ academic achievement and interventions for helping children adopt advanced strategies.
AdolphK. E. (1997). Learning in the development of infant locomotion. Monographs of the Society of Research in Child Development, 62(3, Serial No. 251), 1-131.
2.
AgreP.ShragerJ. (1990). Routine evolution as the microgenetic basis of skill acquisition. In Proceedings of annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 694-701). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3.
AlibaliM. W. (1999). How children change their minds: Strategy change can be gradual or abrupt. Developmental Psychology, 35, 127–145.
4.
AnghileriJ. (1989). An investigation of young children’s understanding of multiplication. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 20, 367–385.
5.
BaxterJ.WoodwardJ.OlsenD. (2001). Effects of reform-based mathematics in five third-grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 101, 529–548.
6.
BrownS. (1992). Second grade children’s understanding of the division process. School Science and Mathematics, 92(2), 92–95.
7.
CobbP.SteffeL. P. (1983). The constructivist researcher as teacher and model builder. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 14(2), 83-94.
8.
ConfreyJ.HarelG. (1994). Introduction. In HarelG.ConfreyJ. (Eds.), The development of multiplicative reasoning in the learning of mathematics (pp. vii–xxviii). Albany: State University of New York Press.
9.
CybriwskyC. A.SchusterJ. W. (1990). Using constant time delay procedures to teach multiplication facts. Remedial and Special Education, 11, 54–59.
10.
DowntonA. (2008). Links between children’s understanding of multiplication and solution strategies for division. In GoosM.MakarK. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 171–178). Sydney, Australia: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.
11.
FuchsL.FuchsD.FinelliR.CoureyS.HamlettC. (2004). Expanding schema-based transfer instruction to help third graders solve real-life mathematical problems. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 419–445.
12.
FuchsL.FuchsD.HamlettC.AppletonA. (2002). Explicitly teaching for transfer: Effects on the mathematical problem solving performance of students with mathematical disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17, 90–106.
13.
FuchsL.FuchsD.PrenticeK.HamlettC.FinelliR.CoureyS. (2004). Enhancing mathematical problem solving among third grade students with schema based instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 635–647.
14.
GearyD. C. (1990). A componential analysis of an early learning deficit in mathematics. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 49, 363–383.
15.
GearyD. C.BrownS. C. (1991). Cognitive addition: Strategy choice and speed-of-processing differences in gifted, normal, and mathematically disabled children. Developmental Psychology, 27, 398–406.
16.
GearyD. C.HoardM. K.Byrd-CravenJ.DeSotoM. C. (2004). Strategy choices in simple and complex addition: Contributions of working memory and counting knowledge for children with mathematical disability. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 88, 121–151.
17.
GearyD. C.HoardM. K.Byrd-CravenJ.NugentL.NumteeC. (2007). Cognitive mechanisms underlying achievement deficits in children with mathematical learning disability. Child Development, 78, 1343-1359.
18.
GoldmanS. R.PellegrinoJ. W.MertzD. L. (1988). Extended practice of basic addition facts: Strategy changes in learning disabled students. Cognition and Instruction, 5, 223–265.
19.
GreeneG. (1999). Mnemonic multiplication fact instruction for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14, 141–148.
20.
GriffinC. C.JitendraA. K. (2009). Word problem-solving instruction in inclusive third-grade mathematics classrooms. Journal of Educational Research, 102, 187–202.
21.
HarrisC. A.MillerS. P.MercerC. D. (1995). Teaching initial multiplication skills to students with disabilities in general education classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 10, 180–196.
22.
HornerR. D.BaerD. M. (1978). Multi-probe technique: A variation of multiple baselines. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 189–196.
JitendraA.DipipiC.NoraP. (2002). An exploratory study of schema-based word problem solving instruction for middle school students with learning disabilities: An emphasis on conceptual and procedural understanding. The Journal of Special Education, 36, 23–38.
25.
JohnsonK. E.MervisC. B. (1994). Microgenetic analysis of first steps in children’s acquisition of expertise on shorebirds. Developmental Psychology, 30, 418–435.
26.
JordanN. C.LevineS. C.HuttenlocherJ. (1994). Development of calculation abilities in middle- and low-income children after formal instruction in school. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 15, 223–240.
27.
KoscinskiS. T.GastD. L. (1993). Use of constant time delay in teaching multiplication facts to students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 583–544.
28.
KoubaV. L. (1989). Children’s solution strategies for equivalent set multiplication and division word problems. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 147–158.
29.
KroesbergenE.Van LuitJ. E. H. (2002). Teaching multiplication to low math performers: Guided versus structured instruction. Instructional Science, 30, 361–378.
30.
KroesbergenE.Van LuitJ. E. H. (2003). Mathematics interventions for children with special educational needs: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 97–114.
31.
KroesbergenE.Van LuitJ. E. H. (2005). Constructivist mathematics education for students with mild mental retardation. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 20, 107–116.
32.
KroesbergenE.Van LuitJ. E. H.MaasC. J. M. (2004). Effectiveness of explicit and constructivist mathematics for low-achieving students in the Netherlands. Elementary School Journal, 104, 233–252.
33.
LemaireP.SieglerR. S. (1995). Four aspects of strategic change: Contributions to children’s learning of multiplication. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 83–97.
34.
MattinglyJ. C.BottD. A. (1990). Teaching multiplication facts to students with learning problems. Exceptional Children, 56, 438–449.
35.
MillerP. H.Aloise-YoungP. (1995). Preschoolers’ strategic behaviors and performance on a same-different task. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 284–303.
36.
MillerS. P.MercerC. D. (1993). Using data to learn about concrete-semiconcrete-abstract instruction for students with math disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 8, 89–96.
37.
MortonR. C.FlyntS. W. (1997). A comparison of constant time delay and prompt fading to teach multiplication facts to students with learning disabilities. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 24, 3–13.
38.
MulliganJ. (1992). Children’s solutions to partition problems. In SouthwellB.PerryR.OwensK. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 410–420). Sydney, Australia: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.
39.
MulliganJ. T.MichelmoreM. C. (1997). Identification of multiplicative thinking in children in grades 1–5. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 309–331.
40.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Retrieved from http://standards.nctm.org
41.
NunesT.BryantP. (1996). Children doing mathematics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
42.
OliverA.MurrayH.HumanP. (1991). Children’s solution strategies for division problems. In Ferrini-MundyJ. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 2 (pp. 152-159). Durham, New Hampshire: PME.
43.
OpferJ. E.SieglerR. S. (2007). Representational change and children’s numerical estimation. Cognitive Psychology, 55, 169–195.
44.
ParkJ.NunesT. (2000). The development of concept of multiplication. Cognitive Development, 16, 763–773.
45.
PiagetJ. (1965). The child’s concept of number. New York, NY: Norton.
46.
SchoenfeldA.SmithJ.ArcaviA. (1993). Learning: The microgenetic analysis of one student’s evolving understanding of a complex subject matter domain. In GlaserR. (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 55–175). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
47.
SieglerR. S. (1988). Strategy choice procedures and the development of multiplication skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 258–275.
48.
SieglerR. S. (2002). Microgenetic studies of self-explanations. In GranottN.ParzialeJ. (Eds.), Microdevelopment: Transition processes in development and learning (pp. 31–58). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
49.
SieglerR. S. (2006). Microgenetic analyses of learning. In DamonW.LernerR. M. (Series Eds.), KuhnD.SieglerR. S. (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 2. Cognition, perception, and language (6th ed., pp. 464–510). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
50.
SieglerR. S. (2007). Cognitive variability. Developmental Science, 10, 104–109.
51.
SieglerR. S.ChenZ. (1998). Developmental differences in rule learning: A microgenetic analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 36, 273–310.
52.
SieglerR. S.ShragerJ. (1984). Strategy choices in addition and subtraction: How do children know what to do? In SophianC. (Ed.), The origins of cognitive skills (pp. 229–293). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
53.
SieglerR. S.SternE. (1998). Conscious and unconscious strategy discoveries: A microgenetic analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 377–397.
54.
SieglerR. S.SvetinaM. (2002). A microgenetic/cross- sectional study of matrix completion: Comparing short-term and long-term change. Child Development, 73, 793-809.
55.
SimonM. A. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26, 114–145.
56.
SimonM. A.TzurR. (2004). Explicating the role of mathematical tasks in conceptual learning: An elaboration of the hypothetical learning trajectory. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6, 91–104.
57.
SimonM. A.TzurR.HeinzK.KinzelM. (2004). Explicating a mechanism for conceptual learning: Elaborating the construct of reflective abstraction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35, 305–329.
58.
SmithM. S.SteinM. K. (1998). Selecting and creating mathematical tasks: From research to practice. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 3(5), 344-350.
59.
SteffeL. P. (1986, April). Composite units and their constitutive operations. Paper presented at the research presession of the annual meeting of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Washington, DC.
60.
SteffeL. P. (1988). Children’s construction of number sequences and multiplying schemes. In HiebertJ.BehrM. (Eds.), Number concepts and operation in the middle grades (Vol. 2, pp. 119–140). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
61.
SteffeL. P. (1991). The constructivist teaching experiment: Illustrations and implications. In von GlassfeldE. (Ed.), Radical constructivism in mathematics education (pp. 177–194). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Kluwer.
62.
SteffeL. P. (1994). Children’s multiplying schemes. In HarelG.ConfreyJ. (Eds.), The development of multiplicative reasoning in the learning of mathematics (pp. 3–39). Albany: State University of New York Press.
63.
SteffeL. P.CobbP. (1988). Construction of arithmetical meanings and strategies. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
64.
SteffeL. P.CobbP. (1998). Multiplicative and divisional schemes. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 20(1), 45–62.
65.
SteffeL. P.ThompsonP. W. (2000). Teaching experiment methodology: Underlying principles and essential elements. In KellyA. E.LeshR. A. (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 267–306). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
66.
SteffeL. P.ThompsonP. W.von GlasersfeldE. (2000). Teaching experiment methodology: Underlying principles and essential elements. In KellyA. E.LeshR. A. (Eds.), Handbook of Research Design in Mathematics and Science Education (pp. 267-306). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
67.
ThompsonP. W. (1994). The development of the concept of speed and its relationship to concepts of rate. In HarelG.ConfreyJ. (Eds.), The development of multiplicative reasoning in the learning of mathematics (pp. 179–234). Albany: State University of New York Press.
68.
TuntelerE.ResingW. C. M. (2002). Spontaneous analogical transfer in 4-year-olds: A micro genetic study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 83, 149–166.
69.
TzurR. (2004). Teacher and students’ joint production of a reversible fraction conception. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 23, 93–114.
70.
TzurR.SimonM. A. (2004). Distinguishing two stages of mathematics conceptual learning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2, 287–304.
71.
Van LuitJ. E. H.NaglieriJ. A. (1999). Effectiveness of the MASTER strategy training program for teaching special children multiplication and division. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 98–107.
72.
VergnaudG. (1983). Multiplicative structure. In LeshR.LaudauM. (Eds.), Acquisition of mathematics concepts and processes (pp. 128–175). London, UK: Academic Press.
73.
von GlasersfeldE.SteffeL. P. (1991). Conceptual models in educational research and practice. Journal of Educational Thought, 25, 91–103.
74.
WoodD. K.FrankA. R.WackerD. P. (1998). Teaching multiplication facts to students with learning disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 323–338.
75.
WoodwardJ. (2006). Developing automaticity in multiplication facts: Integrating strategy instruction with timed practice drills. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 29, 269–289.
76.
XinY. P. (2008). The effect of schema-based instruction in solving word problems: An emphasis on pre-algebraic conceptualization of multiplicative relations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39, 526–551.
77.
XinY. P.JitendraA. K.Deatline-BuchmanA. (2005). Effects of mathematical word problem solving instruction on students with learning problems. The Journal of Special Education, 39, 181–192.
78.
XinY. P.TzurR.SiL. (2008). Nurturing multiplicative reasoning in students with learning disabilities in a computerized conceptual-modeling environment. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
79.
XinY. P.WilesB.LinY. (2008). Teaching conceptual model-based word-problem story grammar to enhance mathematics problem solving. The Journal of Special Education, 42, 163–178.
80.
XinY. P.ZhangD. (2009). Exploring a conceptual model-based approach to teaching situated word problems. Journal of Educational Research, 102, 427–441.
