English language learners (ELLs) struggle with solving word problems for a number of reasons beyond math procedures or calculation challenges. As a result, ELLs may not only need math support but also reading and linguistic support. The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of a math comprehension strategy called Dynamic Strategic Math (DSM) on word problem solving for Latino ELLs. The strategy provides performance-contingent feedback based on the student’s reading and language comprehension level. A multiple baseline design was used to assess 6 second-grade Latino ELLs at risk for math failure/math disability. As compared with the baseline phase, DSM increased word problem solving for all the participants. All students’ level of performance was maintained during follow-up sessions. The results suggest the intervention facilitated math problem–solving performance.
AbediJ. (2008). Linguistic modification: Part I-Language factors in the assessment of English language learners: The theory and principles underlying the linguistic modification approach. Washington, DC: LEP Partnership.
2.
AbediJ.HofstetterC. H.LordC. (2004). Assessment accommodations for English language learners: Implications for policy-based empirical research. Review of Educational Research, 74, 1–28.
3.
AbediJ.LordC.PlummerJ. (1997). Language background as a variable in NAEP mathematics performance. Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
4.
BakerS.GerstenR.LeeD. (2002). A synthesis of empirical research on teaching mathematics to low-achieving students. Elementary School Journal, 103, 51–73.
5.
BarrouilletP.LépineR. (2005). Working memory and children’s use of retrieval to solve addition problems. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 91, 183–204.
6.
CampioneJ. C.BrownA. L. (1987). Linking dynamic assessment with school achievement. In LidzC. S. (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 82–140). New York, NY: Guilford.
7.
CumminsJ. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49, 222–251.
8.
Ernst-SlavitG.SlavitD. (2007). Educational reform, mathematics, and diverse learners: Meeting the needs of all students. Multicultural Education, 14, 20–27.
9.
FuchsL. S.ComptonD. L.FuchsD.HollenbeckN.CraddockC. F.HamlettC. L. (2008). Dynamic assessment of algebraic learning in predicating third graders’ development of mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 829–850.
10.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2007). Mathematical problem solving: Instructional intervention. In BerchD. B.MazzoccoM. M. M. (Eds.), Why is math so hard for children: The nature and origins of mathematical learning difficulties and disabilities (pp. 397–414). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
11.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.FinelliR.CoureyS. J.HamlettC. L. (2004). Expanding schemas-based transfer instruction to help third graders solve real-life mathematical problems. American Education Research Journal, 41, 419–445.
12.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.YazdinL.PowellS. R. (2002). Enhancing first-grade children’s mathematical development with peer-assisted learning strategies. School Psychology Review, 31, 569–583.
13.
FuchsL. S.SeethalerP. M.PowellS.FuchsD.HamlettC. L.FletcherJ. (2008). Effects of preventative tutoring on the mathematical problem solving of third-grade students with math and reading difficulties. Exceptional Children, 74, 155–173.
14.
GarciaE.CuéllarD. (2006). Who are the linguistically and culturally diverse students?Teachers College Record, 108, 2220–2246.
15.
GearyD. C.HoardM. K.NugentL.Byrd-CravenJ. (2007). Strategy use, long-term memory, and working memory capacity. In BerchD. B.MazzoccoM. M. M. (Eds.), Why is math so hard for children: The nature and origins of mathematical learning difficulties and disabilities (pp. 83–105). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
16.
GriffinC.JitendraA. K. (2008). Word problem-solving instruction in inclusive third-grade mathematics classrooms. Journal of Educational Research, 102, 187–201.
17.
GrigorenkoE. L. (2009). Dynamic assessment and response to intervention: Two sides of one coin. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 111–132.
18.
HaywoodC. K.LidzC. S. (2007). Dynamic assessment in practice: Clinical and educational applications. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
19.
HillR. (2009). Houghton Mifflin California math grade 2. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
20.
JitendraA. K.DiPipiC. M.Perron-JonesN. (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. Journal of Special Education, 36, 22–38.
21.
JitendraA. K.GriffinC.Deatline-BuchmanA.SczesniakE. (2007). Mathematical word problem-solving in third grade classrooms: Lessons, learned from design experiments. Journal of Educational Research, 100, 283–302.
MarrD.RoddenL.WoodsA. (2009). Technical Report for the California English Language Development Test (CELDT). Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill.
24.
MoschkovichJ. (2002). A situated and sociocultural perspective on bilingual mathematics learners. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 4, 189–212.
25.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). The nation’s report card: Trial urban school district assessment mathematics 2009. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
26.
PalincsarA. S.BrownA. L. (1984). The reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.
27.
PlantyM.HussarW.SnyderT.KenaG.KewalRamaniA.KempJ.DinkesR. (2009). The Condition of Education 2009 (NCES 2009-081). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
28.
RasmussenC.BisanzJ. (2005). Representation and working memory in early arithmetic. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 91, 137–157.
29.
Rittle-JohnsonB.SieglerR.AlibaliM. W. (2001). Developing conceptual understanding and procedural skill: An iterative process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 345–362.
30.
SatoE. (2008). Linguistic modification: Part II—A guide to linguistic modification: Increasing English language learner access to academic content. Washington, DC: LEP Partnership.
31.
SatoE.RabinowitzS.GallagherC.HuangC. W. (2010). Accommodations for English language learner students: The effect of linguistic modification of math test items (NCEE 2009-4079). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
32.
Solano-FloresG.TrumbullE. (2003). Examining language in context: The need for new research and practice paradigms in the testing of English-language learners. Educational Researcher, 32, 3–13.
33.
SwansonH. L.HarrisK. R.GrahamS. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of learning disabilities. New York, NY: Guilford.
34.
SwansonH. L.HoskynM.LeeC. M. (1999). Interventions for students with learning disabilities. New York, NY: Guilford.
35.
SwansonH. L.KehlerP.JermanO. (2009). Working memory, strategy knowledge, and strategy instruction in children with reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 260–287.
36.
Van GarderenD.MontagueM. (2003). Visual-spatial representation, mathematical problem solving, and students of varying abilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 246–254.
37.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind and society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
38.
WoodcockR. W.McGrewK. S.MatherJ. (2007). Woodcock Johnson NU Tests of Achievement (3rd ed.). Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.
39.
XinY. P.JitendraA. K. (1999). The effects of instruction in solving mathematical word-problems for students with learning problems: A meta-analysis. Journal of Special Education, 32, 207–225.
40.
XinY. P.JitendraA. K.Deatline-BuchmanA. (2005). Effects of mathematical word-problem-solving instruction on middle school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 39, 181–192.
41.
ZamarianL.López-RolónA.DelazerM. (2007). Neuropsychological case studies on arithmetic processing. In BerchD. B.MazzoccoM. M. M. (Eds.), Why is math so hard for children: The nature and origins of mathematical learning difficulties and disabilities (pp. 245–263). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
