Students with mathematics learning disabilities have a weak understanding of mathematical concepts that underlie success in Algebra I, such as ratios and proportional reasoning. In this study, researchers used a multiple baseline across participants design to evaluate the effects of a intervention based on a instructional trajectory of how students come to understand ratios through build-up, emergent unit, and unit strategies on performance on a test of ratio equivalence. Student performance during intervention indicated a functional relationship between the instruction and higher scores on a curriculum-based measure across three students. Student use of increasingly sophisticated strategies over the course of the intervention also increased. Results as well as possible implications and future research are discussed.
Achieve. (2006). Closing the expectations gap: An annual 50-state progress report on the alignment of high school policies with the demands of college and work. Washington, DC: Author.
2.
BattistaM. T.Van Auken BorrowC. (1995, October). A proposed constructive itinerary from iterating composite units to ratio and proportion concepts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for Psychology of Mathematics Education, Columbus, OH.
3.
CawleyJ. F.MillerJ. H. (1989). Cross-sectional comparisons of the mathematical performance of children with learning disabilities: Are we on the right track toward comprehensive programming?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 250–254.
4.
DaroP.MosherF. A.CorcoranT. (2011). Learning trajectories in mathematics: A foundation for standards, curriculum, assessment, and instruction. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
5.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.ComptonD. L. (2012). Smart RTI: A next-generation approach to multilevel prevention. Exceptional Children, 78, 263–279.
6.
GinsburgH. P. (1997). Entering the child’s mind: The clinical interview in psychological research and practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
7.
GrobeckerB. (1997). Partitioning and unitizing in children with learning differences. Learning Disability Quarterly, 20, 317–35.
8.
GrobeckerB. (2000). Imagery and fractions in students classified as learning disabled. Learning Disability Quarterly, 23, 157–168.
9.
HarelG.BehrM. (1990). Understanding the multiplicative nature. In BookerG.CobbP.de MerldicuttiT. N. (Eds.), Proceedings of the PME XIV Conference (pp. 27–34). Mexico: Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Technologia, Gobiermo del Estadode de Morelos.
10.
HechtS.VagiK. J.TorgesenJ. K. (2006). Fraction skills and proportional reasoning. In BerchD. B.MazzoccoM. M. M. (Eds.), Why is math so hard for some children? (pp. 121–132). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
11.
HiebertJ. (2003). Signposts for teaching mathematics through problems solving. In LesterF. K. (Ed.), Teaching mathematics through problem solving: Prekindergarten-Grade 6 (pp. 53–61). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
12.
HornerR. H.CarrE. G.HalleJ.McGeeG.OdomS.WoleryM. (2005). The use of single subject research to identify evidence based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165–179.
13.
JitendraA. K.DiPipiC. M.Perron-JonesN. (2002). An exploratory study of word problem-solving instruction for middle school students with learning disabilities: An emphasis on conceptual and procedural understanding. Journal of Special Education, 36, 23–38.
14.
KazdinA. E. (2010). Single case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. New York, NY: Oxford Community Press.
15.
KitmittoS.BandeiradeMelloV. (2008). Measuring the status and change of NAEP state inclusion rates for students with disabilities (NCES 2009–413). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
16.
LamonS. J. (1993). Ratio and proportion: Children’s cognitive and metacognitive processes. In CarpenterT. P.FennemaE.RombergT. A. (Eds.), Rational numbers: An integration of research (pp. 131–156). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17.
MazzoccoM.DevlinK. (2008). Parts and “holes”: Gaps in rational number sense among children with vs. without mathematical learning disabilities. Developmental Science, 11, 681–691.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2009b). The nation’s report card: Mathematics 2009 (NCES 2010–451). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
21.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the national mathematics advisory panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
22.
SieglerR. (1996). Emerging minds: The process of change in children’s thinking. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
23.
SieglerR.CarpenterT.FennellF.GearyD.LewisJ.OkamotoY.WrayJ. (2010). Developing effective fractions instruction for kindergarten through 8th grade: A practice guide (NCEE #2010-4039). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide.aspx?sid=15
24.
Van GarderenD.MontagueM. (2003). Visual-spatial representation, mathematical problem solving, and students of varying abilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 246–254.
