In the current educational climate, teachers are required to find methods to give all students, including students with mild intellectual disability, access to the general education curriculum. The purpose of this study was to investigate the combined effects of the concrete−semiconcrete−abstract instructional sequence and model-based problem solving to teach area and volume to sixth-grade students with mild intellectual disability. The researchers in this study utilized a multiple probe design, a variation of the multiple baseline design, to establish the functional relationship between the intervention and students’ performance on area and volume problems. The participants solved a high percentage of the sixth-grade-level problems addressed on the criterion tests, but success with more complex problems will be necessary for proficiency at grade level with the Common Core Standards for Mathematics.
BaroodyA. J. (1996). Self-invented addition strategies by children with mental retardation. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 101, 72–89.
5.
BarrouilletP.BernardinS.PortratS.VergauweE.CamosV. (2007). Time and cognitive load in working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 570–585.
6.
BattistaM. T. (2004). Applying cognition-based assessment to elementary school students’ development of understanding of area and volume measurement. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6, 185–204.
7.
BoalerJ.HumphreysC. (2005). Connecting mathematical ideas: Middle school video cases to support teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
8.
CassM.CatesD.SmithM.JacksonC. (2003). Effects of manipulative instruction on solving area and perimeter problems by students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 112–120.
ClementsD. H.SaramaJ. (2009). Learning and teaching early math: The learning trajectories approach. New York, NY: Routledge.
11.
Council of Chief State School Officers and National Governors Association. (2010). Common core standards. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/Math/
12.
ErezG.PeledI. (2001). Cognition and metacognition: Evidence of higher thinking in problem-solving of adolescents with mental retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 36, 83–93.
13.
GlassG. V.HopkinsK. D. (1984). Statistical methods in education and psychology (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
14.
HordC.BouckE. C. (2012). A review of academic mathematics instruction for students with mild intellectual disability. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 47, 389–400.
15.
HornerR. D.BaerD. M. (1978). Multi-probe technique: A variation of the multiple baseline. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 189–196.
16.
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.
17.
HuffmanL. F.FletcherK. L.BrayN. W.GrupeL. A. (2004). Similarities and differences in addition strategies of children with and without mental retardation. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 39, 317–325.
18.
KratochwillT. R.HitchcockJ. H.HornerR. H.LevinJ. R.OdomS. L.RindskopfD. M.ShadishW. R. (2012). Single-case intervention research design standards. Remedial and Special Education, 73, 1–13.
19.
KroesbergenE. H.Van LuitJ. E. H. (2003). Mathematics interventions for children with special educational needs: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 97–114.
20.
MacMillanD. L.SipersteinG. N.GreshamF. M. (1996). A challenge to the viability of mild mental retardation as a diagnostic category. Exceptional Children, 62, 356–371.
21.
McGraw-Hill. (2011). Math connects. Columbus, OH: Macmillan/McGraw-Hill.
22.
MillerS. P.MercerC. D. (1993). Using data to learn concrete-semiconcrete-abstract instruction for students with math disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 8, 89–96.
23.
MorinV. A.MillerS. P. (1998). Teaching multiplication to middle school students with mental retardation. Education & Treatment of Children, 21, 22–37.
24.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
NeefN. A.NellesD. E.IwataB. A.PageT. J. (2003). Analysis of precurrent skills in solving mathematics story problems. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 21–33.
27.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
ReardonS. F.ArshanN.AtteberryA.KurlaenderM. (2010). Effects of failing a high school exit exam on course taking, achievement, persistence, and graduation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32, 498–520.
30.
SabornieE. J.CullinanD.OsborneS. S.BrockL. M. (2005). Intellectual, academic, and behavioral functioning of students with high-incidence disabilities: A cross-categorical meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 72, 47–63.
31.
ScheuermannA. M.DeshlerD. D.SchumakerJ. B. (2009). The effects of the explicit inquiry routine on the performance of students with learning disabilities on one-variable equations. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32, 103–120.
32.
SchuchardtK.GebhardtM.MäehlerC. (2010). Working memory functions in children with different degrees of intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 54, 346–353.
33.
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, 142–153.
34.
TeuscherD.DingmanS.NevelsN.ReysB. (2008). Curriculum standards, course requirements, and mandated assessments for high school mathematics. National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics Journal of Mathematics Education Leadership, 10(2), 49–54.
35.
TurnbullR.HuertaN.StoweM. (2006). The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act as Amended in 2004. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
36.
United States Department of Education. (2004). Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. Retrieved from http://idea.ed.gov/
37.
WoodwardJ. (2004). Mathematics education in the United States: Past and present. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 16–31.
38.
WoodwardJ.MontagueM. (2002). Meeting the challenge of mathematics reform for students with LD. The Journal of Special Education, 36, 89–101.
39.
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.
40.
XinY. P. (2012). Conceptual model-based problem solving: Teach students with learning difficulties to solve math problems. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
41.
XinY. P.HordC. (2013). Model-based teaching to facilitate geometry learning of students who struggle in mathematics. Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education, 1(1), 147–160.
42.
XinY. P.ZhangD. (2009). Exploring a conceptual model-based approach to teaching situated word problems. The Journal of Educational Research, 102, 427–441.
