English Language Learners (ELLs) at risk for math disabilities (MD) are challenged in solving word problems for numerous reasons such as (a) learning English as a second language, (b) limited experience using math vocabulary, and (c) lack of strategies to improve word-problem-solving skills. As a result of these difficulties, ELLs may not only need math support but also oral language and reading development assistance. The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of a math comprehension strategy procedure based on a dynamic assessment (DA) framework. The strategy provided scaffolding support based on the student’s reading and language comprehension levels. A multiple baseline was used to assess 6 third-grade Latino ELLs at risk for MD. As compared with baseline, the strategy increased problem-solving ability for all participants. All students’ level of performance was maintained during follow-up sessions. Results suggest that a focus on comprehension strategies may help facilitate math skills development for ELLs at risk for MD.
BakerS.GerstenR.LeeD. (2002). A synthesis of empirical research on teaching mathematics to low-achieving students. The Elementary School Journal, 103, 51–73. doi:10.1086/499715
2.
Cárdenas-HaganE.CarlsonC. D.Pollard-DurodolaS. D. (2007). The cross-linguistic transfer of early literacy skills: The role of initial l1 & l2 skills and language of instruction. Language Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 38, 249–259.
3.
EnglertC. S.MariageT. (2013). The sociocultural model as a framework in instructional intervention research. In Lee SwansonH.GrahamS.HarrisK. R. (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 545–564). New York, NY: Guilford.
4.
Ernst-SlavitG.SlavitD. (2007). Educational reform, mathematics, & diverse learners: Meeting the needs of all students. Multicultural Education, 14(4), 20–27.
5.
FletcherJ. M.EpsyK. A.FrancisP. J.DavidsonK. C.RourkeB. P.ShaywitzS. E. (1989). Comparison of cutoff and regression-based definitions of reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 334–338. doi:10.1177/002221948902200603
6.
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. doi:10.1037/a0012657
7.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.FinelliR.CoureyS. J.HamlettC. L. (2004). Expanding schema-based transfer instruction to help third graders solve real-life mathematical problems. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 419–445. doi:10.3102/00028312041002419
8.
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.
9.
FuchsL. S.SeethalerP. S.PowellS. R.FuchsD.HamlettC. L.FletcherJ. M. (2008). Effects of preventative tutoring on the mathematical problem solving of third-grade students with math and reading difficulties. Exceptional Children, 74, 155–173.
10.
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, 1202–1242. doi:10.3102/0034654309334431
11.
GoldenbergC. (2011). Reading instruction for English language learners. In KamilM. L.PearsonP. D.MojeE. B.AfflerbachP. P. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research volume IV (pp. 684–710). New York, NY: Routledge.
12.
GriffinC.JitendraA. K. (2008). Word problem-solving instruction in inclusive third-grade mathematics classrooms. The Journal of Educational Research, 102, 187–201. doi:10.3200/JOER.102.3.187-202
13.
GrigorenkoE. L. (2009). Dynamic assessment and response to intervention: Two sides of one coin. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 111–132. doi:10.1177/0022219408326207
14.
HaywoodC. K.LidzC. S. (2007). Dynamic assessment in practice: Clinical and educational applications. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
15.
JanzenJ. (2008). Teaching English language learners in the content areas. Review of Educational Research, 78, 1010–1038. doi:10.3102/0034654308325580
16.
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. The Journal of Special Education, 36, 22–38. doi:10.1177/00224669020360010301
17.
JitendraA. K.GriffinC.Deatline-BuchmanA.SczesniakE. (2007). Mathematical word problem-solving in third grade classrooms: Lessons, learned from design experiments. The Journal of Educational Research, 100, 283–302.doi:10.3200/JOER.100.5.283-302
18.
JitendraA.XinY. P. (1997). Mathematical word-problem-solving instruction for students with mild disabilitiesand students at risk for math failure a research synthesis. The Journal of Special Education, 30, 412–438. doi:10.1177/002246699703000404
KratochwillT. R.HitchcockJ.HornerR. H.LevinJ. R.OdomS. L.RindskopfD. M.ShadishW. R. (2010). Single-case designs technical documentation. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/wwc_scd.pdf
21.
KratochwillT. R.LevinJ. R. (2010). Enhancing the scientific credibility of single-case intervention research: Randomization to the rescue. Psychological Methods, 15, 124–144.
22.
MarrD.RoddenL.WoodsA. (2009). Technical report for the California English Language Development Test (CELDT) (California Department of Education). Monterrey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill.
23.
MathesP. G.Pollard-DurodolaS. D.Cárdenas-HaganE.Linan-ThompsonS.VaughnS. (2007). Teaching struggling readers who are native Spanish speakers: What do we know?Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 38, 260–271.
National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics ((KilpatrickJ.SwaffordJ.FindellB., Eds. Mathematics Learning Study Committee, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
26.
OroscoM. J.SwansonH. L.O’ConnorR.LussierC. (2013). The effects of dynamic strategic math on English language learners’ word problem solving. The Journal of Special Education, 47, 96–107.
27.
PalincsarA. S.BrownA. L. (1984). The reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.
28.
Pollard-DurodolaS. D.SimmonsD. C. (2009). The role of explicit instruction and instructional design in promoting awareness development and transfer from Spanish to English. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 25, 139–161.
29.
RupleyW. H.NicholsW. D. (2005). Vocabulary instruction for the struggling reader. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 21, 239–260.
30.
SeethalerP. M.FuchsL. S.FuchsD.ComptonD. L. (2012). Predicting first graders’ development of calculation versus word-problem performance: The role of dynamic assessment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 224–234. doi:10.1037/a0024968
31.
SternbergR. J.GrigorenkoE. L. (2002). Dynamic testing: The nature and measurement of learning potential. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
32.
SwansonH. L.HoskynM.LeeC. M. (1999). Interventions for students with learning disabilities. New York, NY: Guilford.
33.
SwansonH. L.LussierC. (2001). A selective synthesis of the experimental literature on dynamic assessment. Review of Educational Research, 71, 321–363. doi:10.3102/00346543071002321
34.
Van GarderenD.MontagueM. (2003). Visual-spatial representation, mathematical problem solving, and students of varying abilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 246–254. doi:10.1111/1540-5826.00079
35.
VygotskyL. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
36.
VygotskyL.S. (1978). Mind and society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
37.
WoodcockR. W.McGrewK. S.MatherJ. (2007). Woodcock–Johnson NU tests of achievement (3rd ed.). Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing.
