Minority students at risk for math difficulties (MD) struggle with word problems for various reasons beyond procedural or calculation challenges. As a result, these students require support in reading and language development in addition to math. The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of a math comprehension strategy based on a dynamic assessment (DA) framework, which provided scaffolding support based on the student’s reading and language levels. A multiple baseline design was used to assess eight third-grade minority students at risk for MD. As compared with the baseline phase, the strategy increased problem-solving ability for all participants. All students maintained performance levels during follow-up sessions. Results suggest that the intervention facilitated word-problem-solving performance.
ArtilesA. J.RuedaR.SalazarJ. J.HigaredaI. (2005). Within-group diversity in minority disproportionate representation: English language learners in urban school districts. Exceptional Children, 71, 283–300.
2.
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
3.
BrunerJ. (1983). Child’s talk. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
4.
CasselJ.ReidR. (1996). Use of a self-regulated strategy intervention to improve word problem-solving skills of students with mild disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 6, 153–172.
5.
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.
6.
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
7.
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
8.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2007). Mathematical problem solving: Instructional intervention. In BerchD. B.MazzoccoM. M. (Eds.), Why is math so hard for some children? The nature and origins of mathematical learning difficulties and disabilities (pp. 397–414). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
9.
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
10.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.PrenticeK. (2004). Responsiveness to mathematical problem-solving instruction: Comparing students at risk of math disability with and without risk of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 294–306.
11.
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.
12.
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
13.
GerstenR.JordanN. C.FlojoJ. (2005). Early identification and interventions for students with mathematical difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 293–304.
14.
GriffinC. (2007). Early intervention for children at risk for developing mathematical learning difficulties. In BerchD. B.MazzoccoM. M. (Eds.), Why is math so hard for some children? The nature and origins of mathematical learning difficulties and disabilities (pp. 373–395). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
15.
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
16.
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
17.
HarrisK. R.PressleyM. (1991). The nature of cognitive strategy instruction: Interactive strategy construction. Exceptional Children, 57, 392–404.
18.
HaywoodC. K.LidzC. S. (2007). Dynamic assessment in practice: Clinical and educational applications. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
19.
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.
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. The Journal of Special Education, 36, 22–38. doi:10.1177/00224669020360010301
21.
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
KratochwillT. R.LevinJ. R. (2010). Enhancing the scientific credibility of single-case intervention research: Randomization to the rescue. Psychological Methods, 15, 124–144.
25.
MakelM. C.PluckerJ. A. (2014). Facts are more important than novelty: Replication in the education science. Educational Researcher, 43, 304–316.
26.
MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. E.ShiahS. (1991). Mathematics instruction for learning disabled students: A review of research. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 6, 89–98.
27.
MontagueM. (1992). The effects of cognitive and metacognitive strategy instruction on the mathematical problem solving of middle school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 230–248.
28.
MontagueM. (1997). Cognitive strategy instruction in mathematics for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 164–177.
29.
MontagueM. (2008). Self-regulation strategies to improve mathematical problem solving for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31, 37–44.
30.
MorganP. L.FarkasG.HillemeierM. M.MaczugaS. (2012). Are minority children disproportionately represented in early intervention and early childhood special education?Education Researcher, 41, 339–351.
OroscoM. J. (2014). Word problem strategy for Latino English language learners at risk for math disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37, 45–53.
33.
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.
34.
PalincsarA. S.BrownA. L. (1984). The reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.
35.
ParkerR. I.Hagan-BurkeS.VannestK. (2007). Percentage of all non-overlapping data (PAND): An alternative to PND. The Journal of Special Education, 40, 194–204.
36.
ParmarR. S.CawleyJ. F.FrazitaR. R. (1996). Word problem-solving by students with and without mild disabilities. Exceptional Children, 62, 415–430.
37.
Rittle-JohnsonB.KoedingerK. R. (2005). Designing knowledge scaffolds to support mathematical problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 313–349.
38.
RupleyW. H.NicholsW. D. (2005). Vocabulary instruction for the struggling reader. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 21, 239–260.
39.
SimpsonR. L.LacavaP. G.GranerP. S. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act challenges and implications for educators. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(2), 67–75.
40.
SternbergR. J.GrigorenkoE. L. (2002). Dynamic testing: The nature and measurement of learning potential. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
41.
SullivanA. L.BalA. (2013). Disproportionality in special education: Effects of individual and school variables on disability risk. Exceptional Children, 79, 475–494.
42.
SwansonH. L.HoskynM.LeeC. M. (1999). Interventions for students with learning disabilities. New York, NY: Guilford.
43.
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
44.
SwansonH. L.MoranA.LussierC.FungW. (2014). The effect of explicit and direct generative strategy training and working memory on word problem-solving accuracy in children at risk for math difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37, 111–123.
45.
Van GarderenD.MontagueM. (2003). Visual-spatial representation, mathematical problem solving, and students of varying abilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 246–254.
46.
VygotskyL. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
47.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind and society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
48.
WalquiA. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9, 159–180.
49.
WoodD.BrunerJ. S.RossG. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.
50.
XinY. P.JitendraA. K. (1999). The effects of instruction in solving mathematical word-problems for students with learning problems: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Special Education, 32, 207–225.
51.
XinY. P.JitendraA. K.Deatline-BuchmanA. (2005). Effects of mathematical word-problem-solving instruction on middle school students with learning disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 39, 181–192.
52.
ZhengX.FlynnL. J.SwansonH. L. (2013). Experimental intervention studies on word problem solving and math disabilities: A selective analysis of the literature. Learning Disability Quarterly, 36, 97–111.
