For students with mathematics difficulties (MD), math word problem solving is especially challenging. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of a problem-solving strategy, bar model drawing, on the mathematical problem-solving skills of students with MD. The study extended previous research that suggested that schematic-based instruction (SBI) and cognitive strategy instruction (CSI) delivered within an explicit instruction framework can be effective in teaching various math skills related to word problem solving. A multiple-baseline design replicated across groups was used to evaluate the effects of the intervention of bar model drawing on math problem-solving performance of students with MD. Student achievement was measured in terms of increased correct use of cognitive strategies and overall accuracy of math word problem solving. Results showed that bar modeling drawing is an effective strategy for increasing elementary students’ accuracy in solving math word problems and their ability to use cognitive strategies to solve the problems.
AnderssonU. (2007). The contribution of working memory to children’s mathematical word problem solving. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 1201–1216. doi:10.1002/acp.1317
2.
AnderssonU.LyxellB. (2007). Working memory deficit in children with mathematical difficulties: A general or specific deficit?Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 96, 197–228. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2006.10.001
3.
BakerS.GerstenR.ScanlonD. (2002). Procedural facilitators and cognitive strategies: Tools for unraveling the mysteries of comprehension and the writing process, and for providing meaningful access to the general curriculum. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17, 65–77. doi:10.1111/1540-5826.00032
ConnollyA. J. (2007). KeyMath-3 diagnostic assessment. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.
6.
ForstenC. (2010). Step-by-step model drawing: Solving word problems the Singapore way. Peterborough, NH: Crystal Springs Books.
7.
FuchsL. S.ComptonD. L.FuchsD.PaulsenK.BryantJ. D.HamlettC. L. (2005). The prevention, identification, and cognitive determinants of math difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 493–513. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.3.493
8.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.StuebingK.FletcherJ.HamlettC. L.LambertW. (2008). Problem-solving and computational skill: Are they shared or distinct aspects of mathematical cognition?Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 30–47.
9.
FungW. W.SwansonH. L.OroscoM. J. (2014). Influence of reading and calculation on children at risk and not at risk for word problem solving: Is math motivation a mediator?Learning and Individual Differences, 36, 84–91. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2014.10.011
10.
GarrettA. J.MazzoccoM. M.BakerL. (2006). Development of the metacognitive skills of prediction and evaluation in children with or without math disability. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21, 77–88. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2006.00208.x
11.
GastD. L. (Ed.). (2010). Single subject research methodology in behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.
12.
GinsburgA.LeinwandS.AnstromT.PollockE. (2005). What the United States can learn from Singapore’s world-class mathematics system (and what Singapore can learn from the United States): An exploratory study. American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED491632.pdf
13.
HagamanJ. L.ReidR. (2008). The effects of the paraphrasing strategy on the reading comprehension of middle school students at risk for failure in reading. Remedial and Special Education, 29, 222–234. doi:10.1177/0741932507311638
14.
HersenM.BarlowD. H. (1976). Single case experimental designs: Strategies for studying behavior change. New York, NY: Pergamon Press.
15.
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. doi:10.1177/001440290507100203
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, 23–38. doi:10.1177/00224669020360010301
17.
JitendraA. K.GriffinC. C.Deatline-BuchmanA.SczesniakE. (2007). Mathematical word problem solving in third-grade classrooms. The Journal of Educational Research, 100, 283–302. doi:10.3200/JOER.100.5.283-302
18.
JitendraA. K.GriffinC. C.McGoeyK.GardillM. C.BhatP.RileyT. (1998). Effects of mathematical word problem solving by students at risk or with mild disabilities. The Journal of Educational Research, 91, 345–355.
19.
JitendraA. K.KameenuiE. J. (1993). An exploratory study of dynamic assessment involving two instructional strategies on experts and novices’ performance in solving part-whole mathematical word problems. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 18, 305–324. doi:10.1177/073724779301800404
20.
JitendraA. K.RodriguezM.KaniveR.HuangJ. P.ChurchC.CorroyK. A.ZaslofskyA. (2013). Impact of small-group tutoring interventions on the mathematical problem solving and achievement of third-grade students with mathematics difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 36, 21–35. doi:10.1177/0731948712457561
21.
JordanN. C.GluttingJ.RamineniC. (2010). The importance of number sense to mathematics achievement in first and third grades. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 82–88. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2009.07.004
22.
JordanN. C.MontaniT. O. (1997). Cognitive arithmetic and problem solving: A comparison of children with specific and general mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 624–634. doi:10.1177/002221949703000606
KratochwillT. R.HitchcockJ.HornerR. H.LevinJ. R.OdomS. L.RindskopfD. M.ShadishW. R. (2010). Single-case designs technical documentation. What Works Clearinghouse. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED510743.pdf
MacciniP.GagnonJ. C. (2002). Perceptions and application of NCTM standards by special and general education teachers. Exceptional Children, 68, 325–344.
27.
MazzoccoM. M.DevlinK. T.McKenneyS. J. (2008). Is it a fact? Timed arithmetic performance of children with mathematical learning disabilities (MLD) varies as a function of how MLD is defined. Developmental Neuropsychology, 33, 318–344. doi:10.1080/87565640801982403
28.
MontagueM. (2007). Self-regulation and mathematics instruction. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 75–83. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00232.x
29.
MontagueM.ApplegateB. (1993). Mathematical problem-solving characteristics of middle school students with learning disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 27, 175–201. doi:10.1177/002246699302700203
PalincsarA. S.BrownD. A. (1987). Enhancing instructional time through attention to metacognition. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20(2), 66–75. doi:10.1177/002221948702000201
32.
PeakeC.JiménezJ. E.RodríguezC.BisschopE.VillarroelR. (2015). Syntactic awareness and arithmetic word problem solving in children with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48, 593–601. doi:19.1177/0022219413520183
33.
RosenzweigC.KrawecJ.MontagueM. (2011). Metacognitive strategy use of eighth-grade students with and without learning disabilities during mathematical problem solving: A think-aloud analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44, 508–520. doi:10.1177/0022219410378445
34.
SeethalerP. M.FuchsL. S. (2010). The predictive utility of kindergarten screening for math difficulty. Exceptional Children, 77, 37–59.
35.
SwansonH. L. (2012). Cognitive profile of adolescents with math disabilities: Are the profiles different from those with reading disabilities?Child Neuropsychology, 18, 125–143. doi:10.1080/09297049.2011.589377
36.
SwansonH. L. (2015). Cognitive strategies interventions improve word problem solving and working memory in children with math disabilities. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 1099. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01099
37.
SwansonH. L.LussierC.OroscoM. (2013). Effects of cognitive strategy interventions and cognitive moderators on word problem solving in children at risk for problem solving difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28, 170–183. doi:10.1111/ldrp.12019
38.
TedickD.GortariB. (1998). Research on error correction and implications for classroom teaching (The Bridge, ACIE Newsletter, Vol. 1). Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition, University of Minnesota. Retrieved from http://www.carla.umn.edu/immersion/acie/vol1/May1998.pdf
39.
WatsonS. M.GableR. A. (2013). Unraveling the complex nature of mathematics learning disability: Implications for research and practice. Learning Disability Quarterly, 36, 178–187. doi:10.1177/0731948712461489
40.
XinY. P. (2008). The effect of schema-based instruction in solving mathematics word problems: An emphasis on prealgebraic conceptualization of multiplicative relations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39, 526–551. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40539313
41.
XinY. P.JitendraA. K.Deatline-BuchmanA. (2005). Effects of mathematical word problem-solving instruction on middle school students with learning problems. The Journal of Special Education, 39, 181–192. doi:10.1177/00224669050390030501
