The purpose of this study was to explore interactions between limited English proficiency (LEP) status, as a function of risk status (low math performance at the start of the school year), on computation and word-problem-solving performance. Among 260 first-grade students, classified as at-risk (AR) or not-at-risk (NAR) for math disability, we compared the performance of LEP students with native-English-speaking peers. A series of two-way ANOVAs were conducted on computation and word-problem-solving skills at two time points, fall and spring of first grade. On fall computation measures, there was no main effect for LEP status and no interaction between LEP and risk status. On spring computation, a main effect for LEP status had emerged, but again no interaction. By contrast, on fall word-problem solving, there was an interaction between LEP and risk status; however, this interaction was no longer significant by spring. Results suggest that language proficiency is an important factor in the development of computation and word-problem-solving skill. Implications for future research are discussed.
AbediJ.HermanJ.CourtneyM.LeonS.KaoJ. (2004). English language learners and math achievement: A study on classroom level opportunity to learn. Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, University of California.
2.
AbediJ.LordC. (2001). The language factor in mathematics tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 14, 219–234. doi:10.1207/S15324818AME1403_2
AdoniouM.QingY. (2014). Language, mathematics, and English language learners. Australian Mathematics Teacher, 70(3), 3–11.
5.
BaroodyA. J.GinsburgH. P. (1990). Chapter 4: Children’s mathematical learning: A cognitive view. Journal for Research in Mathematical Education, 4, 51–210.
6.
CavanaghS. (2005). Math: The not-so-universal language. Education Week, 24(42), 1–22.
7.
DehaeneS.SpelkeE. S.PinelS.-C.TsivkinS. (1999). Sources of mathematical thinking: Behavioral and brain-imaging evidence. Science, 284, 970–974. doi:10.1126/science.284.5416.970
8.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.ComptonD. L.HamlettC. L.WangA. Y. (2015). Is word-problem solving a form of text comprehension?Scientific Studies of Reading, 19, 204–223. doi:10.1080/10888438.2015.1005745
9.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.StuebingK.FletcherJ. M.HamlettC. L.LambertW. E. (2008). Problem-solving and computation skill: Are they shared or distinct aspects of mathematical cognition?Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 30–47. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.30
10.
FuchsL. S.GearyD. C.ComptonD. L.FuchsD.SchatschneiderC.HamlettC. L.. . . BryantJ. D. (2013). Effects of first-grade number knowledge tutoring with contrasting forms of practice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 58–77. doi:10.1037/a0030127
11.
FuchsL. S.GilbertJ. K.FuchsD.SeethalerP. M.MartinB. N. (2018). Text comprehension and oral language as predictors of word-problem solving: Insights into word-problem solving as a form of text comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 222, 152–166. doi:10.1080/10888438.2017.1398259
12.
FuchsL. S.HamlettC. L.FuchsD. (1990). First grade test of computational fluency and first grade test of mathematics concepts and application. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University.
13.
FuchsL. S.HamlettC. L.PowellS. R. (2003). Test of arithmetic fluency. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University.
GordonP. (2004). Numerical cognition without words: Evidence from Amazonia. Science, 306, 496–499.
16.
HakutaK.ButlerY.WittD. (2000). How long does it take English learners to attain proficiency?Santa Barbara: University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute.
17.
JanzenJ. (2008). Teaching English language learners in the content areas. Review of Educational Research, 78, 1010–1038. doi:10.3102/0034654308325580
18.
JordanN. C.HanichL. (2000). Mathematical thinking in second-grade children with different forms of VD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 567–578. doi:10.1177/002221940003300605
19.
KintschW.GreenoJ. G. (1985). Understanding and solving word arithmetic problems. Psychological Review, 92, 109–129. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.92.1.109
20.
LarazinM. (2006). Improving assessment and accountability for English language learners in the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLR). Washington, DC: National Council of La Raza.
21.
LeeH.JungW. (2004, Jan). Limited English proficient (LEP) students and mathematical understanding. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 9, 269–272.
22.
MonroeE. E.OrmeM. P. (2002). Developing mathematical vocabulary. Preventing School Failure, 46, 139–142. doi:10.1080/10459880209603359
23.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2015). Digest of education statistics: 2015. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.
24.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2017). English language learners in public schools. Available from http://nces.ed.gov
25.
PowellS. R.DriverM. K.FallA. (2017). An analysis of the mathematics vocabulary knowledge of third- and fifth-grade students: Connections to general vocabulary and mathematics computation. Learning and Individual Differences, 57, 22–32. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2017.05.011
26.
PurpuraD. J.GanleyC. M. (2014). Working memory and language: Skill-specific or domain-general relations to mathematics?Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 122, 104–121. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2013.12.009
27.
SalillasE.WichaN. Y. (2012). Early learning shapes the memory networks for arithmetic: Evidence from brain potentials in bilinguals. Psychological Science, 23, 745–755. doi:10.1177/0956797612446347
