Schema-based instruction (SBI) was used to teach nine middle school students with high-incidence disabilities (HID) to solve proportional reasoning word problems. A multiple-baseline-across-groups design was used to determine student understanding of the SBI process. The design consisted of three phases including baseline, SBI process, and maintenance. Training of the SBI process with worked problems occurred between baseline and SBI process. Students’ performance was measured using a five-category rubric, under two conditions: solving problems with and without calculator use. Results indicated that all groups improved problem-solving performance and maintained improvement 4 weeks after instruction. Implications for revising the rubric’s mastery criteria and future research are described.
AltmanJ. R.CormierD. C.LazarusS. S.ThurlowM. L. (2012). Tennessee special education teacher survey: Training, large-scale testing, and TCAP-MAAS administration. Minneapolis: National Center on Educational Outcomes, University of Minnesota.
2.
BouckE. C.BouckM. K.HunleyM. (2015). The calculator effect: Understanding the impact of calculators as accommodations for secondary students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 30, 77–88.
3.
BoyerT. W.LevineS. C.HuttenlocherJ. (2008). Development of proportional reasoning: Where young children go wrong. Developmental Psychology, 44, 1478–1490.
4.
BryantB. R.BryantD. P. (2008). Introduction to the special series: Mathematics and learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31, 3–10.
5.
DuPaulG. J.GormleyM. J.LaracyS. D. (2013). Comorbidity of LD and ADHD: Implications of DSM-5 for assessment and treatment. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46, 43–51. doi:10.1177/0022219412464351
6.
EngelhardG.Jr.FincherM.DomaleskiC. S. (2011). Mathematics performance of students with and without disabilities under accommodated conditions using resource guides and calculators on high stakes tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 24, 22–38.
7.
GastD. L.LloydB. P.LedfordJ. (2014). Multiple baseline and multiple probe designs. In GastD. L.LedfordJ. R. (Eds.), Single case research methodology in special education and behavioral sciences (2nd ed., pp. 251–296). New York, NY: Routledge.
8.
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.
9.
JitendraA. K. (2007). Solving math word problems: Teaching students with learning disabilities using schema-based instruction. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
10.
JitendraA. K.DiPipiC. M.Perron-JonesN. (2002). An exploratory study of schema-based word-problem-solving instruction of 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
11.
JitendraA. K.DupuisD. N.RodriguezM.ZaslofskyA.SlaterS.CorroyK.ChurchC. (2013). A randomized controlled trial of the impact of schema-based instruction on mathematical outcomes for third-grade students with mathematics difficulties. The Elementary School Journal, 114, 253–275.
12.
JitendraA. K.GeorgeM. P.SheetalS.PriceK. (2010). Schema-based instruction: Facilitating mathematical word problem-solving for students with emotional and behavior disorders. Preventing School Failure, 54, 145–151.
13.
JitendraA. K.GriffinC. C.HariaP.LehJ.AdamsA. K.KaduvettoorA. (2007). A comparison of single and multiple strategy instruction on third-grade students’ mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 115–127. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.115
14.
JitendraA. K.HarwellM. R.DupoisD. N.KarlS. R. (2017). A randomized trial of the effects of schema-based instruction on proportional problem solving for students with mathematics problem-solving difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50, 322–336.
15.
JitendraA. K.HarwellM. R.DupoisD. N.KarlS. R.LeinA. E.SimonsonG.SlaterS. (2015). Effects of a research-based intervention to improve seventh-grade students’ proportional problem solving: A cluster randomized trial. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 1019–1034.
16.
JitendraA. K.HoffK.BeckM. M. (1999). Teaching middle school students with learning disabilities to solve word problems using a schema-based approach. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 50–64. doi:10.1177/074193259902000108
17.
JitendraA. K.RodriguezM.KaniveR.HuangJ.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
18.
JitendraA. K.StarJ. R. (2012). An exploratory study contrasting high- and low-achieving students’ percent word problem-solving. Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 151–158. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.11.003
19.
JitendraA. K.StarJ. R.RodriguezM.LindellM.SomekiF. (2011). Improving students’ proportional thinking using schema-based instruction. Learning and Instruction, 21, 731–745. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.04.002
20.
JitendraA. K.StarJ. R.StarostaK.LehJ.SoodS.CaskieG.MackT. R. (2009). Improving students’ learning of ratio and proportion problem solving: The role of schema-based instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 250–264.
21.
KasapC.ErgenekonY. (2017). Effects of a schema approach for the achievement of the verbal mathematics problem-solving skills in individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 17, 1787–1809.
22.
KercoodS.ZentallS.VinhM.Tom-WrightK. (2012). Attentional cuing in math word problems for girls at-risk for ADHD and their peers in general education settings. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37, 106–112.
23.
KratochwillT. R.HitchcockJ. H.HornerR. H.LevinJ. R.OdomS. L.RindskopfD. M.ShadishW. R. (2013). Single-case intervention research design standards. Remedial and Special Education, 34, 26–38.
24.
KrawecJ. (2014). Problem representation and mathematical problem solving of students of varying math ability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47, 103–115.
25.
LaiS. A.BerkeleyS. (2012). High-states test accommodations: Research and practice. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35, 158–169.
26.
MacciniP.MulcahyC. A.WilsonM. G. (2007). A follow-up of mathematics interventions for secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 58–74. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00231.x
27.
MarshallS. P. (1990). The assessment of schema knowledge for arithmetic story problems: A cognitive perspective. In KulmG. (Ed.), Assessing higher order thinking in mathematics (pp. 155–168). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
28.
MarshallS. P. (1995). Schemas in problem solving. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
29.
MillerS. P.HudsonP. J. (2007). Using evidence-based practices to build mathematics competence related to conceptual, procedural, and declarative knowledge. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 47–57. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00230.x
30.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). Mathematics assessment report card: Summary data tables for national and state sample sizes, participation rates, and proportions of SD and ELL students identified. Available from https://www.nationsreportcard.gov
31.
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.
32.
ParkerR. I.VannestK. (2009). An improved effect size for single-case research: Nonoverlap of all pairs. Behavior Therapy, 40, 357–367. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2008.10.006
33.
PeltierC. J.VannestK. J.MarbachJ. J. (2018). A meta-analysis of schema instruction implemented in single-case experimental designs. The Journal of Special Education, 52, 89–100. doi:10.1177/0022466918763173
34.
PowellS. R.FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2013). Reaching the mountaintop: Addressing the common core standards in mathematics for students with mathematics difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28, 38–48.
35.
SahliS. (2009). Auditory processing disorder in children: Definition, assessment and management. Journal of International Advanced Otology, 5, 104–115.
36.
ScarpatiS. E.WellsC. S.LewisC.JirkaS. (2011). Accommodations and item-level analyses using mixture differential item functioning models. The Journal of Special Education, 45, 54–62.
37.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A.CookS. B.EscobarC. (1986). Early intervention for children with conduct disorders: A quantitative synthesis of single student research. Behavior Disorders, 11, 260–271.
38.
SteeleD. (2005). Using writing to access students’ schemata knowledge of algebraic thinking. School Science and Mathematics, 105, 142–154. Retrieved from http://www.ssma.org/publications
Van GarderenD.MontagueM. (2003). Visual-spatial representation, mathematical problem solving, and students of varying abilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 246–254.
41.
WilsonG. L.KimS. A.MichaelsC. A. (2011). Factors associated with where secondary students with disabilities are educated and how they are doing. The Journal of Special Education, 47, 148–161.
42.
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
