Teaching Rate of Change and Problem Solving to High School Students With High Incidence Disabilities at Tier 3

Abstract

Implementing an integrated sequence of concrete-representational-abstract depictions of mathematics concepts (CRA-I) can improve the mathematics achievement of students with disabilities, and explicit instructional strategies involving problem-solving heuristics and student verbalizations can help facilitate students’ conceptual understanding of mathematics. Combining CRA-I and explicit instructional strategies may increase students’ conceptual understanding and ability to express mathematical reasoning through writing. This study included three ninth-grade students with disabilities, and employed a multiple-probe design across-participants to investigate a functional relation between an explicit instructional strategy within a CRA-I framework and high school students’ with disabilities proficiency in solving rate of change problems. Results showed that all three students improved their mathematics scores (combined Tau-U effect size = 0.77, p < .001) and maintained improvements during a 1- to 7-week post-instruction phase. Implications for research and practice related to mathematics instruction and intervention specifically for students with learning disabilities are discussed.

Keywords

content-area instruction instructional strategies single-subject methods research design or utilization writing thinking/cognition

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bezuidenhout

(1998). First-year university students’ understanding of rate of change. International Journal of Math Education Science and Technology, 29, 389–399. doi:10.1080/0020739980290309

Brossart

D. F.

Laird

V. C.

Armstrong

T. W.

(2018). Interpreting Kendall’s Tau and Tau-U for single-case experimental designs. Cogent Psychology, 5, 1518687. doi:10.1080/23311908.2018.1518687

Codding

R. S.

Lane

K. L.

(2015). A spotlight on treatment intensity: An important and often overlooked component of intervention inquiry. Journal of Behavioral Education, 24, 1–10. doi:10.1007/s10864-014-9210-z

Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. (2010). Available from www.corestandards.org

Connolly

A. J.

(2007). KeyMath-3 diagnostic assessment: Manual forms A and B. Bloomington, MN: Pearson.

Flores

M. M.

Hinton

V. M.

Schweck

K. B.

(2014). Teaching multiplication with regrouping to students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29, 171–183. doi:10.1111/ldrp.12043

Forsyth

S. R.

Powell

S. R.

(2017). Differences in the mathematics-vocabulary knowledge of fifth-grade students with and without learning difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 32, 231–245. doi:10.111/ldrp12144

Gersten

Chard

D. J.

Jayanthi

Baker

S. K.

Morphy

Flojo

(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

Hammill

D. D.

Larsen

S. C.

(2009). Test of written language: Fourth edition, examiner’s manual. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

10.

Hattikudor

Alibali

M. W.

Prather

R. W.

Knuth

E. J.

Asquith

Nathan

(2012). Constructing graphical representations: Middle schoolers’ intuitions and developing knowledge about slope and y-intercept. School Science and Mathematics, 112, 230–240. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2012.00138.x

11.

Herbert

Pierce

(2007). Video evidence: What gestures tell us about students’ understanding of rate of change. Mathematics Essential Research, Essential Practice, 1, 362–371.

12.

Hughes

E. M.

Witzel

B. S.

Riccomini

R. J.

Fries

K. M.

Kanyongo

G. Y.

(2014). A meta-analysis of algebra interventions for learners with disabilities and struggling learners. The Journal of the International Association of Special Education, 15, 36–47.

13.

Hwang

Riccomini

P. J.

(2016). Enhancing mathematical problem solving for secondary students with or at risk of learning disabilities: A literature review. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 31, 169–181. doi:10.1111/ldrp.12105

14.

Jitendra

A. K.

Harwell

M. R.

Dupuis

D. N.

Karl

S. 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. doi:10.1177/0022219416629646

15.

Jitendra

A. K.

Harwell

M. R.

S.-h.

Karl

S. R.

(2019). Improving student learning of ratio, proportion, and percent: A replication study of Schema-Based Instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111, 1045–1062. doi:10.1037/edu0000335

16.

Johnston

S. M.

(2011). Multiple baseline and multiple assessment designs. In O’Neill

R. E.

McDonnell

J. J.

Billingsley

F. F.

Jenson

W. R.

(Eds.), Single case designs in educational and community settings (pp. 99–116). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

17.

King

S. A.

Lemons

C. J.

Davidson

K. A.

(2016). Math interventions for students with autism spectrum disorder: A best-evidence synthesis. Exceptional Children, 82, 443–462. doi:10.1177/0014402915625066

18.

Kiuhara

S. A.

O’Neill

R. E.

Hawken

L. S.

Graham

(2012). The effectiveness of teaching 10th-grade students STOP, AIMS, and DARE for planning and drafting persuasive text. Exceptional Children, 78, 335–355. doi:10.1177/001440291207800305

19.

Lane

K. L.

Harris

K. R.

Weisenbach

J. L.

Brindle

Morphy

(2008). The effects of self-regulated strategy development on the writing performance of second-grade students with behavioral and writing difficulties. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 234–253. doi:10.1177/0022466907310370

20.

Lembke

E. S.

Hampton

Beyers

S. J.

(2012). Response to intervention in mathematics: Critical elements. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 257–272. doi:10.1002/pits.21596

21.

Lewis

K. E.

(2014). Difference not deficit: Reconceptualizing mathematical learning disabilities. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 45, 351–396. doi:10.5951/jresematheduc.45.3.0351

22.

Marita

Hord

(2017). Review of mathematics interventions for secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 40, 29–40. doi:10.1177/0731948716657495

23.

Myers

J. A.

Wang

Brownell

M. T.

Gagnon

J. C.

(2015). Mathematics interventions for students with learning disabilities (LD) in secondary school: A review of the literature. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 13, 207–235.

24.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). [School directory information]. Common Core of Data. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/

25.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2017a). [Data tools: Item maps]. The Nation’s Report Card. Retrieved from https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/itemmaps/?subj=MAT&grade=8&year=2017

26.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2017b). [NAEP mathematics report card: National achievement-level results]. The Nation’s Report Card. Retrieved from https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/math_2017/#/nation/achievement?grade=8

27.

Porter

M. K.

Masingila

J. O.

(2000). Examining the effects of writing on conceptual and procedural knowledge in calculus. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 42, 165–177. doi:10.1023/A:1004166811047

28.

Powell

S. R.

Hebert

M. A.

Cohen

J. A.

Casa

T. M.

Firmender

J. M.

(2017). A synthesis of mathematics writing: Assessments, interventions, and surveys. Journal of Writing Research, 8, 493–526. doi:10.17239/jowr-2017.08.03.04

29.

Shin

Bryant

D. P.

(2015). A synthesis of mathematical and cognitive performances of students with mathematical learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48, 96–112. doi:10.1177/0022219413508324

30.

Strickland

T. K.

Maccini

(2012). The effects of the concrete-representational-abstract integration strategy on the ability of students with learning disabilities to multiply linear expressions within area problems. Remedial and Special Education, 34, 142–153. doi:10.1177/0741932512441712

31.

Teuscher

Reys

R. E.

(2012). Rate of change: AP calculus students’ understandings and misconceptions after completing different curricular paths. School Science and Mathematics, 112, 359–376. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2012.00150.x

32.

Teuscher

Reys

R. E.

Evitts

T. A.

Heinz

(2010). Slope, rate of change, and steepness: Do students understand these concepts? The Mathematics Teacher, 103, 519–524.

33.

Vannest

K. J.

Ninci

(2015). Evaluating intervention effects in single-case research designs. Journal of Counseling & Development, 93, 403–411. doi:10.1002/jcad.12038

34.

Vannest

K. J.

Parker

R. I.

Gonen

(2011). Single case research: Web based calculators for SCR analysis (Version 1.0) [Web-based application]. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University. Retrieved from www.singlecaseresearch.org/calculators/tau-u

35.

Watt

S. J.

Watkins

J. R.

Abbitt

(2016). Teaching algebra to students with learning disabilities: Where have we come and where should we go? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49, 437–447. doi:10.1177/0022219414564220

36.

Witzel

B. S.

(2005). Using CRA to teach algebra to students with math difficulties in inclusive settings. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 3(2), 49–60.

37.

Woodward

Beckmann

Driscoll

Franke

Herzig

Jitendra

. . . Ogbuehi

(2012). Improving mathematical problem solving in grades 4 through 8: A practice guide (NCEE 2012-4055). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications_reviews.aspx#pubsearch/