This meta-analysis examined the ecological and population validity of intervention research for students with low mathematics achievement (SWLMA). Forty-four studies published between 2005 and 2019 that met the inclusionary criterion were included in this analysis. Our findings suggest, to improve the external validity and generalizability of research, more detailed descriptions of participants and the socio-cultural contexts of the intervention studies are warranted.
AguirreJ. M.del Rosario ZavalaM. (2013). Making culturally responsive mathematics teaching explicit: A lesson analysis tool. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 8(2), 163–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2013.768518
2.
ArtilesA.TrentS. (1997). Building a knowledge base on culturally diverse students with learning disabilities: The need to enrich research with a sociocultural perspective. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 12(2), 80–81.
3.
BaroodyA. J.EilandM. D.PurpuraD. J.ReidE. E. (2012). Fostering at-risk kindergarten children’s number sense. Cognition and Instruction, 30(4), 435–470. https://doi.org//10.1080/07370008.2012.720152
4.
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ. P. T.RothsteinH. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley.
5.
BrachtG. H.GlassG. V. (1968). The external validity of experiments. American Educational Research Journal, 5, 437–474. https://doi.org/10.2307/1161993
6.
BronfenbrennerU. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.
7.
BottgeB. A.TolandM. D.GassawayL.ButlerM.ChooS.GriffenA. K.MaX. (2015). Impact of enhanced anchored instruction in inclusive math classrooms. Exceptional Children, 81(2), 158–175.
8.
BryantD. P.BryantB. R.RobertsG.VaughnS.PfannenstielK. H.PorterfieldJ.GerstenR. (2011). Early numeracy intervention program for first-grade students with mathematics difficulties. Exceptional Children, 78(1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291107800101
9.
BurnsM. K.KaniveR.DeGrandeM. (2012). Effect of a computer-delivered math fact intervention as a supplemental intervention for math in third and fourth grades. Remedial & Special Education, 33(3), 184–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932510381652
10.
ClarkeB.DoablerC. T.SmolkowskiK.BakerS. K.FienH. Strand
CaryM. (2014a). Examining the efficacy of a Tier 2 kindergarten mathematics intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49(2), 152–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/10.1177/0022219414538514
11.
ClarkeB.DoablerC. T.Strand CaryM.KostyD.BakerS.FienH.SmolkowskiK. (2014b). Preliminary evaluation of a tier 2 mathematics intervention for first-grade students: Using a theory of change to guide formative evaluation activities. School Psychology Review, 43(2), 160–178.
12.
ClarkeB.SmolkowskiK.BakerS. K.FienH.DoablerC. T.ChardD. J. (2011). The impact of a comprehensive Tier 1 core kindergarten program on the achievement of students at risk in mathematics. Elementary School Journal, 111(4), 561–584.
13.
CoddingR. S.VanDerHeydenA. M.MartinR. J.DesaiS.AllardN.PerraultL. (2016). Manipulating treatment dose: Evaluating the frequency of a small group intervention targeting whole number operations. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 31(4), 208–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/10.1111/ldrp.12120
14.
Council for Exceptional Children. (2014). CEC standards for evidence-based practices in special education.
15.
DennisM. S.SharpE.ChovanesJ.ThomasA.BurnsR. M.CusterB.ParkJ. (2016). A meta-analysis of empirical research on teaching students with mathematics learning difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 31(3), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/10.1111/ldrp.12107
16.
DoablerC. T.ClarkeB.KostyD. B.Kurtz-NelsonE.FienH.SmolkowskiK.BakerS. K. (2016). Testing the efficacy of a Tier 2 mathematics intervention. Exceptional Children, 83(1), 92–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/10.1177/0014402916660084
17.
EllisM. W. (2003). Constructing a personal understanding of mathematics: Making the pieces fit. Mathematics Teacher, 96(8), 538–542. https://doi.org/10.5951/MT.100.8.0518
FuchsL. S.ComptonD. L.FuchsD.HamlettC. L.DeSelmsJ.SeethalerP. M.. . .ChangasP. (2013a). Effects of first-grade number knowledge tutoring with contrasting forms of practice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1), 58–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/10.1037/a0030127
20.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.CraddockC.HollenbeckK. N.HamlettC. L.SchatschneiderC. (2008). Effects of small-group tutoring with and without validated classroom instruction on at-risk students’ math problem solving: Are two tiers of prevention better than one?Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 491–509. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.491
21.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamletC. L.PowellS. R.CapizziA. M.SeethalerP. M. (2006). The effects of computer-assisted instruction on number combination skill in at-risk first graders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(5), 467–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194060390050701
22.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.KarnsK. (2001). Enhancing kindergartners’ mathematical development: Effects of peer-assisted learning strategies. The Elementary School Journal, 101(5), 495–510. https://doi.org/10.1086/499684
23.
FuchsL. S.MaloneA. S.SchumacherR. F.NamkungJ.HamlettC. L.JordanN. C.ChangasP. (2016). Supported self-explaining during fraction intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(4), 493–508. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000073
24.
FuchsL. S.PowellS. R.SeethalerP. M.CirinoP. T.FletcherJ. M.FuchsD.HamlettC. L. (2010). The effects of strategic counting instruction, with and without deliberate practice, on number combination skill among students with mathematics difficulties. Learning & Individual Differences, 20(2), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.09.003
25.
FuchsL. S.PowellS. R.SeethalerP. M.CirinoP. T.FletcherJ. M.FuchsD.. . .ZumetaR. O. (2009). Remediating number combination and word problem deficits among students with mathematics difficulties: A randomized control trial. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 561–576. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014701
GayG. (2002). Culturally responsive teaching in special education for ethnically diverse students: Setting the stage. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 15(6), 613–629. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839022000014349
28.
GearyD. C.HoardM. K.Byrd-CravenJ.NugentL.NumteeC. (2007). Cognitive mechanisms underlying achievement deficits in children with mathematical learning disability. Child Development, 78, 1343–1359. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01069.x
29.
GerstenR.BeckmannS.ClarkeB.FoegenA.MarshL.StarJ. R.WitzelB. (2009). Assisting students struggling with mathematics: Response to Intervention (RtI) for elementary and middle schools (NCEE 2009-4060). What Works Clearinghouse.
30.
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(3), 1202–1242. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309334431
31.
GerstenR.FuchsL. S.ComptonD.CoyneM.GreenwoodC.InnocentiM. S. (2005). Quality Indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029050710020
32.
GerstenR.RolfhusE.ClarkeB.DeckerL. E.WilkinsC.DiminoJ. (2015). Intervention for first graders with limited number knowledge: Large-scale replication of a randomized controlled trial. American Educational Research Journal, 52(3), 516–546. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214565787
Hassinger-DasB.JordanN. C.DysonN. (2015). Reading stories to learn math: Mathematics vocabulary instruction for children with early numeracy difficulties. The Elementary School Journal, 116(2), 242–246.
35.
HedgesL. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6, 107–128. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986006002107
36.
JitendraA. K.DupuisD. N.RodriguezM. C.ZaslofskyA. F.SlaterS.Cozine-CorroyK.ChurchC. (2013a). A randomized controlled trial of the impact of schema-based instruction on mathematical outcomes for third-grade students with mathematics difficulties. Elementary School Journal, 114(2), 252–276.
37.
JitendraA. K.DupuisD. N.StarJ. R.RodriguezM. C. (2016). The effects of schema-based instruction on the proportional thinking of students with mathematics difficulties with and without reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49(4), 354–367. https://doi.org10.1177/0022219414554228
38.
JitendraA. K.HarwellM. R.DupuisD. N.KarlS. R. (2017a). 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(3), 322–336. https://doi.org10.1177/002221941662964
39.
JitendraA. K.HarwellM. R.KarlS. R.SimonsonG. R.SlaterS. C. (2017b). Investigating a Tier 1 intervention focused on proportional reasoning: A follow-up study. Exceptional Children, 83(4), 340–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917691017
40.
JitendraA. K.RodriguezM.KaniveR.HuangJ.ChurchC.CorroyK. A.ZaslofskyA. (2013b). Impact of small-group tutoring interventions on the mathematical problem solving and achievement of third-grade students with mathematics difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 36(1), 21–35. https://doi.org10.1177/0731948712457561
41.
JitendraA. K.StarJ. R.StarostaK.LehJ. M.SoodS.CaskieG.HugnesC.MackT. R. (2009). Improving seventh grade students’ learning of ratio and proportion: The role of schema-based instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(3), 250–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.06.001
42.
JohnstonP. H. (2004). Choice words: How our language affects children’s learning. Stenhouse.
43.
KaniveR.NelsonP.BurnsM.YsseldykeJ. (2014). Comparison of the effects of computer-based practice and conceptual understanding interventions on mathematics fact retention and generalization. Journal of Educational Research, 107(2), 83–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2012.759405
44.
KempertS.HardyI.SaalbachH. (2011). Cognitive benefits and costs of bilingualism in elementary school students: The case of mathematical word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(3), 547–561. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023619
45.
Ketterlin-GellerL. R.ChardD. J.HankF. (2008). Making connections in mathematics: Conceptual mathematics intervention for low-performing students. Remedial and Special Education, 29(1), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932507309711
46.
KiskerE.LipkaJ.AdamsB. L.RickardA.Andrew-IhrkeD.YanezE. E.MillardA. (2012). The potential of a culturally based supplemental mathematics curriculum to improve the mathematics performance of Alaska Native and other students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 43(1), 75–113. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.43.1.0075
47.
KrawecJ.HuangJ.MontagueM.KresslerB.de AlbaA. M. (2013). The effects of cognitive strategy instruction on knowledge of math problem-solving processes of middle school students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 36(2), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/073194871246336
48.
Ladson-BillingsG. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035007003
49.
LambertR. (2015). Constructing and resisting disability in mathematics classrooms: A case study exploring the impact of different pedagogies. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 89(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-014-9587-6
50.
LehJ. M.JitendraA. K. (2013). Effects of computer-mediated versus teacher-mediated instruction on the mathematical word problem-solving performance of third-grade students with mathematical difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 36(2), 68–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948712461447
51.
MartinD. B. (2003). Hidden assumptions and unaddressed questions in mathematics for all rhetoric. The Mathematics Educator, 13(2), 7–21.
52.
MillerS. P.MercerC. D. (1993). Using data to learn about concrete-semiconcrete-abstract instruction for students with math disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 8, 89–96.
53.
MoranA. S.SwansonH. L.GerberM. M.FungW. (2014). The effects of paraphrasing interventions on problem-solving accuracy for children at risk for math disabilities. Learning Disabilities, 29, 97–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12035
54.
MurphyM. M.MazzoccoM. M. M.HanichL. B.EarlyM. C. (2007). Cognitive characteristics of children with mathematics learning disability (MLD) vary as a function of the cutoff criterion used to define MLD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(5), 458–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194070400050901
55.
National Research Council. (2009). Mathematics learning in early childhood: Paths toward excellence and equity. The National Academies Press.
NelsonP. M.BurnsM. K.KaniveR.YsseldykeJ. E. (2013). Comparison of a math fact rehearsal and a mnemonic strategy approach for improving math fact fluency. Journal of School Psychology, 51(6), 659–667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2013.08.003
58.
OrfieldG. (Ed.). (2004). Dropouts in America: Confronting the graduation rate crisis. Harvard University Press.
59.
PappasS.GinsburgH. P.JiangM. (2003). SES differences in young children’s metacognition in the context of mathematical problem solving. Cognitive Development, 18(3), 431–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2014(03)00043-1
PowellS. R.DriverM. K. (2015). The influence of mathematics vocabulary instruction embedded within addition tutoring for first-grade students with mathematics difficulty. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38(4), 221–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948714564574
62.
PowellS. R.DriverM. K.JulianT. E. (2015). The effect of tutoring with nonstandard equations for students with mathematics difficulty. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(5), 523–534. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413512613
63.
ReedD. K.SorrellsA. M.ColeH. A.TakakawaN. N. (2013). The ecological and population validity of reading interventions for adolescents: Can effectiveness be generalized?Learning Disability Quarterly, 36(3), 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948712451976
64.
ShavelsonR.PhillipsD. C.TowneL.FeuerM. (2003). On the science of education design studies. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 25–28. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032001025
65.
SmithT. M.CobbP.FarranD. C.CordrayD. S.MunterC. (2013). Evaluating math recovery: Assessing the causal impact of a diagnostic tutoring program on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 50(2), 397–428. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831212469045
66.
SoodS.JitendraA. K. (2013). An exploratory study of a number sense program to develop kindergarten students’ number proficiency. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46, 328–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411422380
67.
SwansonH. L. (2014). Does cognitive strategy training on word problems compensate for working memory capacity in children with math difficulties?Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(3), 831–848. https://doi.org/10.1037/a00358
68.
SwansonH. L. (2015). Cognitive strategy interventions improve word problem solving and working memory in children with math disabilities. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–13.
69.
SwansonH. L.HoskynM.LeeC. (1999). Interventions for students with learning disabilities. Guilford Press.
70.
SwansonH. L.KongJ. E.MoranA. S.OroscoM. J. (2019). Paraphrasing interventions and problem-solving accuracy: Do generative procedures help English language learners with math difficulties?Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 34(2), 68–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12194
71.
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(4), 170–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12019
72.
SwansonH. L.LussierC. M.OroscoM. J. (2015). Cognitive strategies, working memory, and growth in word problem solving in children with math difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(4), 339–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413498771
73.
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(2), 111–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948713507264
74.
SwansonH. L.OroscoM. J.LussierC. M. (2014). The effects of mathematics strategy instruction for children with serious problem-solving difficulties. Exceptional Children, 80(2), 149–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291408000202
75.
Torres-VelasquezD.LoboG. (2005). Research, reflection, and practice: Culturally responsive mathematics teaching and English language learners. Teaching Children Mathematics, 11(5), 240–255. https://doi.org/10.5951/TCM.11.5.0249
76.
TournakiN.Young SehBaeKerekesJ. (2008). Rekenrek: A manipulative used to teach addition and subtraction to students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities - A Contemporary Journal, 6(2), 41–59.
77.
UkpokoduO. (2011). Developing teachers’ cultural competence: One teacher educator’s practice of unpacking student culturelessness. Action in Teacher Education, 33(5–6), 432–454. https://doi/10.1080/01626620.2011.627033
WalkerE. N. (2007). Why aren’t more minorities taking advanced math?Educational Researcher, 65(3), 48–53.
81.
WhiteR. E.CopperK.MackeyW. (2014). Culturally relevant education and critical pedagogy: Devolution of hierarchies of power. International Journal for Social Justice, 3, 123–140.
82.
WoodwardJ. (2006). Developing automaticity in multiplication facts: integrating strategy instruction with timed practice drills. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29(4), 269–289. https://doi.org/10.2307/30035554
83.
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(3), 181–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466905039003050
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
