This meta-analysis assessed the effect of word-problem-solving interventions on the word-problem-solving accuracy of students identified as having a learning disability (LD) or at risk for an LD in kindergarten to the sixth grade. Eighteen randomized control group designed studies met the inclusion criteria. Overall, word-problem-solving interventions yielded a significant positive effect on the word-problem-solving accuracy of students in elementary grades with LD (effect size [ES] = 1.08). Instructional components that underlie effective studies were also identified. Results suggest that peer interaction and transfer instructions yielded large effects on treatment outcomes. Results also suggested that intensive interventions (50-min sessions, 34 total sessions) in Grade 3 regardless of instructional setting yielded the largest ESs. These findings support the need to develop and implement quality evidence-based instruction in classroom settings (Tier 1 instruction) prior to utilizing additional resources for more intensive and individualized intervention.
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ. P. T.RothsteinH. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Wiley.
2.
BumgarnerE.MartinA.Brooks-GunnJ. (2013). Approaches to learning and Hispanic children’s math scores: The moderating role of English proficiency. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 35(2), 241–259. https://doi.org//10.1177/0739986312473580
3.
CawleyJ.ParmarR.FoleyT. E.SalmonS.RoyS. (2001). Arithmetic performance of students: Implications for standards and programming. Exceptional Children, 67, 311–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290106700302
4.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
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/10.1111/ldrp.12107
6.
FletcherJ. M.EpsyK. A.FrancisP. J.DavidsonK. C.RourkeB. P.ShaywitzS. E. (1989). Comparison of cutoff and regression-based definitions of reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 334–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221948902200603
7.
FuchsD.MockD.MorganP. L.YoungC. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 157–171.
8.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2007). Mathematical problem solving. In BerchD. B.MazzoccoM. M. (Eds.), Why is math so hard for some children? The nature and origins of mathematical learning difficulties and disabilities (pp. 397–414). Paul H. Brookes.
9.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.ComptonD. L.PowellS. R.SeethalerP. M.CapizziA. M.. . . FletcherJ. M. (2006). The cognitive correlates of third-grade skill in arithmetic, algorithmic computation, and arithmetic word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.29
10.
*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
11.
*FuchsL. S.FuchsD.FinelliR.CoureyS. J.HamlettC. L. (2004). Expanding schema-based transfer instruction to help third graders solve real-life mathematical problems. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 419–445. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312041002419
12.
*FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L.AppletonA. C. (2002). Explicitly teaching for transfer: Effects on the mathematical problem-solving performance of students with mathematics disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17, 90–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5826.00036
13.
*FuchsL. S.FuchsD.PrenticeK. (2004). Responsiveness to mathematical problem-solving instruction comparing students at risk of mathematics disability with and without risk of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 293–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194040370040201
14.
*FuchsL. S.FuchsD.PrenticeK.BurchM.HamlettC. L.OwenR.HospM.JancekD. (2003). Explicitly teaching for transfer: Effects on third-grade students’ mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 293–305. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.293
15.
*FuchsL. S.FuchsD.PrenticeK.BurchM.HamlettC. L.OwenR.SchroeterK. (2003). Enhancing third-grade students’ mathematical problem solving with self-regulated learning strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 306–315. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.306
16.
*FuchsL. S.FuchsD.PrenticeK.HamlettC. L.FinelliR.CoureyS. J. (2004). Enhancing mathematical problem solving among third-grade students with schema-based instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 635–647. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.4.635
17.
*FuchsL. S.SeethalerP. M.PowellS. R.FuchsD.HamlettC. L.FletcherJ. M. (2008). Effects of preventative tutoring on the mathematical problem solving of third-grade students with math and reading difficulties. Exceptional Children, 74, 155–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290807400202
18.
GerstenR.BakerS. (2000). What we know about effective instructional practices for English-language learners. Exceptional Children, 66(4), 454–470.
19.
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
20.
GlassG. V. (1977). Integrating findings: The meta-analysis of research. Review of Research in Education, 5(1), 351–379.
21.
*GriffinC. C.JitendraA. K. (2009). Word problem-solving instruction in inclusive third-grade mathematics classrooms. The Journal of Educational Research, 102(3), 187–202. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.102.3.187-202
22.
GriffinS. A.CaseR.SieglerR. S. (1994). Rightstart: Providing the central conceptual prerequisites for first formal learning of arithmetic to students at risk for school failure. In McGillyK. (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 24–49). MIT Press.
23.
HallahanD. P.PullenP. C.WardD. (2014). A brief history of the field of learning disabilities. In SwansonH. L.HarrisK. R.GrahamS. (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 15–32). The Guilford Press.
24.
HigginsJ. P.ThompsonS. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 21(11), 1539–1558. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1186
25.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004, 20 U. S. C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).
26.
*JitendraA. K.DupuisD. N.RodriguezM. C.ZaslofskyA. F.SlaterS.Cozine-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(2), 252–276. https://doi.org/10.1086/673199
27.
*JitendraA. K.GriffinC. C.HariaP.LehJ.AdamsA.KaduvettoorA. (2007). A comparison of single and multiple strategy instruction on third-grade students’ mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.115
28.
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220679809597564
29.
*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(1), 21–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948712457561
30.
KongJ. E.SwansonH. L. (2019). The effects of a paraphrasing intervention on word problem-solving accuracy of English learners at risk of mathematic disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 42(2), 92–104.
31.
KroesbergenE. H.van LuitJ. E. (2003). Mathematics interventions for children with special educational needs: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 97–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325030240020501
32.
LeinA. E.JitendraA. K.HarwellM. R. (2020). Effectiveness of mathematical word problem solving interventions for students with learning disabilities and/or mathematics difficulties: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(7), 1388–1408. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000453
33.
McNeishD. (2017). Small sample methods for multilevel modeling: A colloquial elucidation of REML and the Kenward-Roger correction. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 52(5), 661–670. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2017.1344538
34.
*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 Research & Practice, 29, 97–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12035
35.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2019). The condition of education 2019 (NCES 2019144). Washington, DC: Institute of Educational Science, U.S. Department of Education.
36.
National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. In KilpatrickJ.SwaffordJ.FindellB. (Eds.), Mathematics learning study committee, center for education, division of behavioral and social sciences and education. National Academy Press.
37.
OroscoM. J.SwansonH. L.O’ConnorR.LussierC. (2011). The effects of dynamic strategic math on English language learners’ word problem solving. The Journal of Special Education, 47(2), 96–107.
38.
*OwenR. L.FuchsL. S. (2002). Mathematical problem-solving strategy instruction for third-grade students with learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 268–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325020230050201
39.
PowellS. R.BerryK. A.TranL. M. (2020). Performance differences on a measure of mathematics vocabulary for English learners and non-English learners with and without mathematics difficulty. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 36(2), 124–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2019.1677538
40.
RosenthalR. (1994). Parametric measures of effect size. In CooperH.HedgesL. V. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 231–244). SAGE.
41.
SAS Institute. (2012). SAS/STAT software: Changes and enhancements through release 9.4. Cary, NC: Author.
42.
SiegelL. S.RyanE. B. (1989). The development of working memory in normally achieving and subtypes of learning disabled children. Child Development, 60, 973–980. https://doi/org/10.2307/1131037
43.
SwansonH. L. (2006). Cross-sectional and incremental changes in working memory and mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 265–281. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.265
44.
SwansonH. L.HoskynM. (1998). Experimental intervention research on students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 277–321.
45.
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.
46.
SwansonH. L.KongJ.PetcuS. D. (2019). Growth in math computation among monolingual and English language learners: Does the executive system have a role?Developmental Neuropsychology, 44(8), 566–593. https://doi.org/10.1080/87565641.2019.1688328
47.
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12019
48.
*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
49.
U.S. Department of Education. (2019). Institute of education sciences, national center for education statistics, national assessment of educational progress (NAEP) 2019.
50.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society. Harvard University Press.
51.
*WilsonC. L.SindelarP. T. (1991). Direct instruction in math word problems: Students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 57(6), 512–519. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299105700605
52.
XinY. P.JitendraA. K. (1999). The effects of instruction in solving mathematical word problems for students with learning problems: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Special Education, 32, 207–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699903200402
53.
*XinY. P.ZhangD.ParkJ. Y.TomK.WhippleA.SiL. (2011). A comparison of two mathematics problem-solving strategies: Facilitate algebra-readiness. The Journal of Educational Research, 104, 381–395.
54.
ZhangD.XinY. P. (2012). A follow-up meta-analysis for word-problem-solving interventions for students with mathematics difficulties. The Journal of Educational Research, 105, 303–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2011.627397
55.
ZhengX.FlynnL. J.SwansonH. L. (2013). Experimental intervention studies on word problem solving and math disabilities: A selective analysis of the literature. Learning Disability Quarterly, 36, 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948712444277
