Researchers design scripted supplemental mathematics programs for struggling students, such as students with learning disabilities (LD), to encourage an evidence-based presentation of concepts and use of instructional language in teachers’ implementation. In practice, teachers may or may not implement these programs with high fidelity, resulting in slight to substantial curriculum alterations. Yet there is a dearth of studies detailing the nature of changes teachers make during instruction or their perceptions of why the changes were necessary. We present a qualitative analysis of 10 special educators’ employment of a Base Ten Numeration and Multiplication/Division Strategies intervention with students with LD. Results show that teachers altered modeled practice and guided practice lesson components more than any other lesson component. Three interrelated themes illustrate reasons for pedagogy, materials, and tasks alterations: (a) scripted tasks/script, (b) connections, and (c) lesson delivery methods.
BallD. L.HillH.BassH. (2005). Knowing mathematics for teaching: Who knows mathematics well enough to teach third grade, and how can we decide?American Educator, 29(3), 14–46.
2.
BryantB. R.BryantD. P.PorterfieldJ.DennisM. S.FalcomataT.ValentineC.. . .BellK. (2014). The effects of a Tier 3 intervention on the mathematics performance of second grade students with severe mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0022219414538516
3.
BryantD. P.BryantB.GerstenR.ScammaccaJ.ChavezM. (2008). Mathematics intervention for first-and second-grade students with mathematics difficulties: The effects of Tier 2 intervention delivered as booster lessons. Remedial and Special Education, 29, 20–32. doi:10.1177/0741932507309712
4.
BryantD. P.BryantB. R.RobertsG.VaughnS.HughesK.PorterfieldJ.GerstenR. (2011). Effects of an early numeracy intervention on the performance of first-grade students with mathematics difficulties. Exceptional Children, 78(1), 7–23.
5.
ButlerF. M.MillerS. P.CrehanK.BabbittB.PierceT. (2003). Fraction instruction for students with mathematics disabilities: Comparing two teaching sequences. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 99–111. doi:10.1111/1540-5826.00066
6.
CarpenterT. P.FennemaE.PetersonP. L.ChiangC. P.LoefM. (1989). Using knowledge of children’s mathematics thinking in classroom teaching: An experimental study. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 499–531. doi:10.3102/00028312026004499
7.
CohenJ. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.
8.
ComptonD. L.GilbertJ. K.JenkinsJ. R.FuchsD.FuchsL. S.ChoE.. . .BoutonB. (2012). Accelerating chronically unresponsive children to tier 3 instruction: What level of data is necessary to ensure selection accuracy?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 204–216. doi:10.1177/0022219412442151
9.
CoyneM. D.Kame’enui.E. J.CarnineD. W. (2011). Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
10.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.ComptonD. L. (2012). Smart RTI: A next-generation approach to multilevel prevention. Exceptional Children, 78, 263–279.
11.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.PowellS. R.SeethalerP. M.CirinoP. T.FletcherJ. M. (2008). Intensive intervention for students with mathematics disabilities: Seven principles for effective practice. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31(2), 79–92. doi:10.2307/2058819
12.
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.
13.
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, 1202–1242. doi:10.3102/003465430933431
14.
GlaserB. G.StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
15.
GrbichC. (2007). Qualitative data collection: An introduction. London, England: SAGE.
16.
HallgrenK. A. (2012). Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: An overview and tutorial. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 8, 23–34.
17.
HechtS.VagiK. J.TorgesenJ. K. (2007). Fraction skills and proportional reasoning. In BerchD. B.MazzaccoM. M. M. (Eds.), Why is math so hard for some students? (pp. 121–132). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
18.
HuntJ.EmpsonS. (2014). Strategies and representations used in equal partitioning problems by students with mathematics learning disability. Learning Disability Quarterly. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0731948714551418
19.
KruegerR. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
20.
LeechN. L.OnwuegbuzieA. J. (2007). An array of qualitative data analysis tools: A call for data analysis triangulation. School Psychology Quarterly, 22, 557–584. doi:10.1037/1045-3830.22.4.557
National Center on Intensive Intervention. (2013). Data-based individualization: A framework for intensive intervention, Washington, DC: Office of Special Education, U.S. Department of Education.
23.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_Math%20Standards.pdf
24.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
25.
NunnallyJ. C.BernsteinI. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
26.
TzurR.JohnsonH. L.McClintockE.KenneyR. H.XinY. P.SiL.. . .JinX. (2013). Distinguishing schemes and tasks in children’s development of multiplicative reasoning. PNA, 7(3), 85–101. doi:10.1007/BF00704702
27.
TzurR.LambertM. A. (2011). Intermediate participatory stages as Zone of Proximal Development correlate in constructing counting-on: A plausible conceptual source for children’s transitory “regress” to counting-all. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 42, 418–450. doi:10.5951/jresematheduc.42.5.0418
28.
VukovicR. K. (2012). Mathematics difficulty with and without reading difficulty: Findings and implications from a four-year longitudinal study. Exceptional Children, 78, 280–300.
