A Systematic Review of Mathematics Vocabulary Interventions for Students With or At-Risk for Mathematics Difficulty

Abstract

This systematic review synthesizes the effects of mathematics vocabulary interventions on the mathematics outcomes of students with mathematics difficulty (MD) in Grades K through 12. We evaluated methodological rigor using three indicators: research design, implementation fidelity, and instruction in the counterfactual. Six peer-reviewed studies and three unpublished dissertations between 1990 and 2022 met inclusion criteria. Results showed mathematics vocabulary interventions improved students’ vocabulary knowledge, particularly when instruction was explicit with multiple opportunities to practice. Findings were less conclusive on whether improved mathematics vocabulary knowledge led to improved performance on related mathematics content. Results suggest mathematics vocabulary intervention is beneficial for higher-level mathematics reasoning, such as word-problem solving. The seven group design studies received an M rating of at least acceptable for methodological rigor, and one of two single-case studies met What Works Clearinghouse design standards without reservations. We highlight promising instructional practices implemented across studies that resulted in improved vocabulary outcomes.

Keywords

mathematics difficulty mathematics intervention vocabulary

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Austin

C. R.

Wanzek

Scammacca

N. K.

Vaughn

Gesel

S. A.

Donegan

R. E.

Englemann

M. L.

(2019). The relationship between study quality and the effects of supplemental reading intervention: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 85(3), 347–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918796164

Beck

I. L.

McKeown

M. G.

Kucan

(2013). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. The Guilford Press.

*Brown

G. D.

(2007). Mathematics vocabulary instruction for current non-proficient students with and without IEPs: A study of three methods of instruction [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University].

Capin

Walker

M. A.

Vaughn

Wanzek

(2018). Examining how treatment fidelity is supported, measured, and reported in K–3 reading intervention research. Educational Psychology Review, 30, 885–919. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9429-z

Cavanagh

(2005, July 12). Math: The not-so-universal language. Education Week.

Cook

B. G.

Buysse

Klingner

Landrum

T. J.

McWilliam

R. A.

Tankersley

Test

D. W.

(2015). CEC’s standards for classifying the evidence base of practices in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 36(4), 220–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932514557271

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 and Practice, 32(4), 231–245. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12144

Fuchs

L. S.

Gilbert

J. K.

Fuchs

Seethaler

P. M.

Martin

B. N.

(2018). Text comprehension and oral language as predictors of word-problem solving: Insights into word-problem solving as a form of text comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 22(2), 152–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2017.1398259

Fuchs

L. S.

Newman-Gonchar

Schumacher

Dougherty

Bucka

Karp

K. S.

Woodward

Clarke

Jordan

N. C.

Gersten

Jayanthi

Keating

Morgan

(2021). Assisting students struggling with mathematics: Intervention in the elementary grades (WWC 2021006). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. http://whatworks.ed.gov/

10.

*Fuchs

L. S.

Seethaler

P. M.

Sterba

S. K.

Craddock

Fuchs

Compton

D. L.

Geary

D. C.

Changas

(2021). Closing the word-problem achievement gap in first grade: Schema-based word-problem intervention with embedded language comprehension instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113(1), 86–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000467

11.

Geary

Hoard

Nugent

Bailey

(2012). Mathematical cognition deficits in children with learning disabilities and persistent low achievement: A five-year prospective study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 206–223. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025398

12.

Gersten

Baker

S. K.

Shanahan

Linan-Thompson

Collins

Scarcella

(2007). Effective literacy and English language instruction for English learners in the elementary grades: A practice guide (NCEE 2007-4011). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides

13.

Gersten

Fuchs

L. S.

Compton

Coyne

Greenwood

Innocenti

M. S.

(2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100202

14.

Gough

P. B.

Tunmer

W. E.

(1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104

15.

Gwet

(2001). Handbook of inter-rater reliability: How to estimate the level of agreement between two or multiple raters. STATAXIS.

16.

*Hassinger-Das

Jordan

N. C.

Dyson

(2015). Reading stories to learn math: Mathematics vocabulary instruction for children with early numeracy difficulties. The Elementary School Journal, 116(2), 242–264. https://doi.org/10.1086/683986

17.

Hedges

L. V.

(1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Academic Press.

18.

Hinojosa

Rapaport

Jaciw

LiCalsi

Zacamy

(2016). Exploring the foundations of the future STEM workforce: K–12 indicators of postsecondary STEM success (REL 2016–122). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, & Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs

19.

*Hott

B. L.

Evmenova

Brigham

F. J.

(2014). Effects of peer tutoring and academic self-monitoring on the mathematics vocabulary performance of secondary students with emotional or behavioral disorders. Journal of the American Academy of Special Education Professionals, 113–132.

20.

Hughes

E. M.

Powell

S. R.

Stevens

E. A.

(2016). Supporting clear and concise math language: Instead of that, say this. Teaching Exceptional Children, 49(1), 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059916654901

21.

Kintsch

Greeno

(1985). Understanding and solving word arithmetic problem. Psychological Review, 92(1), 109–129. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.92.1.109

22.

Kratochwill

T. R.

Hitchcock

J. H.

Horner

R. H.

levin

J. R.

Odom

S. L.

Rindskopf

D. M.

Shadish

W. R.

(2013). Single-case intervention research design standards. Remedial and Special Education, 34(1), 26–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932512452794

23.

Lemons

C. J.

Fuchs

Gilbert

J. K.

Fuchs

L. S.

(2014). Evidence-based practices in a changing world: Reconsidering the counterfactual in education research. Educational Researcher, 43(5), 242–252. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14539189

24.

Lin

Peng

Zeng

(2021). Understanding the relation between mathematics vocabulary and mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. The Elementary School Journal, 121(3), 504–540. https://doi.org/10.1086/712504

25.

*Long

M. E.

(2015). The effect of explicit vocabulary instruction using specialized graphic organizers in secondary mathematics for students with disabilities [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Alabama].

26.

Moher

Liberati

Tetzlaff

Altman

D. G.

(2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), 264–269. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135

27.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics.

28.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards mathematics. https://www.thecorestandards.org/Math/

29.

*Nelson

Kiss

A. J.

(2021). Effects of a first-grade mathematics vocabulary intervention: A pilot study for students with mathematics difficulty. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 36(2), 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12242

30.

Parker

R. I.

Vannest

K. J.

Davis

J. L.

(2011). Effect size in single-case research: A review of nine nonoverlap techniques. Behavior Modification, 35(4), 303–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445511399147

31.

Peeples

K. N.

Kroesch

A. M.

VanUitert

V. J.

(2023). Math is not a universal language: Supporting middle school students with learning disabilities using explicit vocabulary instruction in mathematics classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 38(2), 129–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12303

32.

Peng

Lin

(2019). The relation between mathematics vocabulary and mathematics performance among fourth graders. Learning and Individual Differences, 69, 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.11.006

33.

Peng

Lin

Ünal

Z. E.

Lee

Namkung

Chow

Sales

(2020). Examining the mutual relations between language and mathematics: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(7), 595–634. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000231

34.

Petersen-Brown

Lundberg

A. R.

Ray Dela

J. E.

Paz

I. N.

Riss

C. L.

Panahon

C. J.

(2019). Applying spaced practice in the schools to teach math vocabulary. Psychology in the Schools, 56(6), 977–991. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22248

35.

Powell

S. R.

Berry

Tran

(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), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2019.1677538

36.

Powell

S. R.

Berry

K. A.

Acunto

A. N.

Fall

A.-M.

Roberts

(2022). Applying an individual word-problem intervention to a small-group setting: A pilot study’s evidence of improved word-problem performance for students experiencing mathematics difficulty. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 55(5), 359–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194211047635

37.

*Powell

S. R.

Driver

M. 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

38.

Powell

S. R.

Driver

M. K.

Roberts

Fall

A.-M.

(2017). An analysis of the mathematics vocabulary knowledge of third- and fifth-grade students: Connections to general vocabulary and mathematics computation. Learning and Individual Differences, 57, 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.05.011

39.

Powell

S. R.

Stevens

E. A.

Hughes

E. M.

(2019). Math language in middle school: Be more specific. Teaching Exceptional Children, 51(4), 286–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059918808762

40.

Purpura

D. J.

Napoli

A. R.

Wehrspann

E. A.

Gold

Z. S.

(2017). Causal connections between mathematical language and mathematical knowledge: A dialogic reading intervention. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 10(1), 116–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2016.1204639

41.

Purpura

D. J.

Reid

E. E.

(2016). Mathematics and language: Individual and group differences in mathematical language skills in young children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 36, 259–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.12.020

42.

Riccomini

P. J.

Smith

G. W.

Hughes

E. M.

Fries

K. M.

(2015). The language of mathematics: The importance of teaching and learning mathematical vocabulary. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 31(3), 235–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2015.1030995

43.

*Rolf

K. R.

(2022). Examining the effectiveness of explicit, systematic, mathematics vocabulary instruction for students with learning difficulties and disabilities in a specialized setting [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Utah State University].

44.

Rubenstein

Thompson

(2002). Understanding and supporting children’s mathematical vocabulary development. Teaching Children Mathematics, 9(2), 107–112. https://doi.org/10.5951/TCM.9.2.0107

45.

Schleppegrell

M. J.

(2007). The linguistic challenges of mathematics teaching and learning: A research review. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 23(2), 139–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560601158461

46.

Schleppegrell

M. J.

(2010). Language in mathematics teaching and learning: A research review. In Moschkovich

J. N.

(Ed.), Language and mathematics education: Multiple perspectives and directions for research (pp. 73–112). Information Age Publishing.

47.

Shadish

W. R.

Hedges

L. V.

Horner

R. H.

Odom

S. L.

(2015). The role of between-case effect size in conducting, interpreting, and summarizing single-case research (NCER 2015-002). National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

48.

Stevens

E. A.

Austin

Moore

Scammacca

Boucher

A. N.

Vaughn

(2021). Current state of the evidence: Examining the effects of Orton-Gillingham reading interventions for students with or at risk for word-level reading disabilities. Exceptional Children, 87(4), 397–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402921993406

49.

*Stevens

E. A.

Leroux

A. J.

Mowbray

M. H.

Lee

G. S.

(2023). Evaluating the effects of adding explicit vocabulary instruction to a word-problem schema intervention. Exceptional Children, 89(3), 275–293. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029221112290

50.

Stevens

E. A.

Park

Vaughn

(2019). A review of summarizing and main idea interventions for struggling readers in grades 3 through 12: 1978-2016. Remedial and Special Education, 40(3), 131–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932517749940

51.

Stevens

E. A.

Rodgers

M. A.

Powell

S. R.

(2018). Mathematics interventions for upper elementary and secondary students: A meta-analysis of research. Remedial and Special Education, 39(6), 327–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932517731887

52.

U.S. Department of Education. (2022). The nation’s report card. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/

53.

Valentine

J. C.

Tanner-Smith

E. E.

Pustejovsky

J. E.

Lau

T. S.

(2016). Between-case standardized mean difference effect sizes for single-case designs: A primer and tutorial using the scdhlm web application. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 12(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.4073/cmdp.2016.1

54.

Vannest

K. J.

Parker

R. I.

Gonen

Adiguzel

(2016). Single case research: Web based calculators for SCR analysis. http://www.singlecaseresearch.org/

55.

Vaughn

Elbaum

B. E.

Wanzek

Scammacca

Walker

M. A.

(2014). Code sheet and guide for education related intervention study syntheses. Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk.

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.

0.00 MB

0.01 MB