This study examined the effect of comprehension strategy instruction on third-grade English Learners’ word-problem-solving performance. The supplemental intervention included modeling how to read the word problem to identify and restate the question, distinguishing relevant from irrelevant information, and collaborating with peers on applying the steps of the strategy to solve word problems. Sixty-six students demonstrating math learning difficulties (MLD) participated in the intervention for 30 min twice a week for 10 weeks (20 total sessions). Trained tutors delivered scripted lessons and checked students’ understanding by asking them questions orally and providing feedback on their answers. Students in the control group (n = 73) received only general instruction. Results of multilevel regression indicated a significant effect favoring the treatment, suggesting that the approach may facilitate the development of problem-solving skills among students with MLD. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.
ArizmendiG. D.LiJ. T.Van HornM. L.PetcuS. D.SwansonH. L. (2021). Language-focused interventions on math performance for English learners: a selective meta-analysis of the literature. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 36(1), 56–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12239
2.
BakerD. L.Richards-TutorC.SparksA.CangesR. (2018). Review of single subject research examining the effectiveness of interventions for at-risk English learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 33(2), 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12160
3.
BellB. A.MorganG. B.SchoenebergerJ. A.LoudermilkB. L.KromreyJ. D.FerronJ. M. (2010, April). Dancing the sample size limbo with mixed models: how low can you go. SAS Global Forum, 4, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1115/nawtec10-1022
4.
BrownV. L.CroninM. E.McIntireE. (1994). Test of mathematical abilities. PRO-ED.
5.
BrownV. L.HammillD.WiederholtL. (2009). Test of Reading comprehension—fourth edition. PRO-ED.
6.
BrykA. S.RaudenbushS. W. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis methods. Sage.
7.
CohenJ. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Academic Press.
8.
CoocN. (2023). National trends in special education and academic outcomes for English learners with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 57(2), 106–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669221147272
9.
FairchildA. L.HolyfieldL. J.ByingtonC. L. (2018). National academies of sciences, engineering, and medicine report on sexual harassment: making the case for fundamental institutional change. JAMA, 320(9), 873–4. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.10840
10.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.ComptonD. L.HamlettC. L.WangA. Y. (2015). Is word-problem solving a form of text comprehension?Scientific Studies of Reading, 19(3), 204–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2015.1005745
11.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.SeethalerP. M.CuttingL. E.Mancilla-MartinezJ. (2019). Connections between Reading comprehension and word-problem solving via oral language comprehension: implications for comorbid learning disabilities. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2019(165), 73–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20288
12.
FuchsL. S.GilbertJ. K.FuchsD.SeethalerP. M.MartinB. 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), 152–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2017.1398259
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(3), 1202–42. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309334431
14.
HreskoW.SchlieveP. L.HerronS. R.SawainC.SherbenouR. (2003). Comprehensive math abilities test. PRO-ED.
KongJ.OroscoM. J. (2016). Word problem solving strategy for minority students at risk for math difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 39(3), 171–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948715607347
17.
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948718806659
18.
KongJ. E.YanC.SercekiA.SwansonH. L. (2021). Word-problem-solving interventions for elementary students with learning disabilities: a selective meta-analysis of the literature. Learning Disability Quarterly, 44(4), 248–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948721994843
19.
LeeO.PenfieldR.Maerten-RiveraJ. (2009). Effects of fidelity of implementation on science achievement gains among English language learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(7), 836–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20335
20.
McFarlandJ.HussarB.ZhangJ.WangX.WangK.HeinS.DilibertiM.Forrest CataldiE.Bullock MannF.BarmerA. (2019). The condition of education 2019 (NCES 2019–144). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2019144
21.
MurphyM. M.MazzoccoM. 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), 458–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194070400050901
22.
MyersJ. A.WitzelB. S.PowellS. R.LiH.PigottT. D.XinY. P.HughesE. M. (2022). A meta-analysis of mathematics word-problem solving interventions for elementary students who evidence mathematics difficulties. Review of Educational Research, 92(5), 695–742. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211070049
23.
National Center for Education Statistics (2020). National assessment of educational progress, mathematics assessments. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/mathematics/
24.
OroscoM. J. (2016). Measuring elementary students’ mathematics motivation: a validity study. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(5), 945–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9632-7
25.
OroscoM. J.AbdulrahimN. A. (2017). Culturally responsive evidence-based practices with English language learners with learning disabilities: a qualitative case study. Educational Borderlands: A Bilingual Journal, 1, 26–44.
26.
OroscoM. J.AbdulrahimN. A. (2018). Examining comprehension strategy instruction with English Learners’ problem-solving: study findings and educator preparation implications. Teacher Education and Special Education, 41(3), 215–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406418770787
27.
OroscoM. J.KlingnerJ. K. (2010). One school’s implementation of RTI with English language learners: “referring into RTI.”. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(3), 269–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219409355474
28.
OroscoM. J.O’ConnorR. E. (2014). Culturally responsive instruction for English language learners with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(6), 515–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413476553
29.
OroscoM. J.ReedD. K. (2023). The effects of professional development on English Learners’ problem-solving. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 56(4), 324–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194221099671
30.
OroscoM. J.SwansonH. L.O’ConnorR. E.LussierC. (2013). The effects of dynamic strategic math on English language learners’ word problem solving. Journal of Special Education, 47(2), 96–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466911416248
31.
OrtizA. A.FránquizM. E. (2019). Co-editors’ introduction: challenges to the success of English learners in the context of language instruction educational programs. Bilingual Research Journal, 42(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2019.1598213
32.
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), 124–41. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/10573569.2019.1677538
PullenP. C.KennedyM. J. (2018). Handbook of response to intervention and multi-tiered systems of support. Routledge.
35.
RavenJ. C. (1976). Coloured progressive matrices test. Pearson.
36.
SAS Institute (2016). Proc mixed 9.4. Cary, North Carolina.
37.
ShinM.BryantD. P.PowellS. R.JungP. G.OkM. W.HouF. (2021). A meta-analysis of single-case research on word-problem instruction for students with learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 42(6), 398–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932520964918
38.
What Works Clearinghouse (2020). What works clearinghouse procedures handbook, version 4.1. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/handbooks
39.
WilkinsonG. S. (1993a). The wide range achievement test. Pearson.
40.
WilkinsonG. S. (1993b). Wide range achievement test 3: Administration manual. Jastak Associates.
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.
