The present study examines the features and quality of visual representations (VRs) created by middle school students with learning disabilities and difficulties in mathematics in response to a released fraction item from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Relations between VR quality and scores on other measures of fraction knowledge are also investigated. Results show that students used circular area models most frequently to represent the NAEP item, but used bar models most accurately. Based on results, bar models may be the most efficient and effective area model VRs for use in fractions instruction. Representation quality was associated with problem-solving accuracy, as well as with performance on fraction number line estimation and fraction magnitude comparison. Implications for practice are discussed.
BaileyD. H.HoardM. K.NugentL.GearyD. C. (2012). Competence with fractions predicts gains in mathematics achievement. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 113, 447–455. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2012.06.004
2.
BeswickK.CallinghamR.WatsonJ. (2012). The nature of middle school mathematics teachers’ knowledge. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 15, 131–157.
3.
ChowJ. C.JacobsM. (2016). The role of language in fraction performance: A synthesis of literature. Learning and Individual Differences, 47, 252–257.
4.
FloresM. M.HintonV. M.MeyerJ. M. (2018). Teaching Fraction Concepts Using the Concrete-Representational-Abstract Sequence. Remedial and Special Education, 0741932518795477. doi:10.1177/0741932518795477
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). Washington, DC.: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Science, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/rti_math_pg_042109.pdf
7.
GerstenR.SchumacherR. F.JordanN. C. (2016). Life on the number line: Routes to understanding fraction magnitude for students with difficulties learning mathematics. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50, 655–657.
8.
HechtS. A. (1998). Toward an information-processing account of individual differences in fraction skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 545–559. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.90.3.545
9.
HechtS. A.CloseL.SantisiM. (2003). Sources of individual differences in fraction skills. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 86, 277–302.
10.
HechtS. A.VagiK. J. (2010). Sources of group and individual differences in emerging fraction skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 843–859.
11.
JitendraA. K.NelsonG.PullesS. M.KissA. J.HouseworthJ. (2016). Is mathematical representation of problems an evidence-based strategy for students with mathematics difficulties?Exceptional Children, 83, 8–25. doi:10.1177/0014402915625062
12.
JordanN. C.ResnickI.RodriguesJ.HansenN.DysonN. (2016). Delaware longitudinal study of fraction learning implications for helping children with mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50, 621–630. doi:10.1177/0022219416662033
13.
MazzoccoM. M.DevlinK. T. (2008). Parts and “holes”: Gaps in rational number sense among children with vs. without MD. Developmental Science, 11, 681–691.
14.
MazzoccoM. M.MyersG. F.LewisK. E.HanichL. B.MurphyM. M. (2013). Limited knowledge of fraction representations differentiated middle school students with mathematics learning disability vs. low mathematics achievement. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 115, 371–387. doi:10.1016/j/jecp.2013.01.005
15.
MixK. S.LevineS. C.ChengY. L.YoungC.HambrickD. Z.PingR.KonstantopoulosS. (2016). Separate but correlated: The latent structure of space and mathematics across development. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 145, 1206–1227.
16.
MontagueM. (1997). Cognitive strategy instruction in mathematics for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 164–177.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). NAEP data explorer.
19.
National Council for Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
20.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics: Common core state standards initiative. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/Math/
21.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: Final report of the national mathematics advisory panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
22.
OkamotoY.CaseR. (1996). Exploring the microstructure of children’s central conceptual structures in the domain of number. Monographs of the Society for research in Child Development, 61, 27–58.
23.
ResnickI.JordanN. C.HansenN.RajanV.RodriguesJ.SieglerR. S.FuchsL. S. (2016). Developmental growth trajectories in understanding of fraction magnitude from fourth through sixth grade. Developmental Psychology, 52, 746–757.
24.
SieglerR.CarpenterT.FennellF.GearyD.LewisJ.OkamotoY.WrayJ. (2010). Developing effective fractions instruction for kindergarten through 8th grade (IES Practice Guide, NCEE 2010-4039). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/fractions_pg_093010.pdf
25.
SieglerR. S.Lortie-ForguesH. (2014). An integrative theory of numerical development. Child Development Perspectives, 144–150. doi:10.1111/cdep.12077
26.
SieglerR. S.PykeA. A. (2013). Developmental and individual differences in understanding of fractions. Developmental Psychology, 49, 1994–2004.
27.
SieglerR. S.ThompsonC. A.SchneiderM. (2011). An integrated theory of whole number and fractions development. Cognitive Psychology, 62, 273–296.
28.
SwansonD.SchwartzR.GinsburgH.KossanN. (1981). The clinical interview: Validity, reliability and diagnosis. For the Learning of Mathematics, 2, 31–38.
29.
VallesJ. R. (2014). Using multiple representations. Mathitudes, 1, 1–14.
30.
van GarderenD.MontagueM. (2003). Visual-spatial representation, mathematical problem solving, and students of varying abilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 246–254. doi:10.1111/1540-5826.00079
31.
van GarderenD.ScheuermannA.JacksonC. (2012). Examining how students with diverse abilities use diagrams to solve mathematics word problems. Learning Disability Quarterly, 36, 145–160. doi:10.1177/0731948712438558
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.
