Concrete-Representational-Abstract–Integrated as a Tier 2 Instruction to Teach Addition

Abstract

Mathematics is crucial to the educational and vocational success of students. The concrete-representational-abstract (CRA) approach is a method to teach students mathematical concepts. The CRA involves instruction with manipulatives, representations, and numbers only in different lessons (i.e., concrete lessons include manipulatives but not pictures or numbers only). Researchers are exploring integrating the phases of CRA, referred to as concrete-representational-abstract–integrated (CRA-I), because it may be a more efficient method of instruction. The CRA-I integrates all phases starting with the first lesson (e.g., Lesson 1 includes manipulatives, pictures, and numbers only) and then fades concrete and representational instruction. The purpose of this article is to provide information about a CRA-I Tier 2 mathematics intervention on additive reasoning for second-grade students in a rural school in the southeastern United States. The researchers describe CRA-I, the lessons implemented, and implications for teacher use.

Keywords

rural special education explicit instruction concrete-representational-abstract (CRA)concrete-representational-abstract–integrated (CRA-I)

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bouck

E. C.

Park

(2018). A systematic review of the literature on mathematics manipulatives to support students with disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 41(1), 65–106. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2018.0003

Bouck

E. C.

Satsangi

Park

(2018). The concrete-representational-abstract approach for students with learning disabilities: An evidence-based practice synthesis. Remedial and Special Education, 39(4), 211–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932517721712

Burns

M. K.

Codding

R. S.

Boice

C. H.

Lukito

(2010). Meta-analysis of acquisition and math fluency interventions with instructional and frustration level skills: Evidence for a skill-by-treatment interaction. School Psychology Review, 39(1), 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2010.12087791

Ching

B. H.

(2016). The importance of additive reasoning in children’s mathematical achievement: A longitudinal study [Unpublished dissertation]. University of Oxford.

Codding

R. S.

Burns

M. K.

Lukito

(2011). Meta-analysis of mathematic basic fact fluency interventions: A component analysis. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 26(1), 36–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2010.00323.x

Dexter

D. D.

Hughes

C. A.

Farmer

T. W.

(2008). Responsiveness to intervention: A review of field studies and implications for rural special education. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 27(4), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687050802700402

Hosp

M. K.

Hosp

J. L.

Howell

K. W.

(2016). The ABCs of CBM: A practical guide to curriculum-based measurement (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

Kashi

T. L.

(2008). Response to intervention as a suggested generalized approach to improving minority AYP scores. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 27(4), 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687050802700406

Miller

S. P.

Stringfellow

J. L.

Kaffar

B. J.

Ferreira

Mancl

D. B.

(2011). Developing computation competence among students who struggle in mathematics. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 44(2), 38–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005991104400204

10.

Morano

Flores

M. M.

Hinton

V. M.

Meyer

J. M.

(2020). A comparison of concrete-representational-abstract-integrated fraction interventions for students with disabilities. Exceptionality, 28(2), 77–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2020.1727328

11.

Nunes

Bryant

Burman

Bell

Evans

Hallett

(2008). Deaf children’s informal knowledge of multiplicative reasoning. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 14(2), 260–277. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enn040

12.

Peltier

Morin

K. L.

Bouck

E. C.

Lingo

M. E.

Pulos

J. M.

Scheffler

F. A.

Suk

Mathews

L. A.

Sinclair

T. E.

Deardorff

M. E.

(2020). A meta-analysis of single-case research using mathematics manipulatives with students at risk or identified with a disability. The Journal of Special Education, 54(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466919844516

13.

Rittle-Johnson

Schneider

Star

J. R.

(2015). Not a one-way street: Bidirectional relations between procedural and conceptual knowledge of mathematics. Educational Psychology Review, 27(4), 587–597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9302-x

14.

Smit

Humpert

(2012). Differentiated instruction in small schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 1152–1162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.07.003

15.

Stelmach

B. L.

(2011). A synthesis of international rural education issues and responses. Rural Educator, 32(2), 32–45. https://doi.org/10.35608/ruraled.v32i2.432

16.

Strickland

T. K.

(2012). Using CRA-I strategy to develop conceptual and procedural knowledge of quadratic expressions. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 49(2), 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059916673353

17.

Strickland

T. K.

Maccini

(2013). Exploration of quadratic expressions through multiple representations for students with mathematics difficulties. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 19(2), 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948718769248

18.

Witzel

B. S.

(2005). Using CRA to teach algebra to students with math difficulties in inclusive settings. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 3, 49–60.