Matching Math Interventions to Students’ Skill Deficits

Abstract

The current study demonstrates how conceptual and procedural knowledge can be used as a heuristic to better understand student math difficulties in order to develop interventions and lay the groundwork for future research. Math interventions were implemented with two elementary students using a nonexperimental single-case design. One student demonstrated acceptable conceptual understanding but low procedural knowledge, and the other student demonstrated low conceptual understanding in addition to difficulties with procedural knowledge. The mismatched intervention (e.g., procedural for a student who needs a conceptual intervention) was implemented first for both students, followed by the appropriate intervention. The intervention that was identified as the most appropriate was more effective than the mismatched intervention for both students. The mean percentage of nonoverlapping data was 100% for the matched intervention and 16.5% for the mismatched intervention. Suggestions for future research are included.

Keywords

math math intervention conceptual knowledge

References

Alberto

Troutman

A. C.

(2003). Applied behavior analysis for teachers (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Baker

Gersten

Lee

D. S.

(2002). A synthesis of empirical research on teaching mathematics to low-achieving students. Elementary School Journal, 103, 51–73.

Bloom

B. S.

Hastings

J. T.

Madaus

G. F.

(1971). Handbook on formative and summative evaluation of student learning. New York, NY: McGaw-Hill.

Burns

M. K.

(2004). Empirical analysis of drill ratio research: Refining the instructional level for drill tasks. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 167–175.

Burns

M. K.

(2005). Using incremental rehearsal to practice multiplication facts with children identified as learning disabled in mathematics computation. Education and Treatment of Children, 28, 237–249.

Burns

M. K.

Boice

C. H.

(2009). Comparison of the relationship between words retained and intelligence for three instructional strategies among students with low IQ. School Psychology Review, 38, 284–292.

Burns

M. K.

Codding

R. S.

Boice

C. H.

Lukito

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

Burns

M. K.

Dean

V. J.

Foley

(2004). Preteaching unknown key words with incremental rehearsal to improve reading fluency and comprehension with children identified as reading disabled. Journal of School Psychology, 42, 303–314.

Burns

M. K.

Klingbeil

D. A.

(2010). Assessment of academic skills in math within a problem solving model. In Ervin

Gimpel

Daly

III Merrell

(Eds.), Practical handbook of school psychology (pp. 86–98). New York, NY: Guilford.

10.

Burns

M. K.

VanDerHeyden

A. M.

Jiban

(2006). Assessing the instructional level for mathematics: A comparison of methods. School Psychology Review, 35, 401–418.

11.

Canobi

K. C.

Reeve

R. A.

Pattison

P. E.

(2002). Young children’s understanding of addition concepts. Educational Psychology, 22, 513–532.

12.

Canobi

Reeve

Pattison

P. E.

(2003). Patterns of knowledge in children’s addition. Developmental Psychology, 39, 521–534.

13.

Chard

D. J.

Ketterlin-Geller

L. R.

Jitendra

(2008). Systems of instruction and assessment to improve mathematics achievement for students with disabilities: The potential and promise of RTI. In Grigorenko

E. L.

(Ed.), Educating individuals with disabilities: IDEIA 2004 and beyond (pp. 227–248). New York, NY: Springer.

14.

Cowan

Dowker

Christakis

Bailey

(1996). Even more precisely assessing children’s understanding of the order-irrelevance principle. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 62, 84–101.

15.

Cronbach

Snow

(1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions. New York, NY: Irvington.

16.

Cronbach

L. J.

(1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671–684.

17.

Delazer

Benke

(1997). Arithmetic facts without meaning. Cortex, 33, 697–710.

18.

Fuchs

L. S.

Fuchs

Karns

(2001). Enhancing kindergarteners’ mathematical development: Effects of peer-assisted learning strategies. Elementary School Journal, 101, 495–510.

19.

Fuchs

L. S.

Fuchs

Prentice

Hamlett

C. L.

Finelli

Courey

S. J.

(2004). Enhancing mathematical problem solving among third-grade students with schema-based instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 635–647.

20.

Geary

D. C.

Hoard

M. K.

Byrd-Craven

Nugent

Numtee

(2007). Cognitive mechanisms underlying achievement deficits in children with mathematical learning disability. Child Development, 78, 1343–1359.

21.

Gersten

Jordan

N. C.

Flojo

J. R.

(2005). Early identification and intervention for students with mathematical difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 293–304.

22.

Hanich

L. B.

Jordan

N. C.

Kaplan

Dick

(2001). Performance across different areas of mathematical cognition in children with learning difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 615–626.

23.

Haring

N. G.

Eaton

M. D.

(1978). Systematic instructional technology: An instructional hierarchy. In Haring

N. G.

Lovitt

T. C.

Eaton

M. D.

Hansen

C. L.

(Eds.), The fourth R: Research in the classroom (pp. 23–40). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

24.

Hiebert

Lefevre

(1986). Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics: An introductory analysis. In Hiebert

(Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics (pp. 1–27). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

25.

Hintze

J. M.

Christ

T. J.

Keller

L. A.

(2002). The generalizability of CBM survey-level mathematics assessments: Just how many samples do we need? School Psychology Review, 31, 514–528.

26.

Jitendra

DiPipi

C. M.

Perron-Jones

(2002). An exploratory student of schema-based word problem-solving instruction for middle-school students with learning disabilities: An emphasis on conceptual and procedural understanding. Journal of Special Education, 36, 23–38.

27.

Jolivette

Lingo

A. S.

Houchins

D. E.

Barton-Arwood

S. M.

Shippen

M. E.

(2006). Building math fluency for students with developmental disabilities and attentional difficulties using great leaps math. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41, 392–400.

28.

Kavale

K. A.

Forness

S. R.

(2000). Policy decisions in special education: The role of meta-analysis. In Gersten

Schiller

E. P.

Vaughn

(Eds.), Contemporary special education research: Syntheses of knowledge base on critical instructional issues (pp. 281–326). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence.

29.

Kennedy

C. H.

(2005). Single-case designs for educational research. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

30.

Kilpatrick

Swafford

Finell

(Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC.: National Academy Press.

31.

Learning Resources. (n.d.-a). Hands-on standards photo-illustrated lessons for teaching with math manipulatives grades 3–4. Vernon Hills, IL: Author.

32.

Learning Resources. (n.d.-b). Hands-on standards photo-illustrated lessons for teaching with math manipulatives grades 1–2. Vernon Hills, IL: Author.

33.

LeFevre

J. A.

Smith-Chant

B. L.

Fast

Skwarchuk

S. L.

Sargla

Arnup

J. S.

. . . Kamawar

(2006). What counts as knowing? The development of conceptual and procedural knowledge of counting from kindergarten through grade 2. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 93, 285–303.

34.

Messick

(1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741–749.

35.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

36.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2006). Curriculum focal points for prekindergarten through grade 9 mathematics: A quest for coherence. Reston, VA: Author.

37.

National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: Final report of the national math advisory panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

38.

Nist

Joseph

L. M.

(2008). Effectiveness and efficiency of flashcard drill instructional methods on urban first-graders’ word recognition, acquisition, maintenance, and generalization. School Psychology Review, 37, 294–208.

39.

Northwest Evaluation Association. (2004). Measures of academic progress. Lake Oswego, OR: Author.

40.

Reschly

D. J.

Ysseldyke

J. E.

(2002). Paradigm shift: The past is not the future. In Thomas

Grimes

(Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (4th ed., pp. 3–21). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

41.

Riley-Tillman

T. C.

Burns

M. K.

(2009). Single case design for measuring response to educational intervention. New York, NY: Guilford.

42.

Rittle-Johnson

Siegler

R. S.

(1998). The relation between conceptual and procedural knowledge in learning mathematics: A review. In Donlan

(Ed.), The development of mathematical skill (pp. 75–110). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

43.

Rittle-Johnson

Siegler

R. S.

Wagner

M. A.

(2001). Developing conceptual understanding and procedural skill in mathematics: An iterative process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 346–362.

44.

Rivera

D. M.

Bryant

B. R.

(1992). Mathematics instruction for students with special needs. Intervention in School & Clinic, 28, 71–86.

45.

Saffer

(1999). Core subjects and your career. Occupational Outlook Quarterly, 43(2), 26–40.

46.

Scruggs

T. E.

Mastropieri

M. A.

(1998). Summarizing single-subject research: Issues and applications. Behavior Modification, 22, 221–242.

47.

Shinn

M. R.

(1989). Curriculum based measurement: Assessing special children. New York, NY: Guilford.

48.

Stiggins

(2005). From formative assessment to assessment for learning: A path to success in standards-based schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87, 324–328.

49.

Tucker

J. A.

(1989). Basic flashcard technique when vocabulary is the goal. Unpublished teaching materials, School of Education, University of Chattanooga. Chattanooga, TN: Author.

50.

VanDeWalle

J. A.

Karp

K. S.

Bay-Williams

J. M.

(2010). Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

51.

Xin

Y. P.

Jitendra

A. K.

Deatline-Buchman

(2005). Effects of mathematical word problem-solving instruction on middle school students with learning problems. Journal of Special Education, 39, 181–192.

52.

Zamarian

Lopez-Rolon

Delazer

(2007). Neuropsychological case studies on arithmetic processing. In Berch

D. B.

Mazzocco

M. M. M.

(Eds.), Why is math so hard for some children? The nature and origins of mathematical learning difficulties and disabilities (pp. 245–264). Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.

53.

Zentall

S. Z.

(2007). Math performance of students with ADHD: Cognitive and behavioral contributors and interventions. In Berch

D. B.

Mazzocco

M. M. M.

(Eds.), Why is math so hard for some children? The nature and origins of mathematical learning difficulties and disabilities (pp. 219–244). Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.