A Meta–Analysis of Single–Case Research on Mathematics Word Problem–Solving Interventions for English Learners with Learning Disabilities and Mathematics Difficulties
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online November, 2020
A Meta–Analysis of Single–Case Research on Mathematics Word Problem–Solving Interventions for English Learners with Learning Disabilities and Mathematics Difficulties
This single–case meta–analysis is the first to provide a quantitative synthesis of the published literature on mathematics word problem–solving intervention studies for English learners with learning disabilities and mathematics difficulties. A total of ten single–subject studies were included for analysis. The current study investigated the magnitude of the effect of mathematics interventions targeting the improvement of students’ mathematics word problem–solving performance, and analyzed variables that moderated this effect. Results indicate a moderate overall effect size of 0.81 (95% CI [0.71, 0.90]) on word problem–solving performance for English learners with learning disabilities and mathematics difficulties. Moderator variables such as the implementer of the interventions, instructional focus, and word problem–solving content significantly moderated the mathematics intervention effects.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonJ. R. (2009). Cognitive psychology and its implications (7th ed). New York, NY: Worth.
2.
BakerD. L., & KostyD. (2012). Effect of learning opportunities on the reading performance in Spanish of first grade English learners [Paper Presentation]. San Diego, CA: Pacific Coast Research Conference.
3.
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
4.
BerkeleyS., ScruggsT. E., & MastropieriM. A. (2010). Reading comprehension instruction for students with learning disabilities, 1995–2006: A meta–analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 31(6), 423–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932509355988
5.
BorensteinM., HedgesL. V., HigginsJ. P. T., & RothsteinH. R. (2009). Introduction to meta–analysis. West Sussex, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470743386
6.
BryantD. P., BryantB. R., & HammillD. D. (2000). Characteristic behaviors of students with LD who have teacher–identified math weaknesses. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(2), 168–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940003300205
7.
BryantD. P., BryantB. R., & SmithD. D. (2019). Teaching students with special needs in inclusive classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
8.
CookB. G., & CookL. (2016). Research designs and special education research: Different designs address different questions. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 31(4), 190–198. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12110
9.
DavisJ. L., & DavisJ. H. (2014). Meta–analytical software for single case research. College Station: Author.
10.
DoablerC. T., ClarkeB., KostyD. B., BakerS. K., SmolkowskiK., & FienH. (2016). Effects of a core kindergarten mathematics curriculum on the mathematics achievement of Spanish–speaking English learners. School Psychology Review, 45(3), 343–361. https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR45-3.343-361
11.
DriverM. K., & PowellS. R. (2017). Culturally and linguistically responsive schema intervention: Improving word problem solving for English language learners with mathematics difficulty. Learning Disability Quarterly, 40(1), 41–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948716646730
FuchsL. S., FuchsD., FinelliR., CoureyS. J., & HamlettC. L. (2004). Expanding schema–based transfer instruction to help third graders solve real–life mathematical problems. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 419–445. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312041002419
15.
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), 204–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2015.1005745
16.
FuchsL. S., GilbertJ. K., FuchsD., SeethalerP. M., & MartinB. N. (2018). Text comprehension and oral language as predictors of word–problem solving: Insights into world–problem solving as a form of text comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 22(2), 152–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2017.1398259
17.
GageN. A., CookB. G., & ReichowB. (2017). Publication bias in special education meta–analyses. Exceptional Children, 83(4), 428–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917691016
GearyD. C., & HoardM. K. (2001). Numerical and arithmetical deficits in learning–disabled children: Relation to dyscalculia and dyslexia. Aphasiology, 15(7), 635–647. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687040143000113
20.
GearyD. C., HamsonC. O., & HoardM. K. (2000). Numerical and arithmetical cognition: A longitudinal study of process and concept deficits in children with learning disability. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 77(3), 236–263. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.2000.2561
21.
GerenaL., & KeilerL. (2012). Effective intervention with urban secondary English language learners: How peer instructors support learning. Bilingual Research Journal, 35(1), 76–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2012.667372
22.
HechtS. A., TorgesenJ. K., WagnerR. K., & RashotteC. A. (2001). The relations between phonological processing abilities and emerging individual differences in mathematical computation skills: A longitudinal study from second to fifth grades. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 79(2), 192–227. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.2000.2586
23.
HedgesL. V., & PigottT. D. (2004). The power of statistical tests for moderators in meta–analysis. Psychological Methods, 9(4), 426. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.9.4.426
24.
HedgesL. V., PustejovskyJ. E., & ShadishW. R. (2012). A standardized mean difference effect size for single case designs. Research Synthesis Methods, 3(3), 224–239. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1052
25.
HernandezC. C., MoralesA., & ShroyerM. (2013). The development of a model of culturally responsive science and mathematics teaching. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 8(4), 803–820. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-013-9544-1
26.
HigginsJ. P., & ThompsonS. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta–analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 21(11), 1539–1558. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1186
27.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004). (reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990). Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/idea2004.html
28.
JitendraA. K., LeinA. E., ImS. H., AlghamdiA. A., HefteS. B., & MouanoutouaJ. (2018). Mathematical interventions for secondary students with learning disabilities and mathematics difficulties: A meta–analysis. Exceptional Children, 84(2), 177–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917737467
29.
*KimS. A., WangP., & MichaelsC. A. (2015). Using explicit CRA instruction to teach fraction word problem solving to low–performing Asian English learners. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 31(3), 253–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2015.1030999
30.
*KongJ. E., & OroscoM. J. (2016). Word–problem–solving strategy for minority students at risk for math difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 39(3), 171–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948715607347
31.
*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
32.
KratochwillT. R., HitchcockJ. H., HornerR. H., LevinJ. R., OdomS. L., RindskopfD. M., & ShadishW. R. (2013). Single–case intervention research design standards. Remedial and Special Education, 34(1), 26–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932512452794
33.
KruskalW. H., & WallisW. A. (1952). Use of ranks in one–criterion variance analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 47(260), 583–621. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1952.10483441
34.
KyttäläM., & BjörnP. M. (2014). The role of literacy skills in adolescents’ mathematics word problem performance: Controlling for visuo–spatial ability and mathematics anxiety. Learning and Individual Differences, 29, 59–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.10.010
35.
LeiQ., XinY. P., Morita–MullaneyT., & TzurR. (2018). Analyzing a discourse of scaffolds for mathematics instruction for an ELL with learning disabilities. In HodgesT. E., RoyG. J., & TyminskiA. M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 460–467). Greenville, SC: University of South Carolina & Clemson University. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED606542.pdf
LiQ., & MaX. (2010). A meta–analysis of the effects of computer technology on school students’ mathematics learning. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 215–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9125-8
39.
LinquantiR., & CookH. G. (2013). Toward a “Common Definition of English Learner”: Guidance for states and state assessment consortia in defining and addressing policy and technical issues and options. Council of Chief State School Officers, Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED565753.pdf
40.
MacizoP., HerreraA., RománP., & MartínM. C. (2011). Proficiency in a second language influences the processing of number words. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 23(8), 915–921. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2011.586626
41.
*ManclD. B., MillerS. P., & KennedyM. (2012). Using the concrete–representational–abstract sequence with integrated strategy instruction to teach subtraction with regrouping to students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27(4), 152–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2012.00363.x
42.
Mann KoepkeK., & MillerB. (2013). At the intersection of math and reading disabilities: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46(6), 483–489. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413498200
43.
MazzoccoM. M., MyersG. F., LewisK. E., HanichL. B., & MurphyM. M. (2013). Limited knowledge of fraction representations differentiates middle school students with mathematics learning disability (dyscalculia) versus low mathematics achievement. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 115(2), 371–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2013.01.005
44.
MisquittaR. (2011). A review of the literature: Fraction instruction for struggling learners in mathematics. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(2), 109–119.
45.
Morita–MullaneyT., & SinghM. (2019). Obscuring English learners from state accountability: The case of Indiana's language blind policies. Educational Policy, Advance online publication, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904818823751
46.
Morita–MullaneyT., & StallingsL. (2018). Serving Indiana's emergent bilingual immigrant (EBI) youth: A collective case study of EBI teacher educators. The Teacher Educator, 53(3), 293–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2018.1462422
47.
MoschkovichJ. N. (2015). Scaffolding student participation in mathematical practices. ZDM: International Journal on Mathematics Education, 47, 1067–1078. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0730-3
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics electronic version. Retrieved from http://standards.nctm.org
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), 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406418770787
55.
*OroscoM. J. (2013). The development of a math strategy in Spanish for Latino English language learners at risk for math disabilities. International Journal for Research in Learning Disabilities, 1(2), 86–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948713504206
56.
*OroscoM. J., SwansonH. L., O'ConnorR., & LussierC. (2013). The effects of dynamic strategic math on English language learners’ word problem solving. The Journal of Special Education, 47(2), 96–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466911416248
57.
*OroscoM. (2014a). Word problem strategy for Latino English language learners at risk for math disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37(1), 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948713504206
58.
*OroscoM. (2014b). A math intervention for third grade Latino English language learners at risk for math disabilities. Exceptionality, 22(4), 205–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948713504206
59.
ParkerR. I., VannestK. J., & DavisJ. 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
60.
ParkerR. I., VannestK. J., DavisJ. L., & SauberS. B. (2011). Combining nonoverlap and trend for single–case research: Tau–U. Behavior Therapy, 42(2), 284–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2010.08.006
61.
RiccominiP. J., SmithG. W., HughesE. M., & FriesK. 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
62.
Richards–TutorC., BakerD. L., GerstenR., BakerS. K., & SmithJ. M. (2016). The effectiveness of reading interventions for English learners: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 82(2), 144–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915585483
RothsteinH. R., SuttonA. J., & BoreinsteinM. (2005). Publication bias in meta–analysis: Prevention, assessment, and adjustments. West Sussex, England: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470870168
65.
*SeoY. J., & BryantD. (2012). Multimedia CAI program for students with mathematics difficulties. Remedial and Special Education, 33(4), 217–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932510383322
66.
ShapkaJ. D., DomeneJ. F., & KeatingD. P. (2006). Trajectories of career aspirations through adolescence and young adulthood: Early math achievement as a critical filter. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(4), 347–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610600765752
67.
*SharpE., & DennisM. S. (2017). Model drawing strategy for fraction word problem solving of fourth–grade students with learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 38(3), 181–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932516678823
68.
ShinM., & BryantD. P. (2017). Improving the fraction word problem solving of students with mathematics learning disabilities: Interactive computer application. Remedial and Special Education, 38(2), 76–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932516669052
69.
StevensE. A., RodgersM. A., & PowellS. 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
70.
SullivanA. L. (2011). Disproportionality in special education identification and placement of English language learners. Exceptional Children, 77(3), 317–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291107700304
71.
SwansonH. L., KongJ., & PetcuS. D. (2020). Math problem–solving and cognition among emerging bilingual children at risk and not at risk for math difficulties. Child Neuropsychology, 26(4), 489–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2019.1674268
72.
SwansonH. L., LussierC., & OroscoM. (2013). Effects of cognitive strategy interventions and cognitive moderators on word problem solving in children at risk for problem solving difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28(4), 170–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12019
73.
TolarT. D., FuchsL., CirinoP. T., FuchsD., HamlettC. L., & FletcherJ. M. (2012). Predicting development of mathematical word problem solving across the intermediate grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 1083. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029020
74.
VadasyP. F., & SandersE. A. (2010). Efficacy of supplemental phonics–based instruction for low–skilled kindergarteners in the context of language minority status and classroom phonics instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 786. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019639
75.
VaughnS., ElbaumB., & BoardmanA. G. (2001). The social functioning of students with learning disabilities: Implications for inclusion. Exceptionality, 9(1–2), 47–65. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327035EX091&2_5
76.
VaughnS., Linan–ThompsonS., KouzekananiK., Pedrotty BryantD., DicksonS., & BlozisS. A. (2003). Reading instruction grouping for students with reading difficulties. Remedial and Special Education, 24(5), 301–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325030240050501
77.
VillegasA. M., & LucasT. (2007). The culturally responsive teacher. Educational Leadership, 64(6), 28.
78.
WangA. H., FirmenderJ. M., PowerJ. R., & ByrnesJ. P. (2016). Understanding the program effectiveness of early mathematics interventions for prekindergarten and kindergarten environments: A meta–analytic review. Early Education and Development, 27(5), 692–713. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2016.1116343
79.
WanzekJ., WexlerJ., VaughnS., & CiulloS. (2010). Reading interventions for struggling readers in the upper elementary grades: A synthesis of 20 years of research. Reading and Writing, 23(8), 889–912. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9179-5
80.
WattS. J., WatkinsJ. R., & AbbittJ. (2016). Teaching algebra to students with learning disabilities: Where have we come and where should we go?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49(4), 437–447. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219414564220
WolfM. K., & LeonS. (2009). An investigation of the language demands in content assessments for English Language Learners. Educational Assessment, 14(3–4), 139–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627190903425883
83.
XinY. P., & JitendraA. K. (1999). The effects of instruction in solving mathematical word problems for students with learning problems: A meta–analysis. The Journal of Special Education, 32(4), 40–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699903200402
84.
XinY. P., KimS. J., LeiQ., WeiS., LiuB., WangW., … RichardsonS. E. (2020). The effect of computer–assisted conceptual model–based intervention program on mathematics problem–solving performance of at–risk English learners. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 36(2), 104–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2019.1702909
85.
XinY. P., TzurR., HordC., LiuJ., ParkJ. Y., & SiL. (2017). An intelligent tutor–assisted mathematics intervention program for students with learning difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 40(1), 4–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948716648740
86.
ZhangD., & XinY. P. (2012). A follow–up meta–analysis of word problem solving interventions for students with learning problems. The Journal of Educational Research, 105(5), 303–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2011.627397
87.
ZhengX., FlynnL. J., & SwansonH. L. (2013). Experimental intervention studies on word problem solving and math disabilities: A selective analysis of the literature. Learning Disability Quarterly, 36(2), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948712444277
