Make your own free website on Tripod.com
Mathematics Institute (Tougaloo College)
Empirical Research Article- Math Disabilities
Home
Lesson Plans- Data Analysis
Lesson Plans- Numbers and Operations
Lesson Plans- Algebraic Expressions
Lesson Plans- Geometry
Journal Entries- Week One
Journal Entries- Week Two
Journal Entries- Week Three
Journal Entries- Week Four
About Me
Favorite Links
Philosophy of Education
Resume
Contact Me
Empirical Research Article- Math Learning Disability
Empirical Research Article- Math Disabilities
Empirical Research Article- Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI)
Empirical Research Article- Generalization Strategies of Algebra Students

Enter subhead content here

Kassy Howell-Johnson
Tougaloo College Institute for Mathematics (TCIM)


Empirical Research Article
Math Disabilities, Responsiveness to Instruction

Reference
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Prentice, K. (2005). Responsiveness to mathematical problem-solving instruction: Comparing students at risk of mathematics disability with and without risk of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(4), 293-306.

Introductory/Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study
The study asked the question: Does third grade students’ responsiveness to generally effective classroom instruction on math problem solving vary as a function of disability risk status and performance dimension?

Methods/Setting/Populations/Participants/Research Subjects
The setting of this study was six schools in a southeastern urban district. There were sixteen third grade teachers who participated. The teachers were randomly assigned to two conditions (eight transfer plus self-regulation and 8 control). There were 301 students present for pre and post-testing and there were four groups of students (n=201).

These students were identified by using the following criteria: not at risk of reading or mathematics difficulties (no disability risk NDR), at risk of co morbid mathematics and reading disabilities (MDR/RDR), and at risk of reading disabilities only (RDR only).

The control group included the following: 20 MDR/RDR students, 5 MDR only students, 12 RDR only students, and 60 NDR students.

The experimental condition included the following: 12 MDR/RDR students, 8 MDR only students, 15 RDR only students, and 69 NDR students.

The intervention was a 16 week long process that examined the disability risk status on understanding, computation, and labeling scores for two problem-solving measures. This treatment combined explicit instruction to transfer and self-regulated learning.

Base treatment
All teachers followed the district’s curriculum. They followed the Math Advantage math program.

Experimental Treatment
Basic math problem solving included six lessons and was delivered across three weeks. The format was explicit instruction, worked examples, dyadic classroom, and homework practice.
Transfer
The transfer lessons included three components: teachers explicitly taught the concept of transfer, familiar problems were formatted to look novel, dyadic classroom, individual classroom, and homework practice occurred.

Self-regulation
Six major activities were included in self-regulation: students scored the independent class problem, students charted daily scores, students inspected the charts and set goals to beat the highest scores, students scored their homework, teachers provided students with an opportunity to report examples of how they transferred the problem to another part of the school day, and teachers recorded the number of students who had completed, scored, and submitted homework and the number of pairs that reported a transfer event.

Delivery
There were six lessons in each of the five units plus two cumulative review sessions after winter break. The lessons lasted 25 to 40 minutes. The research assistants taught the first problem solution lesson and transfer lesson while the teachers taught the remaining sessions.

Fidelity of Treatment
Research assistants make a checklist of the important information before the delivery of each lesson and every session was audio taped.

Research design
Regression-discontinuity was the research design.

Data Collection and Analysis
The scores from the TerraNova state test identified the risk of disability. The TerraNova Computation subtest was used to measure responsiveness to treatment for mathematics. The Reading Comprehension subtest was also used to index responsiveness. Training research assistants collected data in a whole-class arrangement. Three weeks before the treatment, pre-testing occurred. Three weeks after treatment post-testing occurred.

Results/Findings/Discussion

Immediate Transfer
MDR/RDR students improved the least on conceptual underpinnings. MDR/RDR, MDR only, and RDR only students improved less than NDR students on computation.

Near Transfer
MDR/RDR students improved less than NDR students on conceptual underpinnings. MDR/RDR, MDR only, and RDR only students improved less than NDR students on computation. MDR/RDR, MDR only, and RDR only students improved less than NDR students on labeling as well.


Conclusions and Recommendations
There were different levels of responsiveness of students’ risk status with MDR and RDR students demonstrating less improvement. Children who enter problem solving instruction with MDR or RDR will need explicit assistance in computation and labeling.

Students with MDR or RDR may be pre selected and randomly assigned to treatment in future studies. This may improve the current study’s design. To incorporate larger numbers of students, future research must be designed.

Students with MDR only or RDR only obtained comparable benefits as their NDR peers. The students with MDR/RDR responded more slowly.

The study’s intervention seemed to be effective and beneficial when used in a whole-class format. Instruction should focus on computation and labeling for MDR only, RDR only, and MDR/RDR students.

My Reaction to the Study

My hypothesis was correct in stating that MDR/RDR, MDR only, and RDR only students would improved less than NDR students on computation and labeling. The intervention was a 16 week long process that examined the disability risk status on understanding, computation, and labeling. I would like to know the effects of the intervention if it lasted longer, perhaps 32 weeks. Also, the lessons lasted 25 to 40 minutes. My hypothesis is that the results would have been better for MDR/RDR, MDR only, and RDR only students if the lessons lasted longer. In addition, the research assistants taught the first problem solution lesson and transfer lesson while the teachers taught the remaining sessions. I believe that the results could have varied depending on the competence of the research assistants and the teachers. I think the same individual should have taught the entire sessions for better results. Furthermore, there were familiar problems that were formatted to look novel. I would want to know how the results would differ had the problems been foreign to the students.

Enter supporting content here