Multiple measures administered in repeated waves within a nonequivalent dependent variables quasi-experimental design were used to test the effects of a reform-oriented instructional method called Enhanced Anchored Instruction (EAI) on the math achievement of 128 middle school students, including students with learning disabilities (LD). EAI problems are presented in multimedia and hands-on formats, a potential benefit for students with low skills in both reading and math. Overall, students of all ability levels benefited from EAI with effect sizes (η2) ranging from .53 to .59. Results revealed that although students with LD scored lower on pretests, their learning trajectories matched those of students without LD. A maintenance test administered several weeks after instruction showed that students with LD retained what they had learned. Implications for instruction and suggestions for future research are provided.

Middle school students with learning disabilities in math (MLD) used two versions of Enhanced Anchored Instruction (EAI). In one condition, students learned how to compute with fractions on an as-needed basis while they worked to solve the EAI problems. In the other condition, teachers used a computer-based instructional module in place of one of the EAI problems to deliver formal fraction instruction. The results indicated that students in both instructional formats improved their fraction computational skills and that formal instruction provided an added benefit. Both instructional conditions improved students' problem-solving skills by about the same amount. The findings suggest that combining formal fraction instruction with EAI is a viable way to improve the problem-solving and computational skills of students with MLD.

This mixed-methods study assessed the effects of Enhanced Anchored Instruction (EAI) on the math performance of adolescents with learning disabilities in math (MLD). A quasiexperimental pretest-posttest control group design with switching replications was used to measure students' computation and problem-solving skills on EAI compared to control conditions. Scores on the curriculum-aligned and standardized measures showed improved problemsolving skills but results were mixed for computation. To augment the numerical data, a qualitative inquiry captured day-to-day classroom activities. The findings showed that problem-based curricula such as EAI have the potential for helping students with MLD develop deeper understandings of math concepts but that considerable effort is required to structure and teach these concepts in ways students with MLD understand.

This mixed-methods study assessed the effects of enhanced anchored instruction (EAI) on the math achievement of 17 adolescents who attended an alternative high school for at-risk students with challenging behaviors. EAI is a method specially designed for developing the math skills of low-achieving adolescents that uses multimedia-based and hands-on math problems to support learning in generative learning environments. Results indicated that students scored higher on both curriculum-aligned problem-solving tests (ES = 0.75 and 0.78), but they showed no improvement on a fraction computation test or on standardized measures. Descriptive data from classroom observations and poststudy interviews suggest instructional and learning factors that may account for the findings.

The purpose of this randomized experiment was to compare the performance of high-, average-, and low-achieving middle school students who were assessed with parallel versions of a computer-based test (CBT) or a paper-pencil test (PPT). Tests delivered in interactive, immersive environments like the CBT may have the advantage of providing teachers with diagnostic tools that can lead to instruction tailored to the needs of students at different achievement levels. To test the feasibility of CBT, students were randomly assigned to the CBT or PPT test conditions to measure what they had learned from an instructional method called enhanced anchored math instruction. Both assessment methods showed that students benefited from instruction and differentiated students by achievement status. The navigation maps generated from the CBT revealed that the low-achieving students were able to navigate the test, spent about the same amount of time solving the subproblems as the more advanced students, and made use of the learning scaffolds.